From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Oct 1 03:01:28 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:01:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) A skeptical look at green technology Message-ID: <433DFC08.4010809@mindspring.com> Don't shoot the messenger... ________________ If I see one more article about how wonderful alternative energy is compared to oil, I'm gonna flip. Alternative energy sources can be good ? very good in fact. And it's pretty obvious that we're going to need them, and that our dependence on oil (foreign or otherwise) is a Bad Thing. But accepting that does not mean accepting that any kind of alternative energy is by default a good thing. To *be* a good thing, it has to have three properties: 1) It has to help reduce our dependence on oil, 2) It has to be no worse for the environment, and 3) It has to be economically practical. Many of the things touted meet one or even two of those criteria. Solar panels, for example. They can reduce our need for oil, at least in certain regions, and they're certainly not bad for the environment. But they're prohibitively expensive. If you spend the money to make your home solar-powered, you probably won't recoup your costs for at least 15 years, which approaches the lifespan of the panels. I realize that these days, taking a moderate position on anything makes you the enemy of everyone who has an extreme view. But green isn't alwaysgood, and oil isn't always bad. Certainly we need to clean up our act big time and find viable sources of alternative energy. Depending on the Saudis ? and oil ? for our energy needs is stupid. But we also have to keep in mind that every one of these alternative-energy sources comes at a cost, which is something people seem to forget. They hear the phrase "alternative energy" and automatically assume it's got to be good. And this makes them no better than the people who hear it and think it's a waste of time. Two seemingly "green" technologies that pop up again and again are ethanol and electric cars. Both are touted by well-meaning people as good forthe environment and a way to reduce our oil dependence, especially as oilprices continue to rise. I've written in detail about ethanol before, but it deserves a rehash. The Senate, you see, is considering a bill that would require a doubling of the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline at the pump. They *say* it's about oil dependence and the environment, but it's not. It's about buying votes from farmers by artificially creating demand for crops ? ethanol coming, in large part, from corn. But there are a bunch of problems with ethanol. First, it doesn't have as much energy as gasoline, which means it takes about 1.5 gallons of ethanol to get you as far as one gallon of gas. Ethanol also requires a lot to produce it ? 26 pounds of corn to get a gallon, in fact. And growing corn requires lots of water and fertilizer and pesticide, not to mention the energy required to distill it into ethanol. And by-products of that distillation include (according to the EPA) acetic acid, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and methanol, all of which are pumped into the air. Yum. It boils down to this: Ethanol sounds good, but the energy required to produce it, and the pollutants it generates, mean it's arguably worsefor the environment than gasoline, especially considering the cleanlinessof today's engines. On the other hand, even with the acreage, water, fertilizer, and pesticide, ethanol has one big thing going for it: It's not produced by the Saudis. Hearing the un-researched praises heaped on ethanol sets my teeth on edge, but hearing the supposed ecological wonders of electric cars makes mewant to bang my head against the desk. (I'm talking about true electric vehicles, not hybrids.) Electric cars are dirty. In fact, not only are they dirty, they mighteven be *more* dirty than their gasoline-powered cousins. People in California love to talk about "zero-emissions vehicles," but people in California seem to be clueless about where electricity comes from. How else can you explain a state that uses more and more of it while not allowing new power plants to be built? Quoth Schoolhouse Rock: "Power plants most all use fire to make it: electricity, electricity/Burnin' fuel and usin' steam, they generate electricity ? electricity." Aside from the few folks who have their roofs covered with solar cells, we get our electricity from generators. Generators are fueled by something ? usually a hydrocarbon (coal, oil, diesel) but also by heat generated in nuclear power plants. (There are a few wind farms and geothermal plants as well, but by far we get electricity by burning something.) In other words, those "zero-emissions" cars are likely coal-burning cars. It's just the coal is burned somewhere else so it *looks* clean. It isn't. It's as if the California Greens are covering their eyes ? "If I can't see it, it's not happening." But it's worse than that. Gasoline is an incredibly efficient way to power a vehicle; a gallon of gas has a lot of energy in it. But when you takethat gas (or another fuel) and first use it to make electricity, you wastea nice chunk of that energy, mostly in the form of wasted heat ? at the generator, through the transmission lines, etc. In other words, a gallon of gas may propel your car 25 miles. But the electricity you get from that gallon of gas won't get you nearly as far ? so electric cars burn more fuel than gas-powered ones. If our electricity came mostly from nukes, or geothermal, or hydro, or solar, or wind, then an electric car truly would be clean. But for political, technical, and economic reasons, we don't use much of those energy sources. We should, but we don't ? that means those electriccars have a dirty past. Furthermore, today's cars are very, very clean. I'd be willing to bet they're a lot cleaner than coal-burning power plants. And that's not even getting into whatever toxic niceties are in those electric cars' batteries ? stuff that will eventually end up in a landfill. And finally, when cars are the polluters, the pollution is spread across all the roads. When it's a power plant, though, all the junk is in one place. Nature is very good at cleaning up when things are not too concentrated, but it takes a lot longer when all the garbage is in one spot. Being green is good. We've squandered our space program on things like the International Space Money Pit, so we won't be leaving the planet verysoon. It's what we've got and we should do better at taking care of it. But that doesn't mean we should jump on any technology labeled "green" anymore than investors should have jumped on any stock labeled "tech"in the 1990s. We know what happened there. ___________ 'Email to a friend' Source: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-06-24-green-tech_x.htm Paul W Harrison, TESL interEnglish (Finland) -- "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 Sat Oct 1 03:07:30 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:07:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <20050930170318.2269.qmail@web30309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200510010307.j9137OX25707@tick.javien.com> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Blog spam > >8. RayyyyyNeeeeeerrrrr _ _ _ _... > > --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > > > "Alejandro Dubrovsky" wrote: > > > Still no idea about Rayner. > > > > > > It is a much beloved and long lost commercial reference... A remarkable ad that deserves a sidebar comment is this. Make a list of the three most overall effective ads you have ever seen on TV and why. In third place, I have the 1984 superbowl ad for Apple MacIntosh. Surely you recall the stunning effects: grey, lemming proles, marching lockstep, presumably using IBM PCs, young woman in living color, hurls hammer thru Big Brother screen. That scene is burned into your memory, is it not? I'm sure it sold a lot of macs. Glaring weakness is that it was very long, so it was actually too expensive to show repeatedly. In second I have the Where's the Beef ad: little old lady calls CEO of burger chain, who is sipping martinis on the deck of his yacht. In a surprisingly gravelly voice, she WHERE'S THE BEEFs him. So startled is he that he falls overboard backwards SPLOOSH! It is funny, short, cheap to make, became a national catchphrase for years (still is), memorable, brings in subtle class- envy elements, etc. Glaring weakness: it isn't clear which burger chain makes its burgers big enough to actually find the beef. All alone way out front then is the Rainier beer ad: Guy hops on bike, starts up RummmRummm, *snick* into gear, rides off toward the distant snowcapped mountains as the bike says Raaaaaayyyyyy Neeeeeerrrr Beeeeeeerrrrr... This is absolutely brilliant advertising for so many reasons. The beer market is tough because there are many competent producers in a wildly contested market, all selling approximately the same thing. One is astounded by the amount of money poured into pitching beer: the clydesdales, the superbowl ads, the racecar and speedboat sponsorships, talking frogs, etc. Along comes a stunningly simple meme by a company so small I had never even heard of it, a ten second spot that cost practically nothing to make, yet combines all the elements of a great sales pitch aimed at guys: internal combustion, nature, freedom of the open road, noise, speed, a little recreational danger, oh my heck. It clearly identifies the brand, it is so memorable, no irritating jingles that get stuck in one's head, no expensive stars, very short, fun to say, fits on a bumper sticker, introduced a national catchphrase that was the brand of the product itself, surely a grand slam in the ad world. The only weaknesses I can think of would be that it had no girls and may have actually sold more motorcycles than beer. However I suspect that if we could get sales records or stock prices from Rainier beer from those years (~1990) we would see a very simple meme that could be considered the most effective TV ad campaign in history. Too bad transhumanism has not come up with something like that. spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 03:28:10 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Microsats launching Message-ID: <20051001032810.53417.qmail@web30314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Some might recall the thread a month or two ago that David Lubkin and I commented on about putting up small mass produced satellites or probes. Well, it seems to be starting with CubeSats, 1 kg, 4"x4" satellites packed with electronics. The first 14 are going to be launched aboard a Dneiper launcher soon. http://space.com/businesstechnology/technology/050928_cubesats.html http://littonlab.atl.calpoly.edu/ The Cubesat home page. As I'd predicted, the bottom end price for these things is about $10k and the launch cost on a Russian booster is running about $40k. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Sat Oct 1 03:45:31 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 13:45:31 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians Message-ID: <20051001034531.75332.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> *Assertion: The problem of ensuring Friendliness is entirely equivalent to the problem of enabling recursive self-improvement. There is a Universal Morality, such that all AGI's will become friendly with high statistical probability once they clear a certain smartness threshold. That assertion was what I call my cosmic 'Existential Gamble' by the way. I'm a gambling man ;) Actually it occurred to me I was cheating a little bit, since there may be a selection effect at work: If I'm wrong, there likely won't be any future historians around to call me on it ;) --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: Now with unlimited storage -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 03:50:42 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] NYT: That Famous Equation and You In-Reply-To: <20050930235603.55849.qmail@web52213.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051001035042.66346.qmail@web32806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> September 30, 2005 That Famous Equation and You By BRIAN GREENE, NY Times DURING the summer of 1905, while fulfilling his duties in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland, Albert Einstein was fiddling with a tantalizing outcome of the special theory of relativity he'd published in June. His new insight, at once simple and startling, led him to wonder whether "the Lord might be laughing ... and leading me around by the nose." But by September, confident in the result, Einstein wrote a three-page supplement to the June paper, publishing perhaps the most profound afterthought in the history of science. A hundred years ago this month, the final equation of his short article gave the world E = mc?. In the century since, E = mc? has become the most recognized icon of the modern scientific era. Yet for all its symbolic worth, the equation's intimate presence in everyday life goes largely unnoticed. There is nothing you can do, not a move you can make, not a thought you can have, that doesn't tap directly into E = mc?. Einstein's equation is constantly at work, providing an unseen hand that shapes the world into its familiar form. It's an equation that tells of matter, energy and a remarkable bridge between them. Before E = mc?, scientists described matter using two distinct attributes: how much the matter weighed (its mass) and how much change the matter could exert on its environment (its energy). A 19th century physicist would say that a baseball resting on the ground has the same mass as a baseball speeding along at 100 miles per hour. The key difference between the two balls, the physicist would emphasize, is that the fast-moving baseball has more energy: if sent ricocheting through a china shop, for example, it would surely break more dishes than the ball at rest. And once the moving ball has done its damage and stopped, the 19th-century physicist would say that it has exhausted its capacity for exerting change and hence contains no energy. After E = mc?, scientists realized that this reasoning, however sensible it once seemed, was deeply flawed. Mass and energy are not distinct. They are the same basic stuff packaged in forms that make them appear different. Just as solid ice can melt into liquid water, Einstein showed, mass is a frozen form of energy that can be converted into the more familiar energy of motion. The amount of energy (E) produced by the conversion is given by his formula: multiply the amount of mass converted (m) by the speed of light squared (c?). Since the speed of light is a few hundred million meters per second (fast enough to travel around the earth seven times in a single second), c? , in these familiar units, is a huge number, about 100,000,000,000,000,000. A little bit of mass can thus yield enormous energy. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fueled by converting less than an ounce of matter into energy; the energy consumed by New York City in a month is less than that contained in the newspaper you're holding. Far from having no energy, the baseball that has come to rest on the china shop's floor contains enough energy to keep an average car running continuously at 65 m.p.h. for about 5,000 years. Before 1905, the common view of energy and matter thus resembled a man carrying around his money in a box of solid gold. After the man spends his last dollar, he thinks he's broke. But then someone alerts him to his miscalculation; a substantial part of his wealth is not what's in the box, but the box itself. Similarly, until Einstein's insight, everyone was aware that matter, by virtue of its motion or position, could possess energy. What everyone missed is the enormous energetic wealth contained in mass itself. The standard illustrations of Einstein's equation - bombs and power stations - have perpetuated a belief that E = mc? has a special association with nuclear reactions and is thus removed from ordinary activity. This isn't true. When you drive your car, E = mc? is at work. As the engine burns gasoline to produce energy in the form of motion, it does so by converting some of the gasoline's mass into energy, in accord with Einstein's formula. When you use your MP3 player, E = mc? is at work. As the player drains the battery to produce energy in the form of sound waves, it does so by converting some of the battery's mass into energy, as dictated by Einstein's formula. As you read this text, E = mc? is at work. The processes in the eye and brain, underlying perception and thought, rely on chemical reactions that interchange mass and energy, once again in accord with Einstein's formula. The point is that although E=mc? expresses the interchangeability of mass and energy, it doesn't single out any particular reaction for executing the conversion. The distinguishing feature of nuclear reactions, compared with the chemical reactions involved in burning gasoline or running a battery, is that they generate less waste and thus produce more energy - by a factor of roughly a million. And when it comes to energy, a factor of a million justifiably commands attention. But don't let the spectacle of E=mc? in nuclear reactions inure you to its calmer but thoroughly pervasive incarnations in everyday life. That's the content of Einstein's discovery. Why is it true? Einstein's derivation of E = mc? was wholly mathematical. I know his derivation, as does just about anyone who has taken a course in modern physics. Nevertheless, I consider my understanding of a result incomplete if I rely solely on the math. Instead, I've found that thorough understanding requires a mental image - an analogy or a story - that may sacrifice some precision but captures the essence of the result. Here's a story for E = mc?. Two equally strong and skilled jousters, riding identical horses and gripping identical (blunt) lances, head toward each other at an identical speed. As they pass, each thrusts his lance across his breastplate toward his opponent, slamming blunt end into blunt end. Because they're equally matched, neither lance pushes farther than the other, and so the referee calls it a draw. This story contains the essence of Einstein's discovery. Let me explain. Einstein's first relativity paper, the one in June 1905, shattered the idea that time elapses identically for everyone. Instead, Einstein showed that if from your perspective someone is moving, you will see time elapsing slower for him than it does for you. Everything he does - sipping his coffee, turning his head, blinking his eyes - will appear in slow motion. This is hard to grasp because at everyday speeds the slowing is less than one part in a trillion and is thus imperceptibly small. Even so, using extraordinarily precise atomic clocks, scientists have repeatedly confirmed that it happens just as Einstein predicted. If we lived in a world where things routinely traveled near the speed of light, the slowing of time would be obvious. Let's see what the slowing of time means for the joust. To do so, think about the story not from the perspective of the referee, but instead imagine you are one of the jousters. From your perspective, it is your opponent - getting ever closer - who is moving. Imagine that he is approaching at nearly the speed of light so the slowing of all his movements - readying his joust, tightening his face - is obvious. When he shoves his lance toward you in slow motion, you naturally think he's no match for your swifter thrust; you expect to win. Yet we already know the outcome. The referee calls it a draw and no matter how strange relativity is, it can't change a draw into a win. After the match, you naturally wonder how your opponent's slowly thrusted lance hit with the same force as your own. There's only one answer. The force with which something hits depends not only on its speed but also on its mass. That's why you don't fear getting hit by a fast-moving Ping-Pong ball (tiny mass) but you do fear getting hit by a fast-moving Mack truck (big mass). Thus, the only explanation for how the slowly thrust lance hit with the same force as your own is that it's more massive. This is astonishing. The lances are identically constructed. Yet you conclude that one of them - the one that from your point of view is in motion, being carried toward you by your opponent on his galloping horse - is more massive than the other. That's the essence of Einstein's discovery. Energy of motion contributes to an object's mass. AS with the slowing of time, this is unfamiliar because at everyday speeds the effect is imperceptibly tiny. But if, from your viewpoint, your opponent were to approach at 99.99999999 percent of the speed of light, his lance would be about 70,000 times more massive than yours. Luckily, his thrusting speed would be 70,000 times slower than yours, and so the resulting force would equal your own. Once Einstein realized that mass and energy were convertible, getting the exact formula relating them - E = mc? - was a fairly basic exercise, requiring nothing more than high school algebra. His genius was not in the math; it was in his ability to see beyond centuries of misunderstanding and recognize that there was a connection between mass and energy at all. A little known fact about Einstein's September 1905 paper is that he didn't actually write E = mc?; he wrote the mathematically equivalent (though less euphonious) m = E/c?, placing greater emphasis on creating mass from energy (as in the joust) than on creating energy from mass (as in nuclear weapons and power stations). Over the last couple of decades, this less familiar reading of Einstein's equation has helped physicists explain why everything ever encountered has the mass that it does. Experiments have shown that the subatomic particles making up matter have almost no mass of their own. But because of their motions and interactions inside of atoms, these particles contain substantial energy - and it's this energy that gives matter its heft. Take away Einstein's equation, and matter loses its mass. You can't get much more pervasive than that. Its singular fame notwithstanding, E = mc? fits into the pattern of work and discovery that Einstein pursued with relentless passion throughout his entire life. Einstein believed that deep truths about the workings of the universe would always be "as simple as possible, but no simpler." And in his view, simplicity was epitomized by unifying concepts - like matter and energy - previously deemed separate. In 1916, Einstein simplified our understanding even further by combining gravity with space, time, matter and energy in his General Theory of Relativity. For my money, this is the most beautiful scientific synthesis ever achieved. With these successes, Einstein's belief in unification grew ever stronger. But the sword of his success was double-edged. It allowed him to dream of a single theory encompassing all of nature's laws, but led him to expect that the methods that had worked so well for him in the past would continue to work for him in the future. It wasn't to be. For the better part of his last 30 years, Einstein pursued the "unified theory," but it stubbornly remained beyond his grasp. As the years passed, he became increasingly isolated; mainstream physics was concerned with prying apart the atom and paid little attention to Einstein's grandiose quest. In a 1942 letter, Einstein described himself as having become a "a lonely old man who is displayed now and then as a curiosity because he doesn't wear socks." Today, Einstein's quest for unification is no curiosity - it is the driving force for many physicists of my generation. No one knows how close we've gotten. Maybe the unified theory will elude us just as it dodged Einstein last century. Or maybe the new approaches being developed by contemporary physics will finally prevail, giving us the ultimate explanation of the cosmos. Without a unified theory it's hard to imagine we will ever resolve the deepest of all mysteries - how the universe began- so the stakes are high and the motivation strong. But even if our science proves unable to determine the origin of the universe, recent progress has already established beyond any doubt that a fraction of a second after creation (however that happened), the universe was filled with tremendous energy in the form of wildly moving exotic particles and radiation. Within a few minutes, this energy employed E = mc? to transform itself into more familiar matter - the simplest atoms - which, in the course of about a billion years, clumped into planets and stars. During the 13 billion years that have followed, stars have used E = mc? to transform their mass back into energy in the form of heat and light; about five billion years ago, our closest star - the sun - began to shine, and the heat and light generated was essential to the formation of life on our planet. If prevailing theory and observations are correct, the conversion of matter to energy throughout the cosmos, mediated by stars, black holes and various forms of radioactive decay, will continue unabated. In the far, far future, essentially all matter will have returned to energy. But because of the enormous expansion of space, this energy will be spread so thinly that it will hardly ever convert back to even the lightest particles of matter. Instead, a faint mist of light will fall for eternity through an ever colder and quieter cosmos. The guiding hand of Einstein's E = mc? will have finally come to rest. Brian Greene, a professor of physics and mathematics at Columbia, is the author of "The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos." La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Sat Oct 1 07:35:29 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 17:35:29 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians Message-ID: <20051001073529.635.qmail@web35515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 'Give me an underground laboratory, half a dozen atom-smashers, and a girl in a diaphanous veil waiting to be turned into a chimpanzee, and I care not who writes the nation's laws.' S.J. Perelman (1904-1979)" --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Sat Oct 1 08:21:15 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 18:21:15 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians Message-ID: <20051001082115.81301.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Just to reassure everyone that I have *not* in fact flipped my lid: -- Baars Global Workspace theory: ??Global Workspace theory suggests a fleeting memory capacity that enables access between brain functions that are otherwise separate. This makes sense in a brain that is a brainweb, viewed as a massive parallel distributed system of highly specialized processors. In such a system coordination and control may take place by way of a central information exchange [the global workspace], allowing some specialized processors-such as sensory systems in the brain-to distribute information to the system as a whole. [The] theory may be thought of as a theater of mental functioning. Consciousness in the metaphor resembles a bright spot on the stage of immediate memory, directed there by a spotlight of attention, under executive guidance. The rest of the theater is dark and unconscious. For sensory consciousness the bright spot on stage is likely to require the corresponding sensory projection areas of the cortex. Once a conscious sensory content is established, it is distributed widely to a decentralized ??audience?? of expert networks sitting in the darkened theater, presumably using corticocortical and corticothalamic fibers. This is the primary functional role of consciousness: to allow a theater architecture to operate in the brain, in order to integrate, provide access, and coordinate the functioning of very large numbers of specialized networks that otherwise operate autonomously.?? (Baars 2003) Jeff Hawkins - Memory-Prediction Framework: ??[Your] neocortex stores sensory information in its memory. At a future time when [you] encounter the same or a similar situation, the memory recognizes the input as similar and recalls what happened in the past. The recalled memory is compared with the sensory input stream. It both ??fills in?? the current input and predicts what will be seen next. By comparing the actual sensory input with the recalled memory, [you] not only understand where [you are] but can see into the future.??(p. 99) Neural Correlate of consciousness: ??The neural correlate of consciousness is in dendrites of cortical neurons interconnected by gap junctions, forming Hebbian ??hyper-neurons??. Chemical synapses and axonal spikes convey inputs to, and outputs from, conscious processes in hyper-neuron dendrites, consistent with gamma EEG/coherent 40 Hz and the post-synaptic mechanism of general anesthesia.?? (Hameroff 2005) -- You see? I do it too! Just re-gurgiate stuff you read back on-line and you too can look like a genius - just like the SL4 monkeys ;) --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Sat Oct 1 09:05:11 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 19:05:11 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians Message-ID: <20051001090511.9028.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Addendum: Some of the SL4 guys managed to disappear so far up their own arses they actually struck shit. Cheers --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Messenger 7.0: Free worldwide PC to PC calls -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Sat Oct 1 15:34:32 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:34:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Total global capital tied to illicit drugs Message-ID: <433EAC88.4000702@sasktel.net> I wonder just how many net billions are involved in the supply chains from field to user for the world's illicit drug supply chains? When these operations consolidate at the top end exactly which groups and institutions corral major portions of this capital? Essentially what would be the impact to the global economy if these supply chains were no longer in existance. How much capital would be freed up to divert to alternative uses as a result. Could the capital equivalent to this fund a healthspan-extension supply chain? What I am getting at is that with the growing understanding of nutrigenomics it is more and more feasible to consider key aspects of nutrition and supplementation as medicine to optimize healthspan (Kurzweil stage1). From a macro view of resource allocation I am thinking that one might divert resources already in existance to be able to retool the illicit drug market into an nutrigenomic market. All those folks growing magic mushrooms could add medicinal ones to flow into a nutrigenomic market. All those folks growing opium and pot etc might be given new lines and assured nutrigenomic markets. All those folks with the home labs might get trained to run contract bioreactors for nutrigenomic markets. Too silly? Why do I bring this up.. I'm on my last day of harvesting cannabis of the hemp kind and should have 9 truckloads of dry seed and biomass in storage. I have taken what is usually done plant by plant and done it acre by acre. And so far have not offended any regulators in doing so. Of course there are the fun times like when I drop pictures off at Wal mart and have to pick them up from the police station and get to sit and visit with those guys a while. So maybe I have a tonne or 2 of medicinal cannabis. In the underground economy , as a non-hemp variety it would be worth say 10 million dollars. In a hemp economy it might be worth 300,000 $ at my door and 1,000,000 at the consumers door. What I am saying is that the underground drug economy might be retooled to a valuable bio-economy and that the war on drugs might be retooled into the war on premature death. Just some idle thoughts for consideration. From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 1 16:40:03 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 09:40:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <20051001090511.9028.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200510011639.j91GdtX25982@tick.javien.com> Addendum: with that post Marc, you have struck the moderated posters list. spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Marc Geddes Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 2:05 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians Addendum: Some of the SL4 guys managed to disappear so far up their own arses they actually struck shit. Cheers --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 _____ Do you Yahoo!? Messenger 7.0: Free worldwide PC to PC calls -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 16:45:48 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 09:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Total global capital tied to illicit drugs In-Reply-To: <433EAC88.4000702@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <20051001164548.37595.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." wrote: > > I wonder just how many net billions are involved in > the supply chains > from field to user for the > world's illicit drug supply chains? > -----------Excerpt--------------------------- No aspect of farming has grown faster in the US over the past three decades than marijuana, with one-third of the public over the age of 12 having smoked the drug. While the nation's largest legal cash crop, maize, produces about $19bn (?11.9bn) in revenue, "plausible" estimates for the value of marijuana crops reach $25bn. Steve White, a former coordinator for the US drug enforcement administration's cannabis eradication programme, estimates that the drug is now the country's largest cash crop. ----------------------------------- http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,947880,00.html The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Oct 1 17:01:15 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (M.B. Baumeister) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 13:01:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] [Fwd: Anthropology petition again Intelligent Design being taught as science in public schools]] Message-ID: <43182.69.18.90.201.1128186075.squirrel@main.nc.us> Maybe there are some scientists here who would find this petition of interest? The "four hour" part is long past, but IIUC they now have thousands of signatures from concerned scientists. :) Regards, MB -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Anthropology petition again Intelligent Design being taught as science in public schools Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:54:31 -0500 From: R. Joe Brandon To: Paleoanthro-owner at yahoogroups.com References: <1127945670.27.16944.m32 at yahoogroups.com> Hi all, This is R. Joe Brandon and I run the archaeology employment service called Shovelbums.org ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shovelbums/ ). I recently put up a petition that I think concerned paleoanthropologists would be interested in. It is for scientists opposing the teaching of Intelligent Design as part of the science curriculum in public schools. Please note this petition is NOT against ID itself. That is a personal decision and one I leave to theologians and philosophers. My issue is with the theistic based ID being presented as science fact. My original text is below and the URL is: http://shovelbums.org/component/option,com_mospetition/Itemid,506/ In my first 24 hours I received over 500 entries from scientists (which is the audience I am targeting). If you are able to post this on your discussion board I would appreciate that. Best, R. Joe The short version: Please forward or notify relevant peers immediately. In response to the current court case about Intelligent Design and the discovery institutes petition "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" signed by 400 "scientists" in four years I am putting forth a new petition which discourages the teaching of Intelligent Design as a factual part of the science curriculum in US public schools. My challenge is to initially generate 400 signatures by scientists who actually are involved in fields which study evolutionary theory in four hours (3:45 PM EST to 7:45 PM EST). The petition is at: http://shovelbums.org/index.php?option=com_mospetition&Itemid=506 Please pass and forward this URL to any of your peers who you think will be interested in signing it. And if you are at a college please forward this immediately onto your contacts in other relevant departments as I do not have good connections into there. If you are a student and you know some of your friends are off line please stop them in the hallway or give them a ring to let them know about this petition. I am not looking to generate a dialouge on this as Shovel Bums is for jobs only. If you feel you really need to write me please use my contact form on Shovelbums.org ------ The longer version: Folks, This is in no way presented as an atheistic or anti-religious petition which some are quick to brand it as when it questions anything relating to religion. This is just a petition reflecting what I believe are important thoughts on the roll of the faith based Intelligent Design initiative to be taught in public schools. I respect and support individual interpretations of faith, I however do not feel it is the roll of our public schools to promote this. Petition of Anthropologists & Biologists who are opposed to the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. As the Dover, Pennsylvania debate on the teaching of the faith based theistic"Intelligent Design" moves into the courts Sept 26,2005 I feel it is imperative for scientists who are actually trained in evolutionary theory to weigh in. Currently the Discovery Institute initiated a petition in 2001 the Statement of Dissent from Darwinism which, as of July 2005 has a tally of 400 "scientists" who have signed it (see Statement of Dissent from Darwin at the Discovery Institute for a list of signers). My issue with this petition is that it draws upon scientists from all branches of science, not just those who are educated specifically in the nuances of evolutionary theory, to present an image of "great discord" among scientists about evolution. Having these scientists from unrelated fields is misleading to the public and is the equivalent of an anthropologist signing a petition as a "scientist" against the Big Bang theory. While that anthropologist is entitled to their personal and educated view, to represent themselves as a "scientist" qualified to make an interpretation of the data which reflects the views of the scientific community as a whole they are not. As an anthropologist, and I believe most open minded scientists feel the same way, I fully support people engaging in religious expression. And as all current and prehistoric religions I am aware of have some sort of a creation story to account for the existence of man the choice of the Discovery Institute to to promote the idea of "Intelligent Design" is not surprising. It is a comforting way to deal with the profound complexity of the existence of life. It is important to distinguish though that Intelligent Designs foundation is faith based, not fact based and therefore it is not appropriate to be taught at "science" in our public schools. Are there problems with evolution? Hello? There are problems with theories relating to gravity, quantum physics, psychology, thermodynamics. You name it, if there is a scientific field, their is always dissent. Heck there are more members of the flat earth society than there are signers of the Statement Of Dissent From Darwinism (see: http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/flatearth.html or )http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/ (3000 members of FES at last count), but we do not teach that instead of geography. So I have put together a petition at http://shovelbums.org/index.php?option=com_mospetition&Itemid=506 to be signed initially by biologists and anthropologists who are in favor of Intelligent Design not being taught as part of the public school science curriculum. To make it interesting though I have a challenge for you all - they got 400 names in four years, I want to get 400 names in four hours. Best, R. Joe From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Oct 1 19:35:06 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 14:35:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <20051001090511.9028.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051001090511.9028.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051001143120.02c260f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 04:05 AM 10/1/2005, Marc wrote: >Addendum: Some of the SL4 guys managed to disappear so far up their own >arses they actually struck shit. This type of posting does not add value to this list. If you or anyone can enlighten otherwise, please do so. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Oct 1 22:09:19 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:09:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil reviewed in the Wall Street Journal Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051001170832.01d89e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near, When Humans Transcend Biology reviewed today in the Wall Street Journal Weekend Edition http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112811088248757062-nXscMNuHx_ypalA6uV0oWWUNuxQ_20060930,00.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 22:57:05 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 15:57:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Total global capital tied to illicit drugs In-Reply-To: <433EAC88.4000702@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <20051001225705.6210.qmail@web30303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." wrote: > > I wonder just how many net billions are involved in the supply > chains from field to user for the world's illicit drug supply chains? Ponder this: the global illicit drug supply chain is booming because its illegality makes it untaxed at any level, thus fulfilling the claims of libertarians and other lassez faire economists that lack of taxation and regulation leads to massive economic growth and profits, which might explain why it is a source of capital and why the PTB want to keep it illegal in order to be able to use the subsidized power of state enforcement to protect their markets. > > When these operations consolidate at the top end exactly which groups > and institutions corral major portions of this capital? Ask the Federal Reserve why reports on the source of capital from overseas investors are kept partially classified (the parts that detail illicit drug sources). > > Essentially what would be the impact to the global economy if these > supply chains were no longer in existance. > How much capital would be freed up to divert to alternative uses as a > result. Wrong way to think about it. The profits of drug production are a major consumer economic sector with a low cost of production, thus it is a major mechanism for concentrating capital into quantities useful for international finance. If these profits were in legitimate economic sectors, they would be much smaller, if not non-existent due to excessive taxation and regulation by governments (as well as tariffs and duties when crossing international boundaries), as well as the fact that legality of drugs would cause prices to plummet and thus profits to shrink, even if legalization also absolved producers and distributors of the cost of anti-drug government activities. > > Could the capital equivalent to this fund a healthspan-extension > supply chain? A smarter idea is to seek out holders of drug profits to invest in life extension. This is already occuring at the retail level, as many street drug dealers do a double trade, exchanging their illicit drugs with addicts for their legitimate prescription phsycho-pharmics, which the dealers then sell to upscale recreational users for additional profits. The illicit drug industry knows the utility of the new brain meds and wants a share of those profits, particularly as they are reducing the rate of illicit drug addiction here in the US by getting people hopped on licit drugs (as an analogy: why would a consumer of Glenlivet ever desire a shot of Panther Sweat?). > > What I am getting at is that with the growing understanding of > nutrigenomics it is more and more feasible > to consider key aspects of nutrition and supplementation as medicine > to optimize healthspan (Kurzweil stage1). > > From a macro view of resource allocation I am thinking that one > might divert resources already in existance > to be able to retool the illicit drug market into an nutrigenomic > market. Different markets. Illicit drugs are an entertainment and psycho-pharm market, not a longevity market. Instead, you want money that people spend on killing themselves: autos, cigarettes, alcohol, caffiene, or capital from businesses that profit off such markets. > > All those folks growing magic mushrooms could add medicinal ones to > flow into a nutrigenomic market. > All those folks growing opium and pot etc might be given new lines > and assured nutrigenomic markets. > All those folks with the home labs might get trained to run contract > bioreactors for nutrigenomic markets. Changing the product of the pharmer doesn't keep him from getting shot by thugs who still want their opium. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 1 23:17:28 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 16:17:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051001170832.01d89e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200510012317.j91NHJX23978@tick.javien.com> The osmotic pressure of ocean water to fresh water is about 2.4 MPa. If we put an osmotic membrane across the end of a pipe and shove the empty pipe down into the ocean when the pipe reaches a depth of about 240 meters fresh water will start colleting on the inside of the pipe. We can put a pump down there and pump up fresh water. Nothing tricky here. The energy to lift the water 240 m is exactly the same energy that would be required to push the sea water through a membrane at ground level. Now suppose we keep pushing the pipe down to 290 m. The pressure across the membrane will remain at about 2.4 MPa and this means that the fresh water level inside the pipe will rise about 50 m, so that the water surface inside the pipe will remain at about 240 m. We keep pushing the pipe further and further down, the fresh water column gets longer and longer, but the top of the fresh water column remains at about 240 m below sea level. No, that is too simple. Fresh water is slightly less dense than sea water, so to keep the 2.4MPa pressure differential across the bottom of the pipe the fresh water column needs to rise faster than the pipe sinks. Fresh water has a density of 1000 kg/m^3 while ocean waters is about 1025 kg/m^3. If the membrane end of the pipe is down 1000m the freshwater column will be 785 m, so the fresh water will rise to within 215 m of the surface (25m higher than -240m). If we keep pushing the pipe down to 9600 the fresh water will come up to sea level. If we push the pipe below 9600 me fresh water will spew out of the top of the pipe above sea level. We could then hook up a water wheel and have a perpetual motion machine. Now we know something is seriously wrong, but what? spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Oct 1 23:29:40 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 18:29:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <200510012317.j91NHJX23978@tick.javien.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051001170832.01d89e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200510012317.j91NHJX23978@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051001182622.01cd9d78@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 04:17 PM 10/1/2005 -0700, Spike wrote: >We could then hook up a water wheel and >have a perpetual motion machine. Now we know >something is seriously wrong, but what? Stipulating your analysis for the sake of argument, nothing at all is wrong, because it's *not* a perpetual motion machine -- unless a windmill is one too, and a solar energy photovoltaic panel, and... Damien Broderick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 23:52:37 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 16:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <200510012317.j91NHJX23978@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051001235237.55589.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > The osmotic pressure of ocean water to fresh > water is about 2.4 MPa. If we put an osmotic > membrane across the end of a pipe and shove > the empty pipe down into the ocean when the > pipe reaches a depth of about 240 meters > fresh water will start colleting on the > inside of the pipe. We can put a pump down > there and pump up fresh water. Nothing > tricky here. The energy to lift the water > 240 m is exactly the same energy that would > be required to push the sea water through > a membrane at ground level. > > Now suppose we keep pushing the pipe down to > 290 m. The pressure across the membrane will > remain at about 2.4 MPa and this means that > the fresh water level inside the pipe will > rise about 50 m, so that the water surface > inside the pipe will remain at about 240 m. > > We keep pushing the pipe further and further > down, the fresh water column gets longer and > longer, but the top of the fresh water column > remains at about 240 m below sea level. > > No, that is too simple. Fresh water is slightly > less dense than sea water, so to keep the 2.4MPa > pressure differential across the bottom of the > pipe the fresh water column needs to rise faster > than the pipe sinks. Fresh water has a density > of 1000 kg/m^3 while ocean waters is about > 1025 kg/m^3. If the membrane end of the pipe > is down 1000m the freshwater column will be 785 m, > so the fresh water will rise to within 215 m of the > surface (25m higher than -240m). > > If we keep pushing the pipe down to 9600 the > fresh water will come up to sea level. If we > push the pipe below 9600 me fresh water will > spew out of the top of the pipe above sea > level. We could then hook up a water wheel and > have a perpetual motion machine. Now we know > something is seriously wrong, but what? What is the pressure limit of the osmotic membrane? Okay, here goes: Until you reach 240 m, you are trying to sink the pipe which is likely positively bouyant. You can either force it down by some mechanism that is anchored to the bottom, or else ballast it down with weights. The walls of the pipe will need to get progressively thicker as you sink, so this automatically adds weight as well (and of course energy to refine the materials used in making the pipe). However, your perpetuum might not work. While fresh water is less dense than salt water, a fresh water column plus its surrounding piping might not be. If you can come up with some unobtanium piping (nanotube wound compsites might do it, esp considering pure carbon, and any hydro-carbons, are generally less dense than water). There is nothing wrong with what you propose, though, because the energy differential between fresh and salt water is a real potential, which you can use in the reverse in a riverine tidal zone at the salinocline (provided you have a dam or dyke built there) to draw electric power out of the ion influx, which is the more typical application of osmotic filters for this purpose. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From brian at posthuman.com Sun Oct 2 02:09:54 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 21:09:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil reviewed in the Wall Street Journal In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051001170832.01d89e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051001170832.01d89e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <433F4172.3030002@posthuman.com> Looks like the book is up to #19 on Amazon's bestseller list. I wonder what's the highest slot any of his previous books have ever gotten to for comparison purposes? -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sun Oct 2 02:20:00 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 19:20:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil reviewed in the Wall Street Journal In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051001170832.01d89e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051001170832.01d89e70@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: It's also worth noting that the review is by Glenn Reynolds, the legendary "Instapundit." He actually seems to discuss the Singularity very often. On 10/1/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > > Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near, When Humans Transcend Biology > > reviewed today in the Wall Street Journal Weekend Edition > > < > http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112811088248757062-nXscMNuHx_ypalA6uV0oWWUNuxQ_20060930,00.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top > > > http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112811088248757062-nXscMNuHx_ypalA6uV0oWWUNuxQ_20060930,00.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Oct 2 16:37:22 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 09:37:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <20051001235237.55589.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200510021637.j92GbHX19123@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis > > ... We could then hook up a water wheel and > > have a perpetual motion machine. Now we know > > something is seriously wrong, but what? > > What is the pressure limit of the osmotic membrane? I don't know, but it is high. Seawater is currently desalinated by pumping it thru osmotic membranes. > > Okay, here goes: > Until you reach 240 m, you are trying to sink the pipe which is likely > positively bouyant. You can either force it down by some mechanism that > is anchored to the bottom, or else ballast it down with weights... No issue, fill it with fresh water. > The walls of the pipe will need to get progressively thicker as you sink, > so this automatically adds weight as well (and of course energy to > refine the materials used in making the pipe)... OK. Ordinary modern steel alloys could carry the weight if we weld in thicker wall steel at the top of the pipe. Do the calcs Mike, you know how. {8-] The density of steel is close enough to 8g/cc for this calc. Ordinary steel can go 400 megaPascals tensile, and you know the maximum compressive pressure on the pipe is 2.4 mPa, which is nothing to small diameter pipe. Submarines can down that far. ... > > There is nothing wrong with what you propose, though, because the > energy differential between fresh and salt water is a real potential, > which you can use in the reverse in a riverine tidal zone at the > salinocline (provided you have a dam or dyke built there) to draw > electric power out of the ion influx, which is the more typical > application of osmotic filters for this purpose. > > Mike Lorrey OK I figured out the solution this morning; Mike's post kinda hinted me there. I went crazy last night trying to figure it out. I will post what I think is the right answer in about a little later. The hint that Mike posted is in the comment "There is nothing wrong with what you propose..." spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Oct 2 18:17:57 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <200510021637.j92GbHX19123@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051002181758.26266.qmail@web30314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> One other thing: You still need to preserve the 240m pressure differential at the filter, you know, even when the pipe is full of fresh water, which creates its own pressure. However, your proposal can explain how you can get pressure out of an artesian well even at the top of a mountain: the rock is denser than the water, so it pushes the water out. In oil wells, there is typically oil and salt water, with the oil being forced out by the salt water, as the oil is less dense, which of course creates a pressure differential with lower deposits to refill the reservoir... --- spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis > > > > ... We could then hook up a water wheel and > > > have a perpetual motion machine. Now we know > > > something is seriously wrong, but what? > > > > What is the pressure limit of the osmotic membrane? > > I don't know, but it is high. Seawater is currently > desalinated by pumping it thru osmotic membranes. Sure, at the ~240m pressure equivalency. I've got a clay osmotic filter I use for camping. I doubt it would stand up to the pressure of the depths (also gotta figure out embrittlement from the cold of the depths too). > > > > > Okay, here goes: > > Until you reach 240 m, you are trying to sink the pipe which is > likely > > positively bouyant. You can either force it down by some mechanism > that > > is anchored to the bottom, or else ballast it down with weights... > > No issue, fill it with fresh water. > > > The walls of the pipe will need to get progressively thicker as you > sink, > > so this automatically adds weight as well (and of course energy to > > refine the materials used in making the pipe)... > > OK. Ordinary modern steel alloys could carry the > weight if we weld in thicker wall steel at the top > of the pipe. Do the calcs Mike, you know how. {8-] The > density of steel is close enough to 8g/cc for > this calc. Ordinary steel can go 400 megaPascals > tensile, and you know the maximum compressive pressure > on the pipe is 2.4 mPa, which is nothing to small > diameter pipe. Submarines can down that far. > > ... > > > > There is nothing wrong with what you propose, though, because the > > energy differential between fresh and salt water is a real > potential, > > which you can use in the reverse in a riverine tidal zone at the > > salinocline (provided you have a dam or dyke built there) to draw > > electric power out of the ion influx, which is the more typical > > application of osmotic filters for this purpose. > > > > Mike Lorrey > > > OK I figured out the solution this morning; Mike's > post kinda hinted me there. I went crazy last night > trying to figure it out. I will post what I think > is the right answer in about a little later. The hint that > Mike posted is in the comment "There is nothing wrong > with what you propose..." > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 2 20:12:03 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 15:12:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fermi Paradox screenplay Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051002150750.01ce8338@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Just stumbled on this screenplay about a singularity future. The young author seems to have died, alas, during a hike three years ago: * Tempus Accelerare: A screenplay Appalling title; his first try, THE FERMI PARADOX, is vastly better. linked from http://www.faughnan.com/setifail.html Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 2 20:23:12 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 15:23:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Xena and Gabrielle in Space Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051002152206.01d91e60@pop-server.satx.rr.com> I love it! http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1177384 < Oct 2, 2005 ? By Deborah Zabarenko WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Xena, the possible 10th planet in our solar system, has its own moon, a dim little satellite called Gabrielle, its discoverers reported. > From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Oct 2 21:46:49 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 22:46:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dramatic Future Is Always 20-30 Years Away In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050930120138.0307aae0@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050929112049.537FB99DC@mailrelay.t-mobile.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050930120138.0307aae0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: On 9/30/05, Robin Hanson wrote: > > I've heard many times how dramatic forecasts for the future tend to > be about 20-30 years away. That is, fusion break-even, space > colonies, and household robots were consistently said to be that far > into the future, forecasts that remained about that far into even > 20-30 years after the first such forecasts were made. I just today > heard that for many7 decades economists like Samuelson forecasted > that the Soviet Economy would overtake the US economy in about 20-30 > years. > > That timescale is usually sufficient to make any predictions pretty much impossible, hence implausible ones get their shot at notoriety along with the likely. In computer tech it's very rare you will see serious speculation in the industry about where things will be in 10, let alone 30, years. Biotech is just getting onto the steep part of the curve in the same way. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Oct 2 21:47:07 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 14:47:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <20051002181758.26266.qmail@web30314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200510022147.j92LlIX14623@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 11:18 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis > > One other thing: You still need to preserve the 240m pressure > differential at the filter, you know, even when the pipe is full of > fresh water, which creates its own pressure... Ja. My calcs show that if you have a 9600 meter pipe hanging vertically in the sea with a filter on the bottom end and the pipe filled with fresh water, the pressure across the filter will be about 240 meters of water and the fresh water will reach up to the surface of the sea. Then by that reasoning, if the pipe end is deeper than 9600 meters, then fresh water would be raised higher than sea level. Free fresh water, or free energy. Mike your earlier comment made me realize this doesn't violate any cosmic principles. You are dropping less dense fresh water at the surface of the sea, whereas the depths become more saline and thus denser. In doing so, you slightly lower the center of gravity of the ocean, thus extracting a bit of potential energy. Of course the tides and currents mix the sea, so what you are actually doing is very indirectly harnessing solar energy. {8-] spike From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Oct 2 21:50:12 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 22:50:12 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Economist: The $100 computer arrives! In-Reply-To: <20050930065802.74863.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050930065802.74863.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/30/05, Jose Cordeiro wrote: > > http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4462822 > *Computing* > > *Cheap tricks* > Sep 29th 2005 > From The Economist print edition > > > *A $100 laptop for the poor could affect the computer industry* > > THE idea is as audacious as it altruistic: provide a personal laptop > computer to every schoolchild?particularly in the poorest parts of the > world. The first step to making that happen is whittling the price down to > $100. And that is the goal of a group of American techno-gurus led by > Nicholas Negroponte, the founder of the fabled MIT Media Lab. When he > unveiled the idea at the World Economic Forum in January it seemed wildly > ambitious. But surprisingly, it is starting to become a reality. Mr > Negroponte plans to display the first prototype in November at a UN summit. > Five countries?China, Brazil, Egypt, Thailand and South Africa?have said > they will buy over 1m units each. Production is due to start in late 2006. > [image: RELATED ITEMS] > [image: More articles about......] > Computer technology > > Debt and development > > [image: Advertisment] [image: Click here to find out more!] [image: > Click Here!] > > How is the group, called One Laptop Per Child (OLPC), able to create a > laptop so inexpensively? It is mainly a matter of cleverly combining > existing technologies in new ways. The laptop will have a basic processor > made by AMD, flash memory instead of a hard disk, will be powered by > batteries or a hand-crank, and will run open-source software. The $100 > laptop also puts all the components behind the screen, not under the > keyboard, so there is no need for an expensive hinge. So far, OLPC has got > the price down to around $130. > > But good news for the world's poor, may not be such great news for the > world's computer manufacturers. The new machine is not simply of interest in > the developing world. On September 22nd, Mitt Romney, the governor of > Massachusetts, said the state should purchase one for every secondary-school > student, when they become available. > > Sales to schools are just one way in which the $100 laptop could change > the computer industry more broadly. By depressing prices and fuelling the > trend for "good-enough computing", where customers upgrade less often, it > could eventually put pressure on the world's biggest PC-makers. > > > La vie est belle! > > Yos? (www.cordeiro.org ) > > Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, > Multiverse > Well, what most people actually want from a laptop are word processing and Net connectivity. Everything else is secondary. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Oct 2 22:23:40 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 23:23:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) A skeptical look at green technology In-Reply-To: <433DFC08.4010809@mindspring.com> References: <433DFC08.4010809@mindspring.com> Message-ID: On 10/1/05, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > > Don't shoot the messenger... > > ________________ > > If I see one more article about how wonderful alternative energy is > compared > to oil, I'm gonna flip. Alternative energy sources can be good ? very good > in fact. And it's pretty obvious that we're going to need them, and that > our > dependence on oil (foreign or otherwise) is a Bad Thing. > But accepting that does not mean accepting that any kind of alternative > energy is by default a good thing. > > To *be* a good thing, it has to have three properties: 1) It has to help > reduce our dependence on oil, 2) It has to be no worse for the > environment, > and 3) It has to be economically practical. > > It does not have to be 'economically practical' in the usual sense. If the entire US defence budget for one year was diverted to solar PV it could generate sufficient electricity for the whole of the US. Clearly this is technologically impractal, but does illustrate a point. If it requires hundreds of billions of dollars annually of military spending to maintain security of oil supply the notion of what is 'economical' goes out of the window because oil is getting a vast hidden subsidy. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgc at cox.net Sun Oct 2 22:47:42 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 18:47:42 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <200510022147.j92LlIX14623@tick.javien.com> References: <200510022147.j92LlIX14623@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4340638E.5000504@cox.net> spike wrote: >Ja. My calcs show that if you have a 9600 meter pipe >hanging vertically in the sea with a filter on the >bottom end and the pipe filled with fresh water, the >pressure across the filter will be about 240 meters >of water and the fresh water will reach up to the >surface of the sea. > >Then by that reasoning, if the pipe end is deeper >than 9600 meters, then fresh water would be raised >higher than sea level. Free fresh water, or free >energy. > >Mike your earlier comment made me realize this >doesn't violate any cosmic principles. You >are dropping less dense fresh water at the surface >of the sea, whereas the depths become more saline >and thus denser. In doing so, you slightly lower >the center of gravity of the ocean, thus extracting >a bit of potential energy. Of course the tides and >currents mix the sea, so what you are actually doing >is very indirectly harnessing solar energy. > > > To look at it another way: create a closed system consisting of an outer pips full of saline water and an inner pipe full of fresh water, connected via an osmotic membrane at the bottom. start the pipes bot full to the the same level. The saline water level will decrease while the fresh water level will increase, If you then let the freshwater from the top of the pipe fall into the outer pipe through a turbine, you will extract energy, but the fresh water will float on top of the salt water and the system will eventually stop. In some sense you are extracting the gravitational potential of the weight of the salt as it sinks to the bottom of the salt water side. From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Oct 2 23:04:29 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 16:04:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <200510022147.j92LlIX14623@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200510022304.j92N4qX21690@tick.javien.com> > > > Ja. My calcs show that if you have a 9600 meter pipe > hanging vertically in the sea with a filter on the > bottom end and the pipe filled with fresh water, the > pressure across the filter will be about 240 meters > of water and the fresh water will reach up to the > surface of the sea... It occurred to me that making that pipe hang vertically is unnecessary. The pipe can rest peacefully on the sea bottom, all the way up to the beach. The fresh water would flow up at an angle, but assuming a large diameter pipe and a lazy flow rate, that is not a problem. Even with a two meter diameter pipe, the 240 meters pressure on the pipe is not extraordinary. The original 9600 meters is close to the greatest depths of the sea. The Mariana Trench goes down over 11k if I recall correctly. > > ... Of course the tides and > currents mix the sea, so what you are actually doing > is very indirectly harnessing solar energy. > > {8-] If not for the tides and currents, the osmotic filter would eventually stop working. The salinity of the ocean at 9600 meters would increase to the point where 240 meters pressure differential would be insufficient to desalinate the water. spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Oct 2 23:10:58 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 16:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Xena and Gabrielle in Space In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051002152206.01d91e60@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051002231058.57191.qmail@web30310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > I love it! > > http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1177384 > > < Oct 2, 2005 ? By Deborah Zabarenko > > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Xena, the possible 10th planet in our solar > system, has its own moon, a dim little satellite called Gabrielle, its > discoverers reported. > But does it have a blonde complexion? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 2 23:11:09 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 16:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <200510012317.j91NHJX23978@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051002231109.93604.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > The osmotic pressure of ocean water to fresh > water is about 2.4 MPa. If we put an osmotic > membrane across the end of a pipe and shove > the empty pipe down into the ocean when the > pipe reaches a depth of about 240 meters > fresh water will start colleting on the > inside of the pipe. We can put a pump down > there and pump up fresh water. Nothing > tricky here. The energy to lift the water > 240 m is exactly the same energy that would > be required to push the sea water through > a membrane at ground level. > > Now suppose we keep pushing the pipe down to > 290 m. The pressure across the membrane will > remain at about 2.4 MPa and this means that > the fresh water level inside the pipe will > rise about 50 m, so that the water surface > inside the pipe will remain at about 240 m. > > We keep pushing the pipe further and further > down, the fresh water column gets longer and > longer, but the top of the fresh water column > remains at about 240 m below sea level. > > No, that is too simple. Fresh water is slightly > less dense than sea water, so to keep the 2.4MPa > pressure differential across the bottom of the > pipe the fresh water column needs to rise faster > than the pipe sinks. Fresh water has a density > of 1000 kg/m^3 while ocean waters is about > 1025 kg/m^3. If the membrane end of the pipe > is down 1000m the freshwater column will be 785 m, > so the fresh water will rise to within 215 m of the > surface (25m higher than -240m). > > If we keep pushing the pipe down to 9600 the > fresh water will come up to sea level. If we > push the pipe below 9600 me fresh water will > spew out of the top of the pipe above sea > level. We could then hook up a water wheel and > have a perpetual motion machine. Now we know > something is seriously wrong, but what? This is an interesting idea, Spike. I at first thought it couldn't possibly be right but when I did the calculation myself, it turned out to be essentially correct. Using your figure for the osmotic pressure, I get a result of the break even depth for the pipe to be 9800 meters. Anything below that is a fresh water fountain that should go above the pipe. I think the error is caused by you getting the sign of the osmotic pressure wrong since that will give a constant term of -245 meters for the fresh water but at increasing depths it gets overcome by the factor 1.025. This is evident in your header as well since what you are doing is technically REVERSE osmosis as the osmotic pressure is actually being overcome by the difference in hydrostatic pressure between salt and fresh water caused by the higher density of salt water. This should theoretically work as Mike is correct in that there is a real potential energy difference being exploited here. There are some ways that reality might throw a monkey wrench into the plans however. There is probably a salinity gradient in the ocean with the saltiest water being deeper down. I ignored this in my calculation, but it could make the osmotic constant larger. There is certainly a temperature gradient as Mike pointed out but since the temperature gets lower the further down one goes, this might actually counteract the salinity gradient if there is one. Any ways, well done, Spike. That is a GREAT idea. Even if it is just a dribble instead of a gushing fountain you may have figured out a way to desalinate ocean water, essentially for free. Considering that nothing says the pipe has to be straight once it reaches the surface, you might have invented the giant bendy straw that could cause the Sahara to bloom. This would be a blessing for desert countries like Libya and might make wars over freshwater (like Israel versus its neighbors over the Golan Heights) obsolete. I am going to figure out if there is a way to test this at a scale that will fit on a lab bench or at least in swimming pool. Kudos, man. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon Oct 3 00:05:08 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 17:05:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Stalking survey Message-ID: <434075B4.4050809@mindspring.com> 23 September 2005 University Of Leicester Study Reveals Diversity And Impact Of Stalking Study supported by the Network for Surviving Stalking (NSS) The world's most comprehensive stalking survey carried out by Dr Lorraine Sheridan of the University of Leicester reveals the devastating impact of stalking in the UK and USA. Unfortunately, victims are not the sole casualties. Results unveiled today (Friday September 23) reveal that virtually all victims of stalking suffer severe emotional and physical effects, and that financial losses have ranged between ?20 to ?4 million. And the study carried out in the University of Leicester's School of Psychology reveals that anyone - not just celebrities - can become the victim of a stalker. Dr Sheridan said: "The work carried out at the University of Leicester over the last seven years has told us that normal people, not celebrities, are the vast majority of stalking victims." "We also know that anyone can become the victim of a stalker, and that individual stalkers will have very different motives." "This study has examined for the first time the far-reaching effects that stalking has, not only on its victims, but also on numerous third parties. Stalking is a major issue that touches millions of lives but people have so many misconceptions about it." The study found: * The youngest victim of stalking in the survey was aged 10 - the oldest aged 71 * Half of all victims were told by friends and family that they were 'over reacting' or 'being paranoid' * Abuse of pets is one of many methods employed by stalkers * The average number of people directly affected in a stalking case was 21. Such persons included: the victim's children, the victim's partner's parents, strangers, the victim's neighbours, and the victim's work contacts Dr Lorraine Sheridan is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Leicester, and a Chartered Forensic Psychologist. She has been researching stalking behaviour since 1996, and her research has taken an applied, interventionist angle. She has published widely in the area, including more than 20 academic papers and an edited book. Dr Sheridan frequently gives presentations and training to professionals involved in investigating stalking related crimes, and also compiles reports related to potential stalking offenders, highlighting the risks posed by known or unknown suspects. More info: http://www.le.ac.uk/pc/lph1/lph1.html Network for Surviving Stalking (NSS) is a Berkshire based charity founded by Tracey Morgan who endured years of harassment at the hands of a former work colleague. NSS provides help, support and information for those affected by stalking and harassment. In 1997, largely as a result of Tracey's persistence in pursuing a new stalking law, the Government introduced the anti-stalking Protection from Harassment Act (PHA). For more information about stalking and advice log onto: www.nss.org.uk Reference URL http://www.le.ac.uk/press/stalkingsurvey.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 mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 00:13:30 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:13:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <200510022147.j92LlIX14623@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051003001331.76011.qmail@web30309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > > Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 11:18 AM > > To: ExI chat list > > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis > > > > One other thing: You still need to preserve the 240m pressure > > differential at the filter, you know, even when the pipe is full of > > fresh water, which creates its own pressure... > > > Ja. My calcs show that if you have a 9600 meter pipe > hanging vertically in the sea with a filter on the > bottom end and the pipe filled with fresh water, the > pressure across the filter will be about 240 meters > of water and the fresh water will reach up to the > surface of the sea. > > Then by that reasoning, if the pipe end is deeper > than 9600 meters, then fresh water would be raised > higher than sea level. Free fresh water, or free > energy. A great way to fill Death Valley, the Rift Valley, and the Caspian with fresh water free of charge. One issue, though: the depth of the ocean. The average depth is only 3,720 meters. The Marianas Trench, though, is 11,033 meters in depth, so this technology could be used to provide fresh water and power to that region. Hawaii, for example, is only about 6,000 meters above the sea floor. The deepest point in the Atlantic, the Puerto Rico Trench, is only 8648 meters or so. > > Mike your earlier comment made me realize this > doesn't violate any cosmic principles. You > are dropping less dense fresh water at the surface > of the sea, whereas the depths become more saline > and thus denser. In doing so, you slightly lower > the center of gravity of the ocean, thus extracting > a bit of potential energy. Of course the tides and > currents mix the sea, so what you are actually doing > is very indirectly harnessing solar energy. There is more fun you can have than just that. You can extract energy directly from the salinity and temperature differences, ionically. The thermocline is generally about 50 meters deep, while the halocline is typically about 100 meters, with salinity increasing slowly with depth beyond that point. Solar heated thermocouples can not only generate energy from the differential from the depths, but can heat the column of fresh water, which will decrease its density even further, which will increase the height that it can reach (you need to figure the temperature changes to fresh water density to adjust your numbers). Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 00:28:14 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:28:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <4340638E.5000504@cox.net> Message-ID: <20051003002815.80165.qmail@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > > To look at it another way: create a closed system consisting > of an outer pips full of saline water and an inner pipe full of fresh > water, connected via an osmotic membrane at the bottom. start the > pipes > bot full to the the same level. The saline water level will decrease > while the fresh water level will increase, If you then let the > freshwater > from the top of the pipe fall into the outer pipe through a turbine, > you will extract energy, but the fresh water will float on top of the > salt water and the system will eventually stop. In some sense you are > extracting the gravitational potential of the weight of the salt as > it sinks to the bottom of the salt water side. This is a very good point, and one that provides a possible mitigation technology wrt the alleged problems with the ocean conveyor system blamed on global warming. Building such pipe systems in the arctic and antarctic, even to produce fresh water that needs some pumping, will increase the deep arctic salinity and help contribute to restarting or accelerating the conveyor. As the Arctic deep high saline water sinks, it flows out of the arctic and down to the atlantic and pacific ocean bottoms. This process would do double duty if the produced fresh water were piped across Canada, Europe, and Siberia to be consumed by people, agriculture, and industry, in river systems that drained to the south: Gulf of Mexico, Mediterranean, South China Sea, etc. which would decrease surface salinity at the equator. Particularly with the Gulf of Mexico, its surface temp and salinity are major contributors to hurricane landfall intensity, giving an extra boost to storms that make it into the Gulf. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 00:34:39 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <20051002231109.93604.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051003003440.74938.qmail@web30310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> One other factor one should calculate in: capillary action should reduce the 9800 m depth required, particularly if your pipe is a whole lot of tiny pipes so as to maximize the amount of water contact with wall surface (which is normally a problem with hydropower systems, you want to minimize wall surface area, but not in this instance as we are trying to create a potential difference, not exploit it, yet) --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- spike wrote: > > > The osmotic pressure of ocean water to fresh > > water is about 2.4 MPa. If we put an osmotic > > membrane across the end of a pipe and shove > > the empty pipe down into the ocean when the > > pipe reaches a depth of about 240 meters > > fresh water will start colleting on the > > inside of the pipe. We can put a pump down > > there and pump up fresh water. Nothing > > tricky here. The energy to lift the water > > 240 m is exactly the same energy that would > > be required to push the sea water through > > a membrane at ground level. > > > > Now suppose we keep pushing the pipe down to > > 290 m. The pressure across the membrane will > > remain at about 2.4 MPa and this means that > > the fresh water level inside the pipe will > > rise about 50 m, so that the water surface > > inside the pipe will remain at about 240 m. > > > > We keep pushing the pipe further and further > > down, the fresh water column gets longer and > > longer, but the top of the fresh water column > > remains at about 240 m below sea level. > > > > No, that is too simple. Fresh water is slightly > > less dense than sea water, so to keep the 2.4MPa > > pressure differential across the bottom of the > > pipe the fresh water column needs to rise faster > > than the pipe sinks. Fresh water has a density > > of 1000 kg/m^3 while ocean waters is about > > 1025 kg/m^3. If the membrane end of the pipe > > is down 1000m the freshwater column will be 785 m, > > so the fresh water will rise to within 215 m of the > > surface (25m higher than -240m). > > > > If we keep pushing the pipe down to 9600 the > > fresh water will come up to sea level. If we > > push the pipe below 9600 me fresh water will > > spew out of the top of the pipe above sea > > level. We could then hook up a water wheel and > > have a perpetual motion machine. Now we know > > something is seriously wrong, but what? > > This is an interesting idea, Spike. I at first thought > it couldn't possibly be right but when I did the > calculation myself, it turned out to be essentially > correct. Using your figure for the osmotic pressure, I > get a result of the break even depth for the pipe to > be 9800 meters. Anything below that is a fresh water > fountain that should go above the pipe. I think the > error is caused by you getting the sign of the osmotic > pressure wrong since that will give a constant term of > -245 meters for the fresh water but at increasing > depths it gets overcome by the factor 1.025. This is > evident in your header as well since what you are > doing is technically REVERSE osmosis as the osmotic > pressure is actually being overcome by the difference > in hydrostatic pressure between salt and fresh water > caused by the higher density of salt water. > > This should theoretically work as Mike is correct in > that there is a real potential energy difference being > exploited here. There are some ways that reality might > throw a monkey wrench into the plans however. There is > probably a salinity gradient in the ocean with the > saltiest water being deeper down. I ignored this in my > calculation, but it could make the osmotic constant > larger. There is certainly a temperature gradient as > Mike pointed out but since the temperature gets lower > the further down one goes, this might actually > counteract the salinity gradient if there is one. > > Any ways, well done, Spike. That is a GREAT idea. Even > if it is just a dribble instead of a gushing fountain > you may have figured out a way to desalinate ocean > water, essentially for free. Considering that nothing > says the pipe has to be straight once it reaches the > surface, you might have invented the giant bendy straw > that could cause the Sahara to bloom. This would be a > blessing for desert countries like Libya and might > make wars over freshwater (like Israel versus its > neighbors over the Golan Heights) obsolete. > > I am going to figure out if there is a way to test > this at a scale that will fit on a lab bench or at > least in swimming pool. > > Kudos, man. > > > > The Avantguardian > is > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to > achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen > > "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly > all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > 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 Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 00:46:08 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dramatic Future Is Always 20-30 Years Away In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051003004608.95645.qmail@web30314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/30/05, Robin Hanson wrote: > > > > I've heard many times how dramatic forecasts for the future tend to > > be about 20-30 years away. That is, fusion break-even, space > > colonies, and household robots were consistently said to be that > far > > into the future, forecasts that remained about that far into even > > 20-30 years after the first such forecasts were made. I just today > > heard that for many7 decades economists like Samuelson forecasted > > that the Soviet Economy would overtake the US economy in about > 20-30 > > years. > > > > That timescale is usually sufficient to make any predictions pretty > much impossible, hence implausible ones get their shot at notoriety > along with the likely. In computer tech it's very rare you will see > serious speculation in the industry about where things will be in 10, > let alone 30, years. Depends on what part of the industry you are in. University researchers were dicking around with wearables before 1990, today we have the ipod, the nano, PDAs more powerful than 1996 desktops. Industry funded university research actually tends to take 10 years for the big things to reach the consumer level, primarily due to Moores Law economics. Industry futurists do predict product/market windows out to 10 years with Moore's Law, by estimating how much processing power/memory is needed for a certain application/product, what the market demand price points are for that product, and using Moore's Law to predict when it will be profitable to introduce that product into the market. However, if the 20-30 year Hanson rule holds true, and given that global warming proponents predict catastrophe in 100 years, I hereby predict that their predictions are 180 degrees out of whack (directionally, not thermally, or at least not so much, er, whatever, you know what I mean), and that this prediction will be confirmed in less than 20 years (therefore it is automatically more accurate). Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From nanogirl at halcyon.com Mon Oct 3 02:30:55 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 19:30:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis References: <20051002231109.93604.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00a201c5c7c2$9f650db0$0200a8c0@Nano> I just got an email saying I am not a member of this list anymore? Gina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Mon Oct 3 02:50:16 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 19:50:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Test References: <200510022147.j92LlIX14623@tick.javien.com> <4340638E.5000504@cox.net> Message-ID: <00c501c5c7c5$30b43b90$0200a8c0@Nano> test -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon Oct 3 03:13:39 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 20:13:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Michael Crichton, Novelist, Becomes Senate Witness Message-ID: <4340A1E3.8040309@mindspring.com> [To adapt, from a very different context, a phrase Bill Cosby used years ago, I hope Mr. Crichton enjoys treading water. JK] Michael Crichton, Novelist, Becomes Senate Witness By MICHAEL K. JANOFSKY WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 - His last book, "State of Fear," was published more than nine months ago, but the reviews were still pouring in on Wednesday, even as Michael Crichton folded his 6-foot-9-inch frame into a seat to testify before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. "More silly than scary," the flier dropped off by the Natural Resources Defense Council said. "Notable mainly for its nuttiness," an analysis from the Brookings Institution said. "Does not reflect scientific fact," the Union of Concerned Scientists said. For all his previous works as a writer (13 novels, 4 nonfiction books, numerous screenplays) and his prominent career in Hollywood as a writer, producer or director of 13 films and as the creator of the popular television series "ER," little has yanked Mr. Crichton so deeply into political controversy as "State of Fear," an environmental thriller that casts doubt on the widely held notion that human activities contribute to global warming. It has become a hugely divisive policy issue in recent years, gaining a new urgency, perhaps, by the recent hurricanes that slammed into the Gulf Coast. Many prominent scientists, no friends of Mr. Crichton, to be sure, believe that man-made greenhouse gases are causing the earth to warm and are urging lawmakers to pass new regulations that govern carbon dioxide emissions. But after considerable study of his own, leading to "State of Fear," Mr. Crichton has concluded that the science is mixed at best, and that lawmakers should take that into consideration when they decide what they might do about it. His is an unpopular and contrary stance when measured against the judgment of groups like the National Academy of Sciences. But it was not those organizations that asked Mr. Crichton to Washington to counsel Congress on how to consider diverse scientific opinion when making policy. It was the committee chairman, Senator James M. Inhofe, a plainspoken Oklahoma Republican who has unabashedly pronounced global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." In Mr. Crichton, a Harvard medical school graduate who never practiced medicine, he had found a kindred spirit - and a star witness for his committee. "I'm excited about this hearing," Mr. Inhofe said, nodding toward Mr. Crichton as the proceedings began. "I think I've read most of his books; I think I've read them all. I enjoyed most 'State of Fear' and made it required reading for this committee." Over the next two hours, Mr. Crichton and four other witnesses offered their thoughts, Mr. Crichton hewing to his firm belief that lawmakers should examine more closely "whether the methodology of climate science is sufficiently rigorous to yield a reliable result." He took notes. He raised his hand to make points. He responded to criticism evenly and never lost composure. But it seemed like a lot less fun than winning an Emmy, as he did for "ER," or a citation as one of the "50 Most Beautiful People," as People magazine ranked him in 1992. And all he could do was sit there quietly, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton scolded him for views that "muddy the issues around sound science" and Senator Barbara Boxer said, "I think we have to focus on facts, not fiction." In an interview later, Mr. Crichton said with a pained expression: "Comfortable with this? I'm very uncomfortable. Who wants this?" Several of his previous books led to national debates and criticism, he said, recalling "Rising Sun," a murder mystery that suggests that Japan is economically devouring the United States, and "Disclosure," which examines sexual harassment when a woman is the predator. Both became popular movies. "But this has been worse," he said of the aftermath of "State of Fear." Still, he retains enough of his scientific background to thrust himself into the debate, insisting that the environmental movement "did a fabulous job in the first 10 years, a pretty good job in the second 10 years and a lousy job in the last 10 years." As a result, he said, its influence on policy needs to be reined in, at least until alternative views are given equal airing and fair consideration by independent reviewers. Only then, he said, can policy makers make informed decisions. But he never figured that he would be offering lawmakers an opinion on how they should legislate. His years of writing have taken on a pattern, he said. Research. Write. Move on. "When I'm finished, I'm done," he said. Except when he's not, which is the case with "State of Fear." But that may not be true for his next book, which is almost complete. "It's extremely uncontroversial," he said, offering no details. And even though the global warming debate endures, it's not likely that "State of Fear" will, beyond the book. "No studio has optioned it," he said, insisting: "It'll never be made. It's way too red hot." http://select.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?tntget=2005/09/29/books/29cric.html&tntemail1=y&adxnnl=1&emc=tnt&adxnnlx=1127994087-RpEnvmI/FEFCuLGUYDlGcw -- "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 Mon Oct 3 04:13:23 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:13:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <20051002231109.93604.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200510030414.j934EjX14047@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 4:11 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis > ... > > Any ways, well done, Spike. That is a GREAT idea. Even > if it is just a dribble instead of a gushing fountain > you may have figured out a way to desalinate ocean > water, essentially for free... Thanks but it wasn't my idea, as much as I would love to take credit for it. A friend posed it as a brain teaser, but didn't know himself what was wrong with it. He assured me something must be wrong, since it is a perpetual motion machine. I realized today it is not perpetual: it would run down eventually. It is a verrry indirect way of harnessing solar energy. It needn't be a dribble either. The pipe can be made arbitrarily large. > Considering that nothing > says the pipe has to be straight once it reaches the > surface... It doesn't have to be straight *before* it reaches the surface either. It can go over mountains and valleys under the sea, just so long as the filter end is below 9800 feet and the other is at sea level. The Mariana Trench goes down to about 11000 meters, so theoretically fresh water could be pumped to about 35 meters above sea level. > you might have invented the giant bendy straw > that could cause the Sahara to bloom... > > The Avantguardian The Sahara or the Panamint Valley, also known as Death Valley. We have a nice *below sea level* place to dump the fresh water. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Oct 3 04:23:46 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:23:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <20051003001331.76011.qmail@web30309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200510030424.j934OvX14750@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 5:14 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis > > > > --- spike wrote: > ... > > > > Then by that reasoning, if the pipe end is deeper > > than 9600 meters, then fresh water would be raised > > higher than sea level. Free fresh water, or free > > energy. > > ... One issue, though: the depth of the ocean. > The average depth is only 3,720 meters... So using this scheme will get us fresh water that needs to be pumped about 160 meters, on average. > The Marianas Trench, though, is > 11,033 meters in depth... Which would get us to the surface plus about 35 meters. > ... The deepest point in the > Atlantic, the Puerto Rico Trench, is only 8648 meters or so. ... > > Mike Lorrey Which would get us to about 25 meters below the surface. It's easy to pump water that far. This is a fun puzzle to drop on the desk of your tech-minded buddies. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Oct 3 04:37:41 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:37:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <00a201c5c7c2$9f650db0$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <200510030439.j934d0X15845@tick.javien.com> Its one of those glitches caused by these durn newfangled computing devices. Please stand by, do not attempt to adjust your set. The older ones among us will perhaps recall the classic 1960s sci-fi show the Outer Limits. They always claimed to take control of your TV: "Do not attempt to adjust your set..." Back in those days there were a lot of actual controls on televisions, such as horizontal hold and vertical hold, all of them gone long ago. Just before Outer Limits came on, I messed up the horizontal hold just to see if they would fix it. They didn't. Some extraterrestrials, hell they can't even operate a television. When I was thinking of ExI cultural references that everyone here would get without a second of thought, but no one outside that culture would be able to get even with the help of Google, the very best example I thought of is The _ _ _ _girl News, by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. {8-] spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Gina Miller Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 7:31 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis I just got an email saying I am not a member of this list anymore? Gina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Mon Oct 3 04:43:26 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 14:43:26 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians Message-ID: <20051003044326.95340.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Addendum: with that post Marc, you have struck the moderated posters list. >spike Fair enough spike. I knew I probably would get moderated but unfortunately it had to be said. Cheers! >This type of posting does not add value to this list. If you or anyone can >enlighten otherwise, please do so. > >Natasha I apologize Natasha. My reputation as the official 'bad boy' of transhumanism is now cemented. I have my leather jacket, boots, pirate sign and an underground hide-away someone in the Australian out-back. I'm just itching to get my hands on loads of computing power and I'm crazy, I'm f***king crazy ;) Seriously though, I promise there??ll be no more bad posts from me on the Extropy list. I've taken my medicine. --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 09:32:39 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 10:32:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <200510030424.j934OvX14750@tick.javien.com> References: <20051003001331.76011.qmail@web30309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200510030424.j934OvX14750@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 10/3/05, spike wrote: > This is a fun puzzle to drop on the desk of > your tech-minded buddies. > This idea is so good that it has an entry in the Museum of Unworkable Devices Annex. The entry also refers back to an answer given in April, 1972 Scientific American. This idea was also discussed last year on: However, although the stand-alone idea doesn't work, similar systems with the addition of pumping mechanisms are already in use around the world. Some just using the cold water for cheap air-conditioning, etc. And some are producing remarkably cheap freshwater. As you might expect, this is a growth industry world-wide. Google on - energy deep seawater pipe reverse osmosis BillK From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 10:40:39 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 03:40:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051003104039.34136.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > On 10/3/05, spike wrote: > > This is a fun puzzle to drop on the desk of > > your tech-minded buddies. > > > > This idea is so good that it has an entry in the > Museum of Unworkable > Devices Annex. > > > The entry also refers back to an answer given in > April, 1972 > Scientific American. > > This idea was also discussed last year on: > > > > However, although the stand-alone idea doesn't work, > similar systems > with the addition of pumping mechanisms are already > in use around the > world. Some just using the cold water for cheap > air-conditioning, etc. > And some are producing remarkably cheap freshwater. > As you might > expect, this is a growth industry world-wide. > > Google on - energy deep seawater pipe reverse > osmosis Actually the first link you posted assumes that sea-water and fresh water have the same density which they don't, then they leave it as an excercise for the reader why it wouldn't work despite the differences in the density. The second link seems to have as many posts saying it will work as it does posts saying it won't. In a situation such as this, my instinct as an empiricist is to design an experiment to figure out if it will work or not. This reminds me of all those scientists that said that it was physically impossible for a redwood to get water from its roots to its leaves 200 ft up with the known laws of physics, yet obviously it does. Until somebody figured out the concept of "transpiration pull", you had physicists outsmarted by trees. Any how I am getting a glimmer of a way to build a small model of this device to test the idea, I will have to do some digging and some thinking on it. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 11:57:00 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:57:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <20051003104039.34136.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051003104039.34136.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/3/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > outsmarted by trees. Any how I am getting a glimmer of > a way to build a small model of this device to test > the idea, I will have to do some digging and some > thinking on it. > Sat soln of calcium chloride or ammonium nitrate. Tube in a tube. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Oct 3 12:51:39 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (M.B. Baumeister) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <200510030439.j934d0X15845@tick.javien.com> References: <00a201c5c7c2$9f650db0$0200a8c0@Nano> <200510030439.j934d0X15845@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <43791.69.18.90.201.1128343899.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > > > The _ _ _ _girl News, by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. > > > Yes! That one I got! :) And I didn't have to watch TV or listen to AM radio to know it. :) Regards, MB From doc454 at prodigy.net Mon Oct 3 14:02:49 2005 From: doc454 at prodigy.net (Doc454) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 10:02:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Xena and Gabrielle in Space References: <20051002231058.57191.qmail@web30310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001101c5c823$2415b4a0$d49afea9@pedicordbswuu9> Wow! A lesbian fantasy in space. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Lorrey" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Xena and Gabrielle in Space > > > --- Damien Broderick wrote: > >> I love it! >> >> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1177384 >> >> < Oct 2, 2005 ? By Deborah Zabarenko >> >> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Xena, the possible 10th planet in our solar >> system, has its own moon, a dim little satellite called Gabrielle, > its >> discoverers reported. > > > But does it have a blonde complexion? > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Oct 3 14:33:59 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 07:33:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510031436.j93EaAX10339@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 2:33 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis > > On 10/3/05, spike wrote: > > This is a fun puzzle to drop on the desk of > > your tech-minded buddies. > > > > This idea is so good that it has an entry in the Museum of Unworkable > Devices Annex. > > > The entry also refers back to an answer given in April, 1972 > Scientific American... > > BillK His "left as an exercise for the reader..." comment made me laugh. He didn't know why it wouldn't work, only that it wouldn't work. {8=] spike From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Oct 3 16:42:54 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:42:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Microsats launching References: <20051001032810.53417.qmail@web30314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <013801c5c839$815c2d40$0100a8c0@kevin> I would like to see that price come down to $1000. When you were working your numbers did you happen to estimate how many would need to be produced to get them to this price? Imagine being able to buy your own microsat on ebay through paypal. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Lorrey" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 10:28 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Microsats launching > Some might recall the thread a month or two ago that David Lubkin and I > commented on about putting up small mass produced satellites or probes. > Well, it seems to be starting with CubeSats, 1 kg, 4"x4" satellites > packed with electronics. The first 14 are going to be launched aboard a > Dneiper launcher soon. > > http://space.com/businesstechnology/technology/050928_cubesats.html > > http://littonlab.atl.calpoly.edu/ > The Cubesat home page. > > As I'd predicted, the bottom end price for these things is about $10k > and the launch cost on a Russian booster is running about $40k. > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 3 18:07:51 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:07:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sigh!... fi Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051003130614.01d8f1e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.locusmag.com/2005/Features/10_Westfahl_Serenity.html Review of Serenity, by Gary Westfahl From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 3 18:48:00 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 20:48:00 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Microsats launching In-Reply-To: <013801c5c839$815c2d40$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <20051001032810.53417.qmail@web30314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <013801c5c839$815c2d40$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20051003184800.GI2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 11:42:54AM -0500, kevinfreels.com wrote: > I would like to see that price come down to $1000. When you were working http://www.futron.com/pdf/futronlaunchcostwp.pdf it is going to be one damn small nanosat. > your numbers did you happen to estimate how many would need to be produced > to get them to this price? Imagine being able to buy your own microsat on > ebay through paypal. Imagine... a Beowulf cluster of these. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hal at finney.org Mon Oct 3 18:57:13 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis Message-ID: <20051003185713.B2BC257EF9@finney.org> That's a good puzzle, it stumped me. Looking at the discussion from the second link BillK provided, , I now think I understand it. If we think of a column of salt solution in equilibrium, there are two opposing tendencies. One is for the salt molecules to sink to the bottom, because they are heavier than water. The other is for all the molecules to have uniform concentrations, due to diffusion. The interaction of these two tendencies produces a concentration gradient. The solution becomes more concentrated as we go deeper. In equilibrium, this concentration gradient is stable and there is no tendency for it to change. Apparently this does happen in the ocean. Although the top few hundred meters are reasonably well mixed due to wind and wave action (ultimately the effects of solar energy) beyond that depth we find a salinity gradient, with deep waters being more salty than near the surface. This is a problem for Spike's invention, because the necessary pressure differential for reverse osmosis will increase as the water becomes saltier. Therefore as he sinks his pipe lower, the increased saltiness of the ocean will cause a greater pressure difference across the membrane, which will reduce the pressure needed on the fresh water side of the membrane. As a result, his fresh water column will not grow as high as hoped. If the oceans are close to salinity equilibrium at depth, then the fountain will not work. However, if solar energy does provide enough mixing in the deep ocean to reduce salinity levels significantly below equilibrium, then the fountain could work, and by raising fresh water to the surface would increase the salinity gradient and move it closer to equilibrium. In that case, as Spike notes, it acts indirectly as a heat engine based on solar energy. However the comments in the link above suggest that the deep ocean is near to salinity equilibrium, so my guess is that it will not work. Hal From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 19:00:50 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Microsats launching In-Reply-To: <013801c5c839$815c2d40$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20051003190050.23145.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > I would like to see that price come down to $1000. When you were > working > your numbers did you happen to estimate how many would need to be > produced > to get them to this price? Imagine being able to buy your own > microsat on ebay through paypal. The sats are using a lot of off-the-shelf components from short wave radios, PDA devices, flash memory, even using tape measures as deployable UHF/VHF monopole antennae. One innovative Norwegian entry uses a similar boom with a 40 gram lead weight on the end as a mini-tether to tidally lock the satellite in the proper orientation for best antenna performance. I've been thinking up a interplanetary probe design which could probably be mass produced and would use a pulse-detonation ion propulsion concept I have, to maximize the minimal solar power available. This would be an awesome design for landing on asteroids, small moons, and comets for prospecting purposes. The major price items on this design would be getting the ion propulsion and tiny reaction wheels into production. At this level, though, the major cost isn't the spacecraft, its the launch costs. You not only have to pay for the mass of your spacecraft, but of the P-Pod deployment devices that Cal Poly uses to deploy these one at a time. You really need to build your own payload shroud with an integrated deployment system for mass numbers of probes. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Lorrey" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 10:28 PM > Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Microsats launching > > > > Some might recall the thread a month or two ago that David Lubkin > and I > > commented on about putting up small mass produced satellites or > probes. > > Well, it seems to be starting with CubeSats, 1 kg, 4"x4" satellites > > packed with electronics. The first 14 are going to be launched > aboard a > > Dneiper launcher soon. > > > > http://space.com/businesstechnology/technology/050928_cubesats.html > > > > http://littonlab.atl.calpoly.edu/ > > The Cubesat home page. > > > > As I'd predicted, the bottom end price for these things is about > $10k > > and the launch cost on a Russian booster is running about $40k. > > > > Mike Lorrey > > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > > Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > > http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > > Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > > 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 Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 19:07:05 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Microsats launching In-Reply-To: <20051003184800.GI2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20051003190705.17815.qmail@web30309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 11:42:54AM -0500, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > > I would like to see that price come down to $1000. When you were > working > > http://www.futron.com/pdf/futronlaunchcostwp.pdf > > it is going to be one damn small nanosat. I'm wondering if the price per kg quoted on the Russian Shtil launcher is a typo. $465/kg is right in the price range we want. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 19:08:41 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <20051003185713.B2BC257EF9@finney.org> Message-ID: <20051003190841.36955.qmail@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> True, but the salt concentrations over the entire water column only increase by a few tenths of a percent. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Mon Oct 3 19:10:36 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:10:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sigh!... fi In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051003130614.01d8f1e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: I think it's more an example of bad testing rather than bad technology. It's not wise for a government/corporation to test their new wonder drug on an entire colony population. That's why we have monkeys and stuff for testing. Of course, the characters didn't see that. They just saw it as another sign of government trying to control the lives on individuals. BAL >From: Damien Broderick >To: "'ExI chat list'" >Subject: [extropy-chat] Sigh!... fi >Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:07:51 -0500 > > >http://www.locusmag.com/2005/Features/10_Westfahl_Serenity.html > >Review of Serenity, by Gary Westfahl > >employed ? specifically, knowledge that might be used to "improve" the >nature of humanity. The problem with the evil Alliance, Mal explains, is >that they think "they can make people better," and Mal disagrees: "I don't >hold to that. I aim to misbehave." Of course, when the only evidence on >hand of efforts to improve humanity is a drug that turns some people into >inert statues and others into crazed cannibals, the film's deck is pretty >much stacked against human-transforming technology, and one might also >protest that "making people better" could be said to include putting them >in spaceships and giving them terraformed worlds to live on, which nobody >in the crew of Serenity seems to object to. But after all, science fiction >films that overtly or covertly oppose scientific advancement are hardly a >novelty and, in fact, include in their numbers many of the genre's most >cherished masterpieces. To underline his point, Whedon names one important >world Miranda to recall William Shakespeare's The Tempest, the story of a >powerful magician who ultimately resolves to stop using his amazing powers, >which is exactly what the film argues the Alliance should do. > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Oct 3 19:48:45 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:48:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanists' Needs Message-ID: <380-220051013194845732@M2W055.mail2web.com> Friends, I am developing an enterprise model for transhumanism. In doing so, I have a question that I?d like you to think about and let me know your thoughts. Transhumanism, like every enterprise, has a mission. That mission is to realize a transhumanist future by providing a service or product to its customers (that?s us!). we are the advocates, patron, benefactor, investor, consumer, sponsor, or clients. Being of use to us is the fundamental reason for the transhumanism?s existence. We, as its advocates, have needs. Identifying our needs is crucial for the further development and success of transhumanism. Sounds simple, but it is not as easy as it seems. What do you, as the client/patron/benefactor/investor of transhumanism need? (Be careful not to confuse needs with a product or service.) For example, I need a long, healthy, life. I look forward to hearing from you, Best, Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Oct 3 19:49:34 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:49:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanists' Needs Message-ID: <380-220051013194934422@M2W091.mail2web.com> Friends, I am developing an enterprise model for transhumanism. In doing so, I have a question that I?d like you to think about and let me know your thoughts. Transhumanism, like every enterprise, has a mission. That mission is to realize a transhumanist future by providing a service or product to its customers (that?s us!). we are the advocates, patron, benefactor, investor, consumer, sponsor, or clients. Being of use to us is the fundamental reason for the transhumanism?s existence. We, as its advocates, have needs. Identifying our needs is crucial for the further development and success of transhumanism. Sounds simple, but it is not as easy as it seems. What do you, as the client/patron/benefactor/investor of transhumanism need? (Be careful not to confuse needs with a product or service.) For example, I need a long, healthy, life. I look forward to hearing from you, Best, Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon Oct 3 19:50:27 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:50:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Prosperity is just around the corner... Message-ID: <43418B83.9060102@mindspring.com> Forwarding from another list... Terry On 10/3/05, Dave Palmer wrote: > Kurzweil is another one of those smart but comically naive thinkers like > Stephen Wolfram who seemingly have no clue about the real world. There's been a graph circulating of Kurzweil's "trend towards the Singularity". It features a log-log graph of with a straight line through major events in human history converging on a few years in the future. One axis was "time between major events" and the other "time before present, with the events starting with "Life", then "Eukaryotic cells, multicellular organisms". Kevin Drum extends the graph here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blogphotos/Blog_Kurzweil.gif and comments on the book at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_09/007172.php -- James H.G. Redekop -- "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 dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 20:07:05 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 21:07:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanists' Needs In-Reply-To: <380-220051013194845732@M2W055.mail2web.com> References: <380-220051013194845732@M2W055.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 10/3/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > Friends, > > I am developing an enterprise model for transhumanism. In doing so, I have > a question that I'd like you to think about and let me know your thoughts. > > Transhumanism, like every enterprise, has a mission. That mission is to > realize a transhumanist future by providing a service or product to its > customers (that's us!). we are the advocates, patron, benefactor, > investor, consumer, sponsor, or clients. Being of use to us is the > fundamental reason for the transhumanism's existence. > > We, as its advocates, have needs. Identifying our needs is crucial for the > further development and success of transhumanism. Sounds simple, but it is > not as easy as it seems. > > What do you, as the client/patron/benefactor/investor of transhumanism > need? > > (Be careful not to confuse needs with a product or service.) > > For example, I need a long, healthy, life. > > Well, the most fundamental need is to stay alive until the effects of old age can be rolled back. Not sure if its already been done, but what would be useful for me is a list of supplements and an ongoing evaluation of their effectiveness. Maybe ExI could go into the supplements business by providing recommended ranges? By this I do not simply mean supplying x,y,z etc but of providing, in one hit, a 'mixed range' that may vary in content as info gets updated. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 22:32:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:32:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Prosperity is just around the corner... In-Reply-To: <43418B83.9060102@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20051003223228.68488.qmail@web30302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The error of Drums custom chart is he is plotting it as if the Singularity is happening now. If he instead plotted the log chart so that it went to 0.1 at the time of the Singularity, it would be more valid (i.e. the last proper point in Kurzweil's chart should show the present day as 20 years before the "now" of the chart). --- "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > Forwarding from another list... > > Terry > > On 10/3/05, Dave Palmer wrote: > > Kurzweil is another one of those smart but comically naive thinkers > like > > Stephen Wolfram who seemingly have no clue about the real world. > > There's been a graph circulating of Kurzweil's "trend towards the > Singularity". It features a log-log graph of with a straight line > through major events in human history converging on a few years in > the > future. One axis was "time between major events" and the other "time > before present, with the events starting with "Life", then > "Eukaryotic > cells, multicellular organisms". > > Kevin Drum extends the graph here: > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blogphotos/Blog_Kurzweil.gif > and comments on the book at > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_09/007172.php > > -- > James H.G. Redekop > > > > -- > "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.] > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 22:59:10 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Microsats launching In-Reply-To: <20051003190705.17815.qmail@web30309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051003225910.93301.qmail@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 11:42:54AM -0500, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > > > > I would like to see that price come down to $1000. When you were > > working > > > > http://www.futron.com/pdf/futronlaunchcostwp.pdf > > > > it is going to be one damn small nanosat. > > I'm wondering if the price per kg quoted on the Russian Shtil > launcher is a typo. $465/kg is right in the price range we want. The important thing with these cubesats is that for the now, we want to come up with ideas for cube sats that could produce product that would be salable. For example, a Japanese group put up one with a camera that snaps pictures every time the tumbling satellite rotates the earth into the cameras view, thus classifying as an "earth observation satellite". What sort of data collection could be done in low earth orbit which could be priced to pay for the satellite, plus operating costs and profit, that is of sufficient value for this sort of investment and is either ignored by the big sat operators, or undercuts them? Weather observation, obviously, is one such possibility. As these are typically launched into polar orbits, they cover the entire earth once a day. Putting up 24 of these would allow every part of the earth to be filmed once an hour, while networking them all to transfer each others photos to one ground station would also allow for hourly updates. They would function together as a form of "indian running" with each cubesat taking a turn as the image server as it passes over the downlink ground station. Assuming per kg launch costs of $3,000, and putting up 2-4 extra satellites for spares, and assuming a max sat cost for equipment and assembly of no more than $10k each, you could have your own weather observation constellation in orbit for $338k-364k, maximum. That is cheap. Figuring annual operating costs (capital, labor, broadcasting, etc) of less than $1 million (expecting ROI of one year), you'd be profitable the second year, easy, if not within six months. Now you just need a way to maximize the value of your images. Would nude weathergirls interpreting your images do it? or MIT meteorologists? (are there people who are both?). Whatever. The fact is that with proven cubesats in orbit, the potential of space as a small business opportunity is now real. It isn't just for the big boys anymore. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From nanogirl at halcyon.com Mon Oct 3 23:16:19 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:16:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis References: <200510030439.j934d0X15845@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <03a501c5c870$8d92d5f0$0200a8c0@Nano> Too kind Spike. : ) ----- Original Message ----- From: spike To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 9:37 PM Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis Its one of those glitches caused by these durn newfangled computing devices. Please stand by, do not attempt to adjust your set. The older ones among us will perhaps recall the classic 1960s sci-fi show the Outer Limits. They always claimed to take control of your TV: "Do not attempt to adjust your set..." Back in those days there were a lot of actual controls on televisions, such as horizontal hold and vertical hold, all of them gone long ago. Just before Outer Limits came on, I messed up the horizontal hold just to see if they would fix it. They didn't. Some extraterrestrials, hell they can't even operate a television. When I was thinking of ExI cultural references that everyone here would get without a second of thought, but no one outside that culture would be able to get even with the help of Google, the very best example I thought of is The _ _ _ _girl News, by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. {8-] spike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Gina Miller Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 7:31 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis I just got an email saying I am not a member of this list anymore? Gina ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Oct 3 23:56:00 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:56:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sigh!... fi In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051003130614.01d8f1e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051003130614.01d8f1e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10510031656j138d7832r795c9cedb01b876e@mail.gmail.com> I saw the movie last night, and while I found it very entertaining, mainly due to its frequent comedy, my take-home thought was what a subtle and effective job it did of planting the anti-improvement meme. The message was pervasive, but would slip in under the conscious radar of most viewers. - Jef On 10/3/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > http://www.locusmag.com/2005/Features/10_Westfahl_Serenity.html > > Review of Serenity, by Gary Westfahl > > employed ? specifically, knowledge that might be used to "improve" the > nature of humanity. The problem with the evil Alliance, Mal explains, is > that they think "they can make people better," and Mal disagrees: "I don't > hold to that. I aim to misbehave." Of course, when the only evidence on > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 00:19:34 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] NANO: Congrats Nanogirl: Dermal display makes it to GMSV Message-ID: <20051004001935.37852.qmail@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> For those of you who do not receive it, at the end of each day's email digest of Good Morning Silicon Valley, John Paczkowski signs it with "Send 'x' to [john's email addy]", where x is some cool piece of techno hardware or geeky goofiness. Todays desired tech was Gina's dermal display website. So, Gina, you can add that site to your list of media mentions... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Oct 4 00:33:21 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:33:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051003191203.02f153d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Once again, I am asking that we put on our thinking caps. Time is running out and we need to reevaluate and analyze what we stand for behind the philosophy of Extropy. I have heard comments about Extropy Institute becoming too involved with transhumanism and too far away from the central philosophy of extropy. What we need to keep in mind is that the philosophy of extropy is the original philosophy of transhumanism. Certainly I understand many comments from varied perspectives that transhumanism has become watered down. Perhaps we can rectify this by bringing Extropy more strongly into the society of the future. As president of Extropy Institute, I have worked hard for quite some time to protect ExI from outlandish political positioning, bad press from early days of cult references, and being a small group of crazed futurists. We know that we were here early on -- before our ideas hit the mainstream. I have tried to keep ExI in that spiralling movement forward into the future in deference to ExI and its members. Thanks to highly-visual people like Ray Kurzweil, he has taken us along with him. But dealing with the many backhanded treatment of ExI and its members has been quite difficult. Instead of getting the support of early members, they turned on me because I wanted to realize a world-wide vision for our future, rather than a small clique. It has drained me, I must admit. What I want to do now, is to recapture EXTROPY for our future, both within transhumanism and outside of transhumanism. Our Vice President, Greg Burch, said recently that our vision is beyond transhumanism. I agreed. Our vision, the vision of Extropy is far and wide, and no cultural movement should or can limit its meaning. But that vision needs guidance and support. Repeating and reiterating my words, he also said that we need a new political viewpoint -- one that far outreaches what we have known in the past - on that is more futuristic for a society that will find its place in the future and help others along into that future. We have always been visionaries - we need to re-ignite our mental engines and put our heads together and let go off stigmas, the past, what was and find ourselves again as the brain-trust that we are. First we need to reestablish this email list as a solid, intelligent, creative and inspiring email list. No more fights. No more wasted bandwidth. I am expecting all list members to think about the quality of their posts before sending them to the list. Second, I am going to encourage top list posters to get back on the list - those that are reading the list but too busy with their own lives and businesses to post frequently. We need to hear from them! Third, I want to thank list posters who have been here for many, many years, who are our top posters - Damien, Eli, John Clark, Max, Hal (Mike when you are not on a soapbox), Sam, Amara, Gina - and the rest of you - you know who you are. You give this list quality and a reason for subscribing. Fourth, we may reinvent this list within the next week - or create something else to tie into the list that will encourage high quality posting about the future technologies, problematic issues in the world stifling the future as we want to see it realized, and how support extropy. More later - Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue Oct 4 00:36:28 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:36:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Image EandMe References: <20051003225910.93301.qmail@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <03b201c5c87b$abf267d0$0200a8c0@Nano> Here you go, "E And Me" - (I know the lighting doesn't completely match, problem was if I shaded properly you couldn't see the extra element, this wasn't a pro job anyways, it was just for fun). Oops, what I meant was, I remember this day fondly : ) Amway,..... http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/eandme.htm Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue Oct 4 00:49:31 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:49:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] NANO: Congrats Nanogirl: Dermal display makes it toGMSV References: <20051004001935.37852.qmail@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <03f001c5c87d$849c9a50$0200a8c0@Nano> Thank you so much for letting me know! Can you forward me a copy? Thanks, Gina~ ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Lorrey To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 5:19 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] NANO: Congrats Nanogirl: Dermal display makes it toGMSV For those of you who do not receive it, at the end of each day's email digest of Good Morning Silicon Valley, John Paczkowski signs it with "Send 'x' to [john's email addy]", where x is some cool piece of techno hardware or geeky goofiness. Todays desired tech was Gina's dermal display website. So, Gina, you can add that site to your list of media mentions... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 03:50:27 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 20:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <20051003185713.B2BC257EF9@finney.org> Message-ID: <20051004035027.94871.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > This is a problem for Spike's invention, because the > necessary > pressure differential for reverse osmosis will > increase as the water > becomes saltier. Therefore as he sinks his pipe > lower, the increased > saltiness of the ocean will cause a greater pressure > difference across > the membrane, which will reduce the pressure needed > on the fresh water > side of the membrane. As a result, his fresh water > column will not grow > as high as hoped. Yes, but the osmostic pressure is directly proportional to the temperature. That is to say that the osmotic pressure increases with salinity and decreases with temperature. So what's important is whether, as one decends down into the abyss, it gets saltier faster or slower than it gets colder. It is a race between the slainity gradient and the temperature gradient essentially and they are equally important in this regard since their product multiplied by a constant (the ideal gas constant) is the osmotic pressure that must be overcome for the device to work. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 4 04:38:54 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 21:38:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <20051003185713.B2BC257EF9@finney.org> Message-ID: <200510040441.j944f1X27731@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" ... > > This is a problem for Spike's invention, because the necessary > pressure differential for reverse osmosis will increase as the water > becomes saltier. Therefore as he sinks his pipe lower, the increased > saltiness of the ocean will cause a greater pressure difference across > the membrane, which will reduce the pressure needed on the fresh water > side of the membrane. As a result, his fresh water column will not grow > as high as hoped... Hal True, but check this: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/salinity_depth.html If this salinity profile is correct and it stays linear, then the salinity at 11km is about the same or less than on the surface. I do have my suspicions that all is not right with this graph however, for I see no reason why the salinity up top should be higher than at 500 meters. Anybody have any ideas? What we now need is for someone to find us a relationship between salinity and osmotic pressure required to deionize water. I have seen figures as low as 20 Mpa and as high as 50 to 60. Don't know which is right, but it would be easy enough to do an energy balance with Gibbs free energy of chlorine and sodium atoms in solution vs chlorine and sodium atoms in an ionic bond. But before I do that, I plant to google my lazy ass around and see if some credible-looking PhD candidate has already done that calculation. spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 05:16:15 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 22:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <200510040441.j944f1X27731@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051004051615.66880.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" > ... > > > > This is a problem for Spike's invention, because the necessary > > pressure differential for reverse osmosis will increase as the > water > > becomes saltier. Therefore as he sinks his pipe lower, the > increased > > saltiness of the ocean will cause a greater pressure difference > across > > the membrane, which will reduce the pressure needed on the fresh > water > > side of the membrane. As a result, his fresh water column will not > grow > > as high as hoped... Hal > > True, but check this: > > http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/salinity_depth.html > > If this salinity profile is correct and it stays linear, then > the salinity at 11km is about the same or less than on the > surface. I do have my suspicions that all is not right > with this graph however, for I see no reason why the > salinity up top should be higher than at 500 meters. > > Anybody have any ideas? Yeah, atmospheric evaporation. Salinity profiles are different for different areas of the oceans. Only the South Atlantic and the polar regions really have significantly less salinity at the surface than at depth, the rest have too much evaporation most of the time, but this circulates constantly and is dependent upon currents, etc. However, salinity generally doesn't drop below 3.2% or rise above 3.6% at any depth. Temperature, however, can be as high as 35 C at the surface and near freezing below a few hundred meters at the same location. Temp differentials of 15-35 C are common in the water column. As I mentioned earlier, if you heat your fresh water on the inside of the pipe, a few meters above the osmosis filter, you should reduce its density throughout the rest of the pipes water column even more, thus creating a greater pressure differential and pushing your water higher for a given depth. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 4 05:39:19 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 22:39:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <20051004051615.66880.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200510040541.j945fOX00876@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey ... > > As I mentioned earlier, if you heat your fresh water on the inside of > the pipe, a few meters above the osmosis filter, you should reduce its > density throughout the rest of the pipes water column even more, thus > creating a greater pressure differential and pushing your water higher > for a given depth. Mike Lorrey... Ja I saw that comment about heating, however water absorbs so much energy while raising its temperature so little. One calorie per gram degree C is an anomalously high specific heat, but water is such a bizarre substance anyway. Were it not so common, we would be constantly amazed at its weirdness. I admire this in a liquid. Heating water to lift it doesn't sound right to me. The really interesting question is whether the fresh water fountain would work, assuming we put aside ordinary engineering difficulties. It is intriguing that the engineering difficulties need not be put *too far* aside. Nothing we have proposed is very difficult from either a materials or a construction perspective. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Oct 4 05:52:34 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 22:52:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanists' Needs In-Reply-To: <380-220051013194845732@M2W055.mail2web.com> References: <380-220051013194845732@M2W055.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10510032252nf5cf507kf5c7dbf504cfb1ca@mail.gmail.com> While I have some difficulty with the use of the term "transhumanism" without being more specific as to its definition, I'll list some future benefits I would like to enjoy: Healthy lifespan extended indefinitely Artificial immune system capable of detecting, reporting and neutralizing most natural and artificial pathogens. Memory augmented with high capacity storage implants, storage and retrieval indexed by association with current attentional context together with past experience. Also providing specific reference item lookup via subvocalization linguistic user interface interface, and fulltime logging of (at least) visual and aural sensory stream. Full-time communication with the net via (at least) visual and aural virtual reality implants. Creativity augmentation utilizing the augmented memory and net access as sources of algorithmically selected and timed, diversely related sensory input. Framework of socially constructed collaborative filters identifying and notifying me of items of interest or utility on the net or within my local sensory field. Framework for collaborative project management in VR. Framework for collaborative decision-making on issues of public policy. These would go a long way toward getting me through the next thirty or so years. - Jef On 10/3/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > Friends, > > I am developing an enterprise model for transhumanism. In doing so, I have > a question that I'd like you to think about and let me know your thoughts. > > Transhumanism, like every enterprise, has a mission. That mission is to > realize a transhumanist future by providing a service or product to its > customers (that's us!). we are the advocates, patron, benefactor, > investor, consumer, sponsor, or clients. Being of use to us is the > fundamental reason for the transhumanism's existence. > > We, as its advocates, have needs. Identifying our needs is crucial for the > further development and success of transhumanism. Sounds simple, but it is > not as easy as it seems. > > What do you, as the client/patron/benefactor/investor of transhumanism > need? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 06:00:02 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 08:00:02 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanists' Needs In-Reply-To: <380-220051013194845732@M2W055.mail2web.com> References: <380-220051013194845732@M2W055.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520510032300g1aaabe67i9e26d6335be6d0a3@mail.gmail.com> But a long and healthy life is a product - service. The need is what has to be in place to enable offering a long and healthy life. So I think the basic needs are: - Strong basic and applied science. Of course this includes the necessary funding, be it from the public or private sector, or (more realistically) a combination of the two. - A cultural environment open to the future and to experimentation, the development/deployment of transhumanist technologies. - A suitable political environment with a pro-humen-enhancement (or at least not hostile) regulatory framework. G. On 10/3/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > Friends, > > I am developing an enterprise model for transhumanism. In doing so, I have > a question that I'd like you to think about and let me know your thoughts. > > Transhumanism, like every enterprise, has a mission. That mission is to > realize a transhumanist future by providing a service or product to its > customers (that's us!). we are the advocates, patron, benefactor, > investor, consumer, sponsor, or clients. Being of use to us is the > fundamental reason for the transhumanism's existence. > > We, as its advocates, have needs. Identifying our needs is crucial for the > further development and success of transhumanism. Sounds simple, but it is > not as easy as it seems. > > What do you, as the client/patron/benefactor/investor of transhumanism need? > > (Be careful not to confuse needs with a product or service.) > > For example, I need a long, healthy, life. > > I look forward to hearing from you, > > Best, > Natasha From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 06:59:08 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 08:59:08 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist panel in mainstream science policy conference in Madrid Message-ID: <470a3c520510032359g57afbb69pf8a43d8c554bdb64@mail.gmail.com> The article (in Spanish) quoted below describe a "transhumanist panel" in a high visibility mainstream technology and science policy conference that will take place in Madrid later this week. My translation of the panel's opening text: "Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno (NBIC) Horizons: The future society enabled by the technologies foreseen for this century, all related to NBIC, will be the focus of this round table. Thinking on the economy, business, and the potential social changes which may take place, is the main objective of the talks and the expected debate. In particular we will examine transhumanism, always in a specific and pragmatic sense related to the benefits and threats that the great technology convergence of the 21th Century can present for humanity." I will have the honor to chair this panel with Nick Bostrom, Adolfo Castilla, Jos? Cordeiro, James Hughes and Philippe van Nedervelde. One of the main objectives is a "gentle introduction" to transhumanist future thinking for the Spanish and European administrations, technology and science policy communities. Tendencias Cient?ficas: M?s de 500 expertos se re?nen esta semana en Madridpara debatir el estado de la tecnolog?a en Europa y proponer soluciones al d?ficit tecnol?gico europeo, que seg?n sus promotores resta autonom?a a la Uni?n Europea en los asuntos mundiales. El congresoconcluir? con la formulaci?n de una serie de propuestas y recomendaciones que ser?n elevadas a los gobiernos de la Uni?n Europea. Estas conclusiones versar?n sobre la necesidad de articular una nueva base tecnol?gica e industrial para la seguridad del viejo continente entendida en su sentido m?s amplio, ya que este concepto de la seguridad abarca no s?lo los aspectos militares propiamente dichos, sino tambi?n los desaf?os medioambientales, sanitarios y migratorios. La denominada Gran Convergencia Tecnol?gica del Siglo XXI ser? uno de los temas estelares, tanto de las sesiones magistrales como de las mesas redondas. La reflexi?n y el debate sobre la NBIC (Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno) ser? el objetivo principal de dos de las mesas redondas, que tratar?n de determinar si Europa est? bien posicionada en lo que puede constituir la base de las grandes revoluciones tecnol?gicas del presente siglo. Una segunda mesa denominada "Horizontes NBIC" analizar? la sociedad resultante de las revoluciones tecnol?gicas previstas para el presente siglo, todas relacionadas con las NBIC. Reflexiones sobre la econom?a, la empresa y los potenciales cambios sociales que se producir?n son los temas de las ponencias de esta mesa. El transhumanismo en particular ser? asimismo un tema a tratar, "siempre con un sentido pragm?tico y espec?fico relacionado con los beneficios y perjuicios que la gran convergencia tecnol?gica del siglo XXI puede suponer para la humanidad", seg?n el enunciado de la mesa. James Hughes , Director Ejecutivo del "Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies" y Profesor de Health Policyal Trinity College en Hartford Connecticut; Nick Bostrom, Director del "Future of Humanity Institute" de la Universidad de Oxford; Philippe van Nedervelde , Director Europeo del "Foresight Institute"; Adolfo Castilla Garrido, Doctor Ingeniero de ICAI, Catedr?tico de Econom?a Aplicada, y Jos? Cordeiro, Presidente de la "Sociedad Mundial del Futuro de Venezuela", son los ponentes de esta segunda mesa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From discwuzit at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 15:25:41 2005 From: discwuzit at yahoo.com (John B) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 08:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanists' Needs In-Reply-To: <200510040541.j945fgX00928@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051004152542.99896.qmail@web54506.mail.yahoo.com> Natasha - I'd suggest several needs, not just for Extropians or Transhumanists but rather for humans (and, possibly, later for sophonce/intelligences/minds, pick your favorite term) - Long, healthy life - Freedom to enjoy said life - Responsibility/accountability for your actions I strongly suspect that the last is the most important of the three. Personally, I am *NOT* interested and quite repelled by the idea of a long, healthy life brought about by, say, organ harvesting from other people, or slavery, or whatever. If you don't keep that in mind from the get-go, your goals are going to be attempted in what are to me horrific ways. Please don't take this as saying that ExI, or anyone on this list, has stated that they WOULD like such a life. Not my intent, and as far as I know no one has. Instead, think of it as a preemptive strike against future misunderstandings. -John B Message: 8 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:48:45 -0400 From: "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanists' Needs To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Cc: wta-talk at transhumanism.org Message-ID: <380-220051013194845732 at M2W055.mail2web.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Friends, I am developing an enterprise model for transhumanism. In doing so, I have a question that I?d like you to think about and let me know your thoughts. Transhumanism, like every enterprise, has a mission. That mission is to realize a transhumanist future by providing a service or product to its customers (that?s us!). we are the advocates, patron, benefactor, investor, consumer, sponsor, or clients. Being of use to us is the fundamental reason for the transhumanism?s existence. We, as its advocates, have needs. Identifying our needs is crucial for the further development and success of transhumanism. Sounds simple, but it is not as easy as it seems. What do you, as the client/patron/benefactor/investor of transhumanism need? (Be careful not to confuse needs with a product or service.) For example, I need a long, healthy, life. I look forward to hearing from you, Best, Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Oct 4 21:18:53 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 17:18:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] 22nd Century Electronics Message-ID: <380-220051024211853974@M2W063.mail2web.com> Does anyone have an idea of what electronic (manufacturing) might be in the next 100 years? Any and all ideas welcome. (This is for a potential client and your ideas will be credited to you.) Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 21:27:58 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:27:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID: Spychips hits the bookshelves -- and the bestseller lists! Message-ID: <20051004212759.23205.qmail@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thought everyone should give this a good read. --- Katherine Albrecht wrote: > Subject: Spychips hits the bookshelves -- and the bestseller lists! > From: Katherine Albrecht > To: newsletter > Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:35:50 -0400 > > Dear CASPIAN members, volunteers, and supporters, > > Great news: Now there's an easy way to tell the rest of the world > about the RFID threat! Our new book, "Spychips," officially hits > bookstores today. > > "Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your > Every Move with RFID" has exceeded our wildest expectations. > Unbelievably, the book has already shot to the top of the Amazon > bestseller lists, ranking in the top ten in nonfiction, and a > staggering #1 in Current Events and #1 in Freedom and Security. > > The book contains just the right combination of jaw-dropping scandal > and rock-solid credibility to fly off the shelves. It's also a > page-turning, riveting read that's already winning rave reviews from > the critics. No one who reads past the first few pages will be able > to put it down. > > If we can get this book into the hands of every person in America > (and around the world!) people will learn the ugly truth behind the > corporate spin and their eyes will be opened. The public conversation > on RFID will change dramatically. The pen is mightier than the sword > -- or the spychip, in this case -- and this book has the potential > to change the direction of our future. > > Please help us catapult "Spychips" to the top of the New York Times > Bestseller List this week where it cannot be ignored. > > Here's how we can do this together: > > 1. Buy a copy of the book as soon as possible for yourself. > Major bookstores and local independent booksellers around the > country should have copies of "Spychips" in stock. If you can't > find it locally, you can order it online from Amazon.com or > Barnes & Noble. If everyone on our mailing list buys just one > book in the next day or so, that alone could put it on the > brink of NYT Bestseller status. > > Here's the link to buy our book on Amazon.com: > http://tinyurl.com/8m22c > > 2. For dedicated members who are blessed with resources, we ask > that you buy at least one additional copy (or as many as you can > afford) to share with someone who needs to know this > information. "Spychips" would make a great Christmas or birthday > present for just about anyone. It's a fascinating read, and > we've added our usual style to make it fun and engaging. > (There's even a talking plant and a section featuring Elvis!) > > 3. Please tell your family, friends, neighbors, church members, > and co-workers about the book. Encourage them to buy one or more > copies this week. One supportive member has even bought several > extra copies to re-sell to the customers of his hardware store > at cost. It's a great conversation starter to have a stack of > books on the counter! > > 4. If you want your lawmakers to know you are concerned about > how RFID will impact our country, consider buying copies for > them, too. Please send a note along with your book to let > them know how much their constituents care. > > At CASPIAN, we have never asked our members (or anyone else) for > monetary contributions since our founding in 1999. Many of you have > asked how you might support us as we battle consumer surveillance > around the world, and we now have the answer: Please help us get the > word out to as many people as possible. Buy as many copies of > Spychips as you can afford, and distribute them far and wide. > > Following my signature, I'm pasting in an excerpt from the foreword > to the book written by bestselling author Bruce Sterling to whet your > appetite. > > Roll up your sleeves, it's time to tell the world what we know! > Thank you and God Bless, > > Katherine Albrecht > Founder and Director of CASPIAN > > P.S. In addition to great reviews, "Spychips" has already won the > prestigious Lysander Spooner Award for Advancing the Literature of > Liberty. And not only does "Spychips" contain crucial information > everyone should know about the surveillance agenda headed our way, > it's > also "extremely readable," according to the critics. Here's just one > taste of what people are saying: > > > "Brilliantly written, so scary and depressing I want to put it > down, so full of fascinating vignettes and facts that I can't put it down." Freedom activist and author Claire Wolfe > > ===================== > ================================ > ===================== > > Forward to "Spychips" > The Futurist Muckrakers by Bruce Sterling > > [Excerpt] > > Everybody has a role in the RFID industry, because, as this > remarkable book makes clear, we're not offered any choice about it. > If you've never heard of RFIDs or "spychips," it would be quite a > good idea to read this book pretty soon. It's very topical. > > If you have any direct role within the RFID industry, then you need > to read this book instantly. Hurry. Waste not another precious moment. > You won't like this book. Spychips will hurt your feelings. You will > blush, and itch, and sweat, and drum your heels, and perhaps tear > entire chapters out with squalls of rage, to see a work about your > industry which is so jaundiced, and uncharitable, and unflinchingly > suspicious, and which makes so much effective, highly damaging, > public fun at your > expense. So read it, and make all your co-workers read it. You will > learn a host of painful, valuable things in a hurry. For you, it may > not yet be too late.... > > This book is the most exciting book about RFID ever written. This is > the one RFID book that every RFID enthusiast must own. Not because the > book is enthusiastic about the new technology, but because it's full > of passionate, stinging contempt. It's like watching Big Brother come > home > and get a rolling pin broken over his head by Mrs. Big Brother, who > knows that, even though he thinks he's everybody's daddy, he's a > stalker, and a voyeur, and a crook, and a cheat, and drunk on his own > ego, and a handwashing, sniveling deadbeat who ought to be ashamed of > himself. > > In its own dainty, feminine, rapier-tongued way, this is a masterpiece > of technocriticism. The nascent RFID industry is not Big Brother. Not > yet, anyhow. Instead, it is a giant toddler whose supermarket diapers > are already richly soiled. Its sure got a mighty ton of dirty laundry > for a baby still that small, and in Katherine Albrecht and Liz > McIntyre, > the RFID industry has found a hardworking pair who'll willingly scrub > that laundry, name and number every stain, and then pin it out to > dry. > > These two unique individuals, the Lone Ranger and Tonto of the RFID > frontier, are the nightmare scenario for the computerized retail > superstore of tomorrow: because they're the computerized super female > consumer advocates of tomorrow. And boy have they ever got their > industry's number. They've got all two-to-the-96th-power digits of > it. > > To understand what species of book this is, let me offer a historical > analogy. Imagine yourself cruising along in the 1950s chemical > industry, > happily patenting and spreading potent toxins. Then this searching, > thoughtful female journalist, Rachel Carson, who doesn't even have a > chemistry degree, comes out of nowhere. A classic popular muckraker, > Ms. Carson points out to a shocked public that you're killing not just > the mosquitoes but all the pretty butterflies and birds. She writes > Silent > Spring, and it's so influential and damning, that even your own kids > decide you must be nuts. That's also what's happening here.... > > [W]e're seeing a violent collision of two models here: two loud, > flamboyant, irrepressible Internet activists, researching and > publicizing the secretive, business-confidential Internet of Things. > Anybody who can create that leak between the worlds is gonna get > justly > famous, and Katherine Albrecht (judging by Google and the hundreds of > journalists she has briefed), is already, by far, the most famous > RFID > expert in the whole wide world. She thinks RFID is an evil crock, but > she's sure got a lot to say about it -- all of it is fascinating, > some is gross and revolting, and practically all of it hilarious. > > This is the first, and maybe the loudest, popular book on a crucial > technology of our times. It's not the full or final story -- it's a > futurist book, in anticipation of the story -- but history will treat > this book kindly. > > [snip] > > ===================================================================== > > CASPIAN: Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering > Opposing supermarket "loyalty" cards and other retail surveillance > schemes since 1999 > > http://www.spychips.com/ > http://www.nocards.org/ > > You're welcome to duplicate and distribute this message to others who > may find it of interest. > > ===================================================================== > To subscribe or unsubscribe to the CASPIAN mailing list, click the > following link or copy and paste it into your browser: > http://www.nocards.org/cgi-bin/mojo/mojo.cgi > > If you have difficulty with the web-based interface, you may also > subscribe or unsubscribe via email by writing to: > admin at nocards.org > ===================================================================== > > > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 21:45:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] 22nd Century Electronics In-Reply-To: <380-220051024211853974@M2W063.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20051004214528.825.qmail@web30314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> a) printed at home b) grown in a vat c) compiled in a nanocompiler Electronics also likely won't be electronic. It will be either biological or mechanical, or a combination of the two. Think of the Cylons in Battlestar Galactica. Nanoscale rod logic, for example, as described in Diamond Age, would be compiled. The nanites used by the Drummers in the Diamond Age is another good example: small computer robots travelling around your blood stream, tapping into your neural system, doing I/O exchange with your own brain. Look at it this way: the average human has a 4 liter blood circulatory capacity, most of which is plasma. You can do without a liter of it without difficulty, particularly you can do without 500 cc of plasma without health impact. Platelets, as well, don't do much when they are not clotting up wounds. They are inert mass. How about a machine that replaces a platelet, can function as a platelet if need be (as well as actually repair structures actively), and can also monitor ones health, compute, store data needed by the brain, can network others in the body, and output data in digital format for external computers or a broader exonet. The human brain is typically 1000-1500 cc. Adding another 500 cc of memory, of computational logic, etc would be a huge boost for personal productivity. --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > > Does anyone have an idea of what electronic (manufacturing) might be > in the > next 100 years? > > Any and all ideas welcome. (This is for a potential client and your > ideas > will be credited to you.) > > Natasha > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 22:52:31 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:52:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 22nd Century Electronics In-Reply-To: <380-220051024211853974@M2W063.mail2web.com> References: <380-220051024211853974@M2W063.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 10/4/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > > Does anyone have an idea of what electronic (manufacturing) might be in > the > next 100 years? > > Any and all ideas welcome. (This is for a potential client and your ideas > will be credited to you.) > > Well, first off nobody can make reliable predictions beyond about 2020 for electronics. Apart from that, some things *must* happen if progress is to be maintained. The most crucial is to go to 3D, like the brain. At present only the top few microns of a wafer are used. Computation will also be massively distributed, unlike the von Neumann architecture which is the basis of the PC. It will also be massively redundant for two reasons. The first concerns the reliability of nanometre components since it is highly unlikely that every single processor amongst the trillions in a computer will all work perfectly. Second is that most likely quantum effects will be used as part of the processing tech (note that I'm not talking about quantum computers), hence they will produce statistical outputs that will have to be iterated repeatedly to get near 100% reliable answers. Electronics will also be grown, not manufactured in a conventional sense so it may be a pseudobiological process. A computer of 2105 might well look like glowing pond scum or mold that interfaces via optical processes. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 23:10:21 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 16:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051004231021.42020.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Sat soln of calcium chloride or ammonium nitrate. > Tube in a tube. Actually it isn't anywhere near that simple. Assuming that you have an ideal solution (low solute concentration and the particles don't interact with each other) Long derivation skipped, you get a pretty simple equation for the "break even" depth. That is the depth which you have to stick the "pipe" to cause the higher density (and therefore higher hydrostatic pressure) of the solution to overcome the osmotic pressure and "push" the pure solvent (in our case fresh water) up to the same level as the solution on the outside of the pipe. The equation is D=iRT/gM, where D is the "break even" depth, i is the number of ions in your solute molecule (for example for NaCl it would be 2, 1 sodium and 1 chloride), R is the gas constant, T is the temperature in Kelvins, g is the acceleration of gravity, and M is the molecular weight of the solute in kilograms/mole. Now one can see that this makes intuitive sense in that since we are relying on the solution to be more dense than the solvent to provide the "push", then the heavier the molecule employed, the higher the added density per molecule to the solution. So the trick is to get the heaviest possible molecule that will go into solution. I have run some calculations using some salts that I found data on and got the following results: Solute Ions/molecule MW(kg/mol) breakeven depth (m) NaCl 2 0.058443 8656.511875 CaCl2 3 0.110986 6837.518113 NH4NO3 2 0.0804 6292.444322 BaCl2 3 0.20827 3643.677847 PbAc2 3 0.325 2334.980878 sucrose 1 0.3423 738.9899555 Intestingly enough, in the derivation of the equation, the concentration of the solution "fell out" as it does not affect the "break even" depth, but instead acts a multiplier that will exaggerate any effects caused by being above or below the break-even depth. Also note that the break even depth of NaCl, is not the same figure as given earlier for the ocean (around 9800m) this is because the while the primary salt in the ocean is NaCl, it is not the only one as there is MgCl2 and other stuff as well, so the ocean is not a "pure ideal solution" of salt. So as you can see from the table, even the heaviest salt I could find, lead acetate, is still on the order of kilometers of depth. While sucrose, obviously not a salt, brings it down 738 meters which still won't fit in a lab and is not very practical. So at that point I decided to say screw trying to keep my solutions ideal, just go with the heaviest solute possible. That lead me to proteins, which are gigantic compared to most molecules yet still fairly soluble. So if looked into using the cheapest solution of protein I could think of which was milk. Milk has an average density of 1031 kilograms/cubic meter and an osmotic pressure of 700 kiloPascals. (Its amazing what you can find on Google.) So for milk we would only need a depth of 226.76 meters to break even. We are getting better here, but this is still impractical. So I started to look for data regarding osmotic pressures of individual proteins in purified form. Unfortunately, because protein solutions deviate very far from "ideal solutions", the osmotic pressure must be measured empirically. So far, I have only found one candidate where that was done. Bovine serum albumin in this article linked to here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TFB-3Y2FXCR-9&_user=4423&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1995&_alid=319909975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_cdi=5222&_sort=d&_st=4&_docanchor=&_acct=C000059605&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4423&md5=f113121eb5369c5cd0fdec71db534453 So to summarize, after reading the article, I was able to determine that the break-even depth of BSA at concentration of 120 grams/liter at a pH of 4.6 (the osmotic pressure of proteins change wth pH), was only 3.333 meters. A huge improvement and practical to do, but pretty useless in the end. Who cares if you can get fresh water dribbling out of the end of a pipe thrust into a long tube of BSA solution? It would be a novelty at best and an expensive one at that. Even if you could hook up a water wheel to it, the protein solution would get pretty nasty over time with mold and such. It may settle the debate about getting energy from thrusting a 6 mile long pipe down the marinas trench, but I will leave the actual building of the device to somebody with more time and money. So consider this to be now be in the public domain. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Oct 4 23:38:52 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 16:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID: Spychips hits the bookshelves -- and the bestseller lists! In-Reply-To: <20051004212759.23205.qmail@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051004233852.46669.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > Thought everyone should give this a good read. The promotional tactics make me far more suspicious of the book's contents than of the RFID industry. Not saying that there isn't a lot of hoodwinkery going on with RFIDs, but exaggerations are not useful - indeed, they often backfire if they do anything - in exposing this kind of thing. "Question Authority" also applies to the authority of the one who would get others to disbelieve the perceived authority. From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Oct 5 00:03:51 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 17:03:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sigh!... fi In-Reply-To: <22360fa10510031656j138d7832r795c9cedb01b876e@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051003130614.01d8f1e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <22360fa10510031656j138d7832r795c9cedb01b876e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051005000351.GA5962@ofb.net> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 04:56:00PM -0700, Jef Allbright wrote: > > I saw the movie last night, and while I found it very entertaining, > mainly due to its frequent comedy, my take-home thought was what a > subtle and effective job it did of planting the anti-improvement > meme. The message was pervasive, but would slip in under the > conscious radar of most viewers. I didn't pick up such a meme at all. A meme against forcibly making *other* people "better", yeah. Note the villain is the idealistic gummint. On the flip side River is an extraordinary partial success. Also a result of forcible (and painful) improvement, and flawed, but one which suggests potential. Of course, one is attempted moral improvement, and the other is enhanced abilities. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Oct 5 00:13:17 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 17:13:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) A skeptical look at green technology In-Reply-To: <433DFC08.4010809@mindspring.com> References: <433DFC08.4010809@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20051005001317.GB5962@ofb.net> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:01:28PM -0700, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > And finally, when cars are the polluters, the pollution is spread across > all the roads. When it's a power plant, though, all the junk is in one > place. Nature is very good at cleaning up when things are not too > concentrated, but it takes a lot longer when all the garbage is in one spot. On the flip side, a large stationary central source can afford better filters than a small mobile source. Modern cars may be pretty clean now for random pollutants, but CO2 sequestration would probably work better at the coal plant. And I could see cases where a concentrated dump would be preferable to having stuff spread out; one place to avoid, vs. having everywhere become a bit worse. Depends on the pollutant, but having all the DDT or mercury or lead in one place would probably be an improvement... heavy metals don't really clean up well. -xx- Damien X-) From hal at finney.org Wed Oct 5 00:20:37 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 17:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis Message-ID: <20051005002037.E628457EFB@finney.org> There are two different questions raised by this thought experiment. One sees the experiment as a paradox and asks whether it violates the laws of thermodynamics. The other asks whether it would work in practice in the oceans of Earth. I am mostly looking at the first question. An interesting variant on the experiment sheds light on that issue. Imagine that the entire pipe is made of a semipermeable osmotic membrane, instead of just the cover at the bottom. The whole pipe allows water molecules to pass through freely, while blocking salt. If we again assume an ocean at equilbrium, without surface heating, wind or wave action, it should be clear that once the pipe fills with fresh water to the initial depth, nothing more will happen. At each depth, fresh water moves between the pipe and the ocean, in equal amounts. There is no net inflow at some depths which is balanced by a net outflow at other depths. That would involve a constant circulation of water even though we are at equilibrium, which would violate the second law. In order for this to work, then, it is clear that the pressure difference across the pipe walls at each depth must be precisely what is necessary to match the salinity at that depth. When we go deeper by some amount, the pressure difference increases slightly due to the difference in density of fresh and salt water. At the same time, the salinity increases slightly as well, due to the fact that salt is heavier than water. These two effects will be precisely balanced so as to cancel each other out. Any imbalance would violate thermodynamic law. Since this is the condition which will obtain after we have inserted the pipe and allowed it to fill, and since the pipe is small compared with the ocean, clearly this condition will be met before we insert the pipe as well. In equilibrium (again sans solar influence) the ocean's salinity gradient will be such that the density of water molecules increases exactly as fast (with depth) as if the salt were not present at all. This surprising result is what comes from this thought experiment. It is amazing to me that the salt distribution, which is due to a balance between upward diffusion and the downward effects of gravity, will come out to exactly what is needed to produce this effect on the water density. Hal From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 00:55:44 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:25:44 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system Message-ID: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> Here's a simple sounding idea... I was thinking about the fact that people still get lost in wilderness areas, in a time when we've got satelites covering the globe, taking high(ish) resolution pictures of everywhere on the planet I think. That's crazy, don't you think? So how about this... set up a system for constantly analysing the most recent high res map information, looking for a big "SOS" anywhere in the world. Send any positive results along with GPS coordinates to relevant authorities. Then people who get lost could build such a thing out of logs or whatever they can find which contrasts with the background, and have a good chance of being located and rescued. There might be a better way to do this. But the idea is that the lost person needs to be able to signal to the satellites, requiring no special equipment. This wouldn't work at sea of course :-) -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From extropy at unreasonable.com Wed Oct 5 01:07:47 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 21:07:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID: Spychips hits the bookshelves -- and the bestseller lists! In-Reply-To: <20051004233852.46669.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051004212759.23205.qmail@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20051004233852.46669.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051004205941.077959b0@unreasonable.com> Adrian wrote: >The promotional tactics make me far more suspicious of the book's >contents than of the RFID industry. Not saying that there isn't a lot >of hoodwinkery going on with RFIDs, but exaggerations are not useful - >indeed, they often backfire if they do anything - in exposing this kind >of thing. "Question Authority" also applies to the authority of the >one who would get others to disbelieve the perceived authority. I found Bruce Sterling's trumpeting of the authors as successors to Rachel Carson ironic, given how many millions of third-world malaria deaths can be laid at her feet. I can't think of anyone else in US history who exceeds her in death-responsibility (# of deaths x % blame), although of course she's a piker by world standards. -- David Lubkin. From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Oct 5 02:59:17 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 19:59:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051005025917.GA31732@ofb.net> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 10:25:44AM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > So how about this... set up a system for constantly analysing the most > recent high res map information, looking for a big "SOS" anywhere in > the world. Send any positive results along with GPS coordinates to I only dip into the list these days, but this was well worth the dip. Nice idea. Hell on the lost in the wilderness stories, though. :) -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Oct 5 03:05:56 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 20:05:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rachel Carson In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051004205941.077959b0@unreasonable.com> References: <20051004212759.23205.qmail@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20051004233852.46669.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051004205941.077959b0@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20051005030556.GB31732@ofb.net> On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 09:07:47PM -0400, David Lubkin wrote: > Adrian wrote: > >but exaggerations are not useful - > >indeed, they often backfire if they do anything - in exposing this kind > I found Bruce Sterling's trumpeting of the authors as successors to > Rachel Carson ironic, given how many millions of third-world malaria > deaths can be laid at her feet. I can't think of anyone else in US I've seen this before, from a conservative enviro-skeptic sort. I challenged her. She said DDT was a miracle drug which mosquitoes didn't develop resistance to, unlike the modern replacements. Five minutes with Google found papers (CDC, I think) talking about the development of DDT resistance in the relevant mosquitos. Can you do better? They still use DDT in limited applications, but try to avoid mass spraying. And I fail to see how Rachel Carson writing accurately about what DDT was doing to birds translates into her being responsible for millions of deaths. Should she have suppressed the truth she found? Is it her fault people chose to value the existence of the bald eagle? -xx- Damien X-) From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 03:09:31 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 04:09:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <20051005025917.GA31732@ofb.net> References: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> <20051005025917.GA31732@ofb.net> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510042009g33b5e1ebo57dc52191c275e04@mail.gmail.com> On 10/5/05, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 10:25:44AM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > > > So how about this... set up a system for constantly analysing the most > > recent high res map information, looking for a big "SOS" anywhere in > > the world. Send any positive results along with GPS coordinates to > > I only dip into the list these days, but this was well worth the dip. Nice > idea. Hell on the lost in the wilderness stories, though. :) > Sadly, I'm pretty sure if you have the means to build a sign visible from orbit, you have more than sufficient means to reach civilization, so the lost in the wilderness stories stay. It's a clever idea, though! - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 03:31:46 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 20:31:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051005033146.57627.qmail@web30302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Emlyn wrote: > Here's a simple sounding idea... > > I was thinking about the fact that people still get lost in > wilderness > areas, in a time when we've got satelites covering the globe, taking > high(ish) resolution pictures of everywhere on the planet I think. > That's crazy, don't you think? The 3G phone technologies have built in gps, and even if they are out of cell range, their signals can be picked up by ELINT spysats. > > So how about this... set up a system for constantly analysing the > most > recent high res map information, looking for a big "SOS" anywhere in > the world. Send any positive results along with GPS coordinates to > relevant authorities. Then people who get lost could build such a > thing out of logs or whatever they can find which contrasts with the > background, and have a good chance of being located and rescued. I can forsee lots of resources wasted on pranks were such a system put in place. Criminal pranksterism, even. If I wanted to rob a bank in a rural town, I'd put out an SOS sign in the other side of town to reduce police resources. > > There might be a better way to do this. But the idea is that the lost > person needs to be able to signal to the satellites, requiring no > special equipment. How about we let people, who are so stupid as to go into the wild unprepared, win their Darwin awards as they deserve? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 5 03:31:29 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 20:31:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200510050333.j953XYX04338@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn ... > Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system > > Here's a simple sounding idea... > ... > > So how about this... set up a system for constantly analysing the most > recent high res map information, looking for a big "SOS" anywhere in > the world... > > This wouldn't work at sea of course :-) > > -- > Emlyn Ye of little faith Emlyn, but of much brains: your idea would work better at sea than on land. A boater would carry an inflatable SOS, that would double as an emergency float. It could easily store inside a liter-sized can with a CO2 cartridge to inflate quickly, no batteries necessary, long storage capability, durable, cheap, easily spotted from passing airliners and such. That is a good idea man! Now watch some yahoo run down to the patent office with the notion and make a fortune. spike {8-] From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 5 03:35:05 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 20:35:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID: Spychips hits the bookshelves -- andthe bestseller lists! In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051004205941.077959b0@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200510050337.j953bAX04731@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin ... > I found Bruce Sterling's trumpeting of the authors as successors to > Rachel Carson ironic, given how many millions of third-world malaria > deaths can be laid at her feet. I can't think of anyone else in US > history who exceeds her in death-responsibility (# of deaths x % > blame), although of course she's a piker by world standards. > > > -- David Lubkin. Ja, but think of how many mosquitoes lives were saved by Carson. There are more mosquitoes than humans on this planet. Last summer there were more mosquitoes in my tent than humans on this planet. They owe their little bloodsucking lives to Rachel Carson. spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 03:42:13 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 20:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rachel Carson In-Reply-To: <20051005030556.GB31732@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20051005034213.92231.qmail@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Sullivan wrote: > I've seen this before, from a conservative enviro-skeptic sort. I > challenged > her. She said DDT was a miracle drug which mosquitoes didn't develop > resistance to, unlike the modern replacements. Five minutes with > Google found > papers (CDC, I think) talking about the development of DDT resistance > in the relevant mosquitos. Can you do better? > > They still use DDT in limited applications, but try to avoid mass > spraying. > > And I fail to see how Rachel Carson writing accurately about what DDT > was doing to birds translates into her being responsible for millions > of deaths. > Should she have suppressed the truth she found? Is it her fault > people chose to value the existence of the bald eagle? Those who advocate for the bald eagle and the pelican do not state the facts, do not "inform" the public of all the facts. Most people, given the facts, tend to, when given an informed choice between a dead eagle and a dead person, say "tastes like chicken for dinner!" The fact is that environmental groups have, like their allergy to nuclear power, gone overboard in their opposition to all uses of DDT even where it could save millions of lives. Such advocates are not just pro-environment, they are anti-human. This all, however, has little to do with RFIDs. RFIDs are not a pernicious but natural deadly disease, they are a construction of man which will lead to tyranny and genocide of HUMANS, not animals. This may sound hyperbolic or histrionic to you at this point in time. There has never been a time when giving the government more information about its citizens has saved more human lives than could be saved by letting the citizens exercise their freedoms and their privacy. Giving the government (or corporations) more information about people has always led to less freedom, because information is power. Giving authorities control of information about people is also anti-human. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 03:46:46 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 20:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) A skeptical look at green technology In-Reply-To: <20051005001317.GB5962@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20051005034646.81077.qmail@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:01:28PM -0700, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > > > And finally, when cars are the polluters, the pollution is spread > across > > all the roads. When it's a power plant, though, all the junk is in > one > > place. Nature is very good at cleaning up when things are not too > > concentrated, but it takes a lot longer when all the garbage is in > one spot. > > On the flip side, a large stationary central source can afford better > filters > than a small mobile source. Modern cars may be pretty clean now for > random > pollutants, but CO2 sequestration would probably work better at the > coal > plant. > > And I could see cases where a concentrated dump would be preferable > to having > stuff spread out; one place to avoid, vs. having everywhere become a > bit > worse. Depends on the pollutant, but having all the DDT or mercury > or lead in > one place would probably be an improvement... heavy metals don't > really clean > up well. Who says they need to be cleaned up? Heavy metals are toxic at a required concentration. Concentration is the key word here. Spreading it out means unconcentrated. Incidentally, where do you think those heavy metals came from? Transmutation? They came from nature, and occur in nature. My state sits on massive natural arsenic deposits in the granite bedrock. It is dilute, spread out, unconcentrated. Toxic waste sites come from the EPA telling manufacturers to concentrate their wastes in 40 gallon barrels and sticking them somewhere together. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 5 03:49:32 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 20:49:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <20051005002037.E628457EFB@finney.org> Message-ID: <200510050351.j953paX06337@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis > > There are two different questions raised by this thought experiment. ... > ... Imagine that the entire pipe > is made of a semipermeable osmotic membrane, instead of just the cover > at the bottom. The whole pipe allows water molecules to pass through > freely, while blocking salt. > > If we again assume an ocean at equilbrium, without surface heating, wind > or wave action, it should be clear that once the pipe fills with fresh > water to the initial depth, nothing more will happen. At each depth, > fresh water moves between the pipe and the ocean, in equal amounts. > There is no net inflow at some depths which is balanced by a net outflow > at other depths. That would involve a constant circulation of water > even though we are at equilibrium, which would violate the second law... ... > Hal Hal I disagree. In your thought experiment, the pressure difference between the seawater outside the pipe and the fresh water inside is maximum at the bottom end and decreases linearly to zero at the surface. Water flows into the pipe below 9600 meters and out of the pipe everywhere above 9600. Fresh water flows upward thru the pipe. The process is driven by the energy released by falling salt: the depths are getting more salty and the upper layers less so. Assuming no mixing of currents and tides, the process continues until such time as equilibrium is established, with the surface of the fresh water 240 meters below the surface and the salinity increasing all the way down such that there is no flow in or out. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 5 04:04:05 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 21:04:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <200510050351.j953paX06337@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200510050406.j95469X07944@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > ...Water flows into the pipe below 9600 meters > and out of the pipe everywhere above 9600... > > spike OOPS I meant water flows in below 240 meters and out everywhere above. Same arguement still applies. spike From mfj.eav at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 04:06:47 2005 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 22:06:47 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] 22nd Century Electronics In-Reply-To: References: <380-220051024211853974@M2W063.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <61c8738e0510042106n1835f24fi21c41b762e828d1e@mail.gmail.com> > > > Think of Odo from Star Trek. The combining of structural components with biological structures in a self replicating and self repairing structure. Essentially the entire human body or what might appear to be a human body would be also a computational structure. The consciousness might be somewhat distributed and duplicated to backup information loss if injury happens. There might be one or more coordinating core structures to replace our present 2 hemispheres of brain. These computational organisms would be linked into a grid network by various wireless and contact methods. These will be our grandchildren. Human structures out of nostalgia, but like odo able to shift their shape and body appearance by a sheer computationally driven organomechanical reorganization, like a rubic's cube or 3D puzzle. Just my first thought... who knows....?? -- > LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc. > Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. > Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan > Plant-based Natural-health Bio-product Bio-pharmaceuticals > http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan > http://www.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com > megao at sasktel.net, arla_j at hotmail.com, mfj.eav at gmail.com > extropian.pharmer at gmail.com > > Extreme Life-Extension ..."The most dangerous idea on earth" > -Leon Kass , Bioethics Advisor to George Herbert Walker Bush, > June 2005 > > Radical Life-Extension Bioscience > + Total Information Awareness Globalized Info-science > = The 21st Century Paradigm ........ > Re-inventing the Human Condition with Quantum to Macro > Biomolecular-engineering > *"I will live each and every 50 years, one at a time, like the days of a > week".... Morris Johnson - June 2005* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 04:21:21 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 21:21:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Microsats launching In-Reply-To: <20051003225910.93301.qmail@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051003190705.17815.qmail@web30309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20051003225910.93301.qmail@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/3/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > What sort of data collection could be done in low earth orbit which > could be priced to pay for the satellite, plus operating costs and > profit, that is of sufficient value for this sort of investment and is > either ignored by the big sat operators, or undercuts them? Instead of data collection, what about directed data transmission? There may be various circumstances in which it would be useful to have a signal directly beamed to a particular location. Or, perhaps an adjustable reflector dish in orbit (unfolded origami-style) might be useful for various things... (bouncing signals?) Or, scale things up a somewhat, and perhaps one could even have a personal net-connected spy satellite. Building on the "Beowulf Cluster" joke, could it perhaps be feasible to have several specialized cubesats which network with each other using short-range low-power signals (no atmosphere to worry about)? For example, one could have cubesats specialized for receiving signals from earth, sending to earth, cameras, experiments, tugging other CubeSats around, and so forth. A side-benefit is that in order to expand capabilities, you would only need to send up a satellite specialized for that capability. -- Neil (who admittedly knows nothing about satellites) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Oct 5 04:22:33 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 21:22:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510042009g33b5e1ebo57dc52191c275e04@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> <20051005025917.GA31732@ofb.net> <8d71341e0510042009g33b5e1ebo57dc52191c275e04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051005042233.GA7920@ofb.net> > Sadly, I'm pretty sure if you have the means to build a sign visible > from orbit, you have more than sufficient means to reach civilization, > so the lost in the wilderness stories stay. It's a clever idea, Top spy satellites are said to have a resolution of 5-6 inches. There are probably stories about stranded people making Big Signs in hopes of some plane seeing them. Heck, Martha tried that in _Marooned in Realtime_, I think. -xx- Damien X-) From extropy at unreasonable.com Wed Oct 5 04:21:03 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:21:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rachel Carson In-Reply-To: <20051005030556.GB31732@ofb.net> References: <20051004212759.23205.qmail@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20051004233852.46669.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051004205941.077959b0@unreasonable.com> <20051005030556.GB31732@ofb.net> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051004234009.079efb10@unreasonable.com> Damien Sullivan wrote: >I've seen this before, from a conservative enviro-skeptic sort. I challenged >her. She said DDT was a miracle drug which mosquitoes didn't develop >resistance to, unlike the modern replacements. Five minutes with Google found >papers (CDC, I think) talking about the development of DDT resistance in the >relevant mosquitos. Can you do better? > >They still use DDT in limited applications, but try to avoid mass spraying. > >And I fail to see how Rachel Carson writing accurately about what DDT was >doing to birds translates into her being responsible for millions of deaths. >Should she have suppressed the truth she found? Is it her fault people chose >to value the existence of the bald eagle? http://www.malaria.org/news132.html [quoting Bruce Ames] http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm [citing studies] http://reason.com/rb/rb061202.shtml Words and actions have consequences, as do silence or inaction. Whatever one's motives, one bears responsibility not for what was intended but for what actually happened. I'm disgusted with the prevalence of excusing horrors and calamities on the grounds that they were prompted by good intentions. -- David Lubkin. From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 04:33:26 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:03:26 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <20051005042233.GA7920@ofb.net> References: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> <20051005025917.GA31732@ofb.net> <8d71341e0510042009g33b5e1ebo57dc52191c275e04@mail.gmail.com> <20051005042233.GA7920@ofb.net> Message-ID: <710b78fc0510042133q6d7aa4c3q@mail.gmail.com> On 05/10/05, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > Sadly, I'm pretty sure if you have the means to build a sign visible > > from orbit, you have more than sufficient means to reach civilization, > > so the lost in the wilderness stories stay. It's a clever idea, Have a look at the res on Google Earth. You could make an SOS big enough to be seen, I think. Hmm, except in the wilderness bits, they are not such high res. But surely there are satelites up there working at high enough resolution for this? > > Top spy satellites are said to have a resolution of 5-6 inches. There are > probably stories about stranded people making Big Signs in hopes of some plane > seeing them. > > Heck, Martha tried that in _Marooned in Realtime_, I think. > I'll have to go reread it. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 04:37:04 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:07:04 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <20051005033146.57627.qmail@web30302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> <20051005033146.57627.qmail@web30302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0510042137u1af2b457l@mail.gmail.com> On 05/10/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Emlyn wrote: > > > Here's a simple sounding idea... > > > > I was thinking about the fact that people still get lost in > > wilderness > > areas, in a time when we've got satelites covering the globe, taking > > high(ish) resolution pictures of everywhere on the planet I think. > > That's crazy, don't you think? > > The 3G phone technologies have built in gps, and even if they are out > of cell range, their signals can be picked up by ELINT spysats. If you have a 3G phone you are likely a high urban dweller who never leaves a city anyway :-) > > > > > So how about this... set up a system for constantly analysing the > > most > > recent high res map information, looking for a big "SOS" anywhere in > > the world. Send any positive results along with GPS coordinates to > > relevant authorities. Then people who get lost could build such a > > thing out of logs or whatever they can find which contrasts with the > > background, and have a good chance of being located and rescued. > > I can forsee lots of resources wasted on pranks were such a system put > in place. Criminal pranksterism, even. If I wanted to rob a bank in a > rural town, I'd put out an SOS sign in the other side of town to reduce > police resources. Maybe you could just set something on fire? Easier. > > > > > There might be a better way to do this. But the idea is that the lost > > person needs to be able to signal to the satellites, requiring no > > special equipment. > > How about we let people, who are so stupid as to go into the wild > unprepared, win their Darwin awards as they deserve? Even prepared people have problems sometimes. btw Mike, do you think the microsats could be used to set up "International Rescue" on a budget? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 04:41:25 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:11:25 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0510042141x73fd7fbap@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> <434349b2.37073f08.0fb7.fffff2e5SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.gmail.com> <710b78fc0510042141x73fd7fbap@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0510042141n4cf19fa8t@mail.gmail.com> On 05/10/05, spike wrote: > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn > ... > > Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system > > > > Here's a simple sounding idea... > > > ... > > > > So how about this... set up a system for constantly analysing the most > > recent high res map information, looking for a big "SOS" anywhere in > > the world... > > > > This wouldn't work at sea of course :-) > > > > -- > > Emlyn > > Ye of little faith Emlyn, but of much brains: your > idea would work better at sea than on land. A boater > would carry an inflatable SOS, that would double as > an emergency float. It could easily store inside > a liter-sized can with a CO2 cartridge to inflate > quickly, no batteries necessary, long storage > capability, durable, cheap, easily spotted from > passing airliners and such. Wouldn't some kind of alerting device (like a radio!) be more useful than the SOS in this situation? I guess it'd be a good backup though. > > That is a good idea man! Now watch some yahoo > run down to the patent office with the notion and > make a fortune. > > spike > > {8-] > > I'll git 'em if they try it, tha varmints. Actually, if this idea is new (vanishingly small probability), I hereby put it in the public domain. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From brian at posthuman.com Wed Oct 5 04:45:27 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 23:45:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0510042133q6d7aa4c3q@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> <20051005025917.GA31732@ofb.net> <8d71341e0510042009g33b5e1ebo57dc52191c275e04@mail.gmail.com> <20051005042233.GA7920@ofb.net> <710b78fc0510042133q6d7aa4c3q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43435A67.4040905@posthuman.com> Emlyn wrote: > > Have a look at the res on Google Earth. You could make an SOS big > enough to be seen, I think. Hmm, except in the wilderness bits, they > are not such high res. But surely there are satelites up there working > at high enough resolution for this? > Also, isn't the refresh rate of remote area satellite data extremely slow? Last time I looked it seemed some areas were using imagery that was years out of date. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 04:48:24 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:18:24 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Microsats launching In-Reply-To: <20051003225910.93301.qmail@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051003190705.17815.qmail@web30309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20051003225910.93301.qmail@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0510042148x56db4c51k@mail.gmail.com> On 04/10/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > The important thing with these cubesats is that for the now, we want to > come up with ideas for cube sats that could produce product that would > be salable. For example, a Japanese group put up one with a camera that > snaps pictures every time the tumbling satellite rotates the earth into > the cameras view, thus classifying as an "earth observation satellite". > > What sort of data collection could be done in low earth orbit which > could be priced to pay for the satellite, plus operating costs and > profit, that is of sufficient value for this sort of investment and is > either ignored by the big sat operators, or undercuts them? How about earth observation for spotting big SOS signals (as per the "Worldwide SOS system" thread)? Surely there is a way to get people, eg: governments, to pay for the service? They pay periodically, and alerts about SOSs in their territory get forwarded to the relevant government nominated contact. Surely a few major government contracts would pay for such an operation? Maybe you could also do custom image recognition and alerting for people. There might be all kinds of observable things that organisations want to be alerted about. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 5 05:00:32 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 22:00:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <200510050406.j95469X07944@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200510050502.j9552aX14707@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 9:04 PM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis > > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > > > ...Water flows into the pipe below 9600 meters > > and out of the pipe everywhere above 9600... > > > > spike > > OOPS I meant water flows in below 240 meters > and out everywhere above. Same arguement > still applies. > > spike Minor oops again, but at least I'm getting closer. In Hal's scenario of a semi-permeable pipe, water appears in the pipe when the bottom reaches about 240 meters. If lowered some distance below that, say another 100 meters, then there is fresh water 102.5 meters deep. In the bottom half of that 102.5 meters, water is coming in. In the top half of that 102.5 meters, water flows out. Water flows upward in the pipe, with maximum flow at the midpoint, and no in or out flow thru the membrane at that point. The process is driven by the energy of falling salt. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 5 05:09:33 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 22:09:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0510042141n4cf19fa8t@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200510050511.j955BbX15689@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Emlyn [mailto:emlynoregan at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 9:41 PM > To: spike ... > > Wouldn't some kind of alerting device (like a radio!) be more useful > than the SOS in this situation? I guess it'd be a good backup though... Sure. But radios require batteries that might be old and fail when needed most. And you need to be close to a receiver for a radio to do any good. Your invention could be kept in a sealed can indefinitely. > > > > > That is a good idea man! Now watch some yahoo > > run down to the patent office with the notion and > > make a fortune. > > > > spike > > > > {8-] > > > > > > I'll git 'em if they try it, tha varmints. Actually, if this idea is > new (vanishingly small probability), I hereby put it in the public > domain. > > -- > Emlyn You are a magnanimous person Emlyn. I do hope it saves lives someday. spike From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 05:12:52 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 06:12:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0510042133q6d7aa4c3q@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> <20051005025917.GA31732@ofb.net> <8d71341e0510042009g33b5e1ebo57dc52191c275e04@mail.gmail.com> <20051005042233.GA7920@ofb.net> <710b78fc0510042133q6d7aa4c3q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510042212q3f6082cck3bfcc625fb9ae72c@mail.gmail.com> On 10/5/05, Emlyn wrote: > > Have a look at the res on Google Earth. You could make an SOS big > enough to be seen, I think. If you have good health, spare time, some sort of tools and open ground, sure. But then if you have all those things, you should have no trouble reaching civilization under your own power. If you have trouble, it's presumably due to adverse circumstances such as a broken leg, hypothermia or being in a forest, any one of which would make it impractical to construct a large sign. Also remember that a random patch of land is photographed at high resolution only at very rare intervals. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 5 05:14:39 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 22:14:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <43435A67.4040905@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <200510050516.j955GlX16277@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brian Atkins ... > > Also, isn't the refresh rate of remote area satellite data extremely slow? > Last > time I looked it seemed some areas were using imagery that was years out > of date. > -- > Brian Atkins The privacy advocates certainly hope so. I was at a friend's wedding a few weeks ago. I showed him GoogleEarth as his bride looked over our shoulders. She said "Wayne, neither of us have a white car. Who is parked in our driveway?" {8^D We are living in a new world friends. Behave. spike From hal at finney.org Wed Oct 5 06:57:25 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis Message-ID: <20051005065725.E519957EF9@finney.org> Spike writes: > Hal I disagree. In your thought experiment, the pressure difference > between the seawater outside the pipe and the fresh water inside is > maximum at the bottom end and decreases linearly to zero at the surface. > Water flows into the pipe below 9600 meters and out of the pipe everywhere > above 9600. Fresh water flows upward thru the pipe. The process is > driven by the energy released by falling salt: the depths are getting > more salty and the upper layers less so. Assuming no mixing of currents > and tides, the process continues until such time as equilibrium is > established, with the surface of the fresh water 240 meters below the > surface and the salinity increasing all the way down such that there is > no flow in or out. [With some later corrections] Actually I agree substantially with this. The key is that last part, the reaching of the equilibrium. All of my analysis was with regard to the equlibrium state. I focused on this because some arguments may superficially suggest that the circulation can go on forever, violating the laws of thermodynamics. I was analyzing the nature of the equilibrium that will keep this from happening. The point is that, neglecting wind and wave action (and solar heating), the ocean is in equlibrium even before we put in the pipe. (I don't mean our ocean, which is of course subject to all kinds of disturbances, I mean a hypothetical ocean with the same salinity and temperature as ours but which has been left to rest for a few million years so it reaches its natural equlibrium.) That equlibrium before we insert the pipe must be the same as the one that is reached after the pipe has been there a while, because the presence of this one little pipe cannot change the equlibrium state for the whole ocean. Thus my conclusion that even before we add the pipe, an ocean in equilibrium must have a salinity profile which exactly matches the osmotic pressure difference between ocean water and a hypothetical column of fresh water starting 240 meters below the surface. When we add our permeable pipe to an ocean in equlibrium, once the pipe fills with fresh water to the 240 meter mark, there will be no net flow at any depth. Does that make sense? BTW I've been googling for a description of gravity induced concentration gradients, and the best I've found so far is this homework problem, . Problem 3 describes how the concentration gradient is created and shows its form, which is an exponential function. Hal From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 5 07:04:33 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:04:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) A skeptical look at green technology In-Reply-To: <20051005001317.GB5962@ofb.net> References: <433DFC08.4010809@mindspring.com> <20051005001317.GB5962@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20051005070433.GS2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 05:13:17PM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On the flip side, a large stationary central source can afford better filters > than a small mobile source. Modern cars may be pretty clean now for random > pollutants, but CO2 sequestration would probably work better at the coal > plant. I do not think sequestration works at all. Instead of focusing our energies on an expensive boondoggle, we should rather exploit alternative options. I.E., instead of a Carnot-limited coal plant, gasify/synfuel coal in situ, transport and use a local fuel cell for heat/electricify generation. This has a vastly better J/CO2 emitted ratio than any sequestration. > And I could see cases where a concentrated dump would be preferable to having > stuff spread out; one place to avoid, vs. having everywhere become a bit > worse. Depends on the pollutant, but having all the DDT or mercury or lead in > one place would probably be an improvement... heavy metals don't really clean > up well. Particulate filters and exhaust scrubbers work. Extracting CO2 from exhaust doesn't. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From amara at amara.com Wed Oct 5 08:21:37 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:21:37 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] An update to Stretching Comfort Zones Message-ID: Some years ago I wrote the attached text in the message: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 Subject: Stretching Comfort Zones Since I am now on the island (Molokai) on which the location of this story takes place, I asked the people here who know, "precisely where is this place that the Audrey Sutherland began and swam her journeys?" It is here: (seeing with my own eyes) http://www.amara.com/AudreysEntryBeach.jpg which is located on the following map at Halawa Valley at the far right on the map, where the road ends: http://www.bestofhawaii.com/maps/images/molokai.jpg She swam from Halawa along the north shore of Molokai which, it is said, holds the worlds tallest sea cliffs (true or not, it is very impressive to see them from the sea!) http://www.sportfishhawaii.com/nmolokai.htm --------------my attached text from 2000------------------------------ _Paddling my Own Canoe_ by Audrey Sutherland, Univ of Hi Press, 1978. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0824806999/ The book is about a woman (Sutherland) who first started making solo journeys to a particular inaccessible beach in Moloka'i in 1958. She is a strong woman who made her first attempts swimming from one side of the island (after being dropped there by plane), dragging her gear in waterproof containers that she also built, and then later she improvised by building small rafts/canoes. This part of Moloka'i was uninhabited and, because of terrain and enormous cliffs around, one could not reach the beach from inland. And the Moloka'i Channel is one of the most dangerous stretches of water in the Pacific Ocean, so that getting there by boat is/was non-trivial too. Each year she learned new things on how to accomplish this task, and became more knowledgeable and sophisticated in her sea-faring methods. Eventually she built a cabin for herself on that beach, bringing all of the materials patiently on each journey. I think that this book might be a good book for teenagers to read when they have times when they think that they cannot do anything. It might be particularly helpful to young girls. I liked the book because I think that she is an amazing woman, and it's inspirational for me, and the book descriptions remind me of my childhood (I grew up in Hawai'i in the 60s, and my family and I lived on boat for a year). Plus I especially liked her descriptions of solitude. It brings "home" to me why I like to go on long solo bike trips. I'll quote from the last part of the book- my favorite part. {begin quote} "And why did I always come alone to Moloka'i? I know why, but the telling is hard. Daily we are on trial, to do a job, to make a marriage good, to find depth, serenity, and meaning in a complex, deteriating world of politics, false values, and trivia. But rarely are we deeply challenged physically or alone. We rely on friends, on family, on a committee, on community agencies outside ourselves. To have actual survival, living or dying, depends on our own ingenuity, skill, or stamina- this is a core question we seldom face. We rarely find out if we like having only our own mind as company for days or weeks at a time. How many people have ever been total isolated, ten miles from the nearest other human, for even two days? Alone, you are more aware of surroundings, wary as an animal to danger, limp and relaxed when the sun, the brown earth, or the deep grass say, "Rest now." Alone you stand at night, alert, poised, hearing through ears and open mouth and fingertips. Alone, you do not worry whether someone else is tired or hungry or needing. You push yourself hard or quit for the day, reveling in the luxury of solitude. And being unconcerned with human needs, you become as a fish, a boulder, a tree- a part of the world around you. I stood once in midstream, balanced on a rock. A scarlet leaf fluttered, spiraled down. I watched it, became a wind-blown leaf, swayed, fell into the water with a giant human splash, then soddenly crawled out, laughing uproariously. The process of daily living is often intense and whimsical. The joy of it, and the compassion, we can share, but in pain we are ultimately alone. The only real antidote is inside. The only real security is not insurance or money or a job, not a house and furniture paid for, or a retirement fund, and never is it another person. It is the skill and humor and courage within, the ability to build your own fires and find your own peace. On a solo trip you may discover these, or try to build them, and life becomes simple and deeply satisfying. The confidence and strength remain and are brought back and applied to the rest of your life." {end quote} -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "It never hurts to be conservative where the galactic plane is involved." -- Chris Fassnacht From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 5 08:31:24 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:31:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Microsats launching In-Reply-To: References: <20051003190705.17815.qmail@web30309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20051003225910.93301.qmail@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051005083124.GB2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 09:21:21PM -0700, Neil H. wrote: > Building on the "Beowulf Cluster" joke, could it perhaps be feasible to have > several specialized cubesats which network with each other using short-range > low-power signals (no atmosphere to worry about)? For example, one could Flying a large constellation of mass-produced relatively-short lived standard satellites based on consumer technology in a quite low LEO is definitely a very smart idea. (The Beowulf joke was only partly tongue in cheek). There are multiple ways to make the design simpler, and cheaper. Freely tumbling satellites can use phased-array antennas for realtime beamforming (no need for a gyro, track things in software), or a local formation to synthesize a signal. The same technique can be used on ground to track sources of weak signals rapidly passing overhead. With UWB/pulse radio the satellite can maintain a high-accuracy synchronized clock, and serve as a high-precision positioning services (realtime cm..dm accuracy with cheap terrestrial receivers). Low-density constellation would route by mail-drop (exchange information during flyby), but with enough of them the coverage is global, and routing can become relativistic (cut-through using geographic position, and vacuum as FIFO). Adding more satellites will increase the bandwidth crossection and coverage. > have cubesats specialized for receiving signals from earth, sending to > earth, cameras, experiments, tugging other CubeSats around, and so forth. A > side-benefit is that in order to expand capabilities, you would only need to > send up a satellite specialized for that capability. Most of requirements are in signalling and remote sensing, here a standard platform which is software-driven makes absolute sense. The limit is low-power crunch in a small package, thanks to Moore this is guaranteed. COTS anecdotally (amateurs) seems to do fine in LEO, especially low LEO. We need more data points, though. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 5 08:38:50 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:38:50 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <43435A67.4040905@posthuman.com> References: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> <20051005025917.GA31732@ofb.net> <8d71341e0510042009g33b5e1ebo57dc52191c275e04@mail.gmail.com> <20051005042233.GA7920@ofb.net> <710b78fc0510042133q6d7aa4c3q@mail.gmail.com> <43435A67.4040905@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20051005083849.GD2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:45:27PM -0500, Brian Atkins wrote: > Also, isn't the refresh rate of remote area satellite data extremely slow? > Last time I looked it seemed some areas were using imagery that was years > out of date. Exactly. Radio technology is extremely mature nowadays, especially with software radios and global coveragey satellites. A mobile phone (with some foldable photovoltaics or a crank dynamo) could easily double as an emergency beakon. With a satellite phone with integrated GPS getting help is a no-brainer. Notice that vehicle tracking (by GRPS) can now be done for 40 EUR/month with a proprietary GPSoverIP protocol, with 300-400 EUR worth of hardware. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 08:50:49 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 18:20:49 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <20051005083849.GD2249@leitl.org> References: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> <20051005025917.GA31732@ofb.net> <8d71341e0510042009g33b5e1ebo57dc52191c275e04@mail.gmail.com> <20051005042233.GA7920@ofb.net> <710b78fc0510042133q6d7aa4c3q@mail.gmail.com> <43435A67.4040905@posthuman.com> <20051005083849.GD2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <710b78fc0510050150jc095ecay@mail.gmail.com> On 05/10/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:45:27PM -0500, Brian Atkins wrote: > > > Also, isn't the refresh rate of remote area satellite data extremely slow? > > Last time I looked it seemed some areas were using imagery that was years > > out of date. > > Exactly. > > Radio technology is extremely mature nowadays, especially > with software radios and global coveragey satellites. A mobile phone (with > some foldable photovoltaics or a crank dynamo) could easily > double as an emergency beakon. > > With a satellite phone with integrated GPS getting help is a no-brainer. > > Notice that vehicle tracking (by GRPS) can now be done for > 40 EUR/month with a proprietary GPSoverIP protocol, with > 300-400 EUR worth of hardware. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl Yes, well, but what if you are Lost? Tropical island, you know, like the show, with no equipment? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 5 09:31:38 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:31:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0510050150jc095ecay@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> <20051005025917.GA31732@ofb.net> <8d71341e0510042009g33b5e1ebo57dc52191c275e04@mail.gmail.com> <20051005042233.GA7920@ofb.net> <710b78fc0510042133q6d7aa4c3q@mail.gmail.com> <43435A67.4040905@posthuman.com> <20051005083849.GD2249@leitl.org> <710b78fc0510050150jc095ecay@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051005093138.GJ2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 06:20:49PM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > Yes, well, but what if you are Lost? Tropical island, you know, like > the show, with no equipment? No equipment is the Cast Away scenario. These are so rare to be negligible. The point is that a satellite phone with built-in GPS is a fundamentally cheap device, if just used to get help. A person's life is currently worth about a couple megabucks in old industrialized places. Plenty of satellite phone minutes there. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 5 09:48:43 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:48:43 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <200510050511.j955BbX15689@tick.javien.com> References: <710b78fc0510042141n4cf19fa8t@mail.gmail.com> <200510050511.j955BbX15689@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051005094843.GL2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 10:09:33PM -0700, spike wrote: > Sure. But radios require batteries that > might be old and fail when needed most. And No, radios don't need batteries. They need energy. There are sealed LED lights with build-in solenoid and permanent magnet which will shine for 15 min after a brief shaking. There are portable radios with hand cranks. There are amorphous photovoltaics battery chargers. A flexible PV foil rolled out and shined upon by the sun for 15 minutes will easily get you a GPS position fix and a few packets emergency transmission. > you need to be close to a receiver for a > radio to do any good. Your invention Only for very large values of close (like 5 billion miles). It is a piece of cake to reach a bird 200 km high passing overhead. I think there's a specific discipline for HAMs how far they can come with a given energy budget. Ditto WiFi shootouts. > could be kept in a sealed can indefinitely. How many of you have a working mobile phone right now? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Oct 5 09:58:23 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:58:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanists' Needs In-Reply-To: <470a3c520510032300g1aaabe67i9e26d6335be6d0a3@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220051013194845732@M2W055.mail2web.com> <470a3c520510032300g1aaabe67i9e26d6335be6d0a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9A56137A-CFFB-41D7-9ACF-BB35F9E9D07A@mac.com> On Oct 3, 2005, at 11:00 PM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > But a long and healthy life is a product - service. It is a need. Without it I don't get to enjoy much else or participate or enjoy any products or services. A product? Of whom? > The need is what has to be in place to enable offering a long and > healthy life. I disagree as per the above but I agree the need can be broken down into what is needed to satisfy it. But that doesn't make it less of a need. > So I think the basic needs are: > - Strong basic and applied science. Of course this includes the > necessary funding, be it from the public or private sector, or (more > realistically) a combination of the two. This departs far from needs into funding and politics. Doesn't a long and healthy life look a lot more like a simple need in comparison? > - A cultural environment open to the future and to experimentation, > the development/deployment of transhumanist technologies. Not strictly necessary as long as sufficient enclaves of relevant progress exist. > - A suitable political environment with a pro-humen-enhancement (or at > least not hostile) regulatory framework. > Or the means to ignore/bypass meddlesome regulations. I am not willing to wait for the entire body politic to turn around. How about you? - samantha From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 13:07:22 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 06:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <200510050502.j9552aX14707@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051005130722.90611.qmail@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > Minor oops again, but at least I'm getting closer. > > In Hal's scenario of a semi-permeable pipe, water > appears in the pipe when the bottom reaches about > 240 meters. If lowered some distance below that, > say another 100 meters, then there is fresh water > 102.5 meters deep. In the bottom half of that 102.5 > meters, water is coming in. In the top half of that > 102.5 meters, water flows out. Water flows upward > in the pipe, with maximum flow at the midpoint, and > no in or out flow thru the membrane at that point. > > The process is driven by the energy of falling > salt. Okay, so you don't need to raise the water above sea level to get work out, you put in a turbine at the 240m level. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 13:13:59 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 06:13:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0510050150jc095ecay@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051005131359.99458.qmail@web30311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Emlyn wrote: > On 05/10/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:45:27PM -0500, Brian Atkins wrote: > > > > > Also, isn't the refresh rate of remote area satellite data > extremely slow? > > > Last time I looked it seemed some areas were using imagery that > was years > > > out of date. > > > > Exactly. > > > > Radio technology is extremely mature nowadays, especially > > with software radios and global coveragey satellites. A mobile > phone (with > > some foldable photovoltaics or a crank dynamo) could easily > > double as an emergency beakon. > > > > With a satellite phone with integrated GPS getting help is a > no-brainer. > > > > Notice that vehicle tracking (by GRPS) can now be done for > > 40 EUR/month with a proprietary GPSoverIP protocol, with > > 300-400 EUR worth of hardware. > > > > Yes, well, but what if you are Lost? Tropical island, you know, like > the show, with no equipment? Oh, thats easy, first you need to find the hatch.... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 13:32:52 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 06:32:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fwd: Re: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system Message-ID: <20051005133252.89259.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Firs time this apparently didn't get through to the list. > --- Emlyn wrote: > > > > > > How about we let people, who are so stupid as to go into the wild > > > unprepared, win their Darwin awards as they deserve? > > > > Even prepared people have problems sometimes. > Sure, just not for things they are prepared for. > > > > > btw Mike, do you think the microsats could be used to set up > > "International Rescue" on a budget? > Well, if you are going to use the three meter SOS letters as your trick, you need cameras that will have a one half meter or better resolution from a 150-200 km altitude, automatically compensate for satellite velocity to eliminate blurr, and contains the ability to OCR six pixel tall letters from the noise of an image of natural topography. Lets say your CubeSpy is at 150 km and images 100 km-wide areas at a time. You've installed a 5.5 megapixel camera on your sat, so you've got approximately 2700 pixels by 2700 pixels to work with. A needed one half meter or better surface resolution means you can only image areas 1.35 km square at any given time to be able to spot your SOS signal. You would also need a 60x optical zoom lense to image such an area. A lense of that size is going to seriously eat into your mass budget, and likely cannot fit into the 100cm x 100cm x 100cm volume of a CubeSat using off-the-shelf components. You'll have to design a special Dobsonian telescope for this application, with motion compensating actuation features... Its also going to need some massive memory capacity, maybe a few hundred gig of flash ram at a minimum, with a shortwave transmission system to transmit repeatedly images that turn up with the SOS pattern, along with location information. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From alito at organicrobot.com Wed Oct 5 13:53:18 2005 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:53:18 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <20051005083849.GD2249@leitl.org> References: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> <20051005025917.GA31732@ofb.net> <8d71341e0510042009g33b5e1ebo57dc52191c275e04@mail.gmail.com> <20051005042233.GA7920@ofb.net> <710b78fc0510042133q6d7aa4c3q@mail.gmail.com> <43435A67.4040905@posthuman.com> <20051005083849.GD2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1128520398.6906.68.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 10:38 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Notice that vehicle tracking (by GRPS) can now be done for > 40 EUR/month with a proprietary GPSoverIP protocol, with > 300-400 EUR worth of hardware. > or a standard TCP socket connection with simple one line commands thrown over it and 5 euros per month. From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 5 14:21:22 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:21:22 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <1128520398.6906.68.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> <20051005025917.GA31732@ofb.net> <8d71341e0510042009g33b5e1ebo57dc52191c275e04@mail.gmail.com> <20051005042233.GA7920@ofb.net> <710b78fc0510042133q6d7aa4c3q@mail.gmail.com> <43435A67.4040905@posthuman.com> <20051005083849.GD2249@leitl.org> <1128520398.6906.68.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <20051005142122.GA2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 11:53:18PM +1000, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > or a standard TCP socket connection with simple one line commands thrown > over it and 5 euros per month. Not over GRPS, not in Germany. The 40 EUR/month are for 1 Hz update with a compressed protocol. Not just throwing a few binary NMEA sentences around, it's a bit more clever (differential position encoding). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From alito at organicrobot.com Wed Oct 5 14:55:29 2005 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:55:29 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <20051005142122.GA2249@leitl.org> References: <710b78fc0510041755i22d38c16i@mail.gmail.com> <20051005025917.GA31732@ofb.net> <8d71341e0510042009g33b5e1ebo57dc52191c275e04@mail.gmail.com> <20051005042233.GA7920@ofb.net> <710b78fc0510042133q6d7aa4c3q@mail.gmail.com> <43435A67.4040905@posthuman.com> <20051005083849.GD2249@leitl.org> <1128520398.6906.68.camel@alito.homeip.net> <20051005142122.GA2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1128524130.6906.76.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 16:21 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 11:53:18PM +1000, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > > > or a standard TCP socket connection with simple one line commands thrown > > over it and 5 euros per month. > > Not over GRPS, not in Germany. The 40 EUR/month are for > 1 Hz update with a compressed protocol. Not just throwing > a few binary NMEA sentences around, it's a bit more clever > (differential position encoding). > Different uses I suppose. Can't see what you would need updates every second for though. (thanks for mentioning NMEA, made me google, didn't even know it was a standard) From amara at amara.com Wed Oct 5 17:33:42 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:33:42 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system Message-ID: Emlyn: >Yes, well, but what if you are Lost? Tropical island, you know, like >the show, with no equipment? FWIW: my European/US mobile phone has no field on Molokai. I can tell you of a few more islands with spotty mobile connections too (most of the Eolian islands, and Sicily, for example). Interestingly, The western Greek islands seem to be well-covered. You might be surprised to know too, that 50 km from Rome, the mobile field works very badly, while in the countryside of the Baltic states, the signal is strong and clear. Amara From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Oct 5 18:18:26 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:18:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Doctrine of Preemption Message-ID: <434418F2.6090402@mindspring.com> [George F. Will: "There are those who say that neoconservatives---and most of my friends are neoconservatives, although I am not quite---have exported the impulse for social engineering that conservatives have so rightly criticized over the years at home. [...] The Soviet Union tried for 70 years to plant Marxism with bayonets in Eastern Europe. Today there are more Marxists on the Harvard faculty than there are in Eastern Europe."] < http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/ > < full article at URL above... > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Editor, Douglas A. Jeffrey; Deputy Editor, Timothy W. Caspar; Assistant to the Editor, Patricia A. DuBois. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Copyright ? 2005. Permission to reprint in whole or part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: "Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu ." Subcription free upon request. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- "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.] -- "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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 387 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 5 18:30:22 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:30:22 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051005183022.GT2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 07:33:42PM +0200, Amara Graps wrote: > FWIW: my European/US mobile phone has no field on Molokai. I can tell > you of a few more islands with spotty mobile connections too (most of > the Eolian islands, and Sicily, for example). Interestingly, The western > Greek islands seem to be well-covered. There's lots of holes, especially with 3G (which is all holes, basically). > You might be surprised to know too, that 50 km from Rome, the mobile > field works very badly, while in the countryside of the Baltic > states, the signal is strong and clear. If we look at http://www.outfittersatellite.com/thuraya.htm or http://www.outfittersatellite.com/iridium.htm then some of them already have GPS built-in (if they don't, a simple Bluetooth GPS module can be queried by a phone application), and have solar rechargers as accessoires. Of course, one shouldn't rely on just technology, but have back up and fallback plans to low-technology (navigation and ability to survive in the wild). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 18:47:32 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:47:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051005184732.80721.qmail@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > Emlyn: > >Yes, well, but what if you are Lost? Tropical island, you know, like > >the show, with no equipment? > > FWIW: my European/US mobile phone has no field on Molokai. I can tell > you of a few more islands with spotty mobile connections too (most of > the Eolian islands, and Sicily, for example). Interestingly, The > western > Greek islands seem to be well-covered. > > You might be surprised to know too, that 50 km from Rome, the mobile > field works very badly, while in the countryside of the Baltic > states, the signal is strong and clear. True, but an ELINT satellite should be able to pick up a 911 call ring broadcast from your cellphone, even if you are not in a cell range and the call doesn't go through. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 5 22:59:36 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:59:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] a surprising quote Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051005175827.0381e658@pop-server.satx.rr.com> The terrifying acceleration of history brought us by technology can be overcome by a revolution of the mind, a poetic revolution. Politics are the enemy; they reduce everything to a false two-dimensional image of our needs and our fate. We need much more than that. It is on the level of the paramyth, of the philosophical dream, that we will find all the answers that we need. The blinding utopia! And I have no doubt that very soon the first examples of the new literature, of the new esoteric fiction, will appear and that it will immediately change the face of the world, by magic as it were. --Maurice Girodias [if you don't know, Google is yr friend] From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Oct 5 23:48:23 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 09:48:23 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] a surprising quote References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051005175827.0381e658@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <021201c5ca07$45a94470$8998e03c@homepc> Damien wrote: > The terrifying acceleration of history brought us by technology can be > overcome by a revolution of the mind, a poetic revolution. Politics are > the enemy; they reduce everything to a false two-dimensional image of our > needs and our fate. We need much more than that. > > It is on the level of the paramyth, of the philosophical dream, that we > will find all the answers that we need. The blinding utopia! And I have no > doubt that very soon the first examples of the new literature, of the new > esoteric fiction, will appear and that it will immediately change the face > of the world, by magic as it were. > > --Maurice Girodias > > [if you don't know, Google is yr friend] I didn't know of Maurice Girodias. I'm not sure why you find this surprising. I'm guessing its because of *when* Maurice Girodias said it, and the literature and perhaps subculture he seems to anticipate. I'd find it surprising if say Marcus Aurelius had said it. But that *someone* would say something very like the above after 1930 doesn't surprise me. Brett Paatsch From dgc at cox.net Wed Oct 5 23:58:53 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:58:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <20051005094843.GL2249@leitl.org> References: <710b78fc0510042141n4cf19fa8t@mail.gmail.com> <200510050511.j955BbX15689@tick.javien.com> <20051005094843.GL2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <434468BD.7040405@cox.net> Emlyn proposed a system with the following characteristics: "transmitter" fits in a one-gallon container and has a very long shelf life. Receivers are in orbit. Rugged, robust, dead simple. I think we need to add: satellites must be cheap and offer coverage in a short time, preferably less than two hours. Sorry, Emlyn, but radio can do all of this for a lot less money than satellite imagery. Use a highly simplified radio that is designed to broadcast at a low bit rate in a narrow bandwidth. This yields a high Eb/No (energy per bit) even with low power. The assumption is that there are only a few transmitters at any given time. in any particular part of the world, You can get arbitrarily long shelf life for a simple battery. For example. use a lead-acid battery, but keep the acid in a separate sealed container until you need to use the radio. You can get a lot of energy in a half-gallon container. The radio would be detectable from simple satellites for at least two days after you pull the tab. The satellite would notify the emergency response team, which would fly over the area to localize the transmitter. No need for GPS, cell phone, or even primitive AM radio, I think the emergency transmitter including container, battery, and acid, could cost less than $20.00, Add GPS, FM receiver, AM receiver for less than an additional $30.00, and a transponder system (to speed up localization after the response team gets to the area) for an additional $10, Fifty satellites at $100,000 each would give great coverage and would be cheaper than a one satellite that is capable of the imagery your system requires. From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Oct 6 00:14:59 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 17:14:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] 22nd Century Electronics In-Reply-To: <380-220051024211853974@M2W063.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20051006001459.87558.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > Does anyone have an idea of what electronic (manufacturing) might be > in the > next 100 years? 100 years is way too far to safely predict. That said, extrapolating a few current trends (in ways that others before me have extrapolated), here are some guesses: * DIY is already on the rise, with more and more prefabricated components for the user to assemble, and in extreme cases personal fabrication machines to make those components. The range of materials they can process is presently quite limited (especially WRT metals), but it seems safe to say that personal fabrication machines will be able to tackle these within a few decades, and will be at least as common as power tools are today. * At some point, probably before 100 years, a sufficient number of these machines will be deployed in some urban area (city, or maybe more likely city-equivalents that have yet to be built, like high-population space colonies or city-in-a-building arcologies, but only if one of those trends takes off) as to make it viable to install feedstock pipes as a utility, just like water and electricity. (This would also take care of recycling the scraps from subtractive milling machines, which otherwise might become a minor "industrial" pollution problem.) * This also means you'd see the current "open source vs. proprietary" software battle in hardware. Of course, we are already seeing the start of that today, with services that let you write your own chip, upload the design, and pay a fee, then they print a few copies of your chip and ship them to you. See http://www.opencores.com/ and others. Moving the chip writers into homes would just make that more prominent. Also, cheap custom chip fabrication has to work at coarser resolutions than high-end plants like those producing Intel's and AMD's wares, but even if Moore's Law slows down as we near atomic scale electronics, it's likely that personal manufacturing facilities will catch up to atomic scale in 100 years. * Of course, Intel and AMD probably won't passively sit around as the public catches up. See the already heavy R&D in quantum computing, DNA computing, and all-optical computing. It may be an open question which one will dominate (or if something else will), but in 100 years, top-end supercomputers (and maybe personal computers) will likely not rely on electrons as we now use them. (I'd give slightly better odds to all-optical, at least in some form, for personal computing since the other two can speed up parallel processing but not - at least for poorly-parallelizable problems - serial processing. Also, all-optical doesn't need the special cooling or nutrients of the other two when doing nothing, so it'd be easier to maintain.) * Also expect to see more and more of the industry shift to robotics for manufacturing, even aside from the above-mentioned personal fabrication machines (which need robots because the whole point is sellable trained labor, and even in 100 years it seems unlikely that society would accept shrink-wrapped humans). Once you get the manufacturing process down, you simply take the movements you guided the robot arms through during R&D, possibly refine them, then copy and paste to the factory floor. Also, as robots get cheaper, it becomes more feasable to flood a manufacturing site with robots, send them through dangerous (but cheap) processes, and if (when) they get damaged...eh, they're cheap, buy another. (Which is very much not the situation today: human labor is often much cheaper than robots, especially where minimal skill is required.) From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Oct 6 01:04:02 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 10:34:02 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <434468BD.7040405@cox.net> References: <710b78fc0510042141n4cf19fa8t@mail.gmail.com> <200510050511.j955BbX15689@tick.javien.com> <20051005094843.GL2249@leitl.org> <434468BD.7040405@cox.net> Message-ID: <710b78fc0510051804y2bc1a54fh@mail.gmail.com> On 06/10/05, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > Emlyn proposed a system with the following characteristics: > > "transmitter" fits in a one-gallon container and has a very long shelf life. > Receivers are in orbit. > Rugged, robust, dead simple. > > I think we need to add: satellites must be cheap and offer coverage in a > short time, > preferably less than two hours. > > Sorry, Emlyn, but radio can do all of this for a lot less money than > satellite imagery. > > Use a highly simplified radio that is designed to broadcast at a low bit > rate in > a narrow bandwidth. This yields a high Eb/No (energy per bit) even with low > power. The assumption is that there are only a few transmitters at any > given time. in > any particular part of the world, > > You can get arbitrarily long shelf life for a simple battery. For > example. use a > lead-acid battery, but keep the acid in a separate sealed container > until you need to > use the radio. You can get a lot of energy in a half-gallon container. > The radio would > be detectable from simple satellites for at least two days after you > pull the tab. The > satellite would notify the emergency response team, which would fly over > the area > to localize the transmitter. No need for GPS, cell phone, or even > primitive AM radio, > I think the emergency transmitter including container, battery, and > acid, could cost > less than $20.00, Add GPS, FM receiver, AM receiver for less than an > additional $30.00, > and a transponder system (to speed up localization after the response > team gets to the > area) for an additional $10, > > Fifty satellites at $100,000 each would give great coverage and would be > cheaper than > a one satellite that is capable of the imagery your system requires. I don't disagree with any of this, except for: > "transmitter" fits in a one-gallon container and has a very long shelf life. Going back to the original idea, it was that there are situations where the transmitting entity has no equipment. The idea was that, given we have orbits full of satellites, it seems a real shame that people can be stuck in the wilderness and have no way of signalling them. Radio doesn't count unless you have Gilligan Tech. I reckon if I was castaway these days, I'd build the biggest SOS I could possibly manage (if the time was dragging, it didn't seem like I was going to be rescued, and I had some free time every day after survival concerns). Eventually it'd find its way into Google Earth, and some human would likely spot it :-) -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Oct 6 01:03:50 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:03:50 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanists' Needs References: <380-220051013194934422@M2W091.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <023001c5ca11$d00042e0$8998e03c@homepc> Just a thought, did Maslow, a humanist, if I recall correctly, with his hierarchy of needs, miss something crucial for transhumanists? Do transhumanists have different essential needs from other humans or humanists? It is not clear to me that they do. My impression of transhumanists as a class of people who behave in certain ways and exhibit certain patterns of thought rather than from reading the best essays and books written by a few of them is that transhumanists seem to have a stronger than average desire to live longer, personally, and a stronger than average interest in technology as a potential means of achieving that end. If the transhumanist aspiration for a longer personal life translates into personal actions or behavours or attitudes more likely to make transhumanists happy and healthy now, then the aspiration is likely to be self-fulfilling. In the contemporay world, some of the ostensibly healthiest most well adjusted people seem to be amongst those most capable of the greatest feats of self deception and outright hypocrisy in their behaviour. If that is the case, perhaps it is a good thing that the generations do churn over. If it were possible to pull a couple of hundred thousand Huns from the time of Attila out of cryonics and put them back into contemporary life who would advocate doing that? Who'd want them running around with their world views? And without their world views and practices would they be themselves? Likewise project forward from this point a thousand years. Who'd then want the likes of more citizens with the worldviews and practices of those that were living in 2005 running amongst them? Brett Paatsch From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Oct 6 01:32:16 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:02:16 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <434468BD.7040405@cox.net> References: <710b78fc0510042141n4cf19fa8t@mail.gmail.com> <200510050511.j955BbX15689@tick.javien.com> <20051005094843.GL2249@leitl.org> <434468BD.7040405@cox.net> Message-ID: <710b78fc0510051832r1932fd0eo@mail.gmail.com> > Fifty satellites at $100,000 each would give great coverage and would be > cheaper than > a one satellite that is capable of the imagery your system requires. Also, part of the original assumption was that there are already satellites up there doing other things onto which this scheme could piggyback. You wouldn't put them up there just for that purpose. >From what has been said, it sounds like there is nowhere near the frequency of high enough resolution imaging to do this now. Maybe 10 or 20 years, though, who knows? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 02:13:19 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <434468BD.7040405@cox.net> Message-ID: <20051006021319.20178.qmail@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > Emlyn proposed a system with the following characteristics: > > "transmitter" fits in a one-gallon container and has a very long > shelf life. Receivers are in orbit. > Rugged, robust, dead simple. > > I think we need to add: satellites must be cheap and offer coverage > in a short time, preferably less than two hours. > > Sorry, Emlyn, but radio can do all of this for a lot less money than > satellite imagery. > > Use a highly simplified radio that is designed to broadcast at a low > bit rate in a narrow bandwidth. This yields a high Eb/No (energy per > bit) even with low power. The assumption is that there are only a few > transmitters at any given time. in any particular part of the world, True, but this would need to be integrated into items with utility and ubiquity outside of the subset of people who actually prepare for emergencies. Ubiquity is the problem: having the item on hand when you most need it. The problem with most people who are lost is that they are unprepared for their ordeals, even those who intentionally go out in the wild like campers/hikers, etc. Building the capacity you describe into an item unprepared people are typically likely to have on hand anyways is the product design psychology we need to approach it with. Cellphones, for example, are radio transmitters that are ubiquitous (for example, Nigeria is the highest growth market for cell right now). Having a subcircuit designed into cellphones that has an emergency mode like you describe if it can't lock on a cell tower wouldn't be hard. As for power, most cellphones fold these days. Given the crank generator technology, it shouldn't be hard to build such a small generator into the fold hinge of cellphones, so even if you are lost and with a dead cellphone battery, given enough folding over and over, you could crank up enough energy to broadcast a mayday. > > You can get arbitrarily long shelf life for a simple battery. For > example. use a lead-acid battery, but keep the acid in a separate > sealed container until you need to use the radio. You can get a lot > of energy in a half-gallon container. The radio would be detectable > from simple satellites for at least two days after you pull the tab. > The satellite would notify the emergency response team, which would > fly over the area to localize the transmitter. No need for GPS, cell > phone, or even primitive AM radio, I think the emergency transmitter > including container, battery, and acid, could cost less than $20.00, > Add GPS, FM receiver, AM receiver for less than an additional $30.00, > and a transponder system (to speed up localization after the response > team gets to the area) for an additional $10, The satellite needs to know a lot more than the general area the transponder is in. Even if its smart enough to sense the doppler shift in the transponder signal, it is only going to find a point of strongest signal that is on a line somewhat perpendicular to the orbital track of the satellite (depending on the orientation of the transponders monpole antenna). It will take multiple passes over the area to get any kind of a fix that is less than 100 km x 100 km. A child can be lost in a 2 km x 2km area long enough to die of exposure before anyone will find them. GPS is already built into all the newest cellphones, so take advantage of it, it doesn't take too many bits to transmit a GPS position at a low bit rate with minimal power draw. > > Fifty satellites at $100,000 each would give great coverage and would > be cheaper than > a one satellite that is capable of the imagery your system requires. Well, not necessarily. Doing it in a 1 kg, 100cm cube package would be tough. I guarantee I could do it in a 3 kg, 100x100x300cm package, and for a lot less than $100k, of course I happen to have a pappy with experience designing spysat cameras, but that's just me. First thing I'd do is use more than one CCD. I'd build a two by three CCD sensor grid, using the new 8.4 megapixel sensors, which are 1"x1.65" in size. This would give me an effective image size of 7680 x 6480. When imaging the surface to a 1 meter resolution, which is pretty common for commercial imaging sats today, capable of reading five meter tall letters, this means imaging a 7.6 x 6.6 km area at a time. The imager would require a 30x Dobsonian scope to zoom into that resolution level. Challenging, but not hard. The real limitation is on how fast the CCD can take pictures. Most consumer digital cameras require at least a second to store an image at full resolution. Faster flash ram is needed, and a faster bus speed. Orbiting at 200 km in a polar orbit at 7.78 km/sec, you have a 40008 km polar circumference of the earth and a 5303.8 second orbit time, you'd need to take a new image every 0.97 seconds to have a continuous imagery path throughout the orbit. As the earth rotates beneath the satellite, you can image a swath of the earth 158.4 km wide at the equator and 0 km wide at the poles each day with one satellite. This means you need about 255 satellites to image every spot on earth each day at least once. Except that half of this area is in darkness when it is passed over, so you actually need 510 satellites. This is the main problem with this concept at this point in time: not enough resolution available for each satellite to image more than a small area at one time. On the plus side, the closer you are to the poles, the more frequently you get imaged due to overlap. Getting a realistic constellation of 25-50 satellites will require an improvement in CCD resolution of 3-4 generations, a quadrupling in flash ram speed. So this is a 2012-2014 time frame. Of course, if you don't need to resolve every point on earth once a day, it gets easier. If you don't mind once a week imaging at the equator, 72 satellites could do the job with current technology. It would give increasingly greater coverage in the temperate, subpolar and polar regions, which, given the risks of exposure to cold with time, the attention needs to be focused. Given all this, it is apparent that the radio option is the better one for the time being for the most people. They can sense transponders over a wider swath at a given time, and don't require a lot of OCR processing, just a bit of doppler shift and signal strength analysis, and it also makes the job easier for people lost at sea who can't maintain large SOS letters on the open water. The imaging option does deal with those stuck without functioning technology that is up to date, though. Given how easy it is to destroy a cellphone with a splash of water, the low tech imaging option should not be dismissed out of hand. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 02:32:38 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:32:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanists' Needs In-Reply-To: <023001c5ca11$d00042e0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051006023238.88022.qmail@web30314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Just a thought, did Maslow, a humanist, if I recall correctly, with > his hierarchy of needs, miss something crucial for transhumanists? > > Do transhumanists have different essential needs from other humans > or humanists? It is not clear to me that they do. Pretty much every transhumanist who has been personality typed that I know about are of the XNTX subset, which I believe is less than 8% of the population. I think this would be a place to start in refining Maslows work to focus on transhumanist needs. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Oct 6 02:47:13 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:47:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanists' Needs In-Reply-To: <023001c5ca11$d00042e0$8998e03c@homepc> References: <380-220051013194934422@M2W091.mail2web.com> <023001c5ca11$d00042e0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051005214543.054ae9c8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 08:03 PM 10/5/2005, Brett wrote: >Do transhumanists have different essential needs from other humans >or humanists? It is not clear to me that they do. Most definitely. Not dying. Sure you can say humans have this need, but it is different. Transhumanists are serious about it. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 6 08:01:01 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 01:01:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanists' Needs In-Reply-To: <380-220051013194934422@M2W091.mail2web.com> References: <380-220051013194934422@M2W091.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <1E419E54-26F4-42D8-BE23-0882738B6D48@mac.com> I think I am a bit confused by the question. The below goes from saying the mission is to realize the transhumanist future by providing a product or service. Then it speaks of needs being crucial to identify for the success of transhumanism. Success comes from fulfilling the mission which was previously said to be from providing services or products. Then it asks for what we seed as distinct from a product or service. See the confusion? I think from some of the replies that I am not the only one confused. I don't want to get into a discussion really about what is a product and what is a need. But I will try to answer with a few things I think are needed to reach a transhumanist future, 1) intelligence augmentation at individual level and organizational level for all sizes of organization. 2) emotional augmentation for greater compassion and seeing the best for the other as essential to our own best. 3) The technological path must visibly and inescapable lead to ever greater well-being of everyone. If we can get that across and show that it is real rather than pie in the sky then we will have won. 4) to see and treat one another as potential immortals of vast intelligence and wisdom or whatever your vision of your eventual self may be. I believe we will treat each other much differently if we develop that perspective. - samantha On Oct 3, 2005, at 12:49 PM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > Friends, > > I am developing an enterprise model for transhumanism. In doing > so, I have > a question that I?d like you to think about and let me know your > thoughts. > > Transhumanism, like every enterprise, has a mission. That mission > is to > realize a transhumanist future by providing a service or product to > its > customers (that?s us!). we are the advocates, patron, benefactor, > investor, consumer, sponsor, or clients. Being of use to us is the > fundamental reason for the transhumanism?s existence. > > We, as its advocates, have needs. Identifying our needs is crucial > for the > further development and success of transhumanism. Sounds simple, > but it is > not as easy as it seems. > > What do you, as the client/patron/benefactor/investor of > transhumanism need? > > (Be careful not to confuse needs with a product or service.) > > For example, I need a long, healthy, life. > > I look forward to hearing from you, > > Best, > Natasha > > Natasha Vita-More > http://www.natasha.cc > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Oct 6 16:07:48 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:07:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system References: <20051006021319.20178.qmail@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <010501c5ca90$19487ed0$0100a8c0@kevin> This is a nice, productive thread, but one thing in missing - infrastructure. What use is a worldwide SOS system if you are lost in the Andes and no one can get to you? How many people at any given moment are in a state of emergency that would require such a system? What constitutues an emergency? Surely "lost at sea" but what about people who have houses burning down? Floods? War? In the US, we dial 911 and get a cop, ambulance, or fire truck, but what if local resources are overwhelmed? Would 100000 people suddenly be dialing into a worldwide SOS system? How do calls get routed to the proper authorities? How is a disaster such as the Tsunami handled differently from a mountain climber that broker his leg? Consider the following: A skier is buried under the snow from an avalanche. The SOS goes out, is received and transmitted to the nearest authority - which also happens to be under 30 ft of snow. The technology seems to be there for some kind of relatively simple SOS device built into other devices. I especially like the idea of generating power from the flip of the cell phone. It's one of those "Gee, why didn't I think of that?" moments. It seems to me that there are countless issues that are much more complicated than the device itself. I'd like to see some of your thoughts on this. From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 6 18:02:19 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:02:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] International Academy of Aeronautics' Post-detection Committee Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051006130104.01e71730@pop-server.satx.rr.com> from The Daily Telegraph, London, UK http://tinyurl.com/dlcu2 05/10/2005 'The Greatest Discovery Of All Time' The chances are there's life out there, but any messages could be thousands of years old and indecipherable. Roger Highfield reports Aliens are probably common. Because there are billions of trillions of stars in the cosmos, many astronomers think it would be highly improbable for Earth to be the only rock to harbour life. Whether ET is intelligent is still hotly debated. But no one doubts that the receipt of a signal from another civilisation would be Earth-shattering. "It would surely be the greatest discovery of all time, eclipsing the findings of Newton, Dawin and Einstein combined," says Prof Paul Davies, a British cosmologist from the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University. "The knowledge that we are not alone would affect people's psyche, and totally transform our world view," he said during a visit to Britain last week. "The mere fact alone would be disruptive. But imagine if we got some serious information from ET. Then all bets are off about what our future would be." Prof Davies is among the handful of scientists charged with thinking through the implications of what to do in the event of "first contact" with an alien, sitting on one of a clutch of committees led by Dr Seth Shostak of the Seti (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Institute in California. The hunt for ET's transmissions has proceeded in fits and starts since 1959, when Cornell University physicists suggested that extraterrestrial civilisations would find it easier to reach out across the galaxy with radio waves than pay a visit. Today, perhaps the best known is being conducted by the Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico. Millions of people have signed up for the Seti.nul programme, downloading a screen saver that analyses Arecibo data for the University of California at Berkeley. And a major new alien hunt facility is under construction: the Allen Telescope Array at the Hat Creek Observatory some 290 miles northeast of San Francisco. The first 42 of a huge array of 350 small radio dishes are about to go into operation next month, opening a new ear on the cosmos. Prof Davies has now become the chairman of the International Academy of Aeronautics' Post-detection Committee, which includes his colleague Carol Oliver and the Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees. "Cynics say it is the best committee to be on because you don't have to do anything unless ET calls," said Prof Davies. "That is not entirely true because I intend to spruce up the protocol and have a few fire drills." Some years ago, international astronomical societies agreed on what they call a "Declaration of principles concerning activities following the detection of extraterrestrial intelligence", The first step, it says, is to "verify that the most plausible explanation for the evidence is the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence rather than some other natural phenomenon or anthropogenic phenomenon". Unlike the events shown in the film Contact (in which Jodie Foster portrays the celebrated Seti researcher Dr Jill Tarter), "there will be no Eureka moment," according to Dr Shostak. Instead, there will follow a painstaking process of checking and verification to discern a hello from the crackle of cosmic radio waves. There have been many false alarms. In 1977, the "Wow signal" was picked up by researchers at Ohio State University, and so named after a professor scribbled the exclamation next to a printout of the signal. No one has heard it since. Another set of rapid pulsing signals caused great excitement, until they were shown to come from a hitherto unrecognised class of super-dense rotating neutron stars now known as pulsars. Other emanations have been traced to automatic garage doors, satellites and a host of other gadgets. And, of course, there are hoaxes. Prof Davies points out that, if a signal is shown to be authentically alien, it is most likely from a civilisation that is stupendously advanced compared with our own: by the time we receive it, it is highly likely that the transmitting civilisation will be millions of years in advance of us - if it still survives, of course. To date, unfortunately "there has been nothing to set the pulse racing". But if he does suffer palpitations, the protocol says that the team that discovered the signal should telegram the International Astronomical Union and the secretary-general of the UN (as well as their own government). The International Telecommunications Union in Switzerland should also be alerted; it has the power to stop transmissions and would be asked to clear the frequency band that the aliens were using. The discoverer, the protocol says, should make the announcement "promptly, openly and widely through scientific channels and public media". Dr Shostak emphasises there will be no "X-Files- style cover-up", or pressure from authorities to classify the discovery. But, of course, there will be endless hand wringing over how to manage the announcement and what to do about leaks to the media. Then comes the question of whether to reply to ET. In April 1989, the trustees of the International Academy of Astronautics approved a protocol that declared finally: "No response to a signal or other evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence should be sent until appropriate international consultations have taken place.'' One problem is that it is doubtful a response can be drafted in advance. The nature and wording would depend on the possible meaning of the incoming message. "It could be an e-mail between stars that was never intended for us," said Prof Davies. Indeed, there is much debate about whether an alien culture with different histories and physical forms will have the same description of reality at all. Perhaps ET could invent radio technology without ever developing the concept of an atom. But it does seem likely she would use mathematics to advertise her intelligence, given that it is a universal language. This much was recognised long ago. In the early 19th century, the mathematician Karl Friedrich Gauss suggested etching giant geometric figures in the snow of Siberia as a way of attracting the attention of Martians. There is, of course, a chance, that an incoming message may be sent in response to messages extraterrestrials have already received from Earth. Some of our radio and television from the Thirties and Forties is just now reaching some of the nearer stars. What would aliens make of news of Neville Chamberlain's return from his Munich meeting with Adolf Hitler? The problem is, however, that these signals have only travelled around 80 light years, too little for even the most optimistic Seti sage to raise the chance of meeting up with another civilisation. We may have to wait millennia for a reply, and Prof Davies speculates that it would probably come from an "information processor" that will blur the distinctions we make today between living organisms and artificial non-living machines. But we should not limit our horizons to radio transmissions alone. Nasa has already shown the way in this respect: elaborate messages have been put on spacecraft such as the Voyagers now leaving the solar system, including a record with Earthly sights and sounds, such as music from Bach to Chuck Berry. A laser beam could also be used to send a message. Indeed, our cells may carry one, too, Prof Davies speculates. DNA is mostly "junk", but what if it contains a message from an ancient alien civilisation? "We must not close our minds to communication by quite different means," he said. Seti is "a glorious but almost certainly hopeless quest", he admits. But that does not mean it is a waste of time: Seti has many important spin-offs, not least those that will come from forcing scientists to grapple with huge issues of what counts as life and consciousness and whether the organisation of the universe fosters the evolution of living things. From fauxever at sprynet.com Thu Oct 6 18:05:41 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:05:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] BBC Series Message-ID: <003e01c5caa0$91094890$6600a8c0@brainiac> This is sick and disturbing and, although political, I think it has to be of some concern to people who are extropians and transhumanists: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml Olga From extropy at unreasonable.com Thu Oct 6 17:53:10 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:53:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <010501c5ca90$19487ed0$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <20051006021319.20178.qmail@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <010501c5ca90$19487ed0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051006131205.077bfcd0@unreasonable.com> Kevin Freels wrote: >This is a nice, productive thread, but one thing in missing - infrastructure. When my father was building mini-RPVs in our living room in the 1970's for the Israelis, he was also figuring out how to use them. Low-cost was inherent in his concept. He could turn a profit selling them for a few thousand each. They were essentially light-weight wooden planes powered by lawn mower engines, and could heft a 75 kg payload. As the ideas morphed into Pentagon procurement, the vehicle requirements became gold-plated, and the price tag went up 200x or more. I haven't looked at the specifics of the current generation of drones to see how useful the add-on requirements are, but there's clearly great value in having many thousands of throw-away drones. The simplest warfare use is to carry 75 kg of explosives, fly around until you spot something more valuable, and then crash into it. The sticky point for your enemy is that a SAM or AAM to shoot it down could itself cost more than the drone. There are also civilian uses that fold into our thread. There are many search and rescue scenarios where it is too dangerous to send a flight crew out, where one could instead load a drone with 75 kg of emergency supplies. Perhaps we could take the comm ideas and add an assistance component, a la a network of long-duration blimps that serve as airborne hangers for a drone fleet. Just add uniforms, jerky movement, and Lady Penelope, and we have an international rescue operation. -- David Lubkin. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 18:20:48 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] BBC Series In-Reply-To: <003e01c5caa0$91094890$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20051006182048.38016.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > This is sick and disturbing and, although political, > I think it has to be of > some concern to people who are extropians and > transhumanists: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml > That's one of the classical symptoms of Narcissism as exhibited by both Mohommed and Joan or Arc. Or so God tells me. ;) The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From brian at posthuman.com Thu Oct 6 19:10:35 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 14:10:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Grand Challenge update Message-ID: <434576AB.3000103@posthuman.com> Looks like a shot at actually completing the race - big improvement: http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/10/06/darpa2005_feature_update/ http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/10/06/darpa2005_feature_update_stanford/ -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 19:25:29 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:25:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <010501c5ca90$19487ed0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20051006192529.26823.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > This is a nice, productive thread, but one thing in missing - > infrastructure. What use is a worldwide SOS system if you are lost in > the Andes and no one can get to you? If you are lost in the Andes, someone can get to you if they know where you are. In the case of the airline crash cannibals in the Andes, their plane was buried under snow and an avalanche for the winter, so even ariel surveys could not find them. I believe they even tried to make a big SOS but were not seen. > How many people at any given > moment are in a state of emergency that would require such a system? I can't find nationwide 911 rates, but the St Petersburg FL police department says regarding their own call center, "In 2001, the center received 730,941 calls, of which 335,345 were non-emergency calls and 91,221 were emergency 911 calls." The NFPA reports that only 35% of fire departments in the US can arrive 90% of the time at the site of a fire within 6 minutes of a call. This six minute rule is considered by the NFPA as a standard of performance. >From an article in the Portsmouth Herald: "Though the number of fires nationwide has declined with fire prevention efforts, the number of calls to departments has doubled over the last 20 years, in part because fire departments began handling ambulance calls in the 1970s and 1980s, but also because people routinely call over perceived emergencies, such as bats in the attic, flooding, and strange noises. And fire department budgets are shrinking. The Globe calculated, using U.S. Census data, that fire spending went from an average of 6.1 percent of municipal spending in 1987 to 5.7 percent in 2003. " 911 is also a terrible choice to call in even of crimes of home invasion: robbery, rape, kidnapping, etc because police generally take too long to respond, even when 911 answers the call on time or at all. 10-18 percent of 911 calls are never answered, and people have reported as many as 20 rings before dispatchers answered. There are numerous cases of crime victims found dead after police took as long as an hour to respond to a 911 call. Despite the attraction the liberal media has for 911 and "panic rooms" in enduring slow police respons times, most families can barely afford enough rooms for the kids they have, never mind a spare safe room for emergencies. > What constitutues an emergency? Threat to life or major property. > Surely "lost at sea" but what about > people who have houses burning down? Floods? War? Sure, but each requires its own response. You going to send a fire truck to a war, or the National Guard to put out my chimney fire? > In the US, we dial 911 and get a cop, ambulance, or fire truck, but > what if local resources are overwhelmed? 911 calls are generally not answered by local dispatchers, they use regional or national call centers that patch in your local emergency services. There is also a system for bringing in neighboring community resources. For example, fires are described by firemen as a "three alarm" fire (using numbers one to five) which denote the degree of resources needed. Typically the number applies to the number of fire engines or fire companies required, where most suburban and rural fire departments may have one or two engines, a "five alarm fire" will call in engines from neighboring communities to deal with the worst. > Would 100000 people suddenly be dialing > into a worldwide SOS system? How do calls get routed to the proper > authorities? The 911 dispatcher typically does a caller ID on your location if you are calling from a fixed land phone. If you are on a cellphone, you typically have to give your location, although the new 3G phones purposely have GPS chips in them so 911 dispatchers can get your location and even track you (such as if you've been kidnapped and are in someone's car trunk). > How is a disaster such as the Tsunami handled differently from > a mountain climber that broker his leg? Consider the following: > A skier is buried under the snow from an avalanche. The SOS goes out, > is received and transmitted to the nearest authority - which also > happens to be under 30 ft of snow. I've rarely seen avalanches so large. Typically mountains large enough to have such avalanches have their ski patrol assets distributed around the mountain so that an avalanch in one area won't wipe out all their capability. Resorts with high risk of large avalanches hitting the base lodge typically design their facilities to withstand such an event. Tsunamis, like Katrina, tend to wipe out so much of entire communities that there really isn't any viable emergency response capacity to provide crisis level rescue and care with any sort of immediacy. This is generally unavoidable due to the nature of the disaster. > The technology seems to be there for some kind of relatively simple > SOS device built into other devices. I especially like the idea of > generating power from the flip of the cell phone. It's one of > those "Gee, why didn't I think of that?" moments. It seems to me that > there are countless issues that are much more complicated than the > device itself. I'd like to see some of your thoughts on this. Another power possibility is a gravity generator: i.e. a linear generator with a coil that goes back and forth based on your walking movement, as used in pedometers and by some wrist watches. If you are out in the wilderness, you are likely going to be walking around a lot. Watching the new show "E Ring" last night, I saw the Major captured and taken into Iran, where he escaped. When reinforcements were arriving, and before he ran to evade recapture, he broke off the rear view mirror of the vehicle he was in to use in signalling to aircraft. This is smart improvisational skills that people intent on surviving should get in the habit of. Products don't need to be built for what you use them for. The improvisational habit can take work to develop. I guess I got mine in childhood, when my parents and grandmonsters seemed to think that cheesy clothing were legitimate christmas and birthday presents, and studiously avoided all the fun combat toys. Making my own from found objects and materials became a hobby. Two of the key skills people should have to survive emergencies are preparedness and improvisational skills. Being able to faint in front of a TV camera on cue and whining for the federal government to save you isn't one of them. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 6 19:25:30 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:25:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051003191203.02f153d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051003191203.02f153d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <8782823B-7855-45A0-BD53-27079FBD8CFA@mac.com> On Oct 3, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Once again, I am asking that we put on our thinking caps. Time is > running out and we need to reevaluate and analyze what we stand for > behind the philosophy of Extropy. > > I have heard comments about Extropy Institute becoming too involved > with transhumanism and too far away from the central philosophy of > extropy. What we need to keep in mind is that the philosophy of > extropy is the original philosophy of transhumanism. Certainly I > understand many comments from varied perspectives that > transhumanism has become watered down. Perhaps we can rectify this > by bringing Extropy more strongly into the society of the future. > > As president of Extropy Institute, I have worked hard for quite > some time to protect ExI from outlandish political positioning, bad > press from early days of cult references, and being a small group > of crazed futurists. We know that we were here early on -- before > our ideas hit the mainstream. I have tried to keep ExI in that > spiralling movement forward into the future in deference to ExI and > its members. Thanks to highly-visual people like Ray Kurzweil, he > has taken us along with him. But dealing with the many backhanded > treatment of ExI and its members has been quite difficult. Instead > of getting the support of early members, they turned on me because > I wanted to realize a world-wide vision for our future, rather than > a small clique. It has drained me, I must admit. What I want to > do now, is to recapture EXTROPY for our future, both within > transhumanism and outside of transhumanism. > Hey, I am a "crazed futurist" and I believe you are too! The cutting edge is never "mainstream". That is not its nature. To attempt to make it so merely dulls the edge and removes its original importance and compromises its message. In order to become a real memetic force the memetic message needs to be fully developed, powerful, inspiring and unique relative to dominant mainstream voices. Attempting to be more mainstream per se is suicidal to fully developing an authentic and unique voice that changes the mainstream by inspiring rather than by attempting to blend in. Exactly what are you calling "outlandish political positioning"? Such words can be deeply troubling to many here and who were once here and are sorely missed. - samantha From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Oct 6 19:45:40 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:45:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] BBC Series Message-ID: <380-220051046194540951@M2W094.mail2web.com> From: Olga Bourlin >This is sick and disturbing and, although political, I think it has to be of >some concern to people who are extropians and transhumanists: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bu sh.shtml Does anyone know Abu Mazen and Nabil Shaath's track record for providing accurate information to the press? Would they have a reason to fabricate or exaggerate what Bush said and, if so, what would that reason be? If Bush did say this (dillusionally or not), what would he hope to gain? I have been told that he is not a religious person but was billed as being relioiugs by his campaign committee to get him elected. ick. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 19:59:24 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanists' Needs In-Reply-To: <1E419E54-26F4-42D8-BE23-0882738B6D48@mac.com> Message-ID: <20051006195924.84051.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Transhumanists need more time. I think it is important that we instill in society a realization of the fundamental value of subjective time. It is a cliche that time is money. However, in my own experience I find that money is but a crude and paltry approximation of time. When you spend a dollar, you can always make that dollar back. But when you spend an hour of your life, you never get that hour back. One can easily convert time into money. That is what a job and investments are for, but one cannot easily buy more time for money. Sure one can for example hire someone to do time consuming tasks for one, or buy some technology, which may free up your time to do something that you rather do, but it still costs some of your time to coordinate this. Moreover your overall allotment of time is still diminished such that at the end of one's life all the gold one has hoarded will lose its luster in one's eyes. Thus converting one's time into money is far more an efficient process than the reverse. Furthermore this efficiency becomes worse as one ages such that while the elderly may have more money than the young in general, they also have to spend a lot more of it to get more time. Prescription drugs, doctor's visits, coronary bypasses. All in the desperate hope of buying themselves more time. In many respects that is what life-extension technology is about and that is making the conversion of money into time more efficient. I think in general there are many aspects of society which need to shift to in order to bring this about. For one thing, it is important, most especially in Western cultures, that the accumulated wisdom and experience of a life time actually attain some value. Instead of being embarrassed by our elderly and hiding them away in retirement homes until they expire, we should try to obtain actual economic value from them. In this respect, SENS would be good for the economy as a strong, healthy, vital, acute, octagenerian would be a very knowledgable skilled individual. Their people skills alone honed from so many years of experience dealing with people would make them great for management positions. (Yeah I am sure some would object to this with some cranky old coot in mind, but ask yourself if this individual wasn't TREATED like a crazy old coot, would he act as one?) Speaking of time, I am out of it so I will cut it off here. I will try to follow up with more later. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Oct 6 20:21:10 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:21:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List Message-ID: <380-220051046202110300@M2W081.mail2web.com> From: Samantha >Hey, I am a "crazed futurist" and I believe you are too! Yes and proud of it! :-) > The cutting >edge is never "mainstream". That is not its nature. Wooha - wait a minute. We are frequently discussed in the mainstream, like it or not. I usually do at least one mainstream interview a month and or tv/film interview. (Actually, the mainstream may not like us.) The point is that the mainstream is not as ill-informed as it once was. > To attempt to >make it so merely dulls the edge and removes its original importance >and compromises its message. In order to become a real memetic >force the memetic message needs to be fully developed, powerful, >inspiring and unique relative to dominant mainstream voices. >Attempting to be more mainstream per se is suicidal to fully >developing an authentic and unique voice that changes the mainstream >by inspiring rather than by attempting to blend in. Come back Samantha ... - you are going a bit too far off into blandville for me. >Exactly what are you calling "outlandish political positioning"? I wasn't referring to any people that were on this list who are missed. >Such words can be deeply troubling to many here and who were once >here and are sorely missed. Outlandish political positioning relates to the idea--the very idea--that politics is of more importance than Extropy. That to me, my dear, is ridiculous. Extropy is about more than any narrow or wide ideological vein that usually runs hot and red and separates intelligent and creative thinkers by pitting them against each other. What is extropy!? The extent of a system's intelligence, information, energy, life, experience, diversity, opportunity, and growth! Let's hear it roar!! GROWTH! ENERGY! DIVERSITY! OPPORTUNITY! INTELLIGENCE! LIFE! Now, I'm going to have some tea and put my feet up. Natasha _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 6 20:49:02 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 13:49:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List In-Reply-To: <380-220051046202110300@M2W081.mail2web.com> References: <380-220051046202110300@M2W081.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On Oct 6, 2005, at 1:21 PM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > From: Samantha > > >> Hey, I am a "crazed futurist" and I believe you are too! >> > > Yes and proud of it! :-) > Good. > >> The cutting >> edge is never "mainstream". That is not its nature. >> > > Wooha - wait a minute. We are frequently discussed in the > mainstream, like > it or not. I usually do at least one mainstream interview a month > and or > tv/film interview. (Actually, the mainstream may not like us.) > The point > is that the mainstream is not as ill-informed as it once was. > > The point is that what you originally said needed clarification. Thanks for providing some. >> To attempt to >> make it so merely dulls the edge and removes its original importance >> and compromises its message. In order to become a real memetic >> force the memetic message needs to be fully developed, powerful, >> inspiring and unique relative to dominant mainstream voices. >> Attempting to be more mainstream per se is suicidal to fully >> developing an authentic and unique voice that changes the mainstream >> by inspiring rather than by attempting to blend in. >> > > Come back Samantha ... - you are going a bit too far off into > blandville > for me. Huh? Sorry if I misunderstood where you were coming from. But how is this response justified? > > >> Exactly what are you calling "outlandish political positioning"? >> > > I wasn't referring to any people that were on this list who are > missed. > By whom? I miss some of the people who believe some types of politics are crucial to realizing extropy. Hence my question. > >> Such words can be deeply troubling to many here and who were once >> here and are sorely missed. >> > > Outlandish political positioning relates to the idea--the very > idea--that > politics is of more importance than Extropy. That to me, my dear, is > ridiculous. Extropy is about more than any narrow or wide > ideological vein > that usually runs hot and red and separates intelligent and creative > thinkers by pitting them against each other. > Extropy is in part an ideology. Its realization and the increase of extropy in reality includes politics or it is little more than excited hand waving. > What is extropy!? The extent of a system's intelligence, information, > energy, life, experience, diversity, opportunity, and growth! > Let's hear > it roar!! GROWTH! ENERGY! DIVERSITY! OPPORTUNITY! INTELLIGENCE! > LIFE! > Great. So where does the rubber meet the road? - samantha From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 21:25:50 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 14:25:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List In-Reply-To: <380-220051046202110300@M2W081.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20051006212550.48308.qmail@web30310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > From: Samantha > > >Hey, I am a "crazed futurist" and I believe you are too! > > Yes and proud of it! :-) > > > The cutting > >edge is never "mainstream". That is not its nature. > > Wooha - wait a minute. We are frequently discussed in the mainstream, > like it or not. I usually do at least one mainstream interview a month > and or tv/film interview. (Actually, the mainstream may not like us.) > The point is that the mainstream is not as ill-informed as it once > was. True, but only because they've learned that we cutting edge wierdos need to have an eye kept on us, lest we upset the techno-economic status quo again. > > > To attempt to > >make it so merely dulls the edge and removes its original importance > >and compromises its message. In order to become a real memetic > >force the memetic message needs to be fully developed, powerful, > >inspiring and unique relative to dominant mainstream voices. > >Attempting to be more mainstream per se is suicidal to fully > >developing an authentic and unique voice that changes the mainstream > >by inspiring rather than by attempting to blend in. > > Come back Samantha ... - you are going a bit too far off into > blandville for me. Using focus-group-speak is the problem in this regard. > > >Exactly what are you calling "outlandish political positioning"? > > I wasn't referring to any people that were on this list who are > missed. I think the powers that be need to have their bonnets bustled a bit by outlandish political positioning every now and again. Hakim Bey's crypto-anarchism did so much to rustle up the hornets at the FBI and NSA that many more people today are taking the threat of statist tyranny much more seriously, as did Max' own writings. > > >Such words can be deeply troubling to many here and who were once > >here and are sorely missed. > > Outlandish political positioning relates to the idea--the very > idea--that politics is of more importance than Extropy. > That to me, my dear, is ridiculous. Extropy is about more than any > narrow or wide ideological vein > that usually runs hot and red and separates intelligent and creative > thinkers by pitting them against each other. "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you", as Trotsky said. You may think extropy is not interested in politics, but it is evident from both Kass, Kaczinski, Kesey, Mander, and Rifkin, among others, that politics is very interested and concerned about extropy, and transhumanism in general. > > What is extropy!? The extent of a system's intelligence, information, > energy, life, experience, diversity, opportunity, and growth! Let's > hear it roar!! GROWTH! ENERGY! DIVERSITY! OPPORTUNITY! INTELLIGENCE! > LIFE! "So sayeth the shepherd! SO SAYETH THE LORD!" - Porky's Revenge I liked BEST DO IT SO, myself, but that is now heresy, last I heard... who says extropy isn't interested in politics? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 21:34:27 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 14:34:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: [Fwd: Federal Government Aiming to Ban Prime Numbers] Message-ID: <20051006213427.20716.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Neil Evangelista wrote: --------------------------------- As amathematician, I thought you'd find this amusing... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Federal Government Aiming to Ban Prime Numbers Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:18:31 -0400 From: jsb17 at cornell.edu To: Neil Evangelista neil at evangelista.org>,oneidea2112 at yahoo.com Today a representative from the United States Ministry of Freedom Announced that the Senate is drafting a bill to ban Prime Numbers. The Bill is called "The Innumeracy & Unpatriotic Calculations Act", and will be an extension of the Patriot Act. "Innumeracy" is a new word meaning 'unpatriotic Math'. Prime Numbers are only equally divisible by 1 and the number itself. This unique property, along with the difficulty of factoring large numbers is what allows for all Internet and electronic cryptography. The government's justification for the ban on Prime Numbers is that terrorists could use cryptography to send secret messages to each other, and these secret messages could threaten American's freedom. Bush was quoted as saying, "In Kindergarten, kids used to pass secret messages to each other when the teacher wasn't looking. It wasn't fair then, and it isn't fair now". Although Bush was once convicted for drunk driving, he has never passed secret notes in class. If the bill passes, any reference to or mention of Prime Numbers will be classified as 'unpatriotic' and the perpetrator could face jail time for multiple offenses. Because the offense will be considered treason, the offenders will be tried in secret courts without lawyers. Children as young as 5 could be convicted, and their parents do not need to be notified of their arrest. But edumacators are worried the Prime Number Ban will cause confusion in classrooms across the American Fatherland. Students will have to learn to count according to a new number system: 1,4,6,8,9,10,12,14,15,16,18,20... and so on. The main sponsors of the bill argue, "It's not enough for American's not to use cryptography, we must use a number system where it is altogether impossible for someone to even commit a crime of Innumeracy". A provision in the Bill will establish a new Department of Patriotic Logic to re-write the math textbooks to conform to the new numbering system. Bush said, "It's imperative that we be thinking of freedom at all times. That is why we must keep our calculations patriotic." Since there is no more space in Washington DC to build any more government buildings, the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts will be converted into the Department of Patriotic Logic. White House Spokesperson Scott McLellan was quoted as saying, "That way, we can take down all those unpatriotic flags that desecrate the Kennedy Center Halls. "We'll murder two birds by casting the first stone." When a reporter pointed out that he just referred to 'two' birds, which is a prime number, Scott pointed out that the bill has not yet passed, but that government would be exempt from the new laws, in order to safely and securely secure America's Security. Some psychologists are worried that Bush's complete and utter incessant obsession with "Freedom" is a psychotic projection to cover up his Fascist plan to regiment America. Bush called these 'unpatriotic rantings of freedom-hating unamericans", and dismissed the assertions as "willy-nillyism". If Prime Numbers are altogether banned, Bush will be forced to stay in office for at least 4 years. -Associated Repress-- Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 21:40:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 14:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] BBC Series In-Reply-To: <003e01c5caa0$91094890$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20051006214028.14196.qmail@web30303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> What does this have to do with extropy? Other than confirm the existence of the left wing bias of the BBC, in that the story was about how Bush told the Palestinians he felt he had a religious obligation to help create a Palestinian state, which lefties and islamist apologists around the would would celebrate if a Democrat had said it, and instead made the headline "Bush says God told him to invade Iraq", which has little to do with the actual story. --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > This is sick and disturbing and, although political, I think it has > to be of > some concern to people who are extropians and transhumanists: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml > > Olga > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From extropy at unreasonable.com Thu Oct 6 21:59:34 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:59:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <20051006192529.26823.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <010501c5ca90$19487ed0$0100a8c0@kevin> <20051006192529.26823.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051006170324.07518da8@unreasonable.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >This is smart improvisational skills that people intent on surviving >should get >in the habit of. Products don't need to be built for what you use them >for. The improvisational habit can take work to develop. Some time in grad school, I reached an understanding of software such that if a program existed or was suggested, I had an immediate sense of how one might build such a thing. Maybe not the best design, but one that would work. When I realized I had gotten to that point, it felt tremendous. I'd like, and am gradually acquiring, that level of grasp of design, construction, and operation principles behind each of the objects I use or encounter. Does anyone else feel that way? Some of you, like Mike, seem much closer than I to MacGyver-hood. What avenues (specific books, courses, activities, etc.) have y'all found worth recommending for reaching that competence, in each area you feel you understand? (Geology, construction, physiology, cooking, combat, propulsion, etc. etc.) -- David. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 22:57:02 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:57:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051006170324.07518da8@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20051006225702.80211.qmail@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- David Lubkin wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >This is smart improvisational skills that people intent on surviving > >should get > >in the habit of. Products don't need to be built for what you use > >them for. The improvisational habit can take work to develop. > > Some time in grad school, I reached an understanding of software such > that if a program existed or was suggested, I had an immediate sense > of how one might build such a thing. Maybe not the best design, but > one that would work. When I realized I had gotten to that point, it > felt tremendous. Competency is a heady feeling. > > I'd like, and am gradually acquiring, that level of grasp of design, > construction, and operation principles behind each of the objects I > use or encounter. Does anyone else feel that way? > > Some of you, like Mike, seem much closer than I to MacGyver-hood. Aw, I'm touched... These days I'm aiming for O'Neil-hood.... ;) > > What avenues (specific books, courses, activities, etc.) have y'all > found worth recommending for reaching that competence, in each area > you feel you understand? (Geology, construction, physiology, cooking, > combat, propulsion, etc. etc.) Construction is a lot more of a "do it" thing than a "read it" thing, though there are magazines that are useful. Popular Mechanics has excellent home project articles that build good carpentry skills as well as good automotive skills. Cooking is similar: you can read about it, but only to prepare you for doing it. The main attitude that helps with a lot of hands on skills is to just go do it, and in many ways learn from your mistakes (so long as they don't cost you body parts). When you cook enough, you learn what different ingredients do, especially when you are out of one of them and have to improvise with what you have. Look at it as practical chemistry. Most bad reactions don't blow up your lab....;) Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From extropy at unreasonable.com Thu Oct 6 23:25:34 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:25:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <20051006225702.80211.qmail@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051006170324.07518da8@unreasonable.com> <20051006225702.80211.qmail@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051006192227.073b10d0@unreasonable.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Some of you, like Mike, seem much closer than I to MacGyver-hood. > >Aw, I'm touched... These days I'm aiming for O'Neil-hood.... ;) You mean Gerry O'Neill? You want to have cool ideas, date my mother, and then die young? -- David. From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 00:47:29 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:47:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Google Alert - technology singularity In-Reply-To: <1128593486.3869705.88b865fd93368e10.1496b095@persist.google.com> References: <1128593486.3869705.88b865fd93368e10.1496b095@persist.google.com> Message-ID: There were certainly quite a few singularity-related articles in the media last week, mostly regarding Kurzweil's new book. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Google Alerts Date: Oct 6, 2005 3:11 AM Subject: Google Alert - technology singularity To: neuronexmachina at gmail.com Google Alert for: *technology singularity* Portals: A back-cover brush with a high-tech seer and his pals Pittsburgh Post Gazette - Pittsburgh,PA,USA *...* by some of the suppliers of blurbs on the back of the new Ray Kurzweil book, "The *Singularity* Is Near.". Mr. Kurzweil is well-known in * technology* circles as a *...* 2 way-out views of *technology's* role in shaping the future San Francisco Chronicle - United States *...* "The *Singularity*" argues that *technology* is a continuation of the life-improvement process commonly called evolution. DNA created biological life forms. *...* See all stories on this topic FAQ: Keeping pace with robots ZDNet - USA *...* distant future in a historic moment called the *Singularity*. At that point--Kurzweil pegs it at the year 2045--the exponential advance of * technology* will see a *...* Which way will *technology* take us? Boston Globe - United States *...* So before we dismiss Kurzweil's *Singularity*, we should remember that what sounds wildly *...* World War II was ended with *technology* that didn't exist when the war *...* They're out there The State News - East Lansing,MI,USA *...* Since *technology* is available in every form from cell phones to *... * growing in popularity in science fiction literature: nanotechnology and "The *Singularity*.". *...* Nanotubes - Understanding the Properties of Carbon and Boron *...* AZoNano.com - World If nanotube *technology* is to reach its full commercial potential, the ability to *...* The location of the van Hove *singularity*, which for example impacts optical *...* Will the Future Be a Trillion Times Better? New York Times - United States *...* The *Singularity* Is Near," the inventor and prognosticator Ray Kurzweil postulates that we are fast approaching a time when humankind melds with *technology* to *...* *Singularity*" is Here Inc.com - New York,NY,USA *...* take away from "The *Singularity* is Here"? A: One important lesson, which the whole book makes, is to really understand these models of * technology* and plan for *...* The *Singularity* Is Near Wall Street Journal - USA *...* Indeed, "The *Singularity* Is Near" is partly a cautionary tale *...*Unlike the Luddites, Mr. Kurzweil argues that the best way of curbing *technology's* potential harm *...* Deciphering a brave new world CNET News.com - United States *...* development and its exponential growth will usher in the *Singularity*by 2045. *...* Information *technology's* exponential curve will fuel advances in biology, robotics *...* ------------------------------ This once a week Google Alert is brought to you by Google. Remove this alert. Create another alert. Manage your alerts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 02:01:29 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:31:29 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: [Fwd: Federal Government Aiming to Ban Prime Numbers] In-Reply-To: <20051006213427.20716.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051006213427.20716.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0510061901h3d7f6243w@mail.gmail.com> On 07/10/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > Today a representative from the United States Ministry of Freedom > Announced that the Senate is drafting a bill to ban Prime Numbers. The > Bill is called "The Innumeracy & Unpatriotic Calculations Act", and > will be an extension of the Patriot Act. "Innumeracy" is a new word > meaning 'unpatriotic Math'. Prime Numbers are only equally divisible > by 1 and the number itself. This unique property, along with the > difficulty of factoring large numbers is what allows for all Internet > and electronic cryptography. The government's justification for the ban > on Prime Numbers is that terrorists could use cryptography to send > secret messages to each other, and these secret messages could threaten > American's freedom. Bush was quoted as saying, "In Kindergarten, kids > used to pass secret messages to each other when the teacher wasn't > looking. It wasn't fair then, and it isn't fair now". ... I'm assuming that Spike, with his unwholesome cohort of unamerican GIMPs sympathisers will lead the revolution. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Oct 7 02:49:17 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 21:49:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List In-Reply-To: References: <380-220051046202110300@M2W081.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051006214758.0304a430@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 03:49 PM 10/6/2005, S. wrote: >Great. So where does the rubber meet the road? If and when we develop a more future-oriented political theory from which to make some skid marks in reving up toward our future. Can't do it on old-world fuel. Best, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Oct 7 03:00:44 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:00:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List In-Reply-To: <20051006212550.48308.qmail@web30310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <380-220051046202110300@M2W081.mail2web.com> <20051006212550.48308.qmail@web30310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051006214927.0307bea8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 04:25 PM 10/6/2005, Mike wrote: >I liked BEST DO IT SO, myself, but that is now heresy, last I heard... I'm not going to bite. >who says extropy isn't interested in politics? No one. That's the point. Politics are not futuristic enough to be extropic. Need better means for producing the kinds of ideas that can change legislation and protect our rights. I wrote a little about this in my talk a few months ago. You can read the PowerPoint at http://www.natasha.cc and link to the First Conference of Geoethical Nanotechnology 2005 download in the left column. The blogocracy idea was well received, as was the nomothetic and diplomacy-based referendums. At least it has a couple of ideas. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Oct 7 03:09:12 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 20:09:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: [Fwd: Federal Government Aiming to Ban PrimeNumbers] In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0510061901h3d7f6243w@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200510070311.j973BDX23128@tick.javien.com> > On 07/10/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Today a representative from the United States Ministry of Freedom > > Announced that the Senate is drafting a bill to ban Prime Numbers ... > > I'm assuming that Spike, with his unwholesome cohort of unamerican > GIMPs sympathisers will lead the revolution. Emlyn Wholesome cohort. For these numbers to be banned, we need to know their identity, thus the effort. Speaking of GIMPS, now is your big chance, but you must act soon. The vanguard of the GIMPS effort is now searching candidates in the 9,500,000 decimal digit range. You may know that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (dedicated to defending freedom in the digital world) is offering 100,000 clams http://www.eff.org/ to the first person to discover a 10 million digit prime. The GIMPS effort will be in the 10 million digit range in about 8 to 10 months. But when you sign up, you have the option of requesting 10 million digit candidates. If you do that, you are only competing with about a thousand others. But if you wait around until this time next year, you will be in competition with the whole GIMPS crew who did not specify that option. So then you will be competing with over 60,000 likeminded math-geek treasure hunters instead of only ~1000.* Go to this site and follow the directions. http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft.htm I've been running it 24/7 for the past 7 years on two computers, it is safe. And we have great parties! With guys like Ernst Mayer and Donald Knuth (yes THE Donald). spike *Yes I know there is a logical fallacy in that comment. It was a joke. ----> {8^D I left it as an exercise to the statistics minded math-geek to find the error. From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Oct 7 03:15:19 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:15:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051006214927.0307bea8@pop-server.austin.rr.com > References: <380-220051046202110300@M2W081.mail2web.com> <20051006212550.48308.qmail@web30310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051006214927.0307bea8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051006220543.02c6f770@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Here is a little text taken from the PowerPoint presentation lecture. ... The environment in which politics functions has not made adequate progress over the past century. Culture developed from a world in which kings ruled, landowners enslaved, and citizens elected. Politics became a means for people to determine how they wanted to be governed. But politics does not always work, and eventually stagnated in the 20th Century. Politics is not futuristic enough. What is vastly needed is a strategic crafting of politics that is inclusive of the best ideas we have, across political boundaries, and sculpts these ideas into a plan of action that actually deals head-on with issues. What I thought about when I once ran for office, and what I think about today, is the development of a new political system that is non-partisan and trans-political. By this I mean a transition stage in which we cultivate better ways to assess how society views issues and how those issues affects society. One big question is how to get everyone?s opinion, not just those who vote and not just those who are elected. Could it be accomplished through a blogocracy? A blogocracy would preview the blog?s reputation systems for recognizing authenticity of people, bonding for people of the same social circles, and of bridging people in different circles. The non-partisan blogocracy would emerge as a trend of nomothetic and diplomacy-based referendums for voting on issues through pervasive computing environments. This would help enable instant feedback and communication between people in diverse cultures going through diverse situations in their own personal lives. The ubiquitous environment would produce rapid multi-cultural communication networks with instantaneous discussions, idea building and selection of choices on dealing with issues (voting). This communications produces a broader understanding and cooperation through online politics. Another idea concerns voting on issues rapidly by using molecular logic gates which would be a level of molecular nanotechnology as a novel format for computing power. The application would be rapid, it would be efficient, and it would be time-conscious and independent from bureaucratic waste. So this leaves the onus on the person, the individual to determine for him or herself where taxes go?to feed the children in Africa, toward desalination of water, national security, or alternative energy, for example. The point, which is so necessary for us to consider, is whether critical thinking is a skill that people can practice in a networked idea-exchange around the world. But if people don't have the skill of critical thinking, it is not going to work. ... What we can be sure of is that change will continue happening and we need to design the means for breaking away from constraints and limitations that keep us from realizing the fact that we can design our future ? barring an unforeseen catastrophe. What we need is an economic strategy to distinguish plausible from implausible claims about technologies such as molecular nanotechnology. In order to explain the role of the futurist as global designer, Buckminster Fuller, the famed architect and futurist, and comes to mind. He strove to see the big picture?the dynamics of the world and growing population. He was a designer who believed that the Earth's many problems could be solved by individual thinking and applied effort. He called this effort the ?comprehensive anticipatory design science? which incorporates whole systems thinking in doing more with less. Fuller?s whole systems thinking advocated using nature?s own principles of design as a never-ending flow. This never-ending flow reminds me of the futurists? notion of the continuous cycle of change. But design?s complex adaptive system is what I'm most interested in here today. And I believe Walt brought that up by talking about systems and complexity. Complexity and adaptive systems are happening simultaneously and ?it? [design?s complex adaptive system] is that moment when the adaptation takes place and the variables suddenly form new patterns. And those new patterns start forming balancing and reinforcing loops that, in turn, form new patterns. This is happening simultaneously as the world is becoming more prepared for the full automation and the perpetual adaptation for the change of nanotechnology. But I don't want to take this too far out of focus on the adapting systems, its agents and the variables that are forming themselves. I want to bring it back to what we can do with the brainpower that we have here in discussing global design and our future. In 1982, I met Bucky Fuller. He was holding a conference on the World Game plan. Adjacent to the stage was a big map and people would come up from the audience and start moving symbolic shapes representing products and commerce in the different locations around the planet. Each one had a formula of how they had to make the world work together and they bargained, they bartered, they traded, they negotiated. And they came up with ways that each location could produce something that would benefit the other area, knowing full well that a lot of the problem in the world is getting the resources to the people in need. What they did was to form links?like bridges?where they recognized a problem and use the symbolic shapes representing different products, whether it was agriculture or technology or education, to remedy the problem. It made a beautiful design. It was then that I made up my mind that design is not just essential to the future?it is our future. Another creative thinker, Bruce Mao, produced a project called Massive Change. What Bruce is doing in Canada is figuring out ways to explain, through the art world?s museums, how change happens on many different fronts. But he's not looking at it as a transhumanist or a futurist with the perspective that proaction is what needs to take place now in determining not just the ethics (and not just the philosophy - and not just the physical protocol of it), but what we can do in a ?game plan.? Today there is a software program where people come together (and they pay a good amount of money for it) and work on games that are based on Fuller's world game plan. It's all animated, it's electronic and you can be in person, or through the net, and take on different roles. So you are given a card and you join the team. You don't know what your role is going to be but you have the card and you find out that you have to trade something, maybe something that you don't believe in. Or you have to solve a problem, maybe one that you've already solved or one that you would never want to solve. The point here is that it's teaching people different skills and developing communications. The reason I think this is important for global design is that we know we have the talent, we know we have the skills, we know we have the opportunity. What we don't know is whether or not we can work together because of a lot of the biases. I think that Wrye [Sententia] was mentioning that in regard to sentence structures and how even in one sentence we might not grasp the same meaning. It?s how we phrase words and how we build design that will make a difference in how we communicate together. A shape can take many different forms. It can be angular, move around, gyrate one way or another, become a spiral, move up and down and around, and form many vortexes and apexes from which to create new designs, new complex adaptive systems and new ways of dealing and thinking about things. But if we look at the world as a design as I think Bucky Fuller did, with varied backgrounds and expertise needed to develop a design for the future, I think that we can work towards that end. And I think maybe one of the best ways is through storytelling. But it's not like we have to tell the story to someone else or we have to sit and listen to the story being told to us. Perhaps we take on the roles. Role-playing is an excellent way, like systems thinking, to teach each other how to deal with change and play (participate) on the other side (opposing side). ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Oct 7 03:59:05 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 20:59:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Worldwide SOS system In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051006192227.073b10d0@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20051007035905.9010.qmail@web30307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- David Lubkin wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > Some of you, like Mike, seem much closer than I to MacGyver-hood. > > > >Aw, I'm touched... These days I'm aiming for O'Neil-hood.... ;) > > You mean Gerry O'Neill? You want to have cool ideas, date my mother, > and then die young? No, I want to travel through stargates (and hit hole-in-ones through them), battle evil aliens, save the planet on a regular basis, and fish. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From amara at amara.com Fri Oct 7 07:57:53 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:57:53 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thomas: "Do not go gentle into that good night" Message-ID: This is my favorite Dylan Thomas poem ( http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15377 ) Do not go gentle into that good night by Dylan Thomas Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night. Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way, Do not go gentle into that good night. Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. And you, my father, there on the sad height, Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray. Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. ---------------------- and now can be heard reading his own works! http://www.salon.com/premium/downloads/dylan_thomas/index.html Amara (Molokai) -- ******************************************************************** 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 have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library." -- Jorge Luis Borges From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri Oct 7 08:20:28 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 01:20:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Thomas: "Do not go gentle into that good night" References: Message-ID: <001601c5cb18$0477a250$0300a8c0@Nano> I have a page devoted to him (although unfinished), with this poem as the feature. http://www.nanogirl.com/poetry/thomas.html It's also over my bed - next to the Van Gogh Starry Night (print of course). Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Amara Graps To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org ; wta-talk at transhumanism.org Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:57 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] Thomas: "Do not go gentle into that good night" This is my favorite Dylan Thomas poem ( http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15377 ) Do not go gentle into that good night by Dylan Thomas Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night. Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way, Do not go gentle into that good night. Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. And you, my father, there on the sad height, Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray. Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. ---------------------- and now can be heard reading his own works! http://www.salon.com/premium/downloads/dylan_thomas/index.html Amara (Molokai) -- ******************************************************************** 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 have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library." -- Jorge Luis Borges _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Oct 7 15:31:18 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:31:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Life Extension: creatine Message-ID: <380-220051057153118328@M2W126.mail2web.com> Has anyone tried creatine for boosting brain activity? "Through its role in promoting an abundant pool of cellular energy, creatine helps support the healthy functioning of muscle, brain, and other body tissues. A substantial body of research demonstrates that creatine is a safe and effective tool for managing a wide range of pathologies, and may be a powerful anti-aging nutrient. Healthy adults may benefit from supplementing with two to three grams of creatine daily, while those seeking to address specific health concerns such as muscle loss or brain injury may benefit from five to ten grams of creatine daily." (LE Magazine April 2005) Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Oct 7 16:01:41 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:01:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Robotic fish video Message-ID: <002801c5cb58$68a372f0$0100a8c0@kevin> For those of you who haven't seen, here's some video of the robotic fish that just went on display at London Aquarium. http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~jliua/videogal.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From astapp at amazeent.com Fri Oct 7 16:08:55 2005 From: astapp at amazeent.com (Acy James Stapp) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:08:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Life Extension: creatine Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE06082753@amazemail2.amazeent.com> The most effective over-the-counter nootropic I have seen is a combination of SAM-E 200mg and Vinpocetine 10mg four times a day. In summary, SAM-e is a methyl donor for many important biological compounds, including many neurotransmittersm, creatine, and phosphatidylcholine. Vinpocetine increases cerebral blood flow, has a neuroprotective effect, and inhibits acetylcholine release. I've also had good results with pregnenolone, which is an upstream steroid precursor and memory enhancer. All of these are available OTC in Texas at any well-stocked supplement store, including Whole Foods and Central Market. The may not be available in some states. YMMV. As with any nootropic, you should titrate your dosage by starting low and keeping records of your cognitive state as you slowly raise the dosage. After a point the gains start to reverse and you can actually make yourself stupider :P So be smart! Acy ================== SAM-E info from http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/sad_0231.s html ACTIONS SAMe plays a crucial biochemical role in the body by donating a one-carbon methyl group in a process called transmethylation. SAMe, formed from the reaction of L-methionine and adenosine triphosphate catalyzed by the enzyme S-adenosylmethionine synthetase, is the methyl-group donor in the biosynthesis of both DNA and RNA nucleic acids, phospholipids, proteins, epinephrine, melatonin, creatine and other molecules. Supplemental SAMe may have anti-depressant and hepatoprotective activities. MECHANISM OF ACTION The mechanism of action of supplemental SAMe is unclear. Much is known, however, of the mechanism of action of endogenous SAMe. Methylation of DNA is critical in the biological phenomenon known as gene silencing. Gene silencing helps suppress genes that may give rise to cancer or those that may carry information for endogenous retroviruses. Methylation of RNA, particularly transfer RNA, is similarly important in safeguarding the form and function of these molecules in protein synthesis. SAMe is the methyl donor to phosphatidylethanolamine in the formation of phosphatidylcholine (PC). PC is a major component of cell membranes and is vital for maintenance of cellular membrane fluidity, important in sustaining the bioenergetics and information-processing functions of cells. SAMe is also involved in the methylation of histones, major elements in chromosomal structure. This methylation is believed to play a key role in the regulation of DNA transcription, the process by which RNA is formed. The carbon and nitrogen atoms of L-carnitine are derived from methylated lysine residues, which are formed by methylating certain proteins with SAMe's methyl group. SAMe's importance in the body is further emphasized by the fact that it is also the methyl donor for the synthesis of epinephrine (adrenaline), creatine, melatonin, glutathione, the polyamines spermine and spermidine, and the amino acids L-cysteine and taurine, all of which play vital roles in human health. ================== Vinpocetine info From http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/vin_0259.s html ACTIONS Vinpocetine has several possible actions, including increasing cerebral blood flow and metabolism, anticonvulsant, cognition enhancement, neuroprotection and antioxidant. Vincamine, the parent compound of vinpocetine, is believed to be a cerebral vasodilator. MECHANISM OF ACTION Several mechanisms have been proposed for the possible actions of vinpocetine. Vinpocetine has been reported to have calcium-channel blocking activity, as well as voltage-gated sodium channel blocking activity. It has also been reported to inhibit the acetylcholine release evoked by excitatory amino acids and to protect neurons against excitotoxicity. In addition, vinpocetine has been shown to inhibit a cyclic GMP phosphodiesterase, and it is speculated that this inhibition enhances cyclic GMP levels in the vascular smooth muscle, leading to reduced resistance of cerebral vessels and increase of cerebral flow. In some studies, vinpocetine has demonstrated antioxidant activity equivalent to that of vitamin E. ================== Pregnenolone info from http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/pre_0211.s html ACTIONS Supplemental pregnenolone has putative memory-enhancing activity. MECHANISM OF ACTION Memory enhancement has been observed in aged animals when given pregnenolone or pregnenolone sulfate. Pregnenolone sulfate is both a gamma-aminobutyrate (GABA) antagonist and a positive allosteric modulator at the N-methyl-D-asparatate (NMDA) receptor and may reinforce neurotransmitter systems that may decline with age. Pregnenolone sulfate was found to stimulate acetylcholine release in the adult rat hippocampus. Acetylcholine release may be due to pregnenolone sulfate's negative modulation of the GABA (A) receptor complex and positive modulation of the NMDA receptor. While a modest increase in acetylcholine release facilities memory processes, elevation of acetylcholine beyond an optimal level is ineffective in doing so. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of nvitamore at austin.rr.com Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 10:31 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] Life Extension: creatine Has anyone tried creatine for boosting brain activity? "Through its role in promoting an abundant pool of cellular energy, creatine helps support the healthy functioning of muscle, brain, and other body tissues. A substantial body of research demonstrates that creatine is a safe and effective tool for managing a wide range of pathologies, and may be a powerful anti-aging nutrient. Healthy adults may benefit from supplementing with two to three grams of creatine daily, while those seeking to address specific health concerns such as muscle loss or brain injury may benefit from five to ten grams of creatine daily." (LE Magazine April 2005) Natasha From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Oct 7 17:27:15 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 13:27:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Life Extension: creatine Message-ID: <380-22005105717271599@M2W033.mail2web.com> From: Acy James Stapp >I've also >had good results with pregnenolone, which is an upstream steroid >precursor and memory enhancer. I'm not sure but I think that pregnenolone should not be taken if someone is on HRT. Any info on this? Thanks Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From brian at posthuman.com Fri Oct 7 17:56:40 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:56:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Life Extension: creatine In-Reply-To: <380-22005105717271599@M2W033.mail2web.com> References: <380-22005105717271599@M2W033.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <4346B6D8.8040303@posthuman.com> There is some discussion of these subjects in Kurzweil's Fantastic Voyage book, including the two types of HRT. But if you're really serious about it you'll need to consult a pro I think. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From hal at finney.org Fri Oct 7 18:02:21 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:02:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Thomas: "Do not go gentle into that good night" Message-ID: <20051007180221.39E3F57EFB@finney.org> When I was in high school I had an excellent teacher for poetry class, Mr. Barney. The first day of class he announced that he had been diagnosed with an irreversible condition and would go blind by the end of the year. Indeed, over the course of the year his vision got worse and worse and he was soon no longer able to read the books that he loved. Dylan Thomas was one of the poets he introduced us to, and I especially liked his poem Fern Hill, which you can read at . Mr. Barney played for us a recording of Thomas reading the poem, which helped a great deal in understanding it. I can still hear his voice as he savors each of the words he had written. Fern Hill is a poem whose theme is nostalgia for childhood. Thomas paints such an evocative word picture of his childhood days, playing on a farm among horses and haystacks and apple trees, that it's as though I lived it myself. Although nothing in my youth was anything like what he experienced, when I read this poem it is like I was there, prince of the apple boughs, lord of the trees and leaves, under "the sun that is young once only". High school kids are not nostalgic. They are looking forward in their lives, not back. But even then the poem spoke to me, the power of Thomas' wordplay and its vivid imagery captured me. Today I am middle aged, and Fern Hill is overwhelming. I can't read it without breaking into tears, for what I have lost, for the golden glory of childhood, for the tragic brevity of those magical years, when all unknowing our days are numbered, are being taken from us one by one. Oh as I was young and easy in the mercy of his means, Time held me green and dying Though I sang in my chains like the sea. This is where the theme intersects that of Do Not Go Gentle, the idea of us being swept forward by cruel Time, which Dylan sees as a force that takes away all that is precious. At best Time may be merciful and give us a few fleeting moments of happiness before it inevitably erases all that was. To me, Fern Hill is even more powerful in its evocation of what is, in memory, the happiest of times, and even then we are enchained, dying, the prisoners of Time. Hal From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 19:19:19 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 12:19:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Life Extension: creatine In-Reply-To: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE06082753@amazemail2.amazeent.com> References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE06082753@amazemail2.amazeent.com> Message-ID: Hm... I wonder if it would be worthwhile for us to put together a wikibook about nootropics and other supplements... On 10/7/05, Acy James Stapp wrote: > > The most effective over-the-counter nootropic I have seen is a > combination of SAM-E 200mg and Vinpocetine 10mg four times a day. In > summary, SAM-e is a methyl donor for many important biological > compounds, including many neurotransmittersm, creatine, and > phosphatidylcholine. Vinpocetine increases cerebral blood flow, has a > neuroprotective effect, and inhibits acetylcholine release. I've also > had good results with pregnenolone, which is an upstream steroid > precursor and memory enhancer. > > All of these are available OTC in Texas at any well-stocked supplement > store, including Whole Foods and Central Market. The may not be > available in some states. YMMV. As with any nootropic, you should > titrate your dosage by starting low and keeping records of your > cognitive state as you slowly raise the dosage. After a point the gains > start to reverse and you can actually make yourself stupider :P So be > smart! > > Acy > ================== > SAM-E info from > http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/sad_0231.s > html > ACTIONS > > SAMe plays a crucial biochemical role in the body by donating a > one-carbon methyl group in a process called transmethylation. SAMe, > formed from the reaction of L-methionine and adenosine triphosphate > catalyzed by the enzyme S-adenosylmethionine synthetase, is the > methyl-group donor in the biosynthesis of both DNA and RNA nucleic > acids, phospholipids, proteins, epinephrine, melatonin, creatine and > other molecules. > > Supplemental SAMe may have anti-depressant and hepatoprotective > activities. > MECHANISM OF ACTION > > The mechanism of action of supplemental SAMe is unclear. Much is known, > however, of the mechanism of action of endogenous SAMe. > > Methylation of DNA is critical in the biological phenomenon known as > gene silencing. Gene silencing helps suppress genes that may give rise > to cancer or those that may carry information for endogenous > retroviruses. Methylation of RNA, particularly transfer RNA, is > similarly important in safeguarding the form and function of these > molecules in protein synthesis. > > SAMe is the methyl donor to phosphatidylethanolamine in the formation of > phosphatidylcholine (PC). PC is a major component of cell membranes and > is vital for maintenance of cellular membrane fluidity, important in > sustaining the bioenergetics and information-processing functions of > cells. > > SAMe is also involved in the methylation of histones, major elements in > chromosomal structure. This methylation is believed to play a key role > in the regulation of DNA transcription, the process by which RNA is > formed. The carbon and nitrogen atoms of L-carnitine are derived from > methylated lysine residues, which are formed by methylating certain > proteins with SAMe's methyl group. > > SAMe's importance in the body is further emphasized by the fact that it > is also the methyl donor for the synthesis of epinephrine (adrenaline), > creatine, melatonin, glutathione, the polyamines spermine and > spermidine, and the amino acids L-cysteine and taurine, all of which > play vital roles in human health. > > ================== > Vinpocetine info From > http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/vin_0259.s > html > ACTIONS > > Vinpocetine has several possible actions, including increasing cerebral > blood flow and metabolism, anticonvulsant, cognition enhancement, > neuroprotection and antioxidant. Vincamine, the parent compound of > vinpocetine, is believed to be a cerebral vasodilator. > MECHANISM OF ACTION > > Several mechanisms have been proposed for the possible actions of > vinpocetine. Vinpocetine has been reported to have calcium-channel > blocking activity, as well as voltage-gated sodium channel blocking > activity. It has also been reported to inhibit the acetylcholine release > evoked by excitatory amino acids and to protect neurons against > excitotoxicity. In addition, vinpocetine has been shown to inhibit a > cyclic GMP phosphodiesterase, and it is speculated that this inhibition > enhances cyclic GMP levels in the vascular smooth muscle, leading to > reduced resistance of cerebral vessels and increase of cerebral flow. In > some studies, vinpocetine has demonstrated antioxidant activity > equivalent to that of vitamin E. > > ================== > Pregnenolone info from > http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/pre_0211.s > html > ACTIONS > > Supplemental pregnenolone has putative memory-enhancing activity. > MECHANISM OF ACTION > > Memory enhancement has been observed in aged animals when given > pregnenolone or pregnenolone sulfate. Pregnenolone sulfate is both a > gamma-aminobutyrate (GABA) antagonist and a positive allosteric > modulator at the N-methyl-D-asparatate (NMDA) receptor and may reinforce > neurotransmitter systems that may decline with age. > > Pregnenolone sulfate was found to stimulate acetylcholine release in the > adult rat hippocampus. Acetylcholine release may be due to pregnenolone > sulfate's negative modulation of the GABA (A) receptor complex and > positive modulation of the NMDA receptor. While a modest increase in > acetylcholine release facilities memory processes, elevation of > acetylcholine beyond an optimal level is ineffective in doing so. > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > nvitamore at austin.rr.com > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 10:31 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] Life Extension: creatine > > > Has anyone tried creatine for boosting brain activity? > > "Through its role in promoting an abundant pool of cellular energy, > creatine helps support the healthy functioning of muscle, brain, and > other body tissues. A substantial body of research demonstrates that > creatine is a safe and effective tool for managing a wide range of > pathologies, and may be a powerful anti-aging nutrient. Healthy adults > may benefit from supplementing with two to three grams of creatine > daily, while those seeking to address specific health concerns such as > muscle loss or brain injury may benefit from five to ten grams of > creatine daily." (LE Magazine April 2005) > > > Natasha > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Oct 7 20:19:39 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:19:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Ig Nobel winners Message-ID: <4346D85B.2030002@mindspring.com> [Doesn't a degree of obsessive compulsive behavior favor some of the endeavors below? -Terry] The 2005 Ig Nobel Prize Winners The 2005 Ig Nobel Prizes were awarded on Thursday evening, October 6, at the 15th First Annual Ig Nobel Prize Ceremony, at Harvard's Sanders Theatre. You can watch archived video of the live webcast. AGRICULTURAL HISTORY: James Watson of Massey University, New Zealand, for his scholarly study, "The Significance of Mr. Richard Buckley?s Exploding Trousers." REFERENCE: "The Significance of Mr. Richard Buckley?s Exploding Trousers: Reflections on an Aspect of Technological Change in New Zealand Dairy-Farming between the World Wars," James Watson, Agricultural History, vol. 78, no. 3, Summer 2004, pp. 346-60. WHO ATTENDED THE IG NOBEL CEREMONY: James Watson PHYSICS: John Mainstone and the late Thomas Parnell of the University of Queensland, Australia, for patiently conducting an experiment that began in the year 1927 -- in which a glob of congealed black tar has been slowly, slowly dripping through a funnel, at a rate of approximately one drop every nine years. REFERENCE: "The Pitch Drop Experiment," R. Edgeworth, B.J. Dalton and T. Parnell, European Journal of Physics, 1984, pp. 198-200. WHO ATTENDED THE IG NOBEL CEREMONY: John Mainstone MEDICINE: Gregg A. Miller of Oak Grove, Missouri, for inventing Neuticles -- artificial replacement testicles for dogs, which are available in three sizes, and three degrees of firmness. REFERENCES: US Patent #5868140, and the book Going Going NUTS!, by Gregg A. Miller, PublishAmerica, 2004, ISBN 1413753167. ACCEPTING: "The winner was unable to travel, and deliverd his acceptance speech via videotape." LITERATURE: The Internet entrepreneurs of Nigeria, for creating and then using e-mail to distribute a bold series of short stories, thus introducing millions of readers to a cast of rich characters -- General Sani Abacha, Mrs. Mariam Sanni Abacha, Barrister Jon A Mbeki Esq., and others -- each of whom requires just a small amount of expense money so as to obtain access to the great wealth to which they are entitled and which they would like to share with the kind person who assists them. PEACE: Claire Rind and Peter Simmons of Newcastle University, in the U.K., for electrically monitoring the activity of a brain cell in a locust while that locust was watching selected highlights from the movie "Star Wars." REFERENCE: "Orthopteran DCMD Neuron: A Reevaluation of Responses to Moving Objects. I. Selective Responses to Approaching Objects," F.C. Rind and P.J. Simmons, Journal of Neurophysiology, vol. 68, no. 5, November 1992, pp. 1654-66. WHO ATTENDED THE IG NOBEL CEREMONY: Claire Rind ECONOMICS: Gauri Nanda of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for inventing an alarm clock that runs away and hides, repeatedly, thus ensuring that people DO get out of bed, and thus theoretically adding many productive hours to the workday. WHO ATTENDED THE IG NOBEL CEREMONY: Gauri Nanda CHEMISTRY: Edward Cussler of the University of Minnesota and Brian Gettelfinger of the University of Minnesota and the University of Wisconsin, for conducting a careful experiment to settle the longstanding scientific question: can people swim faster in syrup or in water? REFERENCE: "Will Humans Swim Faster or Slower in Syrup?" American Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal, Brian Gettelfinger and E. L. Cussler, vol. 50, no. 11, October 2004, pp. 2646-7. WHO ATTENDED THE IG NOBEL CEREMONY: Brian Gettelfinger and Edward Cussler BIOLOGY: Benjamin Smith of the University of Adelaide, Australia and the University of Toronto, Canada and the Firmenich perfume company, Geneva, Switzerland, and ChemComm Enterprises, Archamps, France; Craig Williams of James Cook University and the University of South Australia; Michael Tyler of the University of Adelaide; Brian Williams of the University of Adelaide; and Yoji Hayasaka of the Australian Wine Research Institute; for painstakingly smelling and cataloging the peculiar odors produced by 131 different species of frogs when the frogs were feeling stressed. REFERENCE: "A Survey of Frog Odorous Secretions, Their Possible Functions and Phylogenetic Significance," Benjamin P.C. Smith, Craig R. Williams, Michael J. Tyler, and Brian D. Williams, Applied Herpetology, vol. 2, no. 1-2, February 1, 2004, pp. 47-82. REFERENCE: "Chemical and Olfactory Characterization of Odorous Compounds and Their Precursors in the Parotoid Gland Secretion of the Green Tree Frog, Litoria caerulea," Benjamin P.C. Smith, Michael J. Tyler, Brian D. Williams, and Yoji Hayasaka, Journal of Chemical Ecology, vol. 29, no. 9, September 2003. WHO ATTENDED THE IG NOBEL CEREMONY: Ben Smith and Craig Williams NUTRITION: Dr. Yoshiro Nakamats of Tokyo, Japan, for photographing and retrospectively analyzing every meal he has consumed during a period of 34 years (and counting). WHO ATTENDED THE IG NOBEL CEREMONY: Dr. Yoshiro Nakamats FLUID DYNAMICS: Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow of International University Bremen, Germany and the University of Oulu , Finland; and Jozsef Gal of Lor?nd E?tv?s University, Hungary, for using basic principles of physics to calculate the pressure that builds up inside a penguin, as detailed in their report "Pressures Produced When Penguins Pooh -- Calculations on Avian Defaecation." PUBLISHED IN: Polar Biology, vol. 27, 2003, pp. 56-8. ACCEPTING: The winners were unable to attend the ceremony because they could not obtain United States visas to visit the United States. Dr. Meyer-Rochow sent an acceptance speech via videotape. -- "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 patrick at kia.net Fri Oct 7 20:36:22 2005 From: patrick at kia.net (Patrick) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 13:36:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Life Extension: creatine In-Reply-To: <380-220051057153118328@M2W126.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200510072036.j97KaUX27253@tick.javien.com> I take it regularly. It works for me. My metric is crosswords: I do crosswords in bed before sleeping. When I've been taking creatine for a few days, the crossword solutions come easier and I get more of them done in the same time. I'm pretty sure it is a function of improving memory / recall. Patrick > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of nvitamore at austin.rr.com > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 8:31 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] Life Extension: creatine > > Has anyone tried creatine for boosting brain activity? > > "Through its role in promoting an abundant pool of cellular energy, > creatine helps support the healthy functioning of muscle, brain, and other > body tissues. A substantial body of research demonstrates that creatine is > a safe and effective tool for managing a wide range of pathologies, and > may > be a powerful anti-aging nutrient. Healthy adults may benefit from > supplementing with two to three grams of creatine daily, while those > seeking to address specific health concerns such as muscle loss or brain > injury may benefit from five to ten grams of creatine daily." (LE > Magazine > April 2005) > > > Natasha -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/117 - Release Date: 10/3/2005 From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Oct 7 21:04:47 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 14:04:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Katie Holmes "completely Cruise-controlled" Message-ID: <4346E2EF.6020901@mindspring.com> Paul W Harrison, TESL interEnglish (Finland) ----- Original Message ----- > Pictures of [Katie] Holmes from just a few days ago with [Tom] Cruise on > the set of "Mission: Impossible 3" are circulating on the Internet. > There's no sign of a pregnancy [ed.: Holmes is reportedly pregnant by > Cruise], but there is a woman in the background of every picture. > > She's been identified as *Jessica Feshbach Rodriguez*, a high-level minder > from the Church of Scientology. Her family has donated millions to > Scientology. *Who is Jessica Rodriguez?* 'Since Holmes began studying Scientology, Jessica Rodriguez has spent nearly every moment with her. According to reports from former members, Rodriguez was born Jessica Feshbach, daughter of Joe and Cindy Feshbach and a member of the Feshbach family, among the wealthiest and most influential families in Scientology. (Cindy runs the Palo Alto Scientology org and the South of Market Scientology mission in San Francisco.) Jessica reached Scientology level OT IV (Operating Thetan level 4) in 2003 and may have reached higher levels by this point. She is a highly-trained Scientology auditor, and is specially trained to run Scientology security checks and deliver the False Purpose Rundown. She is a member of Scientology's Sea Org (Sea Organization), an elite and extremely dedicated group who pledge to serve Scientology for a billion years, lifetime after lifetime.' Source: http://www.scientology-lies.com/faq/celebrities/katie-holmes.html -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Sat Oct 8 01:07:47 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 20:07:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Federal Government Aiming to Ban Prime Numbers In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0510061901h3d7f6243w@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051006213427.20716.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0510061901h3d7f6243w@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43471BE3.7000608@sasktel.net> This reminds me of the times when it was banned to own a computer > 1ghz clock speed at a time when it was concieved that no clock would ever run that fast on a civilian system. Does this act intend to make the creation of quantum computing illegal? Emlyn wrote: >On 07/10/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >>Today a representative from the United States Ministry of Freedom >>Announced that the Senate is drafting a bill to ban Prime Numbers. The >>Bill is called "The Innumeracy & Unpatriotic Calculations Act", and >>will be an extension of the Patriot Act. "Innumeracy" is a new word >>meaning 'unpatriotic Math'. Prime Numbers are only equally divisible >>by 1 and the number itself. This unique property, along with the >>difficulty of factoring large numbers is what allows for all Internet >>and electronic cryptography. The government's justification for the ban >>on Prime Numbers is that terrorists could use cryptography to send >>secret messages to each other, and these secret messages could threaten >>American's freedom. Bush was quoted as saying, "In Kindergarten, kids >>used to pass secret messages to each other when the teacher wasn't >>looking. It wasn't fair then, and it isn't fair now". .. >> We are talking about the guy who says God gives him messages???? What's next ? God says that 3 score and ten is good enough and afterwards let nature take its course???? From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Oct 8 03:53:01 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 22:53:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] BBC Series In-Reply-To: <003e01c5caa0$91094890$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <003e01c5caa0$91094890$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051007225220.01cb79a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 11:05 AM 10/6/2005 -0700, Olga url'd: >http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml but... ===================================== Bush God comments 'not literal' A Palestinian official who said the US president had claimed God told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan says he did not take George Bush's words literally. Nabil Shaath said he and other world leaders at a Jordan summit two years ago did not believe Mr Bush thought God had given him a personal message. Mr Bush's spokesman said the original allegation, which will appear in a BBC documentary next week, was absurd. Scott McClellan said the comments had never been made. The comments were attributed to Mr Bush by Mr Shaath, a Palestinian negotiator, in the upcoming TV series Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs. Mr Shaath said that in a 2003 meeting with Mr Bush, the US president said he was "driven with a mission from God". "God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did. "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it." Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who attended the meeting in June 2003 too, also appears on the documentary series to recount how Mr Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state." 'Strong faith' But in an interview for the BBC Arabic service on Friday, he said the president - who had just announced an end to hostilities in Iraq, was merely expressing his heartfelt commitment to peace in the Middle East. "President Bush said that God guided him in what he should do, and this guidance led him to go to Afghanistan to rid it of terrorism after 9/11 and led him to Iraq to fight tyranny," he said. "We understood that he was illustrating [in his comments] his strong faith and his belief that this is what God wanted." The TV series charts recent attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, from former US President Bill Clinton's peace talks in 1999-2000 to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip this year. It seeks to uncover what happened behind closed doors by speaking to presidents and prime ministers, along with their generals and ministers. The BBC Two series, Israel and the Arabs: Elusive Peace will be broadcast on Mondays from 10 October at 2100 BST. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4320586.stm Published: 2005/10/07 18:09:54 GMT ? BBC MMV From benboc at lineone.net Sat Oct 8 10:25:17 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 11:25:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List In-Reply-To: <200510070315.j973FvX23807@tick.javien.com> References: <200510070315.j973FvX23807@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <43479E8D.1010102@lineone.net> Natasha wrote: Now, I'm going to have some tea and put my feet up. Yeah, that's it. Live life to the full! WooHoo! ben From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 11:13:32 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 12:13:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051006214758.0304a430@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <380-220051046202110300@M2W081.mail2web.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051006214758.0304a430@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/7/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > At 03:49 PM 10/6/2005, S. wrote: > > Great. So where does the rubber meet the road? > > > If and when we develop a more future-oriented political theory from which > to make some skid marks in reving up toward our future. Can't do it on > old-world fuel. Politics exists wherever two or more people/entities interact. There is no escaping it and claiming Extropy embraces politics is both naive and wrong. Maybe by politics you meant specific existing ideologies, in which case you are correct. However, Extropy is a Human invention for Human times. Presumably its aim, from my POV at least, is to foster a Trans and Post Human condition that is acceptable to a present day Human minority (us). Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Sat Oct 8 15:51:56 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 10:51:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Grand Challenge update - in progress Message-ID: <4347EB1C.3040003@posthuman.com> http://www.grandchallenge.org/ Looks like the first 3 teams out of the gate have now finished almost half the 132 mile course. Some are still just starting. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From starman2100 at cableone.net Sat Oct 8 16:48:36 2005 From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 09:48:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dr. Sherwin Nuland on C-Span Message-ID: <1128790116_80577@S3.cableone.net> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Oct 8 18:27:05 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 11:27:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dr. Sherwin Nuland on C-Span In-Reply-To: <1128790116_80577@S3.cableone.net> References: <1128790116_80577@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <22360fa10510081127u5fec8f24te93f67145476401f@mail.gmail.com> On 10/8/05, starman2100 at cableone.net wrote: > > Hello everyone, Hi John, haven't seen you for quite a while. Welcome back! I watched Dr. Sherwin Nuland (considered one of the three finest M.D. > authors in > the west) on C-Span and the subject of life extension came up in the > interview. > He felt "compressed morbidity" or the reduction & management of > age-related > breakdown until the very end of life was what we should be aiming for, and > not > life-extension (anything beyond 120 years in his view). > > Nuland said he had recently spoken with Aubrey de Grey and went on about > de > Grey's plans for greatly extending lifespan (which he said were somewhat > vague > and not fully worked out yet) with a tone that was surprisingly almost > friendly > or at least neutral. The recent interaction between Nuland and Aubrey has been an interesting example of competition at one level providing cooperative advantage at a higher level. The doctor calmly stated he disagreed with de Grey's goal > of a human lifespan around 5-10,000 years. lol I wondered why de Grey had > the > arbitrary figure of 10,000 years as his finishing line. Why not 100,000 > years? Considered calculations of the "hazard function" indicate death by accident is likely within about 7500 years (not considering personal backups.) > I found it a poignant moment when a 75 year-old man and retired teacher > called in > and said he had a fear of death & oblivion which was almost constantly on > his > mind. Nuland said this man's fear was based in biology and evolution but > that > the problem seemed beyond just that single issue and instead obsessive in > nature, > so the advice given was that the man seek therapy and the assistance of a > good > support group to help him come to terms with his future demise. > > We certainly do carry a biologically evolved fear of dissolution of self which we would do well to come to terms with, but we can do much better than passively accepting the current limits to our goals and dreams. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Sat Oct 8 19:24:07 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 14:24:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] grand challenge - good blog Message-ID: <43481CD7.6060603@posthuman.com> "Stanford's Stanley has caught up to Red Team Too's H1ghlander and is attempting to pass and take the lead in the race. Both vehicles have been on the road for about 5 hours and are 97 miles into the course." "Darpa's offer to bring busloads of journalists to a vantage point near the course's halfway mark was a generous one, but unfortunately, the execution's a little off. Flummoxed by the sameness of Nevada desert roads, our driver gets hopelessly lost and has to resort to borrowing a cell phone from a passenger in the front row to call for help. "Too bad we don't have autonomous drivers already," a German journalist sitting across from me cracks. Thankfully, a nearby Darpa checkpoint officer sets us straight, and we're soon pulling into a deserted lot staked out with dozens of tripods." "Just as we're leaving the site, we catch another glimpse of H1ghlander from the window of the bus, this time chugging up a steep, powdery incline. Halfway up the hill, it slides agonizingly backward for about 10 feet, then, inch by inch, crawls forward to the top, as if channeling the spirit of the Little Engine That Could. This time, I can't resist letting out a little cheer. These competitors may be robots, but they've got some serious guts." -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From support at imminst.org Sat Oct 8 19:56:35 2005 From: support at imminst.org (Immortality Institute) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 12:56:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nov 5 Life Extension Conference Message-ID: Dear Extropy-chat at extropy.org, Join us Nov. 5, 2005 in Atlanta, GA for a Life Extension Conference. Meet Aubrey de Grey and sixteen other life extension visionaries to discuss advanced ideas and methods in anti-aging, artificial intelligence, cryonics, brain-computer interfacing and more. Hosted at GA Tech's modern Conference Center in downtown Atlanta, this full day event will focus on the human brain and life extension. Speakers: ? Martine Rothblatt, Ph.D., J.D., M.B.A. - Conscious Computers & Legal Rights ? James J. Hughes, Ph.D. - Neurological Remediation ? Brad F. Mellon, Ph.D. - Ethical and Theological Considerations ? Sonia Arrison - Technology Studies ? Natasha Vita-More BFA, MA, - Design for Change ? Peter A. Passaro - Brain-computer Interfacing ? Eliezer Yudkowsky - Artificial Intelligence ? Ben Goertzel, Ph.D. - Immortalizing Brains ? Max More, Ph.D. - Diachronous Self ? Ralph C. Merkle, Ph.D. - Cryonics ? Brian Wowk, Ph.D. - Suspended Animation by Vitrification ? Ben Best - Cryopreserving the Brain ? Rudi Hoffman, CFP - Cryonics Affordability ? Michael R. Rose, Ph.D. - Biological Immortality ? Peter Haughton - Artificial Heart ? Christopher B. Heward, Ph.D. - Optimal Health Medicine ? Aubrey D.N.J. de Grey, Ph.D. ? Anti-aging Science Register using code "LEF88" for 10% discount: http://www.imminst.org/conference/ Sincerely, Bruce J. Klein, Immortality Institute Conf. Chair http://www.imminst.org/bjklein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Sat Oct 8 20:44:07 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 15:44:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] grand challenge - good blog In-Reply-To: <43481CD7.6060603@posthuman.com> References: <43481CD7.6060603@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <43482F97.2060102@posthuman.com> Stanford has passed Red Team Too and is within a mile of the finish, looks like it's $2 million in the bag for them. Their time will be well under 8 hours - you had to beat 10 hours to win. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From alito at organicrobot.com Sat Oct 8 21:11:27 2005 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 07:11:27 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] grand challenge - good blog In-Reply-To: <43482F97.2060102@posthuman.com> References: <43481CD7.6060603@posthuman.com> <43482F97.2060102@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <1128805889.16556.5.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 15:44 -0500, Brian Atkins wrote: > Stanford has passed Red Team Too and is within a mile of the finish, looks like > it's $2 million in the bag for them. Their time will be well under 8 hours - you > had to beat 10 hours to win. And they've won it. I've never stayed up till 7am cheering green pixels to move very slowly accross the screen and hoping they wouldn't turn red. Will they have another one next year? Longer, with higher speed limits? From emlynoregan at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 21:55:08 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 07:25:08 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] grand challenge - good blog In-Reply-To: <1128805889.16556.5.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <43481CD7.6060603@posthuman.com> <43482F97.2060102@posthuman.com> <1128805889.16556.5.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <710b78fc0510081455k4b018be6g@mail.gmail.com> On 09/10/05, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 15:44 -0500, Brian Atkins wrote: > > Stanford has passed Red Team Too and is within a mile of the finish, looks like > > it's $2 million in the bag for them. Their time will be well under 8 hours - you > > had to beat 10 hours to win. > > And they've won it. I've never stayed up till 7am cheering green pixels > to move very slowly accross the screen and hoping they wouldn't turn > red. Will they have another one next year? Longer, with higher speed > limits? > It looks from the site as though Red Team has won: Red Team: 8h 26m Stanford: 8h 28m Red Team Too: 8h 33m There are three other bots still on the course, but unlikely to finish within the time limit at this stage. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From brian at posthuman.com Sat Oct 8 22:18:45 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 17:18:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] grand challenge - good blog In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0510081455k4b018be6g@mail.gmail.com> References: <43481CD7.6060603@posthuman.com> <43482F97.2060102@posthuman.com> <1128805889.16556.5.camel@alito.homeip.net> <710b78fc0510081455k4b018be6g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <434845C5.9020100@posthuman.com> Emlyn wrote: > > It looks from the site as though Red Team has won: > > Red Team: 8h 26m > Stanford: 8h 28m > Red Team Too: 8h 33m > Nah, just buggy scoreboard code - the time is still increasing even though they finished already. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Oct 8 22:42:51 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 15:42:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] grand challenge - good blog In-Reply-To: <434845C5.9020100@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20051008224251.86354.qmail@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Ah, well, looks like Axion Racing has learned that one smarter software in the van is worth more than two hotties in the bush. --- Brian Atkins wrote: > Emlyn wrote: > > > > It looks from the site as though Red Team has won: > > > > Red Team: 8h 26m > > Stanford: 8h 28m > > Red Team Too: 8h 33m > > > > Nah, just buggy scoreboard code - the time is still increasing even > though they > finished already. > > > -- > Brian Atkins > Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > http://www.singinst.org/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From sahynepu at concentric.net Sat Oct 8 23:55:10 2005 From: sahynepu at concentric.net (Sahyinepu) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 18:55:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] grand challenge - good blog In-Reply-To: <1128805889.16556.5.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: On Saturday, October 8, 2005, at 04:11 PM, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 15:44 -0500, Brian Atkins wrote: >> Stanford has passed Red Team Too and is within a mile of the finish, >> looks like >> it's $2 million in the bag for them. Their time will be well under 8 >> hours - you >> had to beat 10 hours to win. > > And they've won it. I've never stayed up till 7am cheering green > pixels > to move very slowly accross the screen and hoping they wouldn't turn > red. Will they have another one next year? Longer, with higher speed > limits? > Yeah...I second the, "will they have another one next year" question? I wish I had has a bit more prior knowledge this year so as to hunt down cheaper air fare...college isn't cheap, and I would have had to have flown out. I would have loved to have gone. Sah > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From xyz at iq.org Sun Oct 9 02:33:26 2005 From: xyz at iq.org (Julian Assange) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:33:26 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil article in new scientist Message-ID: <1128825206.985.244730572@webmail.messagingengine.com> >From a letter from Julian Assange to Chris Goddard: If you like that kind of thing, I recommend a very funny book called "Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition" by Ed Regis. A lot of these ideas have been blowing about the futurist set. As for Ray, I don't trust him much, he's a bit of a hype merchant. It's not clear to me that there is a law of accelerating returns, at least not the one Kurzweil had traditionally suggested. Part of the problem is that it is not clear what is the "natural scale" many these observations (e.g cpu operations per dollar) should be on if you want to pull them together and say something meaningful. The only objective way I can think about accelerating returns is in terms of energy and entropy measures. It seems clear that in the natural world an organinism can gain some more energy from its environment by spending some energy on computations in order to more efficaciously navigate its destiny. But the gain is sub-linear. If we spend some energy on N computations we rarely find an energy profit in proportion to N. The relationship is not only strongly sub-linear, but is limited to efficiency gains on energy inputs. With the exception of revealing a path to new energy sources, which is in some sense the whole deal, computation does not make energy, but permits us to produce more entropy with the same energy. But even here we can not say, forget energy --- that's just another unit, what we're really interested is in entropy. It's entropy that measures the the interesting things that life does. We can't say this because whilst one can convert energy into entropy with greater efficiency as Moores law goes on and buys us exponentially more computations per unit of energy spent, we're not that far off the theoretical limit for the conversion efficiency already. So the best way to increase entropy is to increase energy inputs. i.e increase energy sources. Four times the energy inputs at current conversion efficiency will easily beat the maximum possible conversion efficiency. But notice that the total entropy production per second associated with life on earth has been accelerating for billions of years. Restricting our thoughts to man in the last 100 years, the exponential growth in the economy is interdependent with an exponential growth in the consumption of energy inputs, so most of the entropy acceleration is from man pulling in more energy inputs from stored sources like oil, coal and uranium and encircling the already exploited renewable inputs of other life forms by... eating them. But what of the computational factor? When you do something more intelligently, i.e more efficiently than you once did, but still consume the same energy input (by increasing production) you produce more entropy than before. Infact we may define efficiency this way. We can see this clearly in generators that reuse their waste heat and emit it at a lower temperature and coprophagic animals that decrease the energy density of their feces. But this is what all of life is individually and as a whole; life is a super enzyme that makes a fast path from low entropy states to high entropy states. A blade of grass takes in sunlight at visible frequencies then re-radiates at infrared frequencies (higher entropy) after being eaten by a cow. If we include the act-ivies of man under this definition of life, then, life is getting, well, livelier. Looking at the entropy acceleration here on earth we might project our minds forward and say we are on a mission to randomize the entire universe. To boldly enropise where no one has entropised before. The only problem with this vision is that when we look out on the heavens we see stars. Lots of stars. Vast blobs of high energy density shedding relatively low entropy radiation into the night. Why isn't life elsewhere in the universe harnessing it? Sucking in the visible and re- radiating in the far infrared. It has had, after all, plenty of time to cover great swathes of galaxies if it had been onwards and outwards for a billion years. Does life arise rarely, or do civilisations collapse vigorously? Entropy always increases but its second derivative holds no such guarantees. Perhaps the dark ages on earth explains the extent of light we see in the heavens or do we just see what we see and the seeds of life have already consumed the twinking of the great inter cluster voids? On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:04:25 +1000 (EST), f.Goddard at ms.unimelb.edu.au said: > Hi people, > > There is an article you all must read in the latest New Scientist (the > one dated 24th September), written by Ray Kurzweil. It is an > interesting perspective on how things might pan out in the next thirty > or forty years. > > Cheers, Chris From gregburch at gregburch.net Sun Oct 9 12:49:23 2005 From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 07:49:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <43482F97.2060102@posthuman.com> Message-ID: Since I was old enough to read, I've been engaged by projections about the future. My favorite parts of the set of children's encyclopedias we had in the early 1960s were those that provided projections about the future. They showed me such wonderful visions: Atomic-powered cars! Cities under the sea! Vacations on the Moon! All this would come to be by the time I would be the age my parents were then. Well now I am that age and we know what happened to all of those glossy futures. But somehow, I never seem to learn. Seven years ago, we had a discussion here on the List about what we called "near-term projections" for the future to c. 2015. I gathered together some of the ideas in that discussion and put them in what I called a "futurist time capsule." Here it is: http://www.gregburch.net/writing/NearTerm.htm It makes for interesting and, in many instances, painful reading. Bear in mind that this was the vision some of us had in the Spring of 1998. We were surfing at the zenith of the 1990s Bubble. The Collapse of the Bubble, 911, Enron, Columbia ? all were in the future. What do you take away from looking back on looking forward? Greg Burch http://www.gregburch.net From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Oct 9 14:12:28 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 10:12:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 9, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Greg Burch wrote: > Since I was old enough to read, I've been engaged by projections about > the future. My favorite parts of the set of children's encyclopedias > we had in the early 1960s were those that provided projections about > the future. They showed me such wonderful visions: Atomic-powered > cars! Cities under the sea! Vacations on the Moon! All this would > come to be by the time I would be the age my parents were then. Well > now I am that age and we know what happened to all of those glossy > futures. > > But somehow, I never seem to learn. Seven years ago, we had a > discussion here on the List about what we called "near-term > projections" for the future to c. 2015. I gathered together some of > the ideas in that discussion and put them in what I called a "futurist > time capsule." Here it is: > > http://www.gregburch.net/writing/NearTerm.htm > > It makes for interesting and, in many instances, painful reading. > Bear in mind that this was the vision some of us had in the Spring of > 1998. We were surfing at the zenith of the 1990s Bubble. The > Collapse of the Bubble, 911, Enron, Columbia ? all were in the future. > > What do you take away from looking back on looking forward? This is very important for us to learn. I am greatly dismayed at the outlandish predictions that are still being made by transhumanists. I am still seeing predictions of human-level AI, self-replicating nanotech, curing cancer, curing aging, human uploading, animal uplifting, etc. within the 5-10 year timeframe. The above examples are the tame ones. You can also find examples from the early 1990's where we thought we would be in space by now, or beyond the singularity, have AI robots doing our laundry, etc. We have to learn to really develop technology, and really architect future while basing our predictions on real designs. Just extrapolating past patterns onto the future just doesn't work. It isn't just glossy sci-fi magazines that failed to predict the future accurately. It was us! Transhumanists are not any better at predicting the future than others. It is just that we err on the side of overstated exuberance while others err on the side of pessimistic extrapolation. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Oct 9 14:38:02 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 07:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051009143802.866.qmail@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Greg Burch wrote: > Since I was old enough to read, I've been engaged by projections > about the future. My favorite parts of the set of children's > encyclopedias we had in the early 1960s were those that provided > projections about the future. They showed me such wonderful visions: > Atomic-powered cars! Cities under the sea! Vacations on the Moon! > All this would come to be by the time I would be the age my parents > were then. Well now I am that age and we know what happened to all > of those glossy futures. > > But somehow, I never seem to learn. Seven years ago, we had a > discussion here on the List about what we called "near-term > projections" for the future to c. 2015. I gathered together some of > the ideas in that discussion and put them in what I called a > "futurist time capsule." Here it is: > > http://www.gregburch.net/writing/NearTerm.htm > > It makes for interesting and, in many instances, painful reading. > Bear in mind that this was the vision some of us had in the Spring of > 1998. We were surfing at the zenith of the 1990s Bubble. The > Collapse of the Bubble, 911, Enron, Columbia ? all were in the > future. > > What do you take away from looking back on looking forward? Learn to keep your predictions to yourself, cause you never know what government nudge is going to see your predictions as both accurate and a threat to their status quo power. Neal Stephenson, for example, got a little to loud and widely heard on his predictions of the demise of the dollar and the Federal Reserve with the rise of widespread cryptography and ubiquitous door to door fiber optic. They tried to stop crypto, but wound up stopping the ubiquitous fiber throught to Communications Reform Act. Given the amount of capital sunk into global backbones in expectation of ubiquitous fiber to the last mile, it was inevitable that Greenspans complaints of "irrational exhuberance" would tip the economy on its side. This is one reason why I refuse to stop lecturing extropians to not ignore politics: you may not be interested in it, but it is interested in you. Enron and the bubble collapse were the same event. An extropian future is not inevitable, it can be legislated out of existence or even possibility. Refuse to politick at your own peril, and learn to keep your secrets. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 14:46:58 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:46:58 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <20051009143802.866.qmail@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051009143802.866.qmail@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520510090746icd33938pa343ba844f7fb759@mail.gmail.com> Well, the settlement of space that we expected when we were kids did not materialize. But other things that we did not expect did materialize, like the very Internet we are using for this message. I am reading Kurzweil's last book - the Singularity is near, and agree with him that today Star Trek-like spaceships seem naive: a civilization with start travel will long before have transcended its biologic substrate. 1 kg computronium starships crewed by merged AIs and uploads (see Stross' Accelerando) seem much more likely. Often the future happens as a surprise, this is what makes life fun. G. > --- Greg Burch wrote: > > But somehow, I never seem to learn. Seven years ago, we had a > > discussion here on the List about what we called "near-term > > projections" for the future to c. 2015. I gathered together some of > > the ideas in that discussion and put them in what I called a > > "futurist time capsule." Here it is: > > > > http://www.gregburch.net/writing/NearTerm.htm > > > > It makes for interesting and, in many instances, painful reading. > > Bear in mind that this was the vision some of us had in the Spring of > > 1998. We were surfing at the zenith of the 1990s Bubble. The > > Collapse of the Bubble, 911, Enron, Columbia ? all were in the > > future. > > > > What do you take away from looking back on looking forward? From alito at organicrobot.com Sun Oct 9 15:28:22 2005 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:28:22 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 10:12 -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > accurately. It was us! Transhumanists are not any better at > predicting the future than others. It is just that we err on the side > of overstated exuberance while others err on the side of pessimistic > extrapolation. > There is no we or us here. Those predictions were mostly made by Greg Burch, a couple of people piped up with comments, and Greg took some of them onboard on his write up. That is all. (I wish I would have written down some predictions, and I admire Greg's work ethic in actually going through with it and remembering to look them up after all these years afterwards. But this is no lesson to anyone else unless you remember agreeing with those that wrote them) From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Oct 9 15:46:00 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:46:00 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051003191203.02f153d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <06b101c5cce8$8c898970$8998e03c@homepc> Natasha wrote: Our Vice President, Greg Burch, said recently that ...we need a new political viewpoint -- one that far outreaches what we have known in the past - on that is more futuristic for a society that will find its place in the future and help others along into that future. I'd like to hear more about these thoughts on the need for a new political viewpoint. I do wonder what sort of futurist society Greg in particular envisages. What will make this future society a society, how would it be envisaged to cohere? Will it be global or national? Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Sun Oct 9 16:15:42 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 09:15:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4349422E.6040701@pobox.com> Greg Burch wrote: > What do you take away from looking back on looking forward? I'm hopeful that I'll have more time in which to work before one of the deadlines strikes. But not too hopeful. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 17:01:29 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 19:01:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051003191203.02f153d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051003191203.02f153d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520510091001y771b5199t6b2d0295641ba680@mail.gmail.com> Sounds like a plan Natasha! Perhaps these few considerations can help: I agree with "Politics is not futuristic enough. What is vastly needed is a strategic crafting of politics that is inclusive of the best ideas we have, across political boundaries, and sculpts these ideas into a plan of action that actually deals head-on with issues" in another message of yours. But while elaborating the politics of tomorrow, we still need dealing with the politics of today. Like you work to save money for a Ferrari, but a Toyota is all you have today to go to work. Even if you plan to discard your Toyota, you still have to take care of it because if it breaks you will be unable to earn the money you need for replacing it with the Ferrari of your dreams. I am one of the very few leftwingers left on the list. As a matter of fact I am quite fond of the Principles of Extropy and do not consider them incompatible with my (usually) leftist political stance. What we need, as you say above, is finding a way to merge the best of both worlds into action plans that can energize people. It is not easy, but nobody said it would be. <<>> - Well, perhaps you are being too hard. This *is* a solid, intelligent, creative and inspiring email list. Better a tolerable level of infighting than too much diplomacy and watering down. We are supposed to be friends, the occasional F.Y.A. is no problem between friends if it helps making the point and is kept within reasonable levels. Extropy will never have a measurable impact on anything important if it does not go mainstream. I understand that some early members may have been disenchanted by seeing ExI distancing itself from "outlandish political positioning, bad press from early days of cult references, and being a small group of crazed futurists", but I think this is a necessary evolution toward the goal of having an impact. Some degree of compromising, like going to boring business meetings with a suit and a tie, is a necessary part of growing up from teenager to adult, toward a position where you *can* make a difference. G. From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Sun Oct 9 17:23:28 2005 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 13:23:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: On Oct 9, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 10:12 -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote: >> accurately. It was us! Transhumanists are not any better at >> predicting the future than others. It is just that we err on the side >> of overstated exuberance while others err on the side of pessimistic >> extrapolation. >> > There is no we or us here. Those predictions were mostly made by Greg > Burch, a couple of people piped up with comments, and Greg took some of > them onboard on his write up. That is all. > (I wish I would have written down some predictions, and I admire Greg's > work ethic in actually going through with it and remembering to look > them up after all these years afterwards. But this is no lesson to > anyone else unless you remember agreeing with those that wrote them) No, I wasn't one of the people who agreed with these predictions. But most people did. You can review the archives if you don't believe me. These were not rare or odd predictions made by Greg. It was convention transhumanist thought. And it was wrong. Today, there are still such predictions about AI and nanotech. People are still expecting the singularity within a decade. It simply won't happen. Everybody will think I am too pessimistic now. And then everyone will deny making these predictions 10 years from now. I've been through it before, and I'll go through it again. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 9 17:36:00 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:36:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:23 PM 10/9/2005 -0400, Harvey wrote: >People are still expecting the singularity within a decade. It simply >won't happen. Everybody will think I am too pessimistic now. And then >everyone will deny making these predictions 10 years from now. My take in the US edition of THE SPIKE (revised 2000, published 2001) was this, at the close of my final chapter: Damien Broderick From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Oct 9 18:32:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 11:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Sigh!... fi In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051003130614.01d8f1e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051009183210.73083.qmail@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > > http://www.locusmag.com/2005/Features/10_Westfahl_Serenity.html > > Review of Serenity, by Gary Westfahl > > employed ? specifically, knowledge that might be used to "improve" > the nature of humanity. The problem with the evil Alliance, Mal > explains, is that they think "they can make people better," and Mal > disagrees: "I don't hold to that. I aim to misbehave." Of course, > when the only evidence on hand of efforts to improve humanity is a > drug that turns some people into inert statues and others into > crazed cannibals, the film's deck is pretty much stacked against > human-transforming technology, and one might also protest > that "making people better" could be said to include putting them > in spaceships and giving them terraformed worlds to live on, which > nobody in the crew of Serenity seems to object to. > Westfahl is distinctly off here. I saw Serenity last night, and the context of the movie was clearly against only the use of state power to force people to fit into a mold of what the state considers proper. "making people better" in this context was to make them behave better according to the states definition, i.e. being good little citizens who never break the law or get uppity to their betters. It was not against human-transforming technologies per-se. The two examples in the movie, of the drug "PAX" used on an entire planet, intended to deter their agressive tendencies, only to eliminate all motivation to live in 90% while turning the rest into crazed cannibals, clearly demonstrates the risks of unintended consequences that transhumanists must deal with, and is a metaphor for a current day phenomenon that is not being reported on sufficiently, or properly: the society-wide use of psycho-pharmics, particularly the state-mandated use of them on children in government schools, against the will of the children or the parents, which has resulted in well publicized cases of mass violence by improperly diagnosed children. The planet Miranda is a metaphor for Columbine. The other example is the character River Tam, who was taken from her elite school by the state and subjected to human experiments, torture, and brain damage in order to make her a psychic, and then exposing her and her powers to the minds of monstrously evil government leaders who had committed the heinous crimes at Miranda, giving her memories which drove her fragile mind insane. Here again, the theme is the abuse of government power by a government that on its face claims to act for the benefit of all humankind, with the 'best of intentions', but is in fact corrupt and evil in its acts and non-public motivations. The pursuit of River Tam by the Parliament Operative isn't that she is a dangerous weapon that could hurt members of the public, it is that she knows too much about the Miranda incident and threatens the stability of thepower of the Parliamentary leadership. Thus her example is NOT that human-altering technology is bad, but that it is wrong to force it upon a person, and worse, to cover up that crime. There are plenty of examples of people using advanced technology for good in the movie. Mr. Universe, for one, is a cypherpunk-type who can hack any part of the Cortex Feed, and uses his talents to broadcast truth to the public. He has a massive complex at his disposal, and lives alone with his robot.... girlfriend. As Westfahl mentioned, we see people using spaceships and terraforming, and many other technologies, so the problem isn't any latent luddism in the movie, it is that his premise is wrong. "Better" has several definitions, only one of which is 'improvement'. As "better" is actually part of "good", we see: "Pleasant; enjoyable: had a good time at the party. Of moral excellence; upright: a good person. Benevolent; kind: a good soul; a good heart. Loyal; staunch: a good Republican. Well-behaved; obedient: a good child. Socially correct; proper: good manners. Welfare; benefit: for the common good. Goodness; virtue: There is much good to be found in people." It is evident that the Alliance Parliament's goal is not improvement in performance and potential of the average citizens capabilities (unless they are firmly under the control of the Alliance), its goal is to make citizens more pleasant, moral, upright, kind, loyal (especially loyal), well-behaved (that too), obedient, socially correct, proper, and virtuous. That the Alliance is misdirected in this is evident in the Parliament Operative: he is a monster, capable of executing a person on a whim, he hold no name or rank, and is therefore immune to prosecution. With immense martial and rational faculties, he is intently focused on his orders to the exclusion of all else and regards himself as a superior judge of facts, which helps him rationalize his murders. The concept that orders could be illegal does not occur to him, as he is above the law, as are his superiors. He does, however, know that he is a monster, who commits evil acts, rationalizing that he does them in order to achieve the future 'perfect world' that he dreams about, but knows he himself is not fit to live in. In the end, after he has been defeated and the truth of Miranda is broadcast, he is rational enough to call off the hunt, as obviously the threat that the Tams posed no longer exists: the secrets they knew are no longer secrets, the damage of public disclosure is done, killing or capturing them will serve no rational purpose. In this, we see that he does have the seeds of nobility in him. He may redeem himself to humanity someday. Those who have followed the series "Firefly" may come to the conclusion, as I have, that Shepherd Book, the preacher on board Serenity, was once a Parliament Operative who redeemed himself through the priesthood in his retirement. His knowledge of the inner workings of the Alliance government, as well as his ability to get the alliance off the crews backs once, his familiarity with combat and weapons, etc. all point to him once holding a similar position, particularly his knowledge of the existence of Parliament Operatives. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Oct 9 18:37:38 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 11:37:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <10902B0C-7C97-4ADF-8D98-FA221C2C075F@mac.com> Thanks for keeping and posting this, Greg. It makes for interesting Sunday morning reading. What hits me from this list is that for all the predictions we have thus far (2015 is 10 years away) missed, we have exceeded some predictions and likely to reach many others by 2015. So some things came a wee bit later. Yeah we don't have smart roads and VR is still not great, cryogenics hasn't improved that much, space development sucks and so on. But the technological basis for many of these things is moving along nicely. I am not that unhappy looking back at looking forward. I think one of the things making prediction problematic in this group is lack of sufficient understanding and grounding in current realities and likely contingencies. - samantha On Oct 9, 2005, at 5:49 AM, Greg Burch wrote: > Since I was old enough to read, I've been engaged by projections > about the future. My favorite parts of the set of children's > encyclopedias we had in the early 1960s were those that provided > projections about the future. They showed me such wonderful > visions: Atomic-powered cars! Cities under the sea! Vacations on > the Moon! All this would come to be by the time I would be the age > my parents were then. Well now I am that age and we know what > happened to all of those glossy futures. > > But somehow, I never seem to learn. Seven years ago, we had a > discussion here on the List about what we called "near-term > projections" for the future to c. 2015. I gathered together some > of the ideas in that discussion and put them in what I called a > "futurist time capsule." Here it is: > > http://www.gregburch.net/writing/NearTerm.htm > > It makes for interesting and, in many instances, painful reading. > Bear in mind that this was the vision some of us had in the Spring > of 1998. We were surfing at the zenith of the 1990s Bubble. The > Collapse of the Bubble, 911, Enron, Columbia ? all were in the future. > > What do you take away from looking back on looking forward? > > Greg Burch > http://www.gregburch.net > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From megao at sasktel.net Sun Oct 9 17:58:34 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:58:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Large primes, quantum computing and singularity dismemberment In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <43495A4A.7070506@sasktel.net> stem cell bans, codex for natural health products, and laws that might prevent technology from developing outside of military confines are double edged. If large number use and access is a function of quantum computing then this" innumeracy act" may eventually divert the moore's law pathway into non-commercial uses only and possibly divert the high level computational capacity required by AIs to non-civilian use only. This might confine the initial singularity to non-civilians , that is so long as the resulting AIs do not override this and create a distributed, open source access under conditions they feel appropriate. Socialization amonst AIs might amount to offering to humans the evolutionary option to upgrade themselves to a level at which they become "fit company" for AIs. Somehow, the G9 military seems more trustworthy than many of the nut cases who have crawled to top of the world's political food chain over the years. MFJ Damien Broderick wrote: > At 01:23 PM 10/9/2005 -0400, Harvey wrote: > >> People are still expecting the singularity within a decade. It >> simply won't happen. Everybody will think I am too pessimistic now. >> And then everyone will deny making these predictions 10 years from now. > > > My take in the US edition of THE SPIKE (revised 2000, published 2001) > was this, at the close of my final chapter: > > I certainly don't know whether an AI or nano-minted Singularity will > be brought about (assuming it does actually occur) by careful, > effortful design in an Institute with a Spike engraved on its door, by > a congeries of industrial and scientific research vectors, or by > military ambitions pouring zillions of dollars into a new arena that > promises endless power through mayhem, or mayhem threateningly > withheld. [...] > What of social forces taking up arms against this future? > We've seen the start of a new round of protests and civil disruptions > aimed at genetically engineered foods, work in cloning and genomics, > but not yet at longevity or computing research. It will come, > inevitably. We shall see strange bedfellows arrayed against the > machineries of major change. The only question is how effective the > impact will be. [...] > Cultural objections to AI, cryonics and uploading will > emerge, as venomous as yesterday's and today's attacks on > contraception and abortion rights, or anti-racism struggles. If > opposition to the Spike [that is, the Singularity], or any of its > contributing factors, gets attached to one or more influential > religions or cults, that might set back or divert the rushing current. > Alternatively, careful, balanced study of the risks of general > assemblers and autonomous artificial intelligence might result in just > the kinds of moratoriums that Greens now urge upon genetically > engineered crops and herds. > Given the time lag before a singularity occurs--at least a > decade, and far more probably at least two or even five--there's room > for plenty of informed specialist and public debate of this sort. Just > as the basic technologies of the Spike will depend on design-ahead > projects, so too we'll need a kind of think-ahead program to prepare > us for changes that otherwise might, indeed, scare us witless. And of > course, the practical, day-to-day impact of new technologies always > conditions the sorts of social values that emerge in response to their > arrival. Recall the subtle interplay between availability of the oral > contraceptive pill and swiftly changing sexual mores, the easy > acceptance of in vitro conception. > Despite possible impediments to the arrival of the Spike, > then, I suggest that while it might be delayed, almost certainly it's > not going to be halted. If anything, the surging advances I see every > day coming from labs around the world convince me that we already are > racing up the lower slopes of its curve into the incomprehensible. > In short, it makes little sense to try to pin down the > future with any exactness. Too many strange changes are occurring > already, with more lurking just out of sight, ready to leap from the > equations and surprise us. True AI, when it occurs, might dash within > days or months to SI (superintelligence), and from there into a realm > of Powers whose motives and plans we can't even start to second-guess. > Nano minting could go feral or worse, used by crackpots or statesmen > to squelch their foes and rapidly smear us all into paste. Or sublime > AI Powers might use it to the same end, recycling our atoms into > better living through femtotechnology. > The single thing I feel confident of is that one of these > trajectories will start its visible run up the right-hand side of the > graph within 10 or 20 years, and by 2030 (or 2050 at latest) will have > put into question everything we hold self-evident. We will live > forever; or we will all perish most horribly; our minds will emigrate > to cyberspace, starting the most ferocious overpopulation race ever > seen on the planet; or our machines will Transcend and take us with > them, or leave us in some peaceful backwater where the meek shall > inherit the Earth. Or something else, something far weirder and... > unimaginable. > > > Damien Broderick > On 07/10/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: >> Today a representative from the United States Ministry of Freedom >> Announced that the Senate is drafting a bill to ban Prime Numbers. The >> Bill is called "The Innumeracy & Unpatriotic Calculations Act", and >> will be an extension of the Patriot Act. "Innumeracy" is a new word >> meaning 'unpatriotic Math'. Prime Numbers are only equally divisible >> by 1 and the number itself. This unique property, along with the >> difficulty of factoring large numbers is what allows for all Internet >> and electronic cryptography. The government's justification for the ban >> on Prime Numbers is that terrorists could use cryptography to send >> secret messages to each other, and these secret messages could threaten >> American's freedom. Bush was quoted as saying, "In Kindergarten, kids >> used to pass secret messages to each other when the teacher wasn't >> looking. It wasn't fair then, and it isn't fair now". ... > > I'm assuming that Spike, with his unwholesome cohort of unamerican GIMPs sympathisers will lead the revolution. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 9 19:09:49 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:09:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: <43482F97.2060102@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009135230.01d31bd0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:49 AM 10/9/2005 -0500, Greg Burch wrote: >we know what happened to all of those glossy futures. > >But somehow, I never seem to learn. Seven years ago, we had a discussion >here on the List about what we called "near-term projections" for the >future to c. 2015. I gathered together some of the ideas in that >discussion and put them in what I called a "futurist time capsule." Here >it is: > > http://www.gregburch.net/writing/NearTerm.htm One item: circa 2005 * Computer Technology (Processing, Interface, Software, Networks): * speech input ubiquitous; It isn't of course, but we're getting closer. Since the start of 2005, almost all my text production has been done using the commercial voice recognition system Dragon NaturallySpeaking8 (Preferred edition). That includes most of my e-mails, a number of book reviews, and an entire hundred thousand word novel. I haven't been doing this for the sheer neophiliac fun of it, to be out there on the cutting edge, but because 45 years of pounding on the keyboard has so damaged my arthritic fingers that it's excruciating and finally impossible to type. I have the impression that certain crisply spoken Californians might be able to dictate unhesitatingly to this system, but I can tell you that an educated working-class Australian accent is not the program's favourite, despite this more expensive version allegedly having a tailor-made Australian vocabulary. (So far, I've had to make three or four rather labourious corrections to the female, no you stupid bastard, to this e-mail, including several words that I had to spell out. Tedious, but preferable to pain or muteness.) Despite the drawbacks, I'm much better off in 2005 than I would have been in 1998, which was roughly when I tried an earlier version of this program and threw it away in disgust. With any luck, subsequent iterations will improve to the point where I really don't need to stop several times per paragraph to correct the damned thing. On the other hand, at the rate that I'm going functionally blind from vitreous floaters, being able to speak to a machine and have it transcribe my words faithfully won't necessarily be a whole lot of use, although I look forward to hearing it read my words back in a Shakespearean accent rather than the somewhat Dalek tones it uses now. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 9 19:11:39 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:11:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Large primes, quantum computing and singularity dismemberment In-Reply-To: <43495A4A.7070506@sasktel.net> References: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <43495A4A.7070506@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009141031.01d18008@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:58 PM 10/9/2005 -0500, someone wrote: >If large number use and access is a function of quantum computing then >this" innumeracy act" >may eventually divert the moore's law pathway It was a joke, Joyce. A parody, get it? Yikes. From rhanson at gmu.edu Sun Oct 9 19:37:46 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 15:37:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: <43482F97.2060102@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051009104107.02fe4ec0@mail.gmu.edu> At 08:49 AM 10/9/2005, Greg Burch wrote: >Since I was old enough to read, I've been engaged by projections >about the future. ... >But somehow, I never seem to learn. Seven years ago, we had a >discussion here on the List about what we called "near-term >projections" for the future to c. 2015. I gathered together some of >the ideas in that discussion and put them in what I called a >"futurist time capsule." Here it >is: http://www.gregburch.net/writing/NearTerm.htm >It makes for interesting and, in many instances, painful reading. ... >What do you take away from looking back on looking forward? Let me suggest that we should structure and formalize this sort of experience enough to let us use standard statistical tools to learn from it. That is, we should create a "dataset" consisting of a list entries each of which has fields like the following: Date of forecast Date of forecasted event Forecasted parameter value Actual parameter value (or current best estimate of future parameter value) Author parameters: age, gender, education level, profession, ... Relative expertize of author on topic Soc/tech level of forecast (ranging from basic low level technological possibility to mid level device to high level change in patterns of social behavior) Rough size of organization that required to achieve prediction Industry of forecast: energy, transportation, computation, entertainment, ... Supporting technology of forecast: hardware, software, genetics, chemistry, ... With a little more thought one could probably come up with a lot more relevant fields. Given such a dataset one could do multivariate regressions with forecast accuracy and bias as dependent variables, and all the other fields as independent variables. Such statistics would then tell us which kinds of forecasts and authors tend to have what relative accuracy or biases. Greg's forecasts would be a fine place to start. One could add in forecasts by Kurzweil and others as time permits. It really shouldn't be that hard to collect such a dataset. For a first cut analysis one needn't put that much thought into deciding the exact field value for each forecast. Having two or three people independently fill in field values would probably be sufficient - a high enough correlation among their entries would show the process to be sufficiently reliable. If some other people would help with putting such a dataset together, I'd be happy to help with the statistical analysis and with writing it up and working to get it published. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Oct 9 19:40:27 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 15:40:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Oct 9, 2005, at 1:36 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 01:23 PM 10/9/2005 -0400, Harvey wrote: > >> People are still expecting the singularity within a decade. It >> simply won't happen. Everybody will think I am too pessimistic now. >> And then everyone will deny making these predictions 10 years from >> now. > > My take in the US edition of THE SPIKE (revised 2000, published 2001) > was this, at the close of my final chapter: These predictions seem much more reasonable to me. Do you have people agreeing with your timelines? Or do you find most transhumanists telling you that you are too conservative? -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 9 19:56:04 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:56:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009144455.01c88548@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:40 PM 10/9/2005 -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote: >On Oct 9, 2005, at 1:36 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: >> >>My take in the US edition of THE SPIKE (revised 2000, published 2001) was >>this, at the close of my final chapter: > >These predictions seem much more reasonable to me. > >Do you have people agreeing with your timelines? Or do you find most >transhumanists telling you that you are too conservative? Damned if I know. Although transhumanists sort of recognize the existence of my book, I haven't seen much discussion of it. I suppose extropians tend to see it as nothing more than a sort of watered-down summary of discussions from this list. Mainstreamers tended to ignore it because it was all that "made up sci-fi crap". That's why it's encouraging, on the one hand, to see Kurzweil's book being reviewed everywhere but, on the other, somewhat disheartening that it's being received pretty much as if all these ideas sprang fully armed from his forehead (an impression not entirely inconsistent with the tenor of Ray's own presentation, cough). Damien Broderick From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Oct 9 20:03:25 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:03:25 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <10902B0C-7C97-4ADF-8D98-FA221C2C075F@mac.com> References: <10902B0C-7C97-4ADF-8D98-FA221C2C075F@mac.com> Message-ID: On Oct 9, 2005, at 2:37 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Thanks for keeping and posting this, Greg. It makes for interesting > Sunday morning reading. > > What hits me from this list is that for all the predictions we have > thus far (2015 is 10 years away) missed, we have exceeded some > predictions and likely to reach many others by 2015. So some things > came a wee bit later. Yeah we don't have smart roads and VR is still > not great, cryogenics hasn't improved that much, space development > sucks and so on. So what exactly has arrived faster than we expected? You listed all the obvious delays, but has anything really arrived sooner than expected? Some people say the Internet was not predicted, but that is bogus. Google for an internet time-line (such as ) to see that Arpanet was designed in the 1960's and commissioned by the DoD in 1969. It became and international network in 1973. E-mail, telnet and file transfer protocols were available by then. That was over 30 years ago. I was on this network in the late 1970's and had made a career of it by the 1980s. Some people think cellphones are new or unpredicted. Again, this is bogus. Motorola demonstrated the first cellphone prototype in 1973 and offered public service in 1979. That's 25 years ago. Cellphones are pre-history to the existance of most transhumanists, so it is odd that they are touted as an unexpected advance. Every star-trek fan or military walkie-talkie user new the concept and were just waiting for them to get smaller and cheaper. There was no sudden breakthrough faster than futurists predicted. So what really is progressing faster than expected that offsets all the delays? I'm not denying that there is a lot of progress going on. But I haven't really been suprised by any of these advancements. They were all predicted. A computer beating a human at chess? Sequencing DNA? These were long predicted and had people working toward them for a long time. No computer scientist was suprised that computers could play chess better and better. No medical researcher failed to realize that we were trying to map human DNA and would eventually get it done. Have there really been any suprises or dramatic advances that were not predicted or expected by science-fiction, computer-nerd futurist types? -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Oct 9 20:25:19 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:25:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009144455.01c88548@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009144455.01c88548@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Oct 9, 2005, at 3:56 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > That's why it's encouraging, on the one hand, to see Kurzweil's book > being reviewed everywhere but, on the other, somewhat disheartening > that it's being received pretty much as if all these ideas sprang > fully armed from his forehead (an impression not entirely inconsistent > with the tenor of Ray's own presentation, cough). > This is one of my frequent pet peeves. People are constantly thinking some idea is new or recent. They are usually ignorant of the long history that preceded it. People think IBM invented the PC or Microsoft invented the Internet. It is indeed disheartening to see old topics from prior decades suddenly touted as new exciting advances. It not only bores me because I've seen all this stuff 10-20 years ago, but it also makes me wonder if the future timelines are accurate. Kurzweil is a perfect example. Few of his "new" ideas are new. We can't extrapolate upon them as "recent" advances and then predict that the future will accelerate even faster. We have to accurately realize that that computers, the internet, cellphones, space-travel, DNA research, etc. took over 50 years to occur. Based on that timeline, the next exponential acceleration might occur in an astonishing 25 years! But that is not the exponential speed that most people are expecting. Or to put it in perspective: When they finally cure baldness, failing eye-sight, arthritis, wrinkled skin, and other minor annoyances of aging in a single decade, then I might predict that cancer, diabetes and heart-disease could be cured in the next decade. And then maybe rejouvenation therapies that really work in the decade after that. And maybe real longevity after that. And maybe potential agelessness after that. But until the ball starts really rolling, I find it hard to take most of these predictions seriously. And for those who doubt these predictions: There really were predictions of singularities, space colonies, robot presidents, nanotech by the year 2000 made by people on this extropians list. And it still goes on today. People on the SIAI lists really talk about an AI singularity within a decade. People on the ImmInst forums really talk about immortality within a decade. People on the nano discussion lists really talk about Drexler-style nanotech within a decade. People on the space groups really talk about space colonies within a decade. These predictions always have been and always will be just around the corner. But I don't believe any of them. All of these major timelines have been greatly delayed from earlier versions, and they will continue to be delays as we discover more and more difficulties with these projects. It is not that technology isn't progressing exponentially faster. It is just that the problems are harder than we think, and the amount of technology needed is much greater than expected. We are so impatient, that we feel the need to accelerate our predictions every year, even though our prior years' predictions still haven't come true yet. In fact, can anybody point to a major futurist prediction by any transhumanist type that has actually come true? Anybody? Are we really predicting anything more accurately than the mainstream press? Or have all our minority predictions failed to occur? -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Oct 9 20:33:40 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 13:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051009203340.18788.qmail@web30315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > Have there really been any suprises or dramatic advances that were > not predicted or expected by science-fiction, computer-nerd futurist > types? It is important to consider timing. If something happens sooner than expected. Science fiction and futurist types have predicted everything under the sun to occur at some point in the future, the important thing is whether reality beat even the optimists timelines. I am sure that if you look far enough back, you can find an optimistic skiffie or futurist predicting anything to have happened by now (even the singularity). The problem, of course, is the skiffers who are smart marketers: they write their timelines so that events of their novels will happen in the future lifetimes of their present day readers, no matter whether such timelines are reasonable or not (RAH was a great example of this). However, some unusual ones I don't recall having been predicted: a) discovery of exo-planets (as soon as they did). most sf oddly ignores much astronomy and expects interstellar missions to fly blindly to new stars in search of habitable planets. The reality is coming to be that when and if we ever launch interstellar probes, they will be directed at star systems with planets that we pretty much know about, and whether they are life-bearing or capable of being life-bearing. Thus the likely primary cargo of any such probe will be some form of FTL entanglement technology, either for communication or travel, if such tech is ever developed. b) Seti at Home and similar distributed computing projects giving huge computational capacity for nano-pennies on the dollar compared to commercial supercomputers. While Vinge predicted such with True Names, I don't recall similar predictions before him. Cross-pollenization is a problem. If we count Vinge as the first truly transhumanist writer, then any other writer or futurist he inspired must be counted as transhumanist-derived predictions. Writers before him (and he started writing in the 70's) are complicated by the marketing drive that I mentioned, of optimizing one's timelines to appeal to young readers dreams of actually living the plot. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 20:44:41 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 21:44:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <4349422E.6040701@pobox.com> References: <4349422E.6040701@pobox.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510091344h5c5a35b3i68e724b80aed3b38@mail.gmail.com> On 10/9/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > Greg Burch wrote: > > > What do you take away from looking back on looking forward? > > I'm hopeful that I'll have more time in which to work before one of the > deadlines strikes. But not too hopeful. > Whereas I think my deadline for getting things done will more likely be my death from old age (I'm 35 now) than the Singularity. So which of us is the optimist and which the pessimist? :) - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gregburch at gregburch.net Sun Oct 9 21:04:46 2005 From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:04:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: ... lots of good discussion here, which I was hoping for. I've had that timeline sitting on the shelf for seven years and looked forward to the day when it could be "uncorked" here ... Looking back, a lot of the specific predictions for c. 2005 do seem to me to have been wildly overoptimistic in hindsight and I have often wondered in the last couple of years how I came to have made them. Harvey points to one factor: > From: Harvey Newstrom > Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 3:25 PM > And for those who doubt these predictions: There really were > predictions of singularities, space colonies, robot presidents, > nanotech by the year 2000 made by people on this extropians list. And > it still goes on today. People on the SIAI lists really talk about an > AI singularity within a decade. People on the ImmInst forums really > talk about immortality within a decade. People on the nano discussion > lists really talk about Drexler-style nanotech within a decade. People > on the space groups really talk about space colonies within a decade. > These predictions always have been and always will be just around the > corner. But I don't believe any of them. All of these major timelines > have been greatly delayed from earlier versions, and they will continue > to be delays as we discover more and more difficulties with these > projects. It is not that technology isn't progressing exponentially > faster. It is just that the problems are harder than we think, and the > amount of technology needed is much greater than expected. We are so > impatient, that we feel the need to accelerate our predictions every > year, even though our prior years' predictions still haven't come true > yet. Pointing at the projections made on these special-interest lists makes me think back to projections about space development made by space technologists in the 1960s. I think there's a phenomenon that comes from a confluence of two factors: 1) what I call "breathing your own fumes" and 2) a little (or even a lot of) success in the special-interest group's area of expertise. Looking back on what I used to see space technologists project during the 1960s, I see the result of people of like mind and similar enthusiasms talking to each other about what COULD be as a matter of engineering or scientific possibility, reinforced by insularity in the discussion. Thus a bunch of aerospace engineers in 1968 or so talking to each other about a significant moon colony by 2000 are comunicating in a regime that knows what has already been done and the rate of progress they have sustained with deep finanial support by the government over a 20 year period. They probably aren't talking about factors completely outside their areas of expertise and enthusiasm, like politics or social science or economics or business. So when those factors inject effects that sharply curtail their budgets, they end up looking like Wiley Coyote when he walks out into thin air at the edge of the cliff, confidently striding on until he looks down and realizes there's no longer any ground beneath his feet. We all know what happens then ... Which leads me to my own personal experience in the 1990s. I had been an avid reader of science fiction since I was a young boy, but never a "fan" in the sense that I had never had the slightest connection to any organized group of people who were readers of science fiction. Then, in the 1990s I began to be active in two mainly West Coast groups that contained a LOT of people who were also science fiction enthusiasts, namely Foresight and ExI. These groups had both of the factors I list above. How the first factor worked in these groups seems self-evident. The second had much to do with the PC and Internet "revolutions." So many people who were involved in these groups had personal experience of the swift, accelerating progress of the PC and Internet industries and R&D communities. Thus it seemed realistic to make hyper-optimistic projections of expected progress. In many ways, I was the odd man out in these groups -- someone who had come from an academic background in history and language and law. I admit that sometimes I had the gnawing feeling that some of the talk seemed unrealistic, especially when it came to the social, political, legal and commercial factors that bore on many of the projections that were commonplace in the transhumanist sphere c. 10 years ago. But, in hindsight, I can see how some of the skepticism I should have felt was assuaged by the raw enthusiasm and admitted success of so many of the people in these groups. One of the key assumptions that underlay many of the projections that were commonlplace in transhumanist circles in the 1990s was the divorce of technological development from social context. In his "Dreams of Autarchy" essay, Robin Hanson discussed the brittleness of the idea that one person or a small group of people could perform technological miracles. In hindsight, it seems to me that this concept played a crucial role in the more hallucinatory projections of a decade ago, because it allowed dreams to develop without the need to consider the unpredictable complexity of social systems. Greg Burch http://www.gregburch.net From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 21:06:26 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 22:06:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <20051009203340.18788.qmail@web30315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051009203340.18788.qmail@web30315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510091406x12be4872i8274bd845bdc8369@mail.gmail.com> On 10/9/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > However, some unusual ones I don't recall having been predicted: > > a) discovery of exo-planets (as soon as they did). Sadly, I recall reading about discovery of exoplanets - not just prediction, but repeated, announced discoveries (which were presumably subsequently retracted, though I never read about the retractions) - in the 70s and 80s. > most sf oddly > ignores much astronomy and expects interstellar missions to fly blindly > to new stars in search of habitable planets. *nods* Intrepid survey teams charting the unknown offer a lot of possibilities for interesting plots that you can't really have any other way, so we can grant artistic license on that one, while not taking it as a prediction. > The reality is coming to > be that when and if we ever launch interstellar probes, they will be > directed at star systems with planets that we pretty much know about, > and whether they are life-bearing or capable of being life-bearing. > Thus the likely primary cargo of any such probe will be some form of > FTL entanglement technology, either for communication or travel, if > such tech is ever developed. Or, if it remains impossible to use FTL entanglement for communications, just a plain old-fashioned laser receiver will still get the job done. b) Seti at Home and similar distributed computing projects giving huge > computational capacity for nano-pennies on the dollar compared to > commercial supercomputers. While Vinge predicted such with True Names, > I don't recall similar predictions before him. True Names was damn good. That's still a prediction a decade or two in advance, though. Cross-pollenization is a problem. If we count Vinge as the first truly > transhumanist writer Smith was predicting AI and superintelligence quite awhile before Vinge. I don't know if he was the first, though I'm guessing he wasn't on the grounds that, empirically, there's always an earlier X. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gregburch at gregburch.net Sun Oct 9 21:09:50 2005 From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:09:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List In-Reply-To: <06b101c5cce8$8c898970$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: Oh, how I long to write about this subject! Somehow, though, I never seem to have the time I KNOW the subject demands and deserves. But I'm working on it. It's not that I don't have things to say on the subject, but I have become EXTREMELY cautious about putting half-thought-out ideas into the sphere of discussion. Among other reasons, for those that are being discussed in the "Futures Past" thread. But perhaps before too long I will write something here on my political ideas. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 10:46 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extropy,Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List Natasha wrote: Our Vice President, Greg Burch, said recently that ...we need a new political viewpoint -- one that far outreaches what we have known in the past - on that is more futuristic for a society that will find its place in the future and help others along into that future. I'd like to hear more about these thoughts on the need for a new political viewpoint. I do wonder what sort of futurist society Greg in particular envisages. What will make this future society a society, how would it be envisaged to cohere? Will it be global or national? Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Sun Oct 9 21:44:26 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:44:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> References: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009144455.01c88548@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <43498F3A.4090200@pobox.com> Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > And for those who doubt these predictions: There really were > predictions of singularities, space colonies, robot presidents, > nanotech by the year 2000 made by people on this extropians list. And > it still goes on today. People on the SIAI lists really talk about an > AI singularity within a decade. Look, I remember when I was dumb enough to think that I could say the Singularity had a 90% probability of occurring between 2005 and 2025 with the median point at 2018. But I haven't been that dumb since I read "Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases", which was, I think, around 2003 or so. I just want to note that "people on the SIAI lists" could be anyone who hasn't actually gotten themselves kicked off as yet. It doesn't mean SIAI endorses the viewpoint. I do endorse the viewpoint that we could get transhuman AI within 10 years, or 5 years, or 1 year, because I don't know all the projects in play in detail, and neither do you. I'm rather more skeptical about the Friendliness part, I'm afraid. If you go about being dismayed by what some people do, you are doomed to be dismayed forever. Anyone can sign up for these mailing lists. I think it a great enough demand that we ask for our very best to get it right. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From hal at finney.org Sun Oct 9 21:46:24 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:46:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past Message-ID: <20051009214624.0837557EF9@finney.org> I made my own counter-predictions to Greg's year 2000 predictions in . Basically I predicted that most of Greg's items would not come true even by 2003. Greg responded that he was "flat-out amazed" at my pessimism in . I think in retrospect I was a little too pessimistic, in that some of Greg's technologies were coming into widespread use by 2003 (e.g. flat screens). But overall I was pretty close. Here is how I concluded back in 1999: > So, what's my secret? Why is my crystal ball better than anyone else's? > Well, I'm writing a year later than Greg was, which is pretty significant > for events "circa 2000". But I seem to view major short-term enhancements > as being both less likely and less predictable than other people here. > It may seem curmudgeonly to say "no" when other people go out on a limb > and look for breakthroughs, but that is the safer bet. There probably > will be surprises in the next four years, but they will surprise both > Greg and me. And they are unlikely to significantly change society in > that time frame; there is just too much inertia. Hal From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Oct 9 22:11:13 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:11:13 +1000 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past References: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009144455.01c88548@pop-server.satx.rr.com><6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> <43498F3A.4090200@pobox.com> Message-ID: <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Look, I remember when I was dumb enough to think that I could say the > Singularity had a 90% probability of occurring between 2005 and 2025 > with the median point at 2018. But I haven't been that dumb since I > read "Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases", which was, I > think, around 2003 or so. I just want to note that "people on the SIAI > lists" could be anyone who hasn't actually gotten themselves kicked off > as yet. It doesn't mean SIAI endorses the viewpoint. > > I do endorse the viewpoint that we could get transhuman AI within 10 > years, or 5 years, or 1 year, because I don't know all the projects in > play in detail, and neither do you. I'm rather more skeptical about the > Friendliness part, I'm afraid. AI is one area that I haven't had time to even track progress on. What would be more meaningful to me than projections that AI will arrive in 10 or 5 or 1 year would be instances given of clear progress, however small, that actually has been made. There are faster computers and smaller chips but its not clear to me that the world is any closer to seeing general AI in 2005 than it was in 1998. The impression that I get is that pretty much all that has been built up by AI researchers is a list of ways that don't work and approaches that have not yeilded any gain. Can you think of any clear instances of positive *progress* towards the goal of building an AI? Brett Paatsch From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 22:26:09 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 23:26:09 +0100 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> References: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009144455.01c88548@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> <43498F3A.4090200@pobox.com> <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> On 10/9/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > The impression that I get is that pretty much all that has been built up > by AI researchers is a list of ways that don't work and approaches that > have not yeilded any gain. In 1998, there was a lot of truth in that assessment. Can you think of any clear instances of positive *progress* towards the > goal of building an AI? > Concrete progress, delivered results? No. What we do have is this: in 1998, we hadn't the foggiest notion how to build an AI. Now... we have a foggy notion. From the inside, that feels like a lot of progress, though I can certainly understand skepticism and pessimism on the part of outside observers! - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Oct 9 22:33:57 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:33:57 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List References: Message-ID: <073b01c5cd21$89d85c40$8998e03c@homepc> I sometimes wonder if things progress more slowly because folks that have made intellectual contributions in the past are reluctant to make only lesser contributions in the future. For instance I wonder if Max is less willing to right speculative stuff that might be wrong because it might be used against him. I wonder if he's sort of resting on his laurells with the Extropian Principles because to write something else might be used against him or might work to diminish what he has written. This would be a pity if so because it would mean that incremental improvements and synergies don't get a chance. If smart people could get in the habit of feeling comfortable about sayings something like, "yes I did say that then, but I've changed my mind since", then I think we might see more progress. I think not just transhumans but the world is ripe and ready to be receptive to new ideas about politics and society. I think the thing that transhumanists have done very badly in the past is appreciate how much politics slows things down. I see transhumanists as a group as not being particularly savvy or knowledgeable about politics (not party politics, but just what happens when groups of humans interact) or history and this gives me the strong sense that they will actually be amongst the majority within democracies that causes a lot of historical mistakes to be repeated. ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Burch To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 7:09 AM Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Extropy,Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List Oh, how I long to write about this subject! Somehow, though, I never seem to have the time I KNOW the subject demands and deserves. But I'm working on it. It's not that I don't have things to say on the subject, but I have become EXTREMELY cautious about putting half-thought-out ideas into the sphere of discussion. Among other reasons, for those that are being discussed in the "Futures Past" thread. But perhaps before too long I will write something here on my political ideas. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 10:46 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extropy,Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List Natasha wrote: Our Vice President, Greg Burch, said recently that ...we need a new political viewpoint -- one that far outreaches what we have known in the past - on that is more futuristic for a society that will find its place in the future and help others along into that future. I'd like to hear more about these thoughts on the need for a new political viewpoint. I do wonder what sort of futurist society Greg in particular envisages. What will make this future society a society, how would it be envisaged to cohere? Will it be global or national? Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gregburch at gregburch.net Sun Oct 9 22:57:42 2005 From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 17:57:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <20051009214624.0837557EF9@finney.org> Message-ID: Hal, I had forgotten this. In some ways, our exchange is even more telling for the sea-change my own thinking and attitudes have undergone since then than the original projections, because we were having our discussion right at the very precipice of the Bust. Two items in the discussion hit home personally. The first is the discussion of VR/retina painters. I invested heavily in the company that I mentioned in the exchange you site -- Microvision. That company has working technology that every single person who has seen it comes away from convinced that a major revolution in interface technology is just around the corner. But that's been true for SEVEN YEARS. They have been on the verge of de-listing for the last five years and I lost a literal fortune in my investment in the company. It's hard not to have an experience like that and become very, very skeptical of future projections. The other item is the deregulation and "networking" of the electrical power market. Again, our exchange took place *right before* the implosion of Enron and others in that industry and the collapse of a dream and multple mega-fortunes. I continue to believe there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the basic concepts behind the industry. But the execution of those concpets ... well, the library of books that have been written about the subject continues to grow. Again, it was a case of "breathing your own fumes" fueled by initial success running headlong into the complexity of politics and the unpredictability of the moral judgments key individuals might make. Smoke from the bonfire of dollars going up in smoke around me in downtown Houston during 2000 and 2001 has clouded my dreams ... GB > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" > Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 4:46 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past > > > I made my own counter-predictions to Greg's year 2000 predictions > in . > Basically I predicted that most of Greg's items would not come true even > by 2003. Greg responded that he was "flat-out amazed" at my pessimism > in . > > I think in retrospect I was a little too pessimistic, in that some > of Greg's technologies were coming into widespread use by 2003 (e.g. > flat screens). But overall I was pretty close. Here is how I concluded > back in 1999: > > > So, what's my secret? Why is my crystal ball better than anyone else's? > > Well, I'm writing a year later than Greg was, which is pretty > significant > > for events "circa 2000". But I seem to view major short-term > enhancements > > as being both less likely and less predictable than other people here. > > It may seem curmudgeonly to say "no" when other people go out on a limb > > and look for breakthroughs, but that is the safer bet. There probably > > will be surprises in the next four years, but they will surprise both > > Greg and me. And they are unlikely to significantly change society in > > that time frame; there is just too much inertia. > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From brian at posthuman.com Sun Oct 9 23:00:07 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 18:00:07 -0500 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> References: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009144455.01c88548@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> <43498F3A.4090200@pobox.com> <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4349A0F7.7010708@posthuman.com> I think when discussing all this, it's interesting to see how sometimes the year of adoption or development of a particular technology can be influenced significantly by relatively simple organizational techniques (or lack thereof). A good example I think is the successful DARPA Grand Challenge event yesterday. Prior to this the government had funded this type of idea for quite a long time. All the necessary research into having computers work with various sensing systems had been done. The hardware necessary for a success, from sensors, drive-by-wire, computers, etc. was already here years ago. Yet we didn't end up with working autonomous offroad vehicles until yesterday. It took a well-funded competitive prize to finally get the major universities and groups to sit down and write the complete software and do the offroad testing necessary to complete the working vehicles. By organizing a public prize, DARPA found a way to scare the established funded groups into worrying that they might be upstaged by new outsiders, and this proved to be a very effective motivational strategy. Without such organizational efforts? We would not have those vehicles right now. Who knows how much longer it would have taken. There are tons of other examples where a technology could have technically been completed years earlier, but just didn't for various non-technical reasons. I think at this point in history there are many such things that could be significantly accelerated if organization efforts could be focused on them. It could be simply funding something unfunded, developing prizes (MPrize is a good example), etc. Overall in regards to this thread, I would say that the feasibility and prerequisites are more important to figure out rather than simply trying to guess a particular year of creation or mass adoption. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 23:03:11 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:03:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List In-Reply-To: <073b01c5cd21$89d85c40$8998e03c@homepc> References: <073b01c5cd21$89d85c40$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510091603g20f27c8dy2b2c6c96b0e06239@mail.gmail.com> On 10/9/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > If smart people could get in the habit of feeling comfortable about > sayings something like, "yes I did say that then, but I've changed > my mind since", then I think we might see more progress. > I think that's a very good idea. Progress in science and technology often seems to depend heavily on people in their teens and 20s. In my opinion, that's not because the brain ossifies after that age, but because once people have carved out a position for themselves, it's not in their interests to disturb it, so the next jump has to wait for the next wave of hungry people in their teens and 20s who don't yet have anything to lose. Here's to being able to say "yes I did say that then, but I've changed my mind since". - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 9 23:21:12 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:21:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051009232112.75174.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Greg Burch wrote: > It makes for interesting and, in many instances, > painful reading. Bear in mind that this was the > vision some of us had in the Spring of 1998. We > were surfing at the zenith of the 1990s Bubble. The > Collapse of the Bubble, 911, Enron, Columbia ? all > were in the future. > > What do you take away from looking back on looking > forward? Cheer up, Greg. There were quite a few things in which you were right on the money, like your predicition of harddrive capacities and what not. Also the human genome was completely mapped nearly a decade ahead of your schedule. Much of what has not come to pass as expected were due to politics and not due to technological hurdles. All in all you did well. Remember that even those with oracular powers cannot predict the future with certainty. "Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future." -Yoda As far as the use of TRYING to predict the future, here is some more advice from the little green zen master: "This one a long time have I watched. All his life has he looked away... to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm? What he was doing." -Yoda in reference to Luke. Remember the very act of trying to predict the future can change it. So put away the crystal ball and roll up your sleeves. The only future that you can bank on is the one you make happen. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 9 23:36:40 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009144455.01c88548@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051009233640.36305.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > That's why it's encouraging, on the one hand, to see > Kurzweil's book being > reviewed everywhere but, on the other, somewhat > disheartening that it's > being received pretty much as if all these ideas > sprang fully armed from > his forehead (an impression not entirely > inconsistent with the tenor of > Ray's own presentation, cough). Yes, but who took the role of Hephaestus and whacked him on the head with a hammer for this to happen?Those of us in the know, KNOW. ;) The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 9 23:46:17 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:46:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <20051009234617.38704.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Harvey Newstrom wrote: > In fact, can anybody point to a major futurist > prediction by any > transhumanist type that has actually come true? > Anybody? Are we > really predicting anything more accurately than the > mainstream press? > Or have all our minority predictions failed to > occur? It depends entirely on what you mean by "coming true". Does violent political opposition to the technologies that you (the old guard) have predicted count as those predictions coming true? In a way, one can say yes, after all I don't see the government scrambling to ban unicorns and the tooth fairy. Therefore the technology IS there and the government fears it. What you all failed to predict was how the government would react. But some days I can't predict how I will react so I hardly see any shame in that. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From mail at harveynewstrom.com Mon Oct 10 00:02:45 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:02:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <20051009203340.18788.qmail@web30315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051009203340.18788.qmail@web30315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Oct 9, 2005, at 4:33 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Harvey Newstrom wrote: >> >> Have there really been any suprises or dramatic advances that were >> not predicted or expected by science-fiction, computer-nerd futurist >> types? > > It is important to consider timing. If something happens sooner than > expected. Science fiction and futurist types have predicted everything > under the sun to occur at some point in the future, the important thing > is whether reality beat even the optimists timelines. Exactly. This is what I am looking for. Has reality ever beaten the optimists? I would love to see real examples. > a) discovery of exo-planets (as soon as they did). Wrong. The first such announcement was made in 1916. (Not a typo! Nineteen hundred and sixteen!) It was based on a wobble around Barnard's star that he interpretted to be an exoplanet. Unfortunately, this later was proved incorrect. But the method was sound. Astronomers have been using this method to search for exoplanets since then. It took three quarters of a century for the findings to actually solidify into repeatable results that were generally accepted by astronomers. In other words, the reality lagged very far behind the original prediction and actual claim of success. This is not an example of an unpredicted development, nor a fast development. (See for this history.) > b) Seti at Home and similar distributed computing projects giving huge > computational capacity for nano-pennies on the dollar compared to > commercial supercomputers. While Vinge predicted such with True Names, > I don't recall similar predictions before him. True Names came out in 1984. Seti at home started recruiting participants in 1999. Fifteen years for a computer product to go from idea to market is not fast or unprectible. (And for the record, EFF was using this technique to crack encryption a couple of years before seti at home "invented" it.) -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 00:06:44 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:06:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: <43482F97.2060102@posthuman.com> Message-ID: On 10/9/05, Greg Burch wrote: > > Since I was old enough to read, I've been engaged by projections about the > future. My favorite parts of the set of children's encyclopedias we had in > the early 1960s were those that provided projections about the future. They > showed me such wonderful visions: Atomic-powered cars! Cities under the sea! > Vacations on the Moon! All this would come to be by the time I would be the > age my parents were then. Well now I am that age and we know what happened > to all of those glossy futures. > > But somehow, I never seem to learn. Seven years ago, we had a discussion > here on the List about what we called "near-term projections" for the future > to c. 2015. I gathered together some of the ideas in that discussion and put > them in what I called a "futurist time capsule." Here it is: > > http://www.gregburch.net/writing/NearTerm.htm > > It makes for interesting and, in many instances, painful reading. Bear in > mind that this was the vision some of us had in the Spring of 1998. We were > surfing at the zenith of the 1990s Bubble. The Collapse of the Bubble, 911, > Enron, Columbia ? all were in the future. > > What do you take away from looking back on looking forward? > > That the future isn't what it used to be. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 00:11:16 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:11:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510091344h5c5a35b3i68e724b80aed3b38@mail.gmail.com> References: <4349422E.6040701@pobox.com> <8d71341e0510091344h5c5a35b3i68e724b80aed3b38@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/9/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 10/9/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > > > Greg Burch wrote: > > > > > What do you take away from looking back on looking forward? > > > > I'm hopeful that I'll have more time in which to work before one of the > > deadlines strikes. But not too hopeful. > > > > Whereas I think my deadline for getting things done will more likely be my > death from old age (I'm 35 now) than the Singularity. So which of us is the > optimist and which the pessimist? :) > Well, I'm 52 now and me and some friends did a similar kind of predictive thing with the Singularity (only it wasn't called that) in the early 80s. The earliest date we placed at around 2010, with the latest about 2050 and the most likely 2030. I'll still stick with that evaluation. Which is not bad considering more than 20yrs have passed already. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 00:13:25 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:13:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <20051009234617.38704.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> <20051009234617.38704.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/10/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > --- Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > > In fact, can anybody point to a major futurist > > prediction by any > > transhumanist type that has actually come true? > > Anybody? Are we > > really predicting anything more accurately than the > > mainstream press? > > Or have all our minority predictions failed to > > occur? > > It depends entirely on what you mean by "coming true". > Does violent political opposition to the technologies > that you (the old guard) have predicted count as those > predictions coming true? In a way, one can say yes, > after all I don't see the government scrambling to ban > unicorns and the tooth fairy. Therefore the technology > Actually, the creation of the first Unicorn *would* be a massive publicity event worldwide. It might boost the reputation of GE in some surprising circles. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 00:16:12 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:16:12 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: <20051009214624.0837557EF9@finney.org> Message-ID: On 10/9/05, Greg Burch wrote: > > Hal, I had forgotten this. In some ways, our exchange is even more telling > for the sea-change my own thinking and attitudes have undergone since then > than the original projections, because we were having our discussion right > at the very precipice of the Bust. > > Two items in the discussion hit home personally. The first is the > discussion of VR/retina painters. I invested heavily in the company that I > mentioned in the exchange you site -- Microvision. That company has working > technology that every single person who has seen it comes away from > convinced that a major revolution in interface technology is just around the > corner. But that's been true for SEVEN YEARS. They have been on the verge of > de-listing for the last five years and I lost a literal fortune in my > investment in the company. It's hard not to have an experience like that and > become very, very skeptical of future projections. > > I used a device (IIRC) around 1990 called (IIRC) the Eyephone. It was the size of a pack of chewing gumn that sat in front of one eye and projected a 720x350 display. I've been waiting ever since. I too cannot understand why such has not replaced the screen on laptops and PDAs Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 00:23:47 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 17:23:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] grand challenge - good blog In-Reply-To: <43481CD7.6060603@posthuman.com> References: <43481CD7.6060603@posthuman.com> Message-ID: I was there! It was a fantastic event. Academic allegiances had me cheering for the Caltech and CMU teams, but I'm still quite pleased at how Stanford's team performed. I must say though that it was quite startling to see what happened with Alice, the Caltech van. Basically, the course loops around past the starting point 8 miles into the race, going past a viewing area. Basically, you have the road, some concrete barriers, an incline, then journalists. I had somehow sneaked into the journalist portion of the viewing area for a little while, but then rejoined my friends in the spectator zone of the viewing area. Anyways, Alice came chugging along, and then suddenly stopped next to the journalist zone. A few seconds later it veered to the right, went over the barriers, and started barreling up the incline towards the journalists, who were sitting there snapping photos of the behemoth charging towards them. Fortunately Alice stopped herself before she actually reached the journalists, but I suspect that we Techers are never going to hear the end of this... It was also quite exciting watching the robots go over "Beer Bottle Pass," a 10 foot-wide path which had a mountain on one side and a 200 ft drop-off on the other. It's a good thing that they had that near the -end- of the race, so the robots which probably wouldn't plummeted to their demise were knocked out earlier. On 10/8/05, Brian Atkins wrote: > > "Stanford's Stanley has caught up to Red Team Too's H1ghlander and is > attempting > to pass and take the lead in the race. Both vehicles have been on the road > for > about 5 hours and are 97 miles into the course." > > < > http://www.popsci.com/popsci/darpachallenge/1b7a1e7eef0d6010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html > > > > "Darpa's offer to bring busloads of journalists to a vantage point near > the > course's halfway mark was a generous one, but unfortunately, the > execution's a > little off. Flummoxed by the sameness of Nevada desert roads, our driver > gets > hopelessly lost and has to resort to borrowing a cell phone from a > passenger in > the front row to call for help. "Too bad we don't have autonomous drivers > already," a German journalist sitting across from me cracks. Thankfully, a > nearby Darpa checkpoint officer sets us straight, and we're soon pulling > into a > deserted lot staked out with dozens of tripods." > > "Just as we're leaving the site, we catch another glimpse of H1ghlander > from the > window of the bus, this time chugging up a steep, powdery incline. Halfway > up > the hill, it slides agonizingly backward for about 10 feet, then, inch by > inch, > crawls forward to the top, as if channeling the spirit of the Little > Engine That > Could. This time, I can't resist letting out a little cheer. These > competitors > may be robots, but they've got some serious guts." > -- > Brian Atkins > Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > http://www.singinst.org/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 00:24:21 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:24:21 +0100 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> References: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009144455.01c88548@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> <43498F3A.4090200@pobox.com> <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/9/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 10/9/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > > > The impression that I get is that pretty much all that has been built up > > by AI researchers is a list of ways that don't work and approaches that > > have not yeilded any gain. > > > In 1998, there was a lot of truth in that assessment. > > Can you think of any clear instances of positive *progress* towards the > > goal of building an AI? > > > > Concrete progress, delivered results? No. > > What we do have is this: in 1998, we hadn't the foggiest notion how to > build an AI. Now... we have a foggy notion. From the inside, that feels like > a lot of progress, though I can certainly understand skepticism and > pessimism on the part of outside observers! > There are two things needed. Raw computing power, which is on track to deliver Human performance equivalent within a decade, and software. IMO the big breakthroughs will come by doing crude brute force simulations of real brains - the data derived from slice-and-scan. First insects, then small mammals, then people. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 00:27:24 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:27:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dr. Sherwin Nuland on C-Span In-Reply-To: <1128790116_80577@S3.cableone.net> References: <1128790116_80577@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: On 10/8/05, starman2100 at cableone.net wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > Nuland said he had recently spoken with Aubrey de Grey and went on about > de > Grey's plans for greatly extending lifespan (which he said were somewhat > vague > and not fully worked out yet) with a tone that was surprisingly almost > friendly > LOL! If the ideas were not vague and were fully worked out it would be a fait accompli. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 00:36:34 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:36:34 +0100 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009144455.01c88548@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> <43498F3A.4090200@pobox.com> <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510091736j15e5c56chb5097d5b25c52f2a@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > There are two things needed. > Raw computing power, which is on track to deliver Human performance > equivalent within a decade, and software. > IMO the big breakthroughs will come by doing crude brute force simulations > of real brains - the data derived from slice-and-scan. First insects, then > small mammals, then people. > Well okay, that's an idea we had long before 1998, though I tend to regard uploading as something separate from AI. It'll be a lot more than a decade before we have the computing power for that, though. (By 2015 we might have the computing power to match human performance in a significant spread of domains _if_ we had appropriate AI software optimized to make efficient use of electronic hardware - though I doubt we will have such software by then - but _not_ to run an uploaded human brain.) - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 00:43:50 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 17:43:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051010004350.62820.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2005, at 4:33 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > --- Harvey Newstrom wrote: > >> > >> Have there really been any suprises or dramatic advances that were > >> not predicted or expected by science-fiction, computer-nerd > futurist > >> types? > > > > It is important to consider timing. If something happens sooner > than > > expected. Science fiction and futurist types have predicted > everything > > under the sun to occur at some point in the future, the important > thing > > is whether reality beat even the optimists timelines. > > Exactly. This is what I am looking for. Has reality ever beaten the > optimists? I would love to see real examples. Well, as I said, you'd need to discount sf writers predictions as, well, fiction. They purposely present accelerated timelines for marketing purposes. They are not required to base their timelines on any facts (such as Moore's Law generations, etc), unless they choose to 'invent' some unobtanium technology that provides for their accelerated timelines, such as Niven and Pournelle do in their joint timeline in which an interstellar space drive was invented in 1998 and test flown in 2001, which in their timeline allows for the Superpowers of the Co-Dominium (US and Russia) to ethnically cleanse much of the Earth in a peaceful manner by transporting undesirables to other worlds. > > a) discovery of exo-planets (as soon as they did). > > Wrong. The first such announcement was made in 1916. (Not a typo! > Nineteen hundred and sixteen!) It was based on a wobble around > Barnard's star that he interpretted to be an exoplanet. Ah but it wasn't true! Try a real discovery of exoplanets. Although, your example proves my point: even with the Barnards star wobble method, virtually no SF writers from 1916 onward ever used the method in a story to detect planets around other stars. > Unfortunately, > this later was proved incorrect. But the method was sound. > Astronomers have been using this method to search for exoplanets > since then. It took three quarters of a century for the findings to > actually > solidify into repeatable results that were generally accepted by > astronomers. In other words, the reality lagged very far behind the > original prediction and actual claim of success. This is not an > example of an unpredicted development, nor a fast development. (See > for this > history.) Hold on, the first claim of success preceded SF writers by a long shot. Show me some SF from before 1916 that used the method.... All this is fine, but I wouldn't actually use any SF as a reputable "prediction". SF writers are not in the business of accurately predicting future events accurately by date, they are in the business of selling words to publishers, who are in the business of selling them to people and making them want to buy more of them. I would prefer to look at the non-fiction published by SF writers. Even there, though, their motive is to motivate the reader to have a positive outlook on the future (so as to buy more sf), or to have a negative outlook on a technology (like organ legging (Niven), AI (Terminator), euthanasia (Soylent Green), etc) for political purposes. Popular non-fiction futurism rarely is produced that has an objective outlook. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 00:46:04 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:46:04 +0100 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510091736j15e5c56chb5097d5b25c52f2a@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009144455.01c88548@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> <43498F3A.4090200@pobox.com> <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510091736j15e5c56chb5097d5b25c52f2a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/10/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 10/10/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > There are two things needed. > > Raw computing power, which is on track to deliver Human performance > > equivalent within a decade, and software. > > IMO the big breakthroughs will come by doing crude brute force > > simulations of real brains - the data derived from slice-and-scan. First > > insects, then small mammals, then people. > > > > Well okay, that's an idea we had long before 1998, though I tend to regard > uploading as something separate from AI. It'll be a lot more than a decade > before we have the computing power for that, though. (By 2015 we might have > the computing power to match human performance in a significant spread of > domains _if_ we had appropriate AI software optimized to make efficient use > of electronic hardware - though I doubt we will have such software by then - > but _not_ to run an uploaded human brain.) > > Well, 10 PFLOP machines are on the boards for implementation by 2011. That, IMO, is Human Level processing power. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giogavir at yahoo.it Mon Oct 10 00:54:58 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:54:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] alien AI In-Reply-To: <20051010004350.62820.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051010005458.41101.qmail@web26203.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Recently I read in New Scientist the news that a few astronomer working on extrasolar planet research, are considering adding the possible research of artificial space structures (Dyson spheres, artificial planets, other artificial space settlements) which would indicate the existence of Kardashev 2 type alien civilizations. While this could be an important addition to SETI activities , such assumption has another significance as well. By assuming the existence of space habitats for advanced societies they are discarding the possibility that an alien AI society could have taken over from its living creators and take control of their civilization after a singularity process similar to the one that we are forecasting. Such artificial society in fact would not need huge space habitats to recreate their planet of origin conditions since they don?t need food, air, particular atmosphere or even gravity conditions but only energy. They can even be nanobot size units with interconnected brains, they would dominate entire planetary systems and we would not be aware of their existence. Trillions of them could fit into a football ball size stellar ship and expand their domain if such were its main goals. Food for thought. I would appreciate comments on the above. > > __________________________________ > Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon Oct 10 01:00:12 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 18:00:12 -0700 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/9/05 5:46 PM, "Dirk Bruere" wrote: > Well, 10 PFLOP machines are on the boards for implementation by 2011. > That, IMO, is Human Level processing power. If we are going to use such a lazy and ambiguous definition of "machine", we've had 10 petaflop machines for quite a while already. And asserting that any such thing is "human-level processing power" suggests that you have far more information than you do. If you could make that assertion authoritatively, you could also produce an AI to demonstrate the point. J. Andrew Rogers From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 01:03:29 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:03:29 +0100 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009144455.01c88548@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> <43498F3A.4090200@pobox.com> <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510091736j15e5c56chb5097d5b25c52f2a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510091803t7dac75caied2d245fd1e99782@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > Well, 10 PFLOP machines are on the boards for implementation by 2011. > That, IMO, is Human Level processing power. Not for running an upload it's not, 1E18 flops is a conservative estimate for that (and that's just raw crunch, leaving aside the question of what memory latency and bandwidth would be required). If by "human level" you mean "match human performance by any means, using algorithms optimal for the hardware", well, 1E16 flops might perhaps be enough for that, but that's a different topic from uploading (and I don't expect to have such algorithms by 2011, or soon thereafter). - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 01:14:37 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:14:37 +0100 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/10/05, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > On 10/9/05 5:46 PM, "Dirk Bruere" wrote: > > Well, 10 PFLOP machines are on the boards for implementation by 2011. > > That, IMO, is Human Level processing power. > > > If we are going to use such a lazy and ambiguous definition of "machine", > we've had 10 petaflop machines for quite a while already. > > And asserting that any such thing is "human-level processing power" > suggests > that you have far more information than you do. If you could make that > assertion authoritatively, you could also produce an AI to demonstrate the > point. > Since I don't have the required s/w obviously I can't. We are talkinmg about h/w processing power - remember? Various microcephalic cases with normal functioning indicate that only some 10% of the brain mass is actually required for a fully functioning Human (references posted some time back in a previous discussion). I *suspect* that if only the intellect were required that could be reduced by another factor of two or three. 10^10 neurons, 10^4 axons, 10^3 Hz etc 10 PFLOP is in the right ballpart. And if it isn't we'll just have to wait 10yrs for another factor of 100 increase. That's a general type of processor array. No doubt with dedicated h/w we can multiply it by at least another order or two of magnitude. That's still only 14yrs away. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 01:58:56 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 18:58:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510091736j15e5c56chb5097d5b25c52f2a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051010015856.3981.qmail@web30307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: Snip Dirk's snip and slice of organisms brains.... > > Well okay, that's an idea we had long before 1998, though I tend to > regard uploading as something separate from AI. It'll be a lot more > than a decade before we have the computing power for that, though. > (By 2015 we might have the computing power to match human performance > in a significant spread of domains _if_ we had appropriate AI > software optimized to make efficient use of electronic hardware - > though I doubt we will have such software by then - but _not_ to run > an uploaded human brain.) Well, these days researchers are building insect and fish equivalent brains and robots. I suspect we could get a pretty accurate estimate of the appearance of human equivalent AI (not brain scanned) by tracking how quickly research robots develop along the evolutionary path between cambrian period insects and present day humans. With each university/foundation/government budget cycle, how many evolutionary steps are researchers able to replicate in electronic hardware? Remember that Moore's Law predicts human level general processing power coming around 2025-2030, but not the software or hardware logic that makes grey matter human. Ten to the whatever transistors or petaflops or what have you doesn't mean much sitting in a jar. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 02:05:33 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 03:05:33 +0100 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <20051010015856.3981.qmail@web30307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0510091736j15e5c56chb5097d5b25c52f2a@mail.gmail.com> <20051010015856.3981.qmail@web30307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510091905v5b8bd46bubaf3144c0b8ece2f@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Well, these days researchers are building insect and fish equivalent > brains and robots. I suspect we could get a pretty accurate estimate of > the appearance of human equivalent AI (not brain scanned) by tracking > how quickly research robots develop along the evolutionary path between > cambrian period insects and present day humans. I suspect we couldn't, because researchers don't even try to duplicate _all_ the functionality of any life form (it would be entirely impossible with today's technology anyway), and once you're going for only partial functionality, then apparent progress depends more on how narrow a slice you accept, than on the sophistication of the machine. (The extreme case being when human-equivalent AI was considered to be around the corner based on computers that could do algebra and play chess.) Remember that Moore's Law predicts human level general processing power > coming around 2025-2030, but not the software or hardware logic that > makes grey matter human. Ten to the whatever transistors or petaflops > or what have you doesn't mean much sitting in a jar. Yep. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 02:10:41 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 19:10:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] alien AI In-Reply-To: <20051010005458.41101.qmail@web26203.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051010021041.22582.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- giorgio gaviraghi wrote: > Recently I read in New Scientist the news that a few > astronomer working on extrasolar planet research, > are considering adding the possible research of > artificial space structures (Dyson spheres, artificial > planets, other artificial space settlements) which > would indicate the existence of Kardashev 2 type alien > civilizations. > While this could be an important addition to SETI > activities , such assumption has another significance > as well. > By assuming the existence of space habitats for > advanced societies they are discarding the possibility > that an alien AI society could have taken over from > its living creators and take control of their > civilization after a singularity process similar to > the one that we are forecasting. > Such artificial society in fact would not need huge > space habitats to recreate their planet of origin > conditions since they don?t need food, air, > particular atmosphere or even gravity conditions but > only energy. > They can even be nanobot size units with > interconnected brains, they would dominate entire > planetary systems and we would not be aware of their > existence. > Trillions of them could fit into a football ball size > stellar ship and expand their domain if such were its > main goals. > Food for thought. > I would appreciate comments on the above. Sure, but what is the motivation to do so? IMHO you'd not see more than an individual or a family of such entities on such a vessel. Even uploads want room to stretch out and have control over their direction. Imagine the contentiousness of an election among ten trillion uploads over the course of the spaceship. Nobody would want to be captain of such a vessel, it would sit in empty space to the ends of time until people pulled their heads out and came to a decision. Self determination would be very important to an uploaded entity. I imagine them stopping at the occasional comet to construct a new vessel or so for individuals who no longer want to go with the group. You'd have bacterial rates of reproduction, but spread rates at velocities significantly less than 1% of c. Type 2 civilizations would exploit whole solar systems and build vast structures. Our solar system's planetary mass equals more than a cubic km of matter for each individual in the human race. Thats a lot of play-doh. There are some anomalous solar systems being discovered. One with gravel throughout long after it was expected the gravel would have accreted further. I think its good that astronomers are starting to take singularity theory seriously in their assumptions for seti. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 02:16:41 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 19:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051010021641.32450.qmail@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > On 10/9/05 5:46 PM, "Dirk Bruere" wrote: > > Well, 10 PFLOP machines are on the boards for implementation by > 2011. > > That, IMO, is Human Level processing power. > > > If we are going to use such a lazy and ambiguous definition of > "machine", we've had 10 petaflop machines for quite a while already. Yeah, the Moore's Law prediction of 2025 only holds to a $2000 desktop PC, not to laboratory machines would could reach human level much sooner. Hardware doesn't mean jack if you can't teach it to teach itself, and have the resources to just let it run doing its own thing. Most facilities that build such laboratory machines expect them to do some paying work drudgery. > > And asserting that any such thing is "human-level processing power" > suggests that you have far more information than you do. That is nothing new. > If you could make that assertion authoritatively, you could also > produce an AI to demonstrate the point. But isn't that assuming too much? AI 'researchers' can by anybody, because nobody but a posthuman entity is qualified to judge the validity of the work of even the most credible fraud. The record to date shows that all AI researchers are therefore frauds. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 02:29:45 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 19:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Sigh!... fi In-Reply-To: <20051009183210.73083.qmail@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051010022945.73348.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > "Better" has several definitions, only one of which > is 'improvement'. > As "better" is actually part of "good", we see: > "Pleasant; enjoyable: > had a good time at the party. Of moral excellence; > upright: a good > person. Benevolent; kind: a good soul; a good heart. > Loyal; staunch: a > good Republican. Well-behaved; obedient: a good > child. Socially > correct; proper: good manners. Welfare; benefit: for > the common good. > Goodness; virtue: There is much good to be found in > people." It is > evident that the Alliance Parliament's goal is not > improvement in > performance and potential of the average citizens > capabilities (unless > they are firmly under the control of the Alliance), > its goal is to make > citizens more pleasant, moral, upright, kind, loyal > (especially loyal), > well-behaved (that too), obedient, socially correct, > proper, and > virtuous. I agree with this assessment that the movie wasn't so much luddite as dystopian. It was not the technology per se that was criticized so much as the Parliament's paternalistic use of it to control the masses. PAX is in some ways a metaphor for gun control in that there is no surer way to disarm a people than to completely take away their will to fight. And all the evil done by the Alliance and its nameless operative to make a "better world" is in many ways reflective of the pre-emption and democratic nation building in a certain less remote time and place. > > That the Alliance is misdirected in this is evident > in the Parliament > Operative: he is a monster, capable of executing a > person on a whim, he > hold no name or rank, and is therefore immune to > prosecution. With > immense martial and rational faculties, he is > intently focused on his > orders to the exclusion of all else and regards > himself as a superior > judge of facts, which helps him rationalize his > murders. The concept > that orders could be illegal does not occur to him, > as he is above the > law, as are his superiors. He does, however, know > that he is a monster, > who commits evil acts, rationalizing that he does > them in order to > achieve the future 'perfect world' that he dreams > about, but knows he > himself is not fit to live in. I did find the Parliament operative to be one of the more interesting characters in the movie. His rationalized evil for the sake of a larger idealism gives him surprising depth. I wonder how many faceless CIA operatives and splinter cells around the world find resonance with this character? Does a similar rationale allow Dick Cheney to sleep soundly at night? The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From mail at harveynewstrom.com Mon Oct 10 02:40:41 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 22:40:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <20051010004350.62820.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051010004350.62820.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45666ee68224772010e1de70b19c064c@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Oct 9, 2005, at 8:43 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > Hold on, the first claim of success preceded SF writers by a long shot. > Show me some SF from before 1916 that used the method.... > > All this is fine, but I wouldn't actually use any SF as a reputable > "prediction". SF writers are not in the business of accurately > predicting future events accurately by date, they are in the business > of selling words to publishers, who are in the business of selling them > to people and making them want to buy more of them. > > I would prefer to look at the non-fiction published by SF writers. Even > there, though, their motive is to motivate the reader to have a > positive outlook on the future (so as to buy more sf), or to have a > negative outlook on a technology (like organ legging (Niven), AI > (Terminator), euthanasia (Soylent Green), etc) for political purposes. > Popular non-fiction futurism rarely is produced that has an objective > outlook. I think you are looking for something different than I am. I am not looking for SF predictions that came true. I am looking for cases where reality surprised us by arriving earlier than expected. Therefore, the exoplanet example does match what I am saying. We kept thinking we had discovered exoplanets over the decades since 1916, and they kept turning out to be wrong. The reality kept getting pushed back farther and farther. The same occurred with repeated claims of a cancer vaccines, cheap energy, alien contact, detection of exo-life in meteors or on Mars, space exploration, life-extension therapies, nanotech, AI, body modifications, etc. Repeated claims of current and imminent breakthroughs keep getting announced almost yearly, and they keep getting pushed back into the future further and further. In fact, I am not interested in SF much at all for prediction purposes. My real interest is whether transhumanists have been better at predicting the future than mainstream predictors. I.E., have our claims of an accelerated future panned out so far? As far as I can tell, I don't think so. I think the past decade or two shows that our predictions are falling short. The future is not arriving as fast as we predicted. We are not predicting better than mainstream pundits or industry about future technological advancements. Our main claim to fame is that the future is coming faster than people expect and that we are more in the "know" about its rate of advancement. But evidence seems to be piling up to the contrary. So I'll repeat my question again: Are there any examples of transhumanist claims or predictions that actually have come true? There are dozens if not hundreds of examples of our claims that have failed to come true. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From brian at posthuman.com Mon Oct 10 02:49:16 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:49:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] grand challenge - good blog In-Reply-To: References: <43481CD7.6060603@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <4349D6AC.1070606@posthuman.com> From what I can tell it looks like at least 6 teams had developed good enough software to finish the course: Stanford, CMU, Gray Team, TerraMax <-- All 4 teams finished the course ENSCO, Axion <-- Were doing very well apparently, but had mechanical probs (flat tire / stuck in sand) It's just interesting that what previously was considered an extremely hard AI/software challenge was simultaneously solved by at least six separate groups. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Oct 10 02:57:55 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 22:57:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <45666ee68224772010e1de70b19c064c@HarveyNewstrom.com> References: <20051010004350.62820.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45666ee68224772010e1de70b19c064c@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051009225042.02e5f598@mail.gmu.edu> At 10:40 PM 10/9/2005, Harvey Newstrom wrote: >In fact, I am not interested in SF much at all for prediction >purposes. My real interest is whether transhumanists have been >better at predicting the future than mainstream predictors. If this is your interest there is really no practical substitute for the sort of data analysis I proposed earlier today. You need to collect predictions by transhumanists and by others and look at the coefficient on TRANSHUMANIST? when accuracy is the dependent variable. I know it is more fun to flame and bait, selectively recalling the predictions one got right and others got wrong, and making a few new predictions one hopes to selectively recall at a future date. But for a real lasting contribution on this issue, we need scholarship. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From alito at organicrobot.com Mon Oct 10 03:24:58 2005 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:24:58 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <1128914698.16556.58.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 13:23 -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > On Oct 9, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > > There is no we or us here. Those predictions were mostly made by Greg > > Burch, a couple of people piped up with comments, and Greg took some of > > them onboard on his write up. That is all. > > (I wish I would have written down some predictions, and I admire Greg's > > work ethic in actually going through with it and remembering to look > > them up after all these years afterwards. But this is no lesson to > > anyone else unless you remember agreeing with those that wrote them) > > No, I wasn't one of the people who agreed with these predictions. But > most people did. You can review the archives if you don't believe me. I did. Most people didn't say anything. Silence does not equal consent. I can't find where you were doing some more pessimistic predictions in that thread. I can't find where I was making more pessimistic predictions in that thread (I can't remember what I thought, too easy to fool myself). Neither of these mean that we agreed. > These were not rare or odd predictions made by Greg. It was convention > transhumanist thought. That's my point. There isn't any conventional transhumanist thought when it comes to timelines. > And it was wrong. Today, there are still such > predictions about AI and nanotech. People are still expecting the > singularity within a decade. Some people are, some people aren't. My feeling is that most people on this list think this prediction will not come to pass. > It simply won't happen. Everybody will > think I am too pessimistic now. And then everyone will deny making > these predictions 10 years from now. I've been through it before, and > I'll go through it again. But you cop out in the same way I do: where are your predictions? what do your expected timelines look like? Most predictions are wrong, so it's easy to be a naysayer, but technological progress has been made since 1998 (I hope you agree), and this will continue (again, I assume you agree with this too), so maybe you have thoughts about when certain things will happen. Quantify your pessimism by sharing your expected timelines. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 03:25:33 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:25:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <1128914698.16556.58.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> <1128914698.16556.58.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510092025m58694a6atc380955ca2ac335f@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/05, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > > But you cop out in the same way I do: where are your predictions? what > do your expected timelines look like? Most predictions are wrong, so > it's easy to be a naysayer, but technological progress has been made > since 1998 (I hope you agree), and this will continue (again, I assume > you agree with this too), so maybe you have thoughts about when certain > things will happen. Quantify your pessimism by sharing your expected > timelines. > I'll bite: My estimate is that the Singularity will happen by the end of this century, unless we fall into an existential disaster such as nanowar or world government instead; so anything you want to do to influence the outcome, you probably need to get it done by 2100 or not at all. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 03:26:00 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:26:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <45666ee68224772010e1de70b19c064c@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <20051010032600.61316.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- Harvey Newstrom wrote: > So I'll repeat my question again: Are there any > examples of > transhumanist claims or predictions that actually > have come true? > There are dozens if not hundreds of examples of our > claims that have > failed to come true. Well for one thing, the human genome was mapped way faster than any one, either transhumanists, pundits, or even the scientists that were working on it themselves thought possible. It was due to an unforeseen but fortunate synergy of different technologies, namely computers and molecular biology. So in my book the human genome takes the prize for the development that caught even the optimists by surprise. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 03:58:57 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Unicorns was Futures Past In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051010035857.66272.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Actually, the creation of the first Unicorn *would* > be a massive publicity > event worldwide. > It might boost the reputation of GE in some > surprising circles. Would the unicorn have to breed true? If the unicorns did not have to be able to mate and create more unicorns, it would be relatively easy and cost less than $5 million US. Would Monsanto fund a 5 million dollar grant proposal to make a unicorn or two? To create a true-breeding unicorn at our current level of understanding would be very difficult, cost much more, and probably not succeed. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 10 04:16:47 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 23:16:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <20051010032600.61316.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> References: <45666ee68224772010e1de70b19c064c@HarveyNewstrom.com> <20051010032600.61316.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009230625.01ebcff8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:26 PM 10/9/2005 -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: >Well for one thing, the human genome was mapped way >faster than any one, either transhumanists, pundits, >or even the scientists that were working on it >themselves thought possible. No it wasn't (I think, but unfortunately my major reference materials are thousands of kilometres away). The announcement that the project was complete was made in advance of expectation, true, but they were disguising the unwelcome fact that it *wasn't* complete. Here's a fragment from my book FEROCIOUS MINDS (footnotes unavailable in this text, sorry.): ========= In February 2000, then-United States President Bill Clinton stood proudly at a podium to announce that the human genome draft was complete. Actually, this map of our common genetic recipe was still badly gappy. Clinton called it `a day for the ages'. He was flanked at his left by Dr. Francis Collins, devout Christian leader of the painstaking public American end of the global Human Genome Project (HGP). At his right stood Dr. Craig Venter, the carpetbagger who had roared into Dodge fixing to finish off the genome by the `shotgun' method, beating those slow-poke bureaucrats even though they'd drawn first--and, if his Celera Genomics company could get away with it, patenting the spoils. Ironically, Venter was soon to be fired by Celera, which was less interested in research than in realizing profits from pharmaceutical applications. Nearly half a century after the fabled DNA helix was first unraveled in Britain by Englishman Francis Crick and a youthful visiting American, James Watson, a key non-American strand of the Genome Project?s thread in this vast common project was largely overlooked. Prime Minister Tony Blair seized photo opportunities, but not many people knew that a major player in this epochal search was a genial expert in nematode worms, John Sulston (now Sir John). In 1989 Sulston had helped start the sequencing project, with DNA helix co-discoverer Jim Watson and another American worm specialist, Bob Waterson, and ran the United Kingdom end, the Sanger Center, until late in 2000 (Sulston and Ferry, 2001).91 The speed of these successful efforts was genuinely breathtaking. As recently as mid-1996, the effort was only just gearing up after vast preparation for its major push, massively and crucially funded by the philanthropic Wellcome Trust, heirs to a pharmaceutics fortune. Only a few percent of the three billion genetic letters had yet been read. In May, 1998, with the aid of venture capitalists, Craig Venter entered the arena, ready to complete the human sequence within three years--four or five years earlier than the public project's goal?and without a cent of taxpayers' money. Journalists were agog. Here was the brash American way at its best: audacious, putting its money where its mouth was in expectation of prodigious rewards, perhaps even a bit unprincipled. The race hotted up with incredible speed. To everyone's astonishment, private and public wings released their data simultaneously to the scientific press in February, 2001--Sulston's team (although by then he had resigned) through the British journal Nature, Celera's via the American journal Science. The human genome had been decoded in barely more than a decade, a triumph comparable, we were told, to placing men on the Moon, with unfathomable future consequences. The trouble with this story, like the one about political asylum seekers in Australian waters throwing their children into the sea to force their rescue by an unwilling Navy, is that it is untrue, and politically motivated. Sulston's own brilliantly enthralling tale blends his amused, amusing and slightly bumbling persona (as captured by science journalist Ferry, who adds meaty chunks from her interviews with other major players) with the increasingly furious, indignant tones of a prophet scorned. Those publications in 2001 were not at all the glorious consummation trumpeted in the press. Indeed, the human genome was not really finished until the original HGP target date, 2003, and even then some small fragment remained undecoded.25 =========== Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Oct 10 04:28:35 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 21:28:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] grand challenge - good blog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510100428.j9A4SbX22389@tick.javien.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Neil H. Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 5:24 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] grand challenge - good blog > I was there! It was a fantastic event. Academic allegiances had me cheering for the Caltech and CMU teams, but I'm still quite pleased at how Stanford's team performed... Cool! Go Stanford! My wife and I planned to go down on the bike. Because of obligations in the coming weeks, we realized our only chance to do our customary fall foliage tour in the Sierras would be this weekend, so we took off early Friday morning. Circumstances intervened in the form of perfect weather conditions in the Sierras, along with the good fortune of hitting right at the peak of fall color. So we decided to stay up in the mountains riding all three days and blow off the DARPA races. Unfortunately, the only available accommodations were run by primitive savages. They had no television in the room, none in the lobby, no telephone, no radio, no wifi. They didn't even know what wifi is. No exaggeration, they had never heard of it. The town is called Lee Vining, on the western shore of Mono Lake. They didn't even have newspapers there, claimed there was no daily delivery that far out there. So we were in a total news blackout. I did get to see one really cool thing. We walked down to the shores of Mono Lake after dark, just as Mars was rising. I have seen the reflection of the moon on the water many times, but I had never seen Mars on the water. It made a very narrow shimmery red strip all along the surface from horizon to nearly our feet. Still I think we woulda had a more fun at the robot races. Last year was a blast, and nobody even did very well that time. spike From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon Oct 10 04:59:06 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:59:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510092025m58694a6atc380955ca2ac335f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/9/05 8:25 PM, "Russell Wallace" wrote: > I'll bite: My estimate is that the Singularity will happen by the end of this > century, unless we fall into an existential disaster such as nanowar or world > government instead; so anything you want to do to influence the outcome, you > probably need to get it done by 2100 or not at all. The very notion of the Singularity as most transhumanists conceive it is, as best as I can tell, premised on the same poor reasoning that Harvey is pointing out. The Singularity as most people conceive of it essentially requires a hard take-off(*) of some type in an environment that is not qualitatively different than what we have now in many respects. It is the old fallacy of looking at a technology in isolation and forgetting that every other technology in society will co-evolve with it. At what point does the Singularity occur from the perspective of individuals if they are an integral part of the system? In many scenarios it would be as fluid a transition as the 20th century was. Sure, to a 2005 human it would appear abrupt, but at any point in the curve you will have something of human derivation that has fluidly evolved with the technology and is integrated with it. Hell, many of us probably cannot imagine a world without the modern Internet but I would assume that most of us have lived with that reality at some point. I can easily envision a scenario that a 2005 transhuman would call "a Singularity" that a 2025 transhuman would call "technological progress". But in 2025, you probably won't have a 2005 transhuman to ask. (*)One could define "hard take-off" as a scenario where widespread technological co-evolution does not occur. In practice it always has, but there is a popular argument that AGI is qualitatively different as a technology vector. J. Andrew Rogers From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon Oct 10 05:11:59 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 22:11:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Any progress towards AI at all? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/9/05 3:26 PM, "Russell Wallace" wrote: > On 10/9/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: >> Can you think of any clear instances of positive *progress* towards the >> goal of building an AI? > > Concrete progress, delivered results? No. > > What we do have is this: in 1998, we hadn't the foggiest notion how to build > an AI. Now... we have a foggy notion. From the inside, that feels like a lot > of progress, though I can certainly understand skepticism and pessimism on the > part of outside observers! I am adding a "me too" here. I would like to reiterate what Russell stated. To an outsider, little has changed in the last decade in AI. To an insider, theoretical progress in the last five years or so has been hyperactive and qualitative. This sea change just is not something that is easily seen or appreciated unless one is intimately involved. The vast, vast majority of the population is simply not in the position to appreciate or understand genuinely important progress when it happens, and likely will not notice it when it becomes a part of their reality except in retrospect. At which time they will hail it as the greatest thing since sliced bread, a day late and a dollar short. This is to be expected; it is the trajectory of most revolutionary technologies in the public consciousness. J. Andrew Rogers From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 05:14:26 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 06:14:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0510092025m58694a6atc380955ca2ac335f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510092214t65477295w8183e4297ff06a14@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/05, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > The very notion of the Singularity as most transhumanists conceive it is, > as > best as I can tell, premised on the same poor reasoning that Harvey is > pointing out. > > The Singularity as most people conceive of it essentially requires a hard > take-off(*) of some type in an environment that is not qualitatively > different than what we have now in many respects. It is the old fallacy of > looking at a technology in isolation and forgetting that every other > technology in society will co-evolve with it. At what point does the > Singularity occur from the perspective of individuals if they are an > integral part of the system? In many scenarios it would be as fluid a > transition as the 20th century was. Sure, to a 2005 human it would appear > abrupt, but at any point in the curve you will have something of human > derivation that has fluidly evolved with the technology and is integrated > with it. Hell, many of us probably cannot imagine a world without the > modern Internet but I would assume that most of us have lived with that > reality at some point. > > I can easily envision a scenario that a 2005 transhuman would call "a > Singularity" that a 2025 transhuman would call "technological progress". > But in 2025, you probably won't have a 2005 transhuman to ask. Actually I'm inclined to agree with all this; I'm not a believer in the "superintelligent AI pops out of someone's basement into a world that otherwise looks mostly like today" scenario, and I was never a great fan of Singularity definitions based on unpredictability (then we've had zillions of them) or incomprehensibility (I don't believe anything in this universe is fundamentally incomprehensible to a sufficiently educated human mind). >From a navigation perspective, I think what matters is the event horizon: the point at which we can no longer change the outcome, for good or bad; the board has been played into either a winning or losing position. That is the point which I estimate will come before 2100. (I won't be surprised if it comes as early as 2050; I will be surprised if it comes much before that.) - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 10 05:42:15 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:42:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510092214t65477295w8183e4297ff06a14@mail.gmail.co m> References: <8d71341e0510092025m58694a6atc380955ca2ac335f@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510092214t65477295w8183e4297ff06a14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051010003124.01e04708@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 06:14 AM 10/10/2005 +0100, Russell W wrote: >On 10/10/05, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: >The very notion of the Singularity as most transhumanists conceive it is, as >best as I can tell, premised on the same poor reasoning that Harvey is >pointing out. > >The Singularity as most people conceive of it essentially requires a hard >take-off(*) of some type in an environment that is not qualitatively >different than what we have now in many respects. It is the old fallacy of >looking at a technology in isolation and forgetting that every other >technology in society will co-evolve with it. > >Actually I'm inclined to agree with all this; I'm not a believer in the >"superintelligent AI pops out of someone's basement into a world that >otherwise looks mostly like today" scenario, and I was never a great fan >of Singularity definitions based on unpredictability (then we've had >zillions of them) or incomprehensibility Okay, here's my book's popularized definition, adapted from Vinge: < History's slowly rising trajectory of progress over tens of thousands of years, having taken a swift turn upward in recent centuries and decades, quickly roars straight up some time after 2030 and before 2100... Change in technology and medicine moves off the scale of standard measurements: it goes asymptotic, as a mathematician would say... So the curve of technological change is getting closer and closer to the utterly vertical in a shorter and shorter time... At the Spike, we can confidently expect that some form of intelligence (human, silicon, or a blend of the two) will emerge at a posthuman level. At that point, all the standard rules and cultural projections go into the waste-paper basket. > The penultimate sentence is the key. "Human, silicon, or a blend of the two... at a posthuman level". Here's Ray K's short opening definition (p. 7) : < It's a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed. Although neither utopian nor dystopian, this epoch will transform the concepts that we rely on to give meaning to our lives, from our business models to the cycle of human life, including death itself. > That last clause, of course, is a slightly disguised way of saying "death will become optional". This will be rather more disconcerting than the arrival of the Internet, but only from our point of view, and I should think even from the point of view of those formerly mortal alive at the time... Damien Broderick From mail at harveynewstrom.com Mon Oct 10 05:54:32 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:54:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <20051010032600.61316.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051010032600.61316.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2e7f99ad5d8026c67fa4e238093424fc@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Oct 9, 2005, at 11:26 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Harvey Newstrom wrote: > >> So I'll repeat my question again: Are there any >> examples of >> transhumanist claims or predictions that actually >> have come true? >> There are dozens if not hundreds of examples of our >> claims that have >> failed to come true. > > Well for one thing, the human genome was mapped way > faster than any one, either transhumanists, pundits, > or even the scientists that were working on it > themselves thought possible. It was due to an > unforeseen but fortunate synergy of different > technologies, namely computers and molecular biology. > So in my book the human genome takes the prize for the > development that caught even the optimists by > surprise. Sorry. I really hate to throw cold water on this example, because it is the best example of technological progress today. However, it is a bit of a stretch to claim that it arrived substantially earlier than predicted. Take a look at the timeline at : - 1986 Project Announced - 1987 A congressionally chartered DOE advisory committee proposed a 15-year timeline - 1990 The 15-year project officially starts - 1999 The first chromosome mapped - 2000 A working "draft" announced - 2001 A working "draft" published - 2002 Project declared complete (but only four chromosomes were actually completely mapped) - 2003 Four more chromosomes completely mapped - 2004 Five more chromosomes completely mapped - 2005 Three more chromosomes completely mapped - ???? And there are still more chromosomes to be completed.... The official story is that the 15-year project was completed in 13-years. This sounds good, but that would only be a 10% reduction in predicted time. This is not an exponential accelerations that was unexpected. But, they don't count the four years set-up time before the project officially started. This means that it was announced that the human genome could be mapped in 15 years, but the announced completion didn't occur until 16 years later. Furthermore, their is still substantial work going on beyond the "completion" date. We still haven't finished completely mapping all of the chromosomes 20 years after the project's announcement. This was a wonderful achievement. It shows that scientific projects can be successful and achieve what they set out to do, even on long-term schedules. But it did not arrive dramatically in advance of early projections. It arrived pretty much as predicted. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at harveynewstrom.com Mon Oct 10 06:04:06 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:04:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051009225042.02e5f598@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20051010004350.62820.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45666ee68224772010e1de70b19c064c@HarveyNewstrom.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051009225042.02e5f598@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <7c9c10704c9607c14286c40a321bc2db@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Oct 9, 2005, at 10:57 PM, Robin Hanson wrote: > At 10:40 PM 10/9/2005, Harvey Newstrom wrote: >> In fact, I am not interested in SF much at all for prediction >> purposes. My real interest is whether transhumanists have been >> better at predicting the future than mainstream predictors. > > If this is your interest there is really no practical substitute for > the sort of data analysis I proposed earlier today. You need to > collect predictions by transhumanists and by others and look at the > coefficient on TRANSHUMANIST? when accuracy is the dependent variable. > I know it is more fun to flame and bait, selectively recalling the > predictions one got right and others got wrong, and making a few new > predictions one hopes to selectively recall at a future date. But for > a real lasting contribution on this issue, we need scholarship. Why do you think I am asking for examples? Why do you think Robert posted his early claims and compared them with actual results? Nobody is disputing that we should compare our actual claims with actual results to see if they were any good. I am not sure why you think anybody is flaming, baiting or selectively recalling earlier predictions. So far, everybody seems to be having a cordial and accurate recall of our past. If you have a differing memory of history, please describe it. It does no good to call someone's memory selective without saying what the correct memory should be. Especially when the person is actively requesting alternative histories. Come on, and join in the fun. I think everyone here would gladly welcome such an analysis as you describe. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 10 06:32:35 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:32:35 +0200 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> References: <1128871702.16556.30.camel@alito.homeip.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <43498F3A.4090200@pobox.com> <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051010063235.GJ2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 08:11:13AM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Can you think of any clear instances of positive *progress* towards the > goal of building an AI? No. Moore's still on track, though, so the potential mounts. We will have AI, unless our R&D collapses completely. It's just nobody can predict when. In general, Harvey is dead-on that we shouldn't try to predict anything, particularly emergence of specific events and sequences of events. (Not only is this unscientific, it reflects badly on the rest of us who're trying hard not appear as circus clowns, but get cream-pied by association). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 10 06:57:30 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:57:30 +0200 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510091736j15e5c56chb5097d5b25c52f2a@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009122822.01eb5fc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051009144455.01c88548@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> <43498F3A.4090200@pobox.com> <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510091736j15e5c56chb5097d5b25c52f2a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051010065730.GM2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 01:36:34AM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 10/10/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > There are two things needed. > > Raw computing power, which is on track to deliver Human performance Not raw computing power. Integration density, which is something different. (Potential computing power, if arranged in the right configuration for the job). > > equivalent within a decade, and software. > > IMO the big breakthroughs will come by doing crude brute force simulations > > of real brains - the data derived from slice-and-scan. First insects, then > > small mammals, then people. > > > > Well okay, that's an idea we had long before 1998, though I tend to regard That's an idea which goes back to the middle of the last century. Probably before, just thought of Campbell. > uploading as something separate from AI. It'll be a lot more than a decade > before we have the computing power for that, though. (By 2015 we might have I agree. But the point is that you don't need detailed simulations, just seeding an evolutionary optimization process from good guesses taken from scanned critters neuroanatomy. > the computing power to match human performance in a significant spread of Please show me the benchmark by which you see a human equivalent by 2015. (Could it be? Somebody is making a specific prediction, again? > domains _if_ we had appropriate AI software optimized to make efficient use > of electronic hardware - though I doubt we will have such software by then - > but _not_ to run an uploaded human brain.) You can't afford software in human equivalent AI. You have to actually route these spikes represented as packets, though a high-dimensional network implemented directly in semiconductor structures, if you want to achieve a realtime performance. Do the math. The bits are only there for the state, and how the state influences other state. And simulating prototypes for bootstrap, of course. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 07:24:26 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:24:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: <20051009214624.0837557EF9@finney.org> Message-ID: On 10/9/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 10/9/05, Greg Burch wrote: > > > > Two items in the discussion hit home personally. The first is the > > discussion of VR/retina painters. I invested heavily in the company that I > > mentioned in the exchange you site -- Microvision. That company has working > > technology that every single person who has seen it comes away from > > convinced that a major revolution in interface technology is just around the > > corner. But that's been true for SEVEN YEARS. They have been on the verge of > > de-listing for the last five years and I lost a literal fortune in my > > investment in the company. It's hard not to have an experience like that and > > become very, very skeptical of future projections. > > > > > I used a device (IIRC) around 1990 called (IIRC) the Eyephone. > It was the size of a pack of chewing gumn that sat in front of one eye and > projected a 720x350 display. > I've been waiting ever since. > I too cannot understand why such has not replaced the screen on laptops > and PDAs How much do devices like these actually cost? I imagine with a bluetooth cell phone, and a bluetooth-enabled eye display, earpiece, and twiddler keyboard, one could do some interesting things. Toss in a GPS receiver and a camera with decent object recognition algorithms... -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From d.assange at ugrad.unimelb.edu.au Mon Oct 10 08:22:04 2005 From: d.assange at ugrad.unimelb.edu.au (Daniel Assange) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:22:04 +1000 (AEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510092214t65477295w8183e4297ff06a14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: "The way to enlightenment is not to admit that you know nothing, but to admit that you can never know enough." On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Russell Wallace wrote: > Actually I'm inclined to agree with all this; I'm not a believer in the > "superintelligent AI pops out of someone's basement into a world that > otherwise looks mostly like today" scenario, and I was never a great fan of > Singularity definitions based on unpredictability (then we've had zillions > of them) or incomprehensibility (I don't believe anything in this universe > is fundamentally incomprehensible to a sufficiently educated human mind). That depends upon how you are defining `incomprehensible' and `human'. There are many concepts, such as the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics and >3 spatial dimensions, which can only be explained with mathematical formulae and analogies; imagining such things as they `truly are' being impossible for the human mind. > >From a navigation perspective, I think what matters is the event horizon: > the point at which we can no longer change the outcome, for good or bad; the > board has been played into either a winning or losing position. That is the > point which I estimate will come before 2100. (I won't be surprised if it > comes as early as 2050; I will be surprised if it comes much before that.) > > - Russell > We may well have already passed that event horizon, and are merely not yet aware of it. -- Daniel Assange "The way to enlightenment is not to admit that you know nothing, but to admit that you can never know enough." From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 10 08:48:46 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:48:46 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: <20051009214624.0837557EF9@finney.org> Message-ID: <20051010084846.GR2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 12:24:26AM -0700, Neil H. wrote: > How much do devices like these actually cost? I imagine with a bluetooth A lot. http://www.xybernaut.com/itemList.asp?categoryID=28 > cell phone, and a bluetooth-enabled eye display, earpiece, and twiddler 1) there are no bluetooth-enabled displays 2) the bandwidth wouldn't suffice > keyboard, one could do some interesting things. One could. If one could buy such things at normal prices. > Toss in a GPS receiver and a camera with decent object recognition > algorithms... http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Thad.Starner/p/journal/augmented-reality-through-wearable-computing.pdf So, why don't we still have such things? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 08:50:53 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009230625.01ebcff8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051010085053.31906.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > The announcement that > the project was > complete was made in advance of expectation, true, > but they were disguising > the unwelcome fact that it *wasn't* complete. To Damien, Harvey, Greg, and all the other science fiction writers, futurists, and transhumanists out there. I can sympathize with those of you that have kept the faith for so long only to see the precious years of your life tick away as the deadlines you set for your predictions come and go without the hoped for results. After a childhood spent earning easy grades and freakishly high test scores, I thought I was going to waltz into the lab and have a vaccine for AIDS before breakfast, the cure for cancer by lunch, and put an end to old age by dinner. In retrospect I was completely, utterly, and horribly naive. I felt your angst acutely as my own, when in the past decade my youthful exubrence as an optimistic young scientist crashed headlong into the inertia of "the system". A mindless morass of politics, bureacracy, and luddism has made me feel like I am making all the progress of a bottle-rocket in jello. I had always envisioned progress in science as some idealistic relay race where each generation of scientists carry forward the torch of enlightenment and pass it on to the next. The reality of the situation however is more like a swarm of ants bringing a raisin to their nest. Ants on every side of it, pulling it this way and that, and inevitably by some stroke of design and no small amount of fortune there happen to be more ants pulling on the side facing the nest. So after many false starts and a long meandering struggle, the raisin finally reaches the nest. Then there is a scramble as the ants, even the ones that were blindly trying to pull it away from the nest, jump on top of the raisin as if to say to their brethren (sisters technically), "Behold, *I* have brought this bounty to you!" What do I mean by this? Simply that all singulatarian rhetoric aside, progress cannot, does not, and will not ever happen on its own. People speak of progress as if it were something of a foregone conclusion. As if great inventions and technological marvels leap up and assemble themselves of their own accord. As a student of science, let me tell you, true innovation is hard. It requires a near miraculous conjunction of necessity, creativity, determination, precedent, and funding. After a mere five years in academic science, it no longer surprises me how slow technological progress can be, it is instead surprising that despite a system that fights progress every step of the way, any gains are made at all. As a student of history, let me tell you that progress is NEVER a foregone conclusion. Civilization is and always has been on the precipice of collapse. And collapsed it has many times. Only to be rolled back up to its heights again by humanity in a different time and place like Sisyphus of myth. The forces of entropy are against us and backsliding to the bottom is a hundred fold easier than pushing that boulder we call humanity one inch higher up the mountain of progress. So what is my point in all this? Simply that your disappointment at our rate of progress should be tempered by the understanding that every inch of progress we have made since we huddled together in caves afraid of the dark was hard won. Furthermore that we have climbed so far up the mountain during this last run of progress that the footing is very treacherous. One miss-step and we could blast ourselves into a dark age that would push the singularity back another two millenia if it didn't extinguish us completely. So before you chide yourself because your crystal balls were murky and dark, and the things you have foretold have not yet come to pass, be thankful that your predictions have been more acurate to date than that of the chiliasts. And know this: it is only because of your labors that humanity even knows in what direction progress lay. Without the compass of your imaginations, the impetus of your inspiration, and the clarity of your vision, we would still be wandering aimlessly in search of our next meal somewhere at the base of the foreboding mountain called progress. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 10 09:01:47 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:01:47 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510092214t65477295w8183e4297ff06a14@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0510092025m58694a6atc380955ca2ac335f@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510092214t65477295w8183e4297ff06a14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051010090147.GY2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:14:26AM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > Actually I'm inclined to agree with all this; I'm not a believer in the > "superintelligent AI pops out of someone's basement into a world that > otherwise looks mostly like today" scenario, and I was never a great fan of If it means a world full of unaugmented people, then it is a world "mostly like today". Because nanomedicine is much harder than molecular electronics and spintronics, AI will come considerably before augmentation. > Singularity definitions based on unpredictability (then we've had zillions > of them) or incomprehensibility (I don't believe anything in this universe > is fundamentally incomprehensible to a sufficiently educated human mind). Do you think you could explain your daily work to a field mouse? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 10 09:11:17 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:11:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Any progress towards AI at all? In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051010091117.GZ2249@leitl.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 10:11:59PM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > To an outsider, little has changed in the last decade in AI. To an insider, > theoretical progress in the last five years or so has been hyperactive and > qualitative. This sea change just is not something that is easily seen or How do we measure that progress, however? Do we have benchmarks on practical systems? I don't see much progress in practice, but I'm admittedly not looking very hard (it would be a full-time job). Can you give us a number of past watermarks, either in paper track or artifacts? > appreciated unless one is intimately involved. The vast, vast majority of > the population is simply not in the position to appreciate or understand > genuinely important progress when it happens, and likely will not notice it > when it becomes a part of their reality except in retrospect. At which time > they will hail it as the greatest thing since sliced bread, a day late and a > dollar short. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 10 09:27:21 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:27:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0510092025m58694a6atc380955ca2ac335f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051010092721.GA2249@leitl.org> On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 09:59:06PM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > The Singularity as most people conceive of it essentially requires a hard > take-off(*) of some type in an environment that is not qualitatively Yes. Straight from horse's mouth: http://eugen.leitl.org/vinge-hard-takeoff.mov > different than what we have now in many respects. It is the old fallacy of It is not qualitatively different in the respect that people are prime moves and shakers. Singularity suddenly changes this. It is directly driven by machines, not people. People are dragged along, left behind, or go extinct. > looking at a technology in isolation and forgetting that every other > technology in society will co-evolve with it. At what point does the > Singularity occur from the perspective of individuals if they are an > integral part of the system? In many scenarios it would be as fluid a The point is that a group of individuals goes into a fast-forward regime the rest of them are unable to follow, being human primates with little or no modifications. > transition as the 20th century was. Sure, to a 2005 human it would appear > abrupt, but at any point in the curve you will have something of human > derivation that has fluidly evolved with the technology and is integrated > with it. Hell, many of us probably cannot imagine a world without the > modern Internet but I would assume that most of us have lived with that > reality at some point. > > I can easily envision a scenario that a 2005 transhuman would call "a > Singularity" that a 2025 transhuman would call "technological progress". > But in 2025, you probably won't have a 2005 transhuman to ask. > > > (*)One could define "hard take-off" as a scenario where widespread > technological co-evolution does not occur. In practice it always has, but > there is a popular argument that AGI is qualitatively different as a > technology vector. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 10 11:14:17 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:14:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6318E9E4-26F0-43F1-B39D-596D296707F3@mac.com> On Oct 9, 2005, at 9:59 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > On 10/9/05 8:25 PM, "Russell Wallace" > wrote: > >> I'll bite: My estimate is that the Singularity will happen by the >> end of this >> century, unless we fall into an existential disaster such as >> nanowar or world >> government instead; so anything you want to do to influence the >> outcome, you >> probably need to get it done by 2100 or not at all. >> > > > The very notion of the Singularity as most transhumanists conceive > it is, as > best as I can tell, premised on the same poor reasoning that Harvey is > pointing out. > > The Singularity as most people conceive of it essentially requires > a hard > take-off(*) of some type in an environment that is not qualitatively > different than what we have now in many respects. It is the old > fallacy of > looking at a technology in isolation and forgetting that every other > technology in society will co-evolve with it. At what point does the > Singularity occur from the perspective of individuals if they are an > integral part of the system? In many scenarios it would be as fluid a > transition as the 20th century was. Sure, to a 2005 human it would > appear > abrupt, but at any point in the curve you will have something of human > derivation that has fluidly evolved with the technology and is > integrated > with it. Hell, many of us probably cannot imagine a world without the > modern Internet but I would assume that most of us have lived with > that > reality at some point. Unless we are so integrated with the technology that our brains are running a million times faster I fail to see how the advent of artificial human level general intelligent but running at computer speeds would fail to reach Singularity relative to the humans of the time. If humans are running at such speeds then they are so massively re- engineered that they effectively are the AIs. - samantha From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Oct 10 11:26:58 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 07:26:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <7c9c10704c9607c14286c40a321bc2db@HarveyNewstrom.com> References: <20051010004350.62820.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45666ee68224772010e1de70b19c064c@HarveyNewstrom.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051009225042.02e5f598@mail.gmu.edu> <7c9c10704c9607c14286c40a321bc2db@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051010072228.02e65a68@mail.gmu.edu> At 02:04 AM 10/10/2005, Harvey Newstrom wrote: >>>My real interest is whether transhumanists have been better at >>>predicting the future than mainstream predictors. >> >>If this is your interest there is really no practical substitute >>for the sort of data analysis I proposed earlier today. You need >>to collect predictions by transhumanists and by others and look at >>the coefficient on TRANSHUMANIST? when accuracy is the dependent >>variable. I know it is more fun to flame and bait, selectively >>recalling the predictions one got right and others got wrong ... > >Why do you think I am asking for examples? Why do you think Robert >posted his early claims and compared them with actual results? ... >So far, everybody seems to be having a cordial and accurate recall >of our past. ... Come on, and join in the fun. I didn't mean to imply that people were not enjoying themselves, nor that the examples being recalled could not be included in such an analysis. I meant to call attention to the difference between such informal conversation and the sort of systematic analysis needed. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 10 11:32:44 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:32:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: <10902B0C-7C97-4ADF-8D98-FA221C2C075F@mac.com> Message-ID: <227834F9-11C4-4155-BF6A-506597285968@mac.com> On Oct 9, 2005, at 1:03 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2005, at 2:37 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> Thanks for keeping and posting this, Greg. It makes for >> interesting Sunday morning reading. >> >> What hits me from this list is that for all the predictions we >> have thus far (2015 is 10 years away) missed, we have exceeded >> some predictions and likely to reach many others by 2015. So some >> things came a wee bit later. Yeah we don't have smart roads and >> VR is still not great, cryogenics hasn't improved that much, space >> development sucks and so on. >> > > So what exactly has arrived faster than we expected? You listed > all the obvious delays, but has anything really arrived sooner than > expected? > 2005 50 GB HD common < 60 - 250 GB common on desktops genetic engineered pets banned < no ban OK. I am underwhelmed. - s From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Oct 10 11:52:26 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:52:26 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past References: <20051010085053.31906.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <096a01c5cd91$15907d70$8998e03c@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > So before you chide yourself because your crystal > balls were murky and dark, and the things you have > foretold have not yet come to pass, be thankful that > your predictions have been more acurate to date than > that of the chiliasts. Er, the chiliasts? > And know this: it is only > because of your labors that humanity even knows in > what direction progress lay. Without the compass of > your imaginations, the impetus of your inspiration, > and the clarity of your vision, we would still be > wandering aimlessly in search of our next meal > somewhere at the base of the foreboding mountain > called progress. Holy mixed metaphors batman! Brett Paatsch From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Oct 10 12:07:01 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:07:01 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past References: <20051010004350.62820.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com><45666ee68224772010e1de70b19c064c@HarveyNewstrom.com><6.2.3.4.2.20051009225042.02e5f598@mail.gmu.edu><7c9c10704c9607c14286c40a321bc2db@HarveyNewstrom.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051010072228.02e65a68@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <097701c5cd93$1ee1ac80$8998e03c@homepc> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 02:04 AM 10/10/2005, Harvey Newstrom wrote: >>>>My real interest is whether transhumanists have been better at >>>>predicting the future than mainstream predictors. >>> >>>If this is your interest there is really no practical substitute >>>for the sort of data analysis I proposed earlier today. You need >>>to collect predictions by transhumanists and by others and look at >>>the coefficient on TRANSHUMANIST? when accuracy is the dependent >>>variable. I know it is more fun to flame and bait, selectively >>>recalling the predictions one got right and others got wrong ... >> >>Why do you think I am asking for examples? Why do you think Robert >>posted his early claims and compared them with actual results? ... >>So far, everybody seems to be having a cordial and accurate recall >>of our past. ... Come on, and join in the fun. > > I didn't mean to imply that people were not enjoying themselves, nor > that the examples being recalled could not be included in such an > analysis. I meant to call attention to the difference between such > informal conversation and the sort of systematic analysis needed. This is getting surreal to the point of becoming funny. It was Greg not Robert that posted "his early claims". Robin offered to add a bit of method to an exercise, which would I expect, had added some enjoyment to it for Robin in the next iteration. I took a quick look at Greg's claims Robin. I think they'd take a bit of work to put into a form that could be operationalised the way you want. It would be possible but I'm not personally keen to do it. If I was going to spend time on *that* exercise I'd be kicking myself for not spending the time trying to make your for real money betting idea move along a bit further. On the other hand if someone else puts the work into forming the claims into something that can elicit easy, sensible measurable responses I might be interested in making some guesses as just guesses. My feeling is that I can do good analytic work and make good predictions only if I am motivated to do some real research and to think seriously about the issues. I'd be keen to do that and to test my predictive powers against those of others but it wouldn't be much fun to do if there wasn't some prospect of also building a betting market. I want the added value of seeing something useful built. Brett Paatsch From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Oct 10 12:15:42 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 07:15:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List In-Reply-To: <06b101c5cce8$8c898970$8998e03c@homepc> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051003191203.02f153d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <06b101c5cce8$8c898970$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051010071152.04b7ee80@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 10:46 AM 10/9/2005, Brett wrote: >Natasha wrote: >Our Vice President, Greg Burch, said recently that ...we need a new > political viewpoint -- one that far outreaches what we have known in > the past - on that is more futuristic for a society that will find its place > in the future and help others along into that future. > >I'd like to hear more about these thoughts on the need for a new political >viewpoint. These are my words, not Greg's. Greg said: "our vision is beyond transhumanism." I said we need a viewpoint hat "far outreaches what we have known in the past - on that is more futuristic for a society that will find its place in the future and help others along into that future. " in regards to extropy and politics. Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Oct 10 12:24:55 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:24:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <097701c5cd93$1ee1ac80$8998e03c@homepc> References: <20051010004350.62820.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45666ee68224772010e1de70b19c064c@HarveyNewstrom.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051009225042.02e5f598@mail.gmu.edu> <7c9c10704c9607c14286c40a321bc2db@HarveyNewstrom.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051010072228.02e65a68@mail.gmu.edu> <097701c5cd93$1ee1ac80$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051010081715.03009440@mail.gmu.edu> At 08:07 AM 10/10/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >Robin offered to add a bit of method to an exercise, which would I >expect, had added some enjoyment to it for Robin in the next iteration. >I took a quick look at Greg's claims Robin. I think they'd take a bit >of work to put into a form that could be operationalised the way you >want. It would be possible but I'm not personally keen to do it. >If I was going to spend time on *that* exercise I'd be kicking myself >for not spending the time trying to make your for real money betting >idea move along a bit further. >On the other hand if someone else puts the work into forming the >claims into something that can elicit easy, sensible measurable responses >I might be interested in making some guesses as just guesses. >My feeling is that I can do good analytic work and make good predictions >only if I am motivated to do some real research and >to think seriously about the issues. I'd be keen to do that and to >test my predictive powers against those of others but it wouldn't >be much fun to do if there wasn't some prospect of also building >a betting market. I want the added value of seeing something useful built. When choosing where to put in effort one should consider not only how cool the result would be, but also how many people of what quality are already working on that result. Lots of good people are making predictions and developing betting markets. Very little effort goes into analyzing past predictions, and only modest ability is required to make progress there. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Oct 10 12:51:43 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:51:43 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI's List References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051003191203.02f153d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com><06b101c5cce8$8c898970$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20051010071152.04b7ee80@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <09a501c5cd99$5e098620$8998e03c@homepc> Natasha wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI's List At 10:46 AM 10/9/2005, Brett wrote: Natasha wrote: Our Vice President, Greg Burch, said recently that ...we need a new political viewpoint -- one that far outreaches what we have known in the past - on that is more futuristic for a society that will find its place in the future and help others along into that future. I'd like to hear more about these thoughts on the need for a new political viewpoint. These are my words, not Greg's. Greg said: "our vision is beyond transhumanism." I said we need a viewpoint hat "far outreaches what we have known in the past - on that is more futuristic for a society that will find its place in the future and help others along into that future. " in regards to extropy and politics. Sorry. I knew I'd trimmed your text but I thought I'd preserved who said what. I didn't mean to misrepresent you. I'd encourage you, Greg, (also Max) to write your thoughts on politics and transhumanism down and to circulate them at least amongst your friends as drafts so that you can get the benefits of feedback and synergies. But the topic IS hard. Waiting to get it perfectly right might amount to risking that you'd die with good contributions unmade. I don't know Greg well enough to know whether I'd agree with his views ultimately (I suspect I'd disagree with some of them at least intially, I'm thinking of a post of Greg's that distinguish Nanny states as unsavvory with Daddy states that might be necessary medicine for what ails us for a bit) but I think they'd be *interesting* at least. I remember Anders praising an essay Greg had written on game theory, and Greg saying he'd like someday to have the time to develop those ideas. What tentative forays that Max has made into the area of talking about politics (that I know about) I think he has done well. So far as I know Max coined the term "monkey politics" this is a phrase that has stuck in my mind as the most apt description of how I feel the contemporay world practices politics. I *feel* like I'm watching monkey's setting policy against their own best interests all the time. With respect to yourself, I'm a bit like Dirk, I don't understand exactly how you see politics. I get that you are not partly political and that you do not want to see the world through a prism that renders all human behaviour political but I don't really understand the ambit of what it is that you are discussing when you talk about politics. I don't get the sense with you that you and I map politics to the same referent. I like your values. I trust your decency, so I'm confident that your efforts will be in directions that I'd approve of. But I don't understand your take on politics. I'm rambling, so I'll stop. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Mon Oct 10 13:00:38 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:00:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: <43482F97.2060102@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051010075815.049fd808@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 07:49 AM 10/9/2005, Greg wrote: >Seven years ago, we had a discussion here on the List about what we >called "near-term projections" for the future to c. 2015. I >gathered together some of the ideas in that discussion and put them >in what I called a "futurist time capsule." Here it is: > > http://www.gregburch.net/writing/NearTerm.htm And *ten* years ago, in Extropy #15, the Future Forecasts section "compared educated estimates of future breakthroughs by Gregory Benford, Alcor's Steve Bridge, Eric Drexler, FM-2030, Mark Miller, Max More, and Nick Szabo." I don't have the text handy on computer (but will eventually extract it from old floppies). Anyone have the time and inclination and the issue to type this up for the list? I recall that Nick and I were relatively conservative in projections, while Eric was very gung-ho. 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 max at maxmore.com Mon Oct 10 13:23:54 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:23:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Future of ExI's List In-Reply-To: <073b01c5cd21$89d85c40$8998e03c@homepc> References: <073b01c5cd21$89d85c40$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051010081417.049f1788@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 05:33 PM 10/9/2005, Brett wrote: >I sometimes wonder if things progress more slowly because folks that >have made intellectual contributions in the past are reluctant to make >only lesser contributions in the future. For instance I wonder if Max is >less willing to right speculative stuff that might be wrong because it >might be used against him. I wonder if he's sort of resting on his laurells >with the Extropian Principles because to write something else might be >used against him or might work to diminish what he has written. What kind of thing do you mean by "speculative stuff" in this context? I'm not terribly interested in writing speculations of the far future, not because I might turn out to be wrong, but because I'm more focused on helping to improve conditions for progress right now. Nor am I particularly worried about turning out to be mistaken. For one thing, I've almost always been quite cautious about making specific predictions, doubting my ability to make accurate off-the-cuff forecasts. If you think I'm so worried about changing my mind, why did I publicly change my mind about politics -- something that has upset some people to a remarkable degree? Max _______________________________________________________ Max More, Ph.D. max at maxmore.com or more at extropy.org http://www.maxmore.com Strategic Philosopher Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org ________________________________________________________________ Director of Content Solutions, ManyWorlds Inc.: http://www.manyworlds.com --- Thought leadership in the innovation economy m.more at manyworlds.com _______________________________________________________ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 14:00:04 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 07:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009230625.01ebcff8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051010140005.39052.qmail@web30303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:26 PM 10/9/2005 -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > > >Well for one thing, the human genome was mapped way > >faster than any one, either transhumanists, pundits, > >or even the scientists that were working on it > >themselves thought possible. > > No it wasn't (I think, but unfortunately my major reference materials > are > thousands of kilometres away). The announcement that the project was > complete was made in advance of expectation, true, but they were > disguising > the unwelcome fact that it *wasn't* complete. Here's a fragment from > my > book FEROCIOUS MINDS (footnotes unavailable in this text, sorry.): > > ========= > > In February 2000, then-United States President Bill Clinton stood > proudly at a podium to announce that the human genome draft was > complete. Actually, this map of our common genetic recipe was still > badly gappy. Clinton called it `a day for the ages'. He was flanked > at his > left by Dr. Francis Collins, devout Christian leader of the > painstaking > public American end of the global Human Genome Project (HGP). At his > right stood Dr. Craig Venter, the carpetbagger who had roared into > Dodge fixing to finish off the genome by the `shotgun' method, > beating > those slow-poke bureaucrats even though they'd drawn first--and, if > his > Celera Genomics company could get away with it, patenting the spoils. > Ironically, Venter was soon to be fired by Celera, which was less > interested in research than in realizing profits from pharmaceutical > applications. The problem with this version of history is it isn't quite accurate: Venter wasn't "soon" fired, he was canned in 2002, two years after the announcement, primarily because his board of directors, and wall street were bummed that the genome knowledge wasn't turning into profitable drugs with every quarterly report. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_50/b3912019_mz072.htm Answers.com claims he was fired in 2000, while this: http://www.bio-itworld.com/archive/111202/horizons_venter.html confirms his firing in early 2002, as does wikipedia. > > Nearly half a century after the fabled DNA helix was first unraveled > in Britain by Englishman Francis Crick and a youthful visiting > American, > James Watson, a key non-American strand of the Genome Project?s > thread in this vast common project was largely overlooked. Prime > Minister Tony Blair seized photo opportunities, but not many people > knew that a major player in this epochal search was a genial expert > in nematode worms, John Sulston (now Sir John). In 1989 Sulston had > helped start the sequencing project, with DNA helix co-discoverer Jim > Watson and another American worm specialist, Bob Waterson, and ran > the United Kingdom end, the Sanger Center, until late in 2000 > (Sulston and Ferry, 2001).91 > > The speed of these successful efforts was genuinely breathtaking. As > recently as mid-1996, the effort was only just gearing up after vast > preparation for its major push, massively and crucially funded by the > philanthropic Wellcome Trust, heirs to a pharmaceutics fortune. Only > a few percent of the three billion genetic letters had yet been read. > In May, 1998, with the aid of venture capitalists, Craig Venter > entered the arena, ready to complete the human sequence within > three years--four or five years earlier than the public project's > goal?and without a cent of taxpayers' money. > > Journalists were agog. Here was the brash American way at its best: > audacious, putting its money where its mouth was in expectation of > prodigious rewards, perhaps even a bit unprincipled. The race hotted > up > with incredible speed. To everyone's astonishment, private and public > wings released their data simultaneously to the scientific press in > February, 2001--Sulston's team (although by then he had resigned) > through the British journal Nature, Celera's via the American journal > Science. The human genome had been decoded in barely more than a > decade, a triumph comparable, we were told, to placing men on the > Moon, with unfathomable future consequences. > > The trouble with this story, like the one about political asylum > seekers in Australian waters throwing their children into the sea to > force their rescue by an unwilling Navy, is that it is untrue, and > politically motivated. Sulston's own brilliantly enthralling tale > blends his amused, amusing and slightly bumbling persona (as > captured by science journalist > Ferry, who adds meaty chunks from her interviews with other major > players) with the increasingly furious, indignant tones of a prophet > scorned. Those publications in 2001 were not at all the glorious > consummation trumpeted in the press. Indeed, the human genome was > not really finished until the original HGP target date, 2003, and > even then some small fragment remained undecoded.25 Actually, you are writing the version that is face-saving for the government project: face saving for Sulston, and face saving for the US HGP effort. The facts are that Celera had it all sequenced in 2000, while the HGP did not, the government project did not itself finish until 2003 doing the same work, and wasting more tax money in its duplication of effort. In this respect Craig Venter didn't save the taxpayer any money, though he allowed Clinton to hoodwink people into thinking that Venters work had stopped the taxpayer pork rind factory in its tracks. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From matus at matus1976.com Mon Oct 10 14:09:09 2005 From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:09:09 -0400 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] FuturesPast In-Reply-To: <4349A0F7.7010708@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <000001c5cda4$32b4fda0$6401a8c0@hplaptop> Brian Atkins said: > All the necessary research into having computers work with various sensing > systems had been done. The hardware necessary for a success, from sensors, > drive-by-wire, computers, etc. was already here years ago. Yet we didn't > end up > with working autonomous offroad vehicles until yesterday. It took a well- > funded > competitive prize to finally get the major universities and groups to sit > down > and write the complete software and do the offroad testing necessary to > complete > the working vehicles. ... > Without such organizational efforts? We would not have those vehicles > right now. > Who knows how much longer it would have taken. Excellent point and very well said. > There are tons of other examples where a technology could have technically > been > completed years earlier, but just didn't for various non-technical > reasons. I think it's very clear what those 'non-technical' reasons are. If the people in the Extropy / Transhumanist / futurist community put 1/10 the effort into actually accomplishing things as they do in yapping about how great the future will be a lot more of these things would have been accomplished. (Excluding those who actually are working toward these goals) I would say that the feasibility and > prerequisites are more important to figure out rather than simply trying > to > guess a particular year of creation or mass adoption. > -- Well the former requires work and effort, and might actually compel someone to work toward those goals. The latter only requires daydreaming and patting ourselves on the back once in a while, while letting everyone else do all the hard work. Michael F Dickey From mail at harveynewstrom.com Mon Oct 10 14:15:27 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:15:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051010075815.049fd808@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <43482F97.2060102@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051010075815.049fd808@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <1c45691041ed8d199f71e13f20857daf@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Oct 10, 2005, at 9:00 AM, Max More wrote: > At 07:49 AM 10/9/2005, Greg wrote: > >> Seven years ago, we had a discussion here on the List about what we >> called "near-term projections" for the future to c. 2015. I gathered >> together some of the ideas in that discussion and put them in what I >> called a "futurist time capsule." Here it is: >> >> http://www.gregburch.net/writing/NearTerm.htm > > And *ten* years ago, in Extropy #15, the Future Forecasts section > "compared educated estimates of future breakthroughs by Gregory > Benford, Alcor's Steve Bridge, Eric Drexler, FM-2030, Mark Miller, Max > More, and Nick Szabo." > > I don't have the text handy on computer (but will eventually extract > it from old floppies). Anyone have the time and inclination and the > issue to type this up for the list? > > I recall that Nick and I were relatively conservative in projections, > while Eric was very gung-ho. Deja-Vu! We've had this conversation before. Here it is: -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Oct 10 14:20:54 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:20:54 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI's List References: <073b01c5cd21$89d85c40$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20051010081417.049f1788@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <09f301c5cda5$d31e3f80$8998e03c@homepc> Max More wrote: > At 05:33 PM 10/9/2005, Brett wrote: >>I sometimes wonder if things progress more slowly because folks that >>have made intellectual contributions in the past are reluctant to make >>only lesser contributions in the future. For instance I wonder if Max is >>less willing to right speculative stuff that might be wrong because it >>might be used against him. I wonder if he's sort of resting on his >>laurells >>with the Extropian Principles because to write something else might be >>used against him or might work to diminish what he has written. > > What kind of thing do you mean by "speculative stuff" in this context? I was thinking of stuff on politics mainly. There is one other area that you seemed to have started to explored, as well, and before I did. What you have written has sometimes marked off locations of interest that I have found I was interested in as well. But it was exploratory stuff. One instance is whether or not is it intellectually justified to ever believe anything. It came up in the context of your saying in a media situation that you tried not to believe much of anything these days. Thats a rough paraphrasing not a quote. You've since moved on from that position I notice. You do assert beliefs now sometimes when you write. I wonder if you changed your mind on believing qua believing. > I'm not terribly interested in writing speculations of the far future, not > because I might turn out to be wrong, but because I'm more focused on > helping to improve conditions for progress right now. No I didn't mean that. I just meant I wondered if you might feel that it was risky to relax a bit and put out a draft early that might be more speculative and less thoroughly thought through because some minor point might be used against you. You'd have to spend so much time ensuring that a misrepresentation wasn't taken for a truth that it would just be better not to post anything that wasn't checked for its defensibly first. Basically, you are a smart poster and your stuff is worth reading but you don't post much so I figured there had to be a reason why. It could hardly be that you were not interested in the Exi list. You've invested too much in the Extropy meme. > Nor am I particularly worried about turning out to be mistaken. For one > thing, I've almost always been quite cautious about making specific > predictions, doubting my ability to make accurate off-the-cuff forecasts. > If you think I'm so worried about changing my mind, why did I publicly > change my mind about politics -- something that has upset some people to a > remarkable degree? I don't think you are worried about changing your mind so much as that you might have developed a conservative about what you say and where you say it because you don't want to have to waste time dealing with silly comments or straw men attacks. I wondered if you thought that you could not relax on the Exi list and just chew the fat. Actually I suspect most people that try to write seriously about important ideas don't try to chew the fat in the same spaces for fear of debasing their own hard won credibility. Brett Paatsch From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 14:24:27 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 07:24:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510092214t65477295w8183e4297ff06a14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051010142427.45746.qmail@web30303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > On 10/10/05, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > > > The very notion of the Singularity as most transhumanists conceive > > it is, as best as I can tell, premised on the same poor reasoning > > that Harvey is pointing out. > > > > The Singularity as most people conceive of it essentially requires > > a hard take-off(*) of some type I've never thought so. Unlike some here, I've always felt that it would be a slow swell, primarily because of my practical experience in business with budget cycles, development cycles, reporting periods, etc.: the nitty gritty of moving physical objects around in the manufacturing process from raw material, to part, to subassembly, assembly, to finished product, to warehouse, to distributor, to retailer, to consumer, as well as all of the market analyses, engineering studies, product definitions, and all of the other paperwork and meetings and decisions and buy-in that precedes even the start of production. The fact is that as soon as chip designers were able to design on a CAD system of any quality, their doubling period should have started contracting significantly, at least 50% each chip generation. They got slowed down by other factors in business that limit its ability to really compress doubling periods, some of which I've mentioned above. For example, the production and distribution cycle I described above frequently results in chip engineers designing the newest chips not on the previous generation of chips, but two generations older, so their maximum potential productivity increase would be 50%, not 100%. Factor in software bloat issues, and it explains why there has been little contraction in the doubling period at all. Those expecting contraction when the desktop PC hits human-equivalency are therefore bound not by the hardware, but the software. If WinXP2025 is as bloaty as all other versions of windows (or linux, Mac, what-have-you) then there will be no contraction. And what is the difference between an engineer with a human-equivalent PC and just two engineers? The only difference is you don't have to pay the PC a salary, you can make it work three shifts a day, but unless it is an AI with initiative and authority to do work on its own, it can only do work during those three shifts that a human has instructed it to. This may work with engineers, but if what about management, marketing, and other functions? If a brilliant 16xhuman PC is sitting on the desk of an absolute moron middle manager, that PC is still going to be putting out moron level work, albiet with the appearance of brilliance. And who says its going to work with engineers? Sometimes getting an engineer to stop tinkering with a design is neigh impossible, always adding bells and whistles, gold plating this, calculating that to the n-th degree. Giving an engineer the ability to do that four times better isn't going to result in a faster product cycle, it will wind up with a more delayed cycle and a product that is ever more tinkered with, and possibly too expensive for the marketing price window. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 15:18:11 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:18:11 +0100 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <20051010065730.GM2249@leitl.org> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009144455.01c88548@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> <43498F3A.4090200@pobox.com> <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510091736j15e5c56chb5097d5b25c52f2a@mail.gmail.com> <20051010065730.GM2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510100818s4ceb66d4wb8d97024e817155@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > I agree. But the point is that you don't need detailed simulations, > just seeding an evolutionary optimization process from good guesses taken > from scanned critters neuroanatomy. Oh, you could try that approach, but I don't think it's going to work. (Which is just as well, because you can't put Friendliness into brute force evolution.) Please show me the benchmark by which you see a human equivalent by 2015. > (Could it be? Somebody is making a specific prediction, again? Well, my prediction is that we _won't_ see a human equivalent by 2015, however hard I try to prove myself wrong :) You can't afford software in human equivalent AI. You have to actually route > these > spikes represented as packets, though a high-dimensional network > implemented directly in semiconductor structures, if you want to achieve > a realtime performance. Do the math. That depends, but if you think you can talk a manufacturer into building hardware like that, please go for it! - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 10 15:29:29 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:29:29 +0200 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510100818s4ceb66d4wb8d97024e817155@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051009144455.01c88548@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> <43498F3A.4090200@pobox.com> <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510091736j15e5c56chb5097d5b25c52f2a@mail.gmail.com> <20051010065730.GM2249@leitl.org> <8d71341e0510100818s4ceb66d4wb8d97024e817155@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051010152929.GR2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 04:18:11PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > Oh, you could try that approach, but I don't think it's going to work. My approach worked at least once (we're soaking in it), yours hasn't so far. > (Which is just as well, because you can't put Friendliness into brute force > evolution.) It also happened at least once (though it's not very friendly, admittedly). I don't think Friendliness exists. It is not a well-defined property to start with, so you can't gauge conservation over system evolution. Is it worthwhile to try for a friendly system? Sure, if you can make it so. But, I'm not holding my breath. It's too strangling a constraint, and a seed is already hard as is. > Well, my prediction is that we _won't_ see a human equivalent by 2015, > however hard I try to prove myself wrong :) What I meant, there won't be hardware equivalents of a human CNS, regardless by which metric. > That depends, but if you think you can talk a manufacturer into building > hardware like that, please go for it! Unfortunately, this is beyond ASIC budget. Way beyond ASIC budget. This could easily ruin a major manufacturer, so nobody is going to try until prototyping costs fall due to desktop nanoelectronics fabs (which won't be there by 2015, not even by 2025). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 10 16:05:07 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:05:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past--time-line In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051010075815.049fd808@pop-server.austin.rr.com > References: <43482F97.2060102@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051010075815.049fd808@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051010110150.01ce5298@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:00 AM 10/10/2005 -0500, Max wrote: >And *ten* years ago, in Extropy #15, the Future Forecasts section >"compared educated estimates of future breakthroughs by Gregory Benford, >Alcor's Steve Bridge, Eric Drexler, FM-2030, Mark Miller, Max More, and >Nick Szabo." > >I don't have the text handy on computer (but will eventually extract it >from old floppies). Anyone have the time and inclination and the issue to >type this up for the list? Haven't seen that, but here's something comparable, from THE SPIKE (formatting will probably go nuts in email, alas): ============= Merkle still cites the August 1995 Wired poll of experts (chemistry professor Robert Birge, materials science professor Donald W. Brenner, Drexler, computer scientist J. Storrs Hall (JoSH), and Nobelist chemist Richard E. Smalley) on several aspects of a time-line to working nano. Here are their now somewhat superannuated but interesting estimates: Birge Brenner Drexler Hall Smalley Molecular Assembler: 2005 2025 2015 2010 2000 Nanocomputer: 2040 2040 2017 2010 2100 Cell Repair: 2030 2035 2018 2050 2010 Commercial product: 2002 2000 2015 2005 2000 # Moravec: multipurpose `universal' robots by 2010, with `humanlike competence' in cheap computers by around 2039--a more conservative estimate than Ray Kurzweil's, but astonishing none the less. Even so, he considers a Vingean singularity as likely within 50 years. # Kaku: no computer expert, superstring physicist Michio Kaku surveyed some 150 scientists in devised a profile of the next century and farther. He concludes broadly that from `2020 to 2050, the world of computers may well be dominated by invisible, networked computers which have the power of artificial intelligence: reason, speech recognition, even common sense'.172 In the next century or two, he expects humanity to achieve a Type I Kardeshev civilization, with planetary governance and technology able to control weather but essentially restricted to Earth. Only later, between 800 and 2500 years farther on, will humanity pass to Type II, with command of the entire solar system. Once the consensus dream of science fiction, this must now be seen as excessively conservative. # Vinge: as we noted at the outset, Vernor Vinge's part-playful, part-serious proposal that a singularity was imminent puts the date at around 2020, marking the end of the human era. Maybe as soon as 2014. 2.72. Michio Kaku, Visions (1998), p. 28. ======================== Damien Broderick From bradbury at aeiveos.com Mon Oct 10 16:26:52 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:26:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day Message-ID: This statement came across my desk today. It is with regard to the Pakistan/India earthquake. It made me cry. It is a direct quote from the NY Times. > Dr. Fara Shah, an ophthalmologist working a shift in the triage tent, > said, "Life and death is in your hands. Mostly it's death in your hands." Earthquakes are one of the hardest extropic problems to solve. Katrina or Rita or Stan you can see coming. Earthquakes you can't. It is possible to engineer people to be better able to withstand them -- but that requires that everyone install a nanotechnology based "vasculoid" system. (Vasculoid is desirable because it significantly limits death due to 'crushing'). However that solution may be difficult because it is highly likely that many would prefer to remain more humanoid and less "cyborg". I know that Robert Freitas is working on a book chapter where he potentially is talking using nanotechnology to reduce our hazard function to enable ~10,000 year lifetimes. But it starts getting very hard to go beyond that unless one starts discussing either stopping plate tectonics or removing every human from the planet. Robert From aiguy at comcast.net Mon Oct 10 16:42:30 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (aiguy at comcast.net) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:42:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <009201c5cdb9$9c0eb2e0$74550318@ZANDRA2> >>I know that Robert Freitas is working on a book chapter where he potentially is talking using nanotechnology >>to reduce our hazard function to enable ~10,000 year lifetimes. But it starts getting very hard to go beyond >>that unless one starts discussing either stopping plate tectonics or removing every human from the planet. >> >>Robert Nanotechnology should allow us to create building materials capable of withstanding earthquake forces and other natural disasters much better and at much lower cost than we are today. Unfortunately such technologies will continue to see little or no adoption in economically strapped areas of the world. Is there any accurate early warning systems for quakes that would allow time for evacuation as there is with hurricanes? And I wonder if our modern architecture and building materials used in US major cities would have held up much better in that strong of a quake. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From megao at sasktel.net Mon Oct 10 15:49:51 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:49:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past--time-line In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051010110150.01ce5298@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <43482F97.2060102@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051010075815.049fd808@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051010110150.01ce5298@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <434A8D9F.1050208@sasktel.net> > # Kaku: no computer expert, superstring physicist Michio Kaku > surveyed some 150 scientists in devised a profile of the next century > and farther. He concludes broadly that from `2020 to 2050, the world > of computers may well be dominated by invisible, networked computers > which have the power of artificial intelligence: reason, speech > recognition, even common sense'.172 In the next century or two, he > expects humanity to achieve a Type I Kardeshev civilization, with > planetary governance and technology able to control weather but > essentially restricted to Earth. Only later, between 800 and 2500 > years farther on, will humanity pass to Type II, with command of the > entire solar system. Once the consensus dream of science fiction, this > must now be seen as excessively conservative. Once the life and death cycle moves from "0-75 or bust" to "0-some indefinite number+ or bust" the need to make the big off planet moves may subside and the stay at home development of all the concievable base technologies can proceed so that we can rapidly and efficiently colonize the solar system once we have decided on a purpose and long term plan beyond just harvesting of raw materials and consuming the goods to further procreate the species. The species needs to get a new objective beyond that of the simple continuing procreation of its genepool. We cannot remain the simple tribal mentality sociopathic species we are and portray as continuing in Sci-Fi, star trek etc. That is one thing that must change on or before the singularity is reached. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 17:21:31 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:21:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0510092214t65477295w8183e4297ff06a14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510101021k597e75fas717656125f8046c6@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/05, Daniel Assange wrote: > > That depends upon how you are defining `incomprehensible' and > `human'. There are many concepts, such as the fundamental nature of > quantum mechanics and >3 spatial dimensions, which can only be explained > with mathematical formulae and analogies; imagining such things as they > `truly are' being impossible for the human mind. It is possible to visualize simple objects in four dimensions, though not easy (there's even a 4D Rubik Cube available - software only, of course - though I haven't been masochistic enough to put in the practice it'd take to be able to solve it, some people have). > >From a navigation perspective, I think what matters is the event horizon: > > the point at which we can no longer change the outcome, for good or bad; > the > > board has been played into either a winning or losing position. That is > the > > point which I estimate will come before 2100. (I won't be surprised if > it > > comes as early as 2050; I will be surprised if it comes much before > that.) > > We may well have already passed that event horizon, and are merely not yet > aware of it. > I don't think so - granted it's not something I _want_ to believe, but compared to historical event horizons, the current era doesn't look close, and several outcomes still look plausible. (If you think we are past it, what do you think the outcome will be?) - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 17:23:49 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:23:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <20051010090147.GY2249@leitl.org> References: <8d71341e0510092025m58694a6atc380955ca2ac335f@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510092214t65477295w8183e4297ff06a14@mail.gmail.com> <20051010090147.GY2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510101023q7429adaco3e4961442ec492ee@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:14:26AM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > > > Actually I'm inclined to agree with all this; I'm not a believer in the > > "superintelligent AI pops out of someone's basement into a world that > > otherwise looks mostly like today" scenario, and I was never a great fan > of > > If it means a world full of unaugmented people, then it is a world "mostly > like today". Because nanomedicine is much harder than molecular > electronics > and spintronics, AI will come considerably before augmentation. But molecular electronics and spintronics aren't close to enough for AI by themselves. Also, when we have AI it should be able to help with nanomedicine. > Singularity definitions based on unpredictability (then we've had zillions > > of them) or incomprehensibility (I don't believe anything in this > universe > > is fundamentally incomprehensible to a sufficiently educated human > mind). > > Do you think you could explain your daily work to a field mouse? Nope, which is why I didn't say a sufficiently educated field mouse! (I'm familiar with the analogy of transhuman:human as human:lower animal, but that's another thing I don't believe in, though I did happily use it for a fictional villain.) - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 17:25:34 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:25:34 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <6318E9E4-26F0-43F1-B39D-596D296707F3@mac.com> References: <6318E9E4-26F0-43F1-B39D-596D296707F3@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510101025h4ac3f044r338c0f04af3eb07c@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Unless we are so integrated with the technology that our brains are > running a million times faster I fail to see how the advent of > artificial human level general intelligent but running at computer > speeds would fail to reach Singularity relative to the humans of the > time. Depends on what computer speeds are - silicon computers are much slower than human brains, after all, in terms of raw computing power. (From that perspective, an earlier Singularity would be more controllable than a late one.) - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 17:30:19 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:30:19 +0100 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <20051010152929.GR2249@leitl.org> References: <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> <43498F3A.4090200@pobox.com> <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510091736j15e5c56chb5097d5b25c52f2a@mail.gmail.com> <20051010065730.GM2249@leitl.org> <8d71341e0510100818s4ceb66d4wb8d97024e817155@mail.gmail.com> <20051010152929.GR2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510101030u4c0583f2ga9e231f0e474e01f@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 04:18:11PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > > > Oh, you could try that approach, but I don't think it's going to work. > > My approach worked at least once (we're soaking in it), yours hasn't so > far. Your approach required a nanocomputer the size of a planet running for four billion years, and even with those resources it failed 57 grillion times for one success if the Great Silence is anything to go by! (Have you worked with evolutionary computation at all?) > (Which is just as well, because you can't put Friendliness into brute > force > > evolution.) > > It also happened at least once (though it's not very friendly, > admittedly). > I don't think Friendliness exists. It is not a well-defined property > to start with, so you can't gauge conservation over system evolution. > > Is it worthwhile to try for a friendly system? Sure, if you can make it > so. > But, I'm not holding my breath. It's too strangling a constraint, and > a seed is already hard as is. I'm trying to prove you wrong, though admittedly you wouldn't be wise to hold your breath! > Well, my prediction is that we _won't_ see a human equivalent by 2015, > > however hard I try to prove myself wrong :) > > What I meant, there won't be hardware equivalents of a human CNS, > regardless by which metric. Agreed. > That depends, but if you think you can talk a manufacturer into building > > hardware like that, please go for it! > > Unfortunately, this is beyond ASIC budget. Way beyond ASIC budget. > This could easily ruin a major manufacturer, so nobody is going > to try until prototyping costs fall due to desktop nanoelectronics > fabs (which won't be there by 2015, not even by 2025). Agreed there also. (Indeed, short of Friendly AI we're never going to see desktop molecular factories for legal reasons alone.) - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Mon Oct 10 17:41:36 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:41:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past Message-ID: <20051010174136.9723357EFB@finney.org> For another source of Extropian predictions, a couple of years ago I posted a table from Extropy #15 from 1995. This had predictions from Gregory Benford, Steve Bridge, Eric Drexler, FM-2030, Mark Miller, and Nick Szabo. You can see it from the list archives here, , but unfortunately the lack of monospace font makes it hard to read. I put a copy up at which is more likely to show up in readable form. Here are some comments I appended at the time: > Lots of figures here, and it's pretty hard to see the logic behind some > of them. Benford and Szabo put Reproducing Starships out in the 24th > century, while Drexler could have them coming out the year after next. > Actually, Drexler is kind of a one-note-Charlie here, putting almost > everything in the 2006-2026 time frame, even Big Fraction of Economy out > of Solar System. I guess he assumes a nanotech singularity scenario. > The interstellar economy would presumably be self-reproducing space probes > zooming away from Earth in all directions and furiously converting nearby > star systems into computronium or some such. > > I see Benford and Szabo as the most conservative, with Bridge and More > taking a middle ground, and Drexler and FM-2030 being the most aggressive. > FM's predictions don't make much sense to me but maybe they should be > thought of as somewhat metaphorical or poetic, which is how I perceive > his writing. > > Other interesting aspects of the survey include the topic selection, > which is kind of a snapshot of the items of interest to the Extropian > community in the 1995 time frame. I also note the absence of Eliezer > Yudkowski's influential conception of the Singularity as a sudden > transition to world whose rules, possibly even whose physics, are > determined by AIs of virtually infinite intelligence. Hal From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 10 17:43:29 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:43:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: <009201c5cdb9$9c0eb2e0$74550318@ZANDRA2> References: <009201c5cdb9$9c0eb2e0$74550318@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <20051010174329.GV2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 12:42:30PM -0400, aiguy at comcast.net wrote: > Nanotechnology should allow us to create building materials capable of > withstanding earthquake forces and other natural disasters much better and > at much lower cost than we are today. Only for very small values of nanotechnology. Moderately larger values of nanotechnology already come with incremental remote backups, and a dead-man-switch-triggered remote instantiation. "Huh? Somebody must have nuked me. The second time this kilosecond alone. Nasty neighbourhood." It is difficult to see a cataclysm capable of eradicating multiple backups, especially located at astronomical distances (yes, we'll turn this system into an onion router yet). > Unfortunately such technologies will continue to see little or no adoption > in economically strapped areas of the world. If Pentiums grow on trees, all you need is to airdrop a few tons of acorns. > Is there any accurate early warning systems for quakes that would allow time > for evacuation as there is with hurricanes? There are already wireless quake warning devices. They can buy you quite a few seconds, depending on where the epicentrum is. If an primary longitudinal wave slams the floor into you from below, you might have still time to dive under your desk, or for that door frame. http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/earthquakes.htm > And I wonder if our modern architecture and building materials used in US > major cities would have held up much better in that strong of a quake. Wood and plaster is not particularly modern, but is about the best architecture to build housese from in quake country. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 17:55:20 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:55:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: <009201c5cdb9$9c0eb2e0$74550318@ZANDRA2> References: <009201c5cdb9$9c0eb2e0$74550318@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510101055o2f27bf3fnc832ca5daa508811@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/05, aiguy at comcast.net wrote: > > And I wonder if our modern architecture and building materials used in US > major cities would have held up much better in that strong of a quake. They stood up well in the big California earthquake back in the early 90s. The key is to either stick to wood (traditional Japanese construction presumably for that reason) or go all the way to steel frame - use resilient materials, don't use brick/concrete load-bearing walls. Doesn't cut the death toll to zero in the event of a big quake, but it does reduce it by orders of magnitude. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giogavir at yahoo.it Mon Oct 10 18:00:09 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:00:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past--time-line In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051010110150.01ce5298@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051010180009.44616.qmail@web26205.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> here is a 2004 forecast made for an incoming book for the records 1-MAPPING THE FUTURE Before analysing the progressive approach we want to show where the possible road of achievements will direct us by single subjects. Such results will be included in a Master Plan and analysed in detail in the following pages This preview is used as an advanced description of the method that will be followed and will help clarify the division in successive steps for all activities. We can define the phases, following Kardashev classifications of energy compsumption , they are. -Phase 1- a planetary type society -Phase 2-an interplanetary type society -Phase 3 an interstellar type society While the drivers are: -political, as the major and initial condition for other developments -standardization a technical condition for unification -security another condition for the general well being -pollution, an effect of uncontrolled progress -energy a requirement to be fulfilled in a way that don?t create pollution or waste of resources -education a cause to avoid poverty -health to save and enhance our body -economy to eliminate poverty and promote well being -space as our future unlimited territory -technology as the main source of controlled progress -terraforming the main direction of our Earth oriented plans They will be analysed with most of their evolutionary progress and cause and effect situations in a progressive step by step sequence spanning over three centuries of future history. Such mapping will allow to study the interrelations between several drivers and to create scenarios that may help prevent and solve future problems before they can cause any damage. In this way the future will become a planned event of sequences and the progressive steps well planned milestones and events towards the meeting of well defined and established goals. avir MAPPING THE FUTURE KARDASHEV 1- Planetary society KARDASHEV 2- interplanetary society Year 2020 year 2050 year 2100 POLITICAL Prepare Master plan operating World federation New constitution including new lifeforms GPA operating Regional Governments system and space settlements Embryo World Gov system World Constitution STANDARDIZATION Common e-currency all standards unified solar system standards Start common language standardization laws Set unified standards SECURITY Unmanned military vehicles sat crime control crime prevention brain technology Chip system operating security by robots Crime mapping Robots\police\soldiers Universal ID system Sat personal tracking POLLUTION Prepare alternative technologies apply new technologies climate control Pollution stopped pollution reversed catastrophy prevention system SPACE Low cost access technology cycler to Moon and Mars advanced technology transportation Asteroid deflection technology manned base in Moon and Mars manned settlements Station construction technology space transportation system migration asteroid spaceship Solar system mapping space infrastructural system milky way mapping 1000 esoplanets discovered 100% solar system mapping Mars terraforming earth like planets discovery unmanned colonies EDUCATION Animation media instruction implants biobrain education Remote education universal brain All media online Games technology in education ECONOMICAL\WORK Population and jobs relocation robotic economy New economic model Create new 1B jobs by K1 plan ENERGY Energy from renewable wireless power transmission space clean power generation Alternative propulsion cars -decentralise clean energy production HEALTH Medical injected chip remote medicine cell transplant Human cloning artificial organs rejuvenation process Extrawomb birth experiments disease free society suspended animation Remote instant diagnosis genetic engineered intellianimals virtual immortality Nanolevel therapy Body and disease models TERRAFORMING Connector prototype install transnet mag lev transportation PST prototype grid system in operation Terraforming 10% Terraforming plans new building types Sahara sea construction Start grid construction TECHNOLOGY Multimedia center universal portable translator molecular transfer Petabites storage VTOL and HST commercial planes atomic level chemistry Multimedia communicator personal flying system small scale production system Robotics multitasking automated clean PTV Cornucopia-molecular assembler Nanotech manufacturing molecular assembler tests MAPPING THE FUTURE KARDASHEV 3- Interstellar society Year 2200 year 2200 plus POLITICAL Stellar federation Alien rights and ethics STANDARDIZATION Interstellar standards SECURITY Interstellar protection system Advanced warfare system POLLUTION Terraforming technologies SPACE Intelligent ET civilization interstellar travel technology Planetary level ecosystem artificial planet technology Oort cloud settlements Venus terraforming plans Mars terraforming 10% unmanned interstellar colonizatrion Way mapping 80% Ringworlds technology EDUCATION Universal brain ECONOMICAL\WORK Intelligent android robots interstellar economy Intellianimals economy alien interaction Unmanned manufacturing economy Unmanned primary activities ENERGY Star power utilization star power generation Interstellar power sources HEALTH Multigeneration humans mind\body separation Interaction brain\web alien interaction Telepathy experiments mind copies in multibodies TERRAFORMING Earth terraforming completed stellar terraforming technology Space colonies network stellar colonies network TECHNOLOGY Molecular assembler advanced mind controlled machines Von Neumann machines --- Damien Broderick ha scritto: > At 08:00 AM 10/10/2005 -0500, Max wrote: > > >And *ten* years ago, in Extropy #15, the Future > Forecasts section > >"compared educated estimates of future > breakthroughs by Gregory Benford, > >Alcor's Steve Bridge, Eric Drexler, FM-2030, Mark > Miller, Max More, and > >Nick Szabo." > > > >I don't have the text handy on computer (but will > eventually extract it > >from old floppies). Anyone have the time and > inclination and the issue to > >type this up for the list? > > Haven't seen that, but here's something comparable, > from THE SPIKE > (formatting will probably go nuts in email, alas): > > ============= > > Merkle still cites the August 1995 Wired poll of > experts (chemistry > professor Robert Birge, materials science professor > Donald W. Brenner, > Drexler, computer scientist J. Storrs Hall (JoSH), > and Nobelist chemist > Richard E. Smalley) on several aspects of a > time-line to working nano. Here > are their now somewhat superannuated but interesting > estimates: > > Birge Brenner > Drexler Hall Smalley > > Molecular Assembler: 2005 2025 2015 2010 > 2000 > Nanocomputer: 2040 2040 2017 > 2010 2100 > Cell Repair: 2030 2035 2018 > 2050 2010 > Commercial product: 2002 2000 2015 2005 > 2000 > > # Moravec: multipurpose `universal' robots > by 2010, with > `humanlike competence' in cheap computers by around > 2039--a more > conservative estimate than Ray Kurzweil's, but > astonishing none the less. > Even so, he considers a Vingean singularity as > likely within 50 years. > > # Kaku: no computer expert, superstring > physicist Michio Kaku > surveyed some 150 scientists in devised a profile of > the next century and > farther. He concludes broadly that from `2020 to > 2050, the world of > computers may well be dominated by invisible, > networked computers which > have the power of artificial intelligence: reason, > speech recognition, even > common sense'.172 In the next century or two, he > expects humanity to > achieve a Type I Kardeshev civilization, with > planetary governance and > technology able to control weather but essentially > restricted to Earth. > Only later, between 800 and 2500 years farther on, > will humanity pass to > Type II, with command of the entire solar system. > Once the consensus dream > of science fiction, this must now be seen as > excessively conservative. > > # Vinge: as we noted at the outset, Vernor > Vinge's part-playful, > part-serious proposal that a singularity was > imminent puts the date at > around 2020, marking the end of the human era. Maybe > as soon as 2014. > > > 2.72. Michio Kaku, Visions (1998), p. 28. > > ======================== > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 10 18:01:42 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:01:42 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510101025h4ac3f044r338c0f04af3eb07c@mail.gmail.com> References: <6318E9E4-26F0-43F1-B39D-596D296707F3@mac.com> <8d71341e0510101025h4ac3f044r338c0f04af3eb07c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051010180142.GW2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:25:34PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > Depends on what computer speeds are - silicon computers are much slower than > human brains, after all, in terms of raw computing power. (From that > perspective, an earlier Singularity would be more controllable than a late > one.) The substrate per se has little to do with it. I'm pretty sure a thimbleful full of delicately doped silicon nanowire can leave the smartest human in the dust, if properly arranged, and initiated with the right magic pattern. It's clear enough our current beige boxes are pathetic. But, there are lots of them on this planet, and 100 MBit/s FTC is being busily rolled out as we speak, with ~GBit and beyond on the horizon. Seen a PS3 yet? Multiple GBit ports, and about an order of magnitude more crunch than the fattest current box, even when not utilizing in-core parallelism. Now this is still patently ridiculous, but give us 30 more years. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 18:12:33 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:12:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <096a01c5cd91$15907d70$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051010181233.48468.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > The Avantguardian wrote: > > > So before you chide yourself because your crystal > > balls were murky and dark, and the things you have > > foretold have not yet come to pass, be thankful > that > > your predictions have been more acurate to date > than > > that of the chiliasts. > > Er, the chiliasts? Yeah. You know... the guys that are always looking to skies for the second coming, trying to figure out when the world is going to end based on some prophecy or another. The simple ones think that world is going to end on some nice round numbered year with a lot of zeroes in it while the more sophisticated ones perform arcane calculations based on scripture and the hebrew calendar. > > And know this: it is only > > because of your labors that humanity even knows in > > what direction progress lay. Without the compass > of > > your imaginations, the impetus of your > inspiration, > > and the clarity of your vision, we would still be > > wandering aimlessly in search of our next meal > > somewhere at the base of the foreboding mountain > > called progress. > > Holy mixed metaphors batman! Not now, robin. I am trying to convince the futurists that the value of the inspiration they bring to technological endeavor far surpasses the value of their predictions, accurate or otherwise. ;) The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 18:15:00 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:15:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past--time-line In-Reply-To: <20051010180009.44616.qmail@web26205.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051010110150.01ce5298@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20051010180009.44616.qmail@web26205.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510101115q697e0a84i25166872cf6dca3a@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/05, giorgio gaviraghi wrote: > > here is a 2004 forecast made for an incoming book for > the records [...] POLITICAL > Prepare Master plan > operating World federation New > constitution including new lifeforms > GPA operating > Regional Governments system and > space settlements > Embryo World Gov system > World Constitution And here's my forecast: if a world government comes about (unless it's so late in the day that the Singularity has enough momentum to go through anyway), it's game over; death may come quickly or slowly, but there will no longer be a winning move. (For the reasons why, consider why we're speaking English instead of Chinese right now.) - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 10 18:15:41 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:15:41 +0200 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510101030u4c0583f2ga9e231f0e474e01f@mail.gmail.com> References: <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> <43498F3A.4090200@pobox.com> <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510091736j15e5c56chb5097d5b25c52f2a@mail.gmail.com> <20051010065730.GM2249@leitl.org> <8d71341e0510100818s4ceb66d4wb8d97024e817155@mail.gmail.com> <20051010152929.GR2249@leitl.org> <8d71341e0510101030u4c0583f2ga9e231f0e474e01f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051010181541.GX2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:30:19PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > > My approach worked at least once (we're soaking in it), yours hasn't so > > far. > > Your approach required a nanocomputer the size of a planet running for four Ah, but it has hardly started cranking, yet. And it's just an infinitesimal veneer of computational slime smeared across an inert planetary body. And it's even not really a nanocomputer, given that linear polymer dynamics suffer viscous drag from hell. It's slow, and diluted, and the only drive it knows is co-evolution dynamics. No motivation at all. Kinda strange that it succeeded, with that handicap. But it did! So we don't have to replay that awfully boring movie. We can take off at about where it ended. > billion years, and even with those resources it failed 57 grillion times for > one success if the Great Silence is anything to go by! (Have you worked with But we already have the answer (and it's not 42). We don't have to repeat the process. We already have a blueprint where we pluck our educated guesses from: me and you, and our lesser primate and insect cousins. > evolutionary computation at all?) Yes. We don't have evolutionary computation, yet. > > But, I'm not holding my breath. It's too strangling a constraint, and > > a seed is already hard as is. > > I'm trying to prove you wrong, though admittedly you wouldn't be wise to > hold your breath! /me turns cyanotic, and gasps for air. > > Unfortunately, this is beyond ASIC budget. Way beyond ASIC budget. > > This could easily ruin a major manufacturer, so nobody is going > > to try until prototyping costs fall due to desktop nanoelectronics > > fabs (which won't be there by 2015, not even by 2025). > > Agreed there also. (Indeed, short of Friendly AI we're never going to see > desktop molecular factories for legal reasons alone.) The fabs I'm thinking of are just organic electronic inkjets on steroids. Maybe hybrid (nanodot) ink. Maybe dip-pen litho. (But certainly damn expensive ink cartridges. And about two-three orders of magnitude more expensive than your average Canon photoprinter). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 18:19:08 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:19:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past--time-line In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051010110150.01ce5298@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051010181908.98742.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:00 AM 10/10/2005 -0500, Max wrote: > > >And *ten* years ago, in Extropy #15, the Future Forecasts section > >"compared educated estimates of future breakthroughs by Gregory > >Benford, Alcor's Steve Bridge, Eric Drexler, FM-2030, Mark Miller, > > Max More, and Nick Szabo." > > > >I don't have the text handy on computer (but will eventually extract > >it from old floppies). Anyone have the time and inclination and the > >issue to type this up for the list? > > Haven't seen that, but here's something comparable, from THE SPIKE > (formatting will probably go nuts in email, alas): > Here are their now somewhat superannuated but interesting estimates: > > Birge Brenner Drexler Hall Smalley > > Molecular Assembler: 2005 2025 2015 2010 2000 > Nanocomputer: 2040 2040 2017 2010 2100 > Cell Repair: 2030 2035 2018 2050 2010 > Commercial product: 2002 2000 2015 2005 2000 Another big complicator in these sorts of predictions is whether they think that money will come available for their pet projects. We need to recognise that silicon valley VCs have been rather pathetically anemic in backing blue-sky speculative ventures. Even in the relatively reasonable goal of suborbital flight, it took a Paul Allen to pony up. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have their own rather conservative ventures going which look successful or bound for it, but all the other ventures out there are either dead on the vine, or living off of DARPA/NASA table scraps. And that is just private space development. Have we seen similar or better VC support of other transhumanist technology development, such as the areas above? Not really. Most are looking to sponging off free money from Uncle Sugar. I talk about getting out of advocating taxpayer funding for stem cell research and I get pilloried here. The Howard Hughes Health Foundation funds quite a bit, the Wellcome Trust funded the HGP, both private sources, but does the Extropy Institute or the WTA hold workshops on grantwriting? How about Angel Conferences? Its easy to make rosy predictions, but what are they based on? Are they based on "If I had a $100 million check in my pocket today"? Or are they based on "I think the industry as a whole will get there by default by that time"? I happen to not put much stock in the Marxist view of history, if you didn't know that already. I take seriously the idea that an individual or group of individuals, and not just ANY individuals, but the right ones, can make the history they wish to see, in whatever direction they choose. I suspect that those resting on the laurels of history and sf, waiting for the nano-santa to arrive, tend to support the Marxist idea of "historical forces", or the Asimovian idea of psychohistory (which is pretty much the same thing). The future you wish for is not inevitable, no matter how much you pat yourself on the back that it is. As was proven with the Communications Reform Act, individuals opposed to your goals can prevent what you see as inevitable from happening if you refuse to take them on in the same arena. Historical forces only accomplish things if there are people willing and able to take the helm of those forces to make the change they wish to see in the world (which explains why the Libertarian movement is a failure: nobody believes in taking the helm). Having 'the right' individuals involves not just those with imagination, vision, and leadership, but those with assets and those with connections. Heinlein's TMIAHM demonstrates this well: the Committee keeps action at a low boil until a fellow comes along with the money and connections on Earth to make the lunar revolution at all a feasible idea. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 18:23:20 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:23:20 +0100 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <20051010181541.GX2249@leitl.org> References: <6f3956093f7f5545c7fae5e29972300e@HarveyNewstrom.com> <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510091736j15e5c56chb5097d5b25c52f2a@mail.gmail.com> <20051010065730.GM2249@leitl.org> <8d71341e0510100818s4ceb66d4wb8d97024e817155@mail.gmail.com> <20051010152929.GR2249@leitl.org> <8d71341e0510101030u4c0583f2ga9e231f0e474e01f@mail.gmail.com> <20051010181541.GX2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510101123q7fcc36eemcfe0774520524e79@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > The fabs I'm thinking of are just organic electronic inkjets on steroids. > Maybe hybrid (nanodot) ink. Maybe dip-pen litho. (But certainly damn > expensive ink cartridges. > And about two-three orders of magnitude more expensive than your average > Canon photoprinter). Interesting idea! What penalty would the resulting circuits pay, compared to those created in Intel and AMD's contemporary fabs, in performance _per watt_? - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bradbury at aeiveos.com Mon Oct 10 18:35:18 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day Message-ID: > Nanotechnology should allow us to create building materials capable of > withstanding earthquake forces and other natural disasters much > better and at much lower cost than we are today. A good point. One could imagine something like buildings on buckytubes which would be much more stable during ground shaking events. > Unfortunately such technologies will continue to see little or no > adoption in economically strapped areas of the world. Here you are probably incorrect. Remember in a "full" nanotech environment we are talking less than $1.00/kg for producing *anything*. It is a question of whether the designs are available and in the public domain (e.g. open source). If so everything else becomes relatively simple (refer back to my "Sapphire Mansions" post many years ago and the subsequent paper I wrote -- which you can find via Google). > Is there any accurate early warning systems for quakes that would > allow time for evacuation as there is with hurricanes? Hard problem. We are very good now, particularly as a result of the GPS system, at knowing how much things are moving and how much strain is building up each year. But knowing precisely when rocks will "snap" -- that is a much less exact science. I'd put it quite a bit behind hurricane path prediction. Unlike with hurricanes where we can watch them from the sky, or fly planes through them, getting a read on the ground potentially requires drilling a lot of holes. The Japanese just spent something like $500M on a ship that they hope can drill one hole into the mantle. Its very non-trivial and very expensive to get the information required to even hope to make good earthquake predictions. > And I wonder if our modern architecture and building materials used > in US major cities would have held up much better in that strong of a > quake. Obviously, since we have building codes and most third world countries do not. But as Katrina clearly showed even the best building codes may not be up to what nature can throw at us. I happen to be particularly fond of a couple of quotes from Armageddon (see list of quotes at [1]). They are (and your computer needs sound to play these): http://www.wavsite.com/sounds/2955/armag06.wav and http://www.wavsite.com/sounds/2955/armag16.wav They are somewhat loosely related to our collective hazard function. Robert 1. http://www.wavsite.com/sounds.asp?id=3 From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 10 18:46:47 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:46:47 +0200 Subject: Any progress towards AI at all? was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510101123q7fcc36eemcfe0774520524e79@mail.gmail.com> References: <071e01c5cd1e$5cd43050$8998e03c@homepc> <8d71341e0510091526m3c6cf8a1l5e1d11c0c366f78c@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510091736j15e5c56chb5097d5b25c52f2a@mail.gmail.com> <20051010065730.GM2249@leitl.org> <8d71341e0510100818s4ceb66d4wb8d97024e817155@mail.gmail.com> <20051010152929.GR2249@leitl.org> <8d71341e0510101030u4c0583f2ga9e231f0e474e01f@mail.gmail.com> <20051010181541.GX2249@leitl.org> <8d71341e0510101123q7fcc36eemcfe0774520524e79@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051010184647.GZ2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 07:23:20PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > Interesting idea! What penalty would the resulting circuits pay, compared to > those created in Intel and AMD's contemporary fabs, in performance _per > watt_? This would be very difficult to compare. Structures would be typically um instead of nm (maybe nm with dip-pen). But deposition would be additive (layer on top of each layer), not limited to 6-8 layers as with semiconductor photolitho. Also there would be no penalty in yield, and substrates could be easily dm^2 to m^2. Processes could be compatible with spintronics (as spin-polarized currents and spin valves at RT), hybrid analog/digital and scale into true molecular manufacturing. Most importantly, anyone could prototype anything with no pesky "you need to be 500 M$ tall to ride this ride" entry requirements. This is what is blocking AI today. The ticket to play this league is out of most people's budgets. No one can afford to play high-risk in current silicon fab business. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 19:24:20 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:24:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI's List In-Reply-To: <09a501c5cd99$5e098620$8998e03c@homepc> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051003191203.02f153d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <06b101c5cce8$8c898970$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.1.2.2.20051010071152.04b7ee80@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <09a501c5cd99$5e098620$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: On 10/10/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > Natasha wrote: > > With respect to yourself, I'm a bit like Dirk, I don't understand exactly > how you see politics. I get that you are not partly political and that you > do not want to see the > world through a prism that renders all human behaviour political but I > don't really understand the ambit of what it is that you are discussing when > you talk about politics. > To clarify my position at least... I see politics as being the medium of interaction between people (or even the higher animals). Political ideologies are different because they are essentially a sibling of religion in that they attempt to provide an all-encompassing worldview that explains, predicts and controls (or tries to). By this definition Extropy is a political ideology. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Oct 10 19:49:35 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:49:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList Message-ID: <380-2200510110194935655@M2W053.mail2web.com> >To clarify my position at least... >I see politics as being the medium of interaction between people (or even >the higher animals). Yes, this is what politics means. >Political ideologies are different because they are essentially a sibling of >religion in that they attempt to provide an all-encompassing worldview that >explains, predicts and controls (or tries to). >By this definition Extropy is a political ideology. "a political ideology is a certain ethical, set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explain how society should work, and offer some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it should be used. It can be a construct of political thought, often defining political parties and their policy. The popularity of an ideology is in part due to the influence of moral entrepreneurs, who sometimes act in their own interests." Extropy is a philosophical viewpoint. Extropy does not have a political thought that evokes "extropy" in its true sense. Take care, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Oct 10 20:05:59 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:05:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList Message-ID: <380-220051011020559343@M2W126.mail2web.com> I forgot to mention that this is merely my own personal opinion. Natasha Original Message: ----------------- From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com nvitamore at austin.rr.com Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:49:35 -0400 To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extropy,Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList >To clarify my position at least... >I see politics as being the medium of interaction between people (or even >the higher animals). Yes, this is what politics means. >Political ideologies are different because they are essentially a sibling of >religion in that they attempt to provide an all-encompassing worldview that >explains, predicts and controls (or tries to). >By this definition Extropy is a political ideology. "a political ideology is a certain ethical, set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explain how society should work, and offer some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it should be used. It can be a construct of political thought, often defining political parties and their policy. The popularity of an ideology is in part due to the influence of moral entrepreneurs, who sometimes act in their own interests." Extropy is a philosophical viewpoint. Extropy does not have a political thought that evokes "extropy" in its true sense. Take care, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From brentn at freeshell.org Mon Oct 10 20:19:29 2005 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:19:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: Message-ID: (10/10/05 9:26) Robert J. Bradbury wrote: >either stopping plate tectonics or removing every human from the >planet. There are a lot of good reasons to not live at the bottom of a gravity well, though. My guess is that if we have the technology (I refuse to use the term nano- or bio-technology. Let's just call it technology and avoid the trendy buzzword crap) to completely amelieorate the effects of a massive hurricane earthquake, then it would be not only be possible, but cheaper and more desirable to put more population in space, where there's cheaper movement of raw materials and a potentially larger energy flux to capture and use. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From brentn at freeshell.org Mon Oct 10 20:28:34 2005 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:28:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: Message-ID: (10/10/05 11:35) Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > >Obviously, since we have building codes and most third world countries >do not. But as Katrina clearly showed even the best building codes >may not be up to what nature can throw at us. The assumption here is that New Orleans buildings met their building codes. Having lived in Louisiana for 6 years, I would not be willing to make that bet. Few people outside of that state truly understand the level of graft and corruption within the state and local governments there. It was common knowledge in Baton Rouge, at least, that restaurant sanitation grades could be easily purchased. Why should building inspections be any different? Brent -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 20:50:44 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:50:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: <380-2200510110194935655@M2W053.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200510110194935655@M2W053.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 10/10/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > > >To clarify my position at least... > >I see politics as being the medium of interaction between people (or even > >the higher animals). > > Yes, this is what politics means. > > >Political ideologies are different because they are essentially a sibling > of > >religion in that they attempt to provide an all-encompassing worldview > that > >explains, predicts and controls (or tries to). > > >By this definition Extropy is a political ideology. > > "a political ideology is a certain ethical, set of ideals, principles, > doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or Extropy - check large group that explain how society should work, and offer some political Extropy - check and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. A political ideology Extropy - check [It offers this as in the negative] largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it > should be used. It can be a construct of political thought, often defining Extropy - check [Extropy is implicitly interested in how power is allocated, and in acquiring it IMO. Don't tell me you will decline political power if offered or available.] political parties and their policy. The popularity of an ideology is in The only factor which Extropy (currently) lacks part due to the influence of moral entrepreneurs, who sometimes act in > their own interests." Extropy - check Extropy is a philosophical viewpoint. Extropy does not have a political > thought that evokes "extropy" in its true sense. > > And Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Oct 10 21:06:56 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:06:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: <380-2200510110194935655@M2W053.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200510110194935655@M2W053.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10510101406h4160bb93xdcf26b11d02628e1@mail.gmail.com> > >To clarify my position at least... > >I see politics as being the medium of interaction between people (or even > >the higher animals). > > Yes, this is what politics means. > > When I saw this I felt a strong need for clarification, in terms of what politics means today, and how its meaning may be changing along with its context. Being fairly ignorant of the specifics of politics, since most of my life I've been attracted to the idealism and integrity of science but repulsed by the widespread lack of same in politics, I looked up the definition in various dictionaries. I found two major modes: One is that politics is about social relations involving authority and power, and that politics is primarily about government. Both of these these seemed to me a bit too 20th century for effective discussion in terms of creating our future. My perception of politics is that it is about processes of social decision-making applied to groups, expecially with respect to methods of influence within those processes. I don't see that politics is *necessarily* about power or authority or government, although those terms, coming from our immediate experience and our history, certainly dominate the dictionary definitions, and more significantly, dominate popular thinking on this subject. My observations of political thinking on transhumanist lists, at least the most vocal political thinking, is that there is strong polarization toward either radical libertarian or radical social-democratic views, both of which seem to miss some of what we are beginning to learn about the dynamics of complex adaptive systems. Politics, in the sense of effective decision-making applied to groups, is now near the top of my list of subjects important to our well-being and growth within a rapidly accelerating environment, and I think that an effective approach requires that we start with clear definitions. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 21:22:05 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:22:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist priorities Message-ID: <20051010212205.51810.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Reading all the bemoaning of missed deadlines and predictions makes me wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea for the sake of the older transhumanists out there to pick a fallback position and throw their weight behind it. A good choice for this fall back position, IMHO would be to make a serious push for perfection of the cryogenic freezing process. While there is a some research going on in this area, it is mostly at the level of small tissues and organs. I can't imagine it is well funded, I never see any articles about it in mainstream scientific journals. I think it would go a long way toward boosting Alcor's reputation and business, for example, if they could freeze a mouse and revive it upon thawing. This is something, I think could be accomplished in a 10 year time frame if the people involved made a serious effort to do so. It doesn't strike me as exorbiantly expensive either. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Oct 10 22:16:31 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:16:31 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day References: Message-ID: <0af601c5cde8$4464a340$8998e03c@homepc> Robert J. Bradbury posted again to the Exi list. Making THIS is a good day, in my humble subjective opinion. Something seems slightly righter with the world now. Welcome back Robert. Brett Paatsch From max at maxmore.com Mon Oct 10 22:54:18 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:54:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: References: <380-2200510110194935655@M2W053.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051010174336.04a50150@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Is the philosophy of extropy a political ideology? Of course it isn't. Of course it is. The question isn't very helpful, being binary, demanding a yes-or-no answer. In so far as an ?ideology? is defined simply as ?a collection of ideas?, then extropy is an ideology. (However, the term ?ideology? is often used to imply something more than this?something more sinister.) To say that extropy is a *political* ideology stretches things a bit far. The Principles of Extropy include some fairly general advocacy of Open Society and Self-Direction. There is no ?rules (blueprint) most appropriate to achieving the ideal arrangement?, nor instructions on ?How society should work (or be arranged.)? Nor does it ?largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it should be used.? It is not ?a construct of political thought, often defining political parties and their policy.? (All quotes from Wikipedia on political ideology.) Saying that extropy is a *political* ideology is rather like saying that Hinduism is a manual on how to meditate. You *can* find that in there, but it?s hardly a good characterization of the whole. The philosophy of extropy is clearly *not* a political ideology in the way that these are: Marxism, socialism, liberalism, communitarian, libertarianism, anarchism, social democracy, mercantilism, communism, and fascism. Max At 03:50 PM 10/10/2005, Dirk wrote: >On 10/10/05, >nvitamore at austin.rr.com ><nvitamore at austin.rr.com > wrote: > > >To clarify my position at least... > >I see politics as being the medium of interaction between people (or even > >the higher animals). > >Yes, this is what politics means. > > >Political ideologies are different because they are essentially a sibling >of > >religion in that they attempt to provide an all-encompassing worldview that > >explains, predicts and controls (or tries to). > > >By this definition Extropy is a political ideology. > >"a political ideology is a certain ethical, set of ideals, principles, >doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or > > >Extropy - check > >large group that explain how society should work, and offer some political > > >Extropy - check > >and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. A political ideology > > >Extropy - check >[It offers this as in the negative] > >largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it >should be used. It can be a construct of political thought, often defining > > >Extropy - check >[Extropy is implicitly interested in how power >is allocated, and in acquiring it IMO. Don't >tell me you will decline political power if offered or available.] > >political parties and their policy. The popularity of an ideology is in > > >The only factor which Extropy (currently) lacks > >part due to the influence of moral entrepreneurs, who sometimes act in >their own interests." > > >Extropy - check > > >Extropy is a philosophical viewpoint. Extropy does not have a political >thought that evokes "extropy" in its true sense. > > >And Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion. > >Dirk >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat _______________________________________________________ Max More, Ph.D. max at maxmore.com or more at extropy.org http://www.maxmore.com Strategic Philosopher Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org ________________________________________________________________ Director of Content Solutions, ManyWorlds Inc.: http://www.manyworlds.com --- Thought leadership in the innovation economy m.more at manyworlds.com _______________________________________________________ From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 23:16:03 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:16:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051010174336.04a50150@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <380-2200510110194935655@M2W053.mail2web.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051010174336.04a50150@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/10/05, Max More wrote: > > Is the philosophy of extropy a political ideology? > > Of course it isn't. > > Of course it is. > > The question isn't very helpful, being binary, demanding a yes-or-no > answer. > > In so far as an "ideology" is defined simply as > "a collection of ideas", then extropy is an > ideology. (However, the term "ideology" is often > used to imply something more than this?something more sinister.) > > To say that extropy is a *political* ideology > stretches things a bit far. The Principles of > Extropy include some fairly general advocacy of > Open Society and Self-Direction. There is no > "rules (blueprint) most appropriate to achieving > the ideal arrangement", nor instructions on "How > society should work (or be arranged.)" Nor does > it "largely concerns itself with how to allocate > power and to what ends it should be used." It is > not "a construct of political thought, often > defining political parties and their policy." > (All quotes from Wikipedia on political ideology.) > > Saying that extropy is a *political* ideology is > rather like saying that Hinduism is a manual on > how to meditate. You *can* find that in there, > but it's hardly a good characterization of the > whole. The philosophy of extropy is clearly *not* > a political ideology in the way that these are: > Marxism, socialism, liberalism, communitarian, > libertarianism, anarchism, social democracy, > mercantilism, communism, and fascism. > > Max > Well, I will have to disagree with you there. The reason it seems different (to some extent) with the ideologies listed above is because it is wider and shallower than the above. Nevertheless, it is of the same kind IMO. Quantitatively different but not qualitatively so. If I could be bothered top pursue it I might even suggest it is more akin to a secular religious ideology rather than a political one. Possibly a type of Utopianism. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Oct 10 23:20:39 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:20:39 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist priorities References: <20051010212205.51810.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0c0801c5cdf1$39eca670$8998e03c@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: It sure would! > This is > something, I think could be accomplished in a 10 year > time frame if the people involved made a serious > effort to do so. I don't. I don't think we (any people anywhere) are anywhere near being able to take a mammal like a mouse below -196 degrees C (liquid nitrogen temp, below the glass transition state), hold it there for a period and then revive it as it was. Nature (evolution) didn't design mice to be able to do that and we don't have technology to do it to an existing mouse made of biological cells with the physical properties of biological cells arranged into a whole organism. > It doesn't strike me as exorbiantly expensive either. Cheaper to experiment with a model animal like a mouse that's for sure. If you've not looked at cryonics seriously, its worth a look. But look for a paper written by Fahy, not Merkle, it might be at the Alcor site. Brett Paatsch From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Oct 11 00:34:01 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:34:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day References: Message-ID: <054101c5cdfb$7a1cf290$0100a8c0@kevin> I have a vague memory of either reading an article or watching a television program where the author was pitching the idea of using some kind of lubricant to prevent the buildup of tension in the plates that cause earthquakes. Instead you would just have the gradual moving of the plates with more frequent tremors. I can't seem to find anything about it right now. Does anyone recall reading or seeing sucha thing? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert J. Bradbury" To: "Extropy Chat" Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:26 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day > > This statement came across my desk today. It is with regard to > the Pakistan/India earthquake. It made me cry. > > It is a direct quote from the NY Times. > > > Dr. Fara Shah, an ophthalmologist working a shift in the triage tent, > > said, "Life and death is in your hands. Mostly it's death in your hands." > > Earthquakes are one of the hardest extropic problems to solve. > Katrina or Rita or Stan you can see coming. Earthquakes you can't. > > It is possible to engineer people to be better able to withstand > them -- but that requires that everyone install a nanotechnology > based "vasculoid" system. (Vasculoid is desirable because it > significantly limits death due to 'crushing'). However that solution > may be difficult because it is highly likely that many would prefer > to remain more humanoid and less "cyborg". > > I know that Robert Freitas is working on a book chapter where > he potentially is talking using nanotechnology to reduce our > hazard function to enable ~10,000 year lifetimes. But it starts > getting very hard to go beyond that unless one starts discussing > either stopping plate tectonics or removing every human from the > planet. > > Robert > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 01:09:35 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:39:35 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: <0af601c5cde8$4464a340$8998e03c@homepc> References: <0af601c5cde8$4464a340$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <710b78fc0510101809l6d4de747q@mail.gmail.com> Yes, welcome back! -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * On 11/10/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Robert J. Bradbury posted again to the Exi list. > > Making THIS is a good day, in my humble subjective > opinion. > > Something seems slightly righter with the world now. > > Welcome back Robert. > > Brett Paatsch From d.assange at ugrad.unimelb.edu.au Tue Oct 11 02:05:21 2005 From: d.assange at ugrad.unimelb.edu.au (Daniel Assange) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:05:21 +1000 (AEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past--time-line In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051010110150.01ce5298@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Shouldn't we also be considering quantum computing? A quantum computer isn't just a suped-up standard one; the computational process is fundamentally different. One would expect an AI written to utilise this fundamental difference to be significantly more powerful, and hence perhaps the software writers may be able to take more liberties with software efficency. -- Daniel Assange "The way to enlightenment is not to admit that you know nothing, but to admit that you can never know enough." On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Damien Broderick wrote: > Birge Brenner Drexler Hall Smalley > > Molecular Assembler: 2005 2025 2015 2010 2000 > Nanocomputer: 2040 2040 2017 2010 2100 > Cell Repair: 2030 2035 2018 2050 2010 > Commercial product: 2002 2000 2015 2005 2000 > > # Moravec: multipurpose `universal' robots by 2010, with > `humanlike competence' in cheap computers by around 2039--a more > conservative estimate than Ray Kurzweil's, but astonishing none the less. > Even so, he considers a Vingean singularity as likely within 50 years. > > # Kaku: no computer expert, superstring physicist Michio Kaku > surveyed some 150 scientists in devised a profile of the next century and > farther. He concludes broadly that from `2020 to 2050, the world of > computers may well be dominated by invisible, networked computers which > have the power of artificial intelligence: reason, speech recognition, even > common sense'.172 In the next century or two, he expects humanity to > achieve a Type I Kardeshev civilization, with planetary governance and > technology able to control weather but essentially restricted to Earth. > Only later, between 800 and 2500 years farther on, will humanity pass to > Type II, with command of the entire solar system. Once the consensus dream > of science fiction, this must now be seen as excessively conservative. > > # Vinge: as we noted at the outset, Vernor Vinge's part-playful, > part-serious proposal that a singularity was imminent puts the date at > around 2020, marking the end of the human era. Maybe as soon as 2014. > > > 2.72. Michio Kaku, Visions (1998), p. 28. From bradbury at aeiveos.com Tue Oct 11 02:39:12 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:39:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day Message-ID: Kevin wrote: > I have a vague memory of either reading an article or watching a > television program where the author was pitching the idea of using > some kind of lubricant to prevent the buildup of tension in the > plates that cause earthquakes. I have never seen this suggestion but it is not unreasonable. The use of lubricants to facilitate drilling is quite common. The injection of lubricants to facilitate plate slippage is not unreasonable. But it would be potentially hard and require concrete activity over an extended area. One also has to differentiate between "slip" faults and "break" faults. Very different and not always clearly separate. I would suggest that the lubricant approach would work with slip faults. It would not work with break faults. In (a) you are dealing with plates slipping past each other; in (b) you are dealing with plates running into each other such that the only way around is to snap one of the plates. Very distinct phenomena. Robert From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 11 02:49:02 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:49:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] brin on the history channel In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051010110150.01ce5298@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200510110249.j9B2n3X14072@tick.javien.com> Is anyone catching the Modern Marvels program on surveillance on the History channel? Brin is on there, do catch this, MIKE are you there? Watch this thing man! It is blowing my mind. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 11 02:52:26 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:52:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510110252.j9B2qRX14330@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert J. Bradbury ... > Earthquakes are one of the hardest extropic problems to solve. > Katrina or Rita or Stan you can see coming. Earthquakes you can't. Welcome back Robert! > It is possible to engineer people to be better able to withstand > them -- but that requires that everyone install a nanotechnology > based "vasculoid" system... Robert Far easier it is to engineer buildings to better withstand earthquakes. The Pakistanis perished in appalling numbers because they overuse stone in building. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 11 03:53:14 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:53:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <2e7f99ad5d8026c67fa4e238093424fc@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <200510110353.j9B3rFX18944@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom > Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 10:55 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past > > > On Oct 9, 2005, at 11:26 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > > --- Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > > >> ... Are there any examples of > >> transhumanist claims or predictions that actually > >> have come true? There are dozens if not hundreds of examples of our > >> claims that have failed to come true... > Harvey Newstrom I can offer a couple of insights. The chess software example is interesting in that the computer scientists, who knew little of chess, were surprised at how long it took to overtake the best humans in chess. The top grandmasters were stunned at how quickly that development came along. A survey of the grandmasters was done in the late 80s, 1988 I think. No one predicted software would catch the big guys in less than 20 years, most thought it would take more than fifty. No grandmaster predicted the 1999 Big Blue outcome, not even the ones working on Deep Blue. I had an insight from the 2004 DARPA challenge. The night before the race, many of the team members were hanging around the casino. I spoke to several of them and noticed a striking effect. The participants tended to *grossly* overestimate their chances. Curiously not many predicted that their entry would finish the race under 10 hours and collect the prize, but many suggested that their entry would likely go farther and faster than the competitors. If one had asked each team to estimate the probability that their vehicle would perform better than any of the other teams, then added those probabilities, the sum would be way over 500%. Another interesting effect is that people tended to overestimate the chances of whichever vehicle most closely matched their own approach to the problem. I did this myself, with a design based on a quadrunner. Perhaps we transhumanists may have vastly overestimated the quickliness of our own favorite ideas. spike From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 03:55:01 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 04:55:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0510102055t1392a23dw1d7a81900138adcd@mail.gmail.com> On 10/11/05, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > > One also has to differentiate between "slip" faults and > "break" faults. Very different and not always clearly > separate. I would suggest that the lubricant approach > would work with slip faults. It would not work with break > faults. In (a) you are dealing with plates slipping past > each other; in (b) you are dealing with plates running into > each other such that the only way around is to snap one > of the plates. Very distinct phenomena. Suppose you stuffed a hundred tons of dynamite down a borehole in the middle of a break fault and set it off, would that trigger the earthquake early? - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Oct 11 04:46:42 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:46:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microrobot Message-ID: <001801c5ce1e$c7091890$6600a8c0@brainiac> ... walks like an inchworm, originates from Dartmouth: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/science/11FIND.html From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Oct 11 06:57:49 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:57:49 +1000 Subject: The Amazing Cellular Repair device was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past References: <200510110353.j9B3rFX18944@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <0cd801c5ce31$17c457b0$8998e03c@homepc> Whilst looking through my hardcopy files for the Fahy article on the feasibility of brain repair I found these diagrams on a "Merckle-Drexler scenario" for a "Nanotechnology derived Cell Repair Device". The source (which does contain the Fahy article, is an Alcor publication from 1993). See if you can see what's wrong with the picture. Here's the device. http://www.entrepitec.com.au/page2A.html Here's the device shown against a background with red blood cells. http://www.entrepitec.com.au/page3A.html Here's the same device drawn approaching a synapse. http://www.entrepitec.com.au/page4A.html Hint. A red blood cell has a diametre of around 2000 to 8000 nanometres. A synaptic gap might be about 5 nanometres across. The lipid membrane of a cell is about 6 nanometres. Sadly, what seems possible to us when we are younger and less knowledgeable *because* we are less knowledgeable does not always remain possible. Brett Paatsch From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 07:53:31 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051011075331.330.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Welcome back, Robert. I noticed something rather cool during all the aftershocks of the Northridge quake here in Cali and that was pigeons and other birds could sense them coming about 10 - 30 seconds before they happened and all took to the air in a mad rush. I presume it is because bird hearing is so much more sensitive than ours (owls hunt mice by hearing in the dark and robins can hear worms moving beneath the soil). Has anybody tried to record a wide band audio spectrum prior to an earthquake? With a sensitive enough microphone, one might be able to get more prior warning than even bird ears allow. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From eugen at leitl.org Tue Oct 11 08:36:03 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:36:03 +0200 Subject: The Amazing Cellular Repair device was Re: [extropy-chat] Futures Past In-Reply-To: <0cd801c5ce31$17c457b0$8998e03c@homepc> References: <200510110353.j9B3rFX18944@tick.javien.com> <0cd801c5ce31$17c457b0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051011083603.GM2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 04:57:49PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Whilst looking through my hardcopy files for the Fahy article on the > feasibility of brain repair I found these diagrams on a "Merckle-Drexler > scenario" for a "Nanotechnology derived Cell Repair Device". The > source (which does contain the Fahy article, is an Alcor publication > from 1993). > > See if you can see what's wrong with the picture. An artists conception of a machine-phase device. > Here's the device. http://www.entrepitec.com.au/page2A.html > > Here's the device shown against a background with red blood > cells. http://www.entrepitec.com.au/page3A.html More or less accurate scale. Compare with http://moleculardevices.org/howbig.htm (flash required, zoom down to the erythrocyte level and down do the smallest scale, then look down at the rendered picture). > Here's the same device drawn approaching a synapse. > http://www.entrepitec.com.au/page4A.html This is silly, of course. > Hint. A red blood cell has a diametre of around 2000 to > 8000 nanometres. > > A synaptic gap might be about 5 nanometres across. The lipid > membrane of a cell is about 6 nanometres. You can about fit the neon pump or the planetary gear across a lipid bilayer membrane (see bottom http://moleculardevices.org/howbig.htm ) > Sadly, what seems possible to us when we are younger and > less knowledgeable *because* we are less knowledgeable does > not always remain possible. I'm not sure what your point is trashing a single picture, done by an artist (these usually don't have scientific training). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 09:03:38 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 02:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo was The Amazing Cellular Repair device In-Reply-To: <0cd801c5ce31$17c457b0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051011090338.32333.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Whilst looking through my hardcopy files for the > Fahy article on the > feasibility of brain repair I found these diagrams > on a "Merckle-Drexler > scenario" for a "Nanotechnology derived Cell Repair > Device". The > source (which does contain the Fahy article, is an > Alcor publication > from 1993). I found the Fahy article (a Fahy article?) Fahy et al., Cryobiology 2004. Will read it when I get a chance. > See if you can see what's wrong with the picture. > > Here's the device. > http://www.entrepitec.com.au/page2A.html > > Here's the device shown against a background with > red blood > cells. http://www.entrepitec.com.au/page3A.html > > Here's the same device drawn approaching a synapse. > http://www.entrepitec.com.au/page4A.html > > Hint. A red blood cell has a diametre of around 2000 > to > 8000 nanometres. > > A synaptic gap might be about 5 nanometres across. > The lipid > membrane of a cell is about 6 nanometres. Well I assume you mean the change in scale of the device from a micron scale device to a nanoscale device between the pictures? Your preaching to the choir here, buddy, considering that a single flagellin filament in a bacterial flagellum is ~20 nm in diameter. > Sadly, what seems possible to us when we are younger > and > less knowledgeable *because* we are less > knowledgeable does > not always remain possible. Yes. But my take on cryogenics is not to freeze people and to repair the damage later but figure out a way to put them in suspended animation without damaging them in the first place. It might not even require lowering their temperature to 0 Celsius. Are you familiar with the work of Blackstone et al., Science 2005? Here's the link, I assume you have an institutional subscription: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5721/518 Anyone who can't access it but wants to read the article, email me and I will send it offlist. In a nutshell, the authors demonstrate a state of suspended animation in their mice, in an atmosphere where oxygen is replaced hydrogen disulphide gas. They show that the core body temperature of the mice drops to essentially ambient temperature and the mice's metabolism dropped to 10% normal rate thus aging at 10% normal rate. The mice were kept in such a state of torpor for 6 hrs then revived with no ill effects. The authors didn't lower their temperature to below 13 degrees celsius, but I have hunch they could have lowered it all the way down to just above 0 Celsius at which point, the mice would have probably not aged appreciatively at all. No actual freezing means no freezing damage, yet there is almost no metabolism because there is no oxygen to metabolize. Of course the authors might have tried this and failed but they don't mention it. In any case, I think THIS technology is a bit more immediately attainable than error-free freeze thawing. Especially because Science is an impecable peer reviewed journal. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From eugen at leitl.org Tue Oct 11 09:16:08 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:16:08 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Past--time-line In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051010110150.01ce5298@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051011091608.GP2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 12:05:21PM +1000, Daniel Assange wrote: > Shouldn't we also be considering quantum computing? A quantum computer > isn't just a suped-up standard one; the computational process is Practical quantum computers don't yet exist, in the first place. Only recently has few-qubit entanglement been achieved in the solid state. It is not obvious QC is ever going to scale to interesting qubit assemblies, for at least three unrelated reasons. I don't know what's wrong with just using classical computing. It would take a large number of qubits to beat a classical computer containing a mole of switches. > fundamentally different. One would expect an AI written to utilise > this fundamental difference to be significantly more powerful, and It is not obvious that the space of QC algorithm has AI-relevant ones, despite http://www.cic.unb.br/~weigang/qc/aci.html > hence perhaps the software writers may be able to take more liberties > with software efficency. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Oct 11 09:37:33 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:37:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo was The Amazing Cellular Repair device In-Reply-To: <20051011090338.32333.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <0cd801c5ce31$17c457b0$8998e03c@homepc> <20051011090338.32333.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051011093733.GQ2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 02:03:38AM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > Yes. But my take on cryogenics is not to freeze people It's cryonics. Cryogenics is something different. > and to repair the damage later but figure out a way to > put them in suspended animation without damaging them No can do, save of a time-freeze spell. Given that our current knowledge of physics doesn't even give a hint how that could be possible, your next best bet is a modern cryopreservation method. These are actually quite good, and can't be (much) improved upon -- especially if you're aiming for structural preservation, and not viability (which is a somewhat different, and harsher metric). > in the first place. It might not even require lowering > their temperature to 0 Celsius. Are you familiar with You're making me intensely curious here. > the work of Blackstone et al., Science 2005? Here's > the link, I assume you have an institutional > subscription: > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5721/518 > > Anyone who can't access it but wants to read the > article, email me and I will send it offlist. In a > nutshell, the authors demonstrate a state of suspended > animation in their mice, in an atmosphere where oxygen > is replaced hydrogen disulphide gas. They show that Have you ever worked with H2S? http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&hs=50u&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=scholart&q=H2S+toxicity+humans You don't want to gas a primate with H2S, oh no. This is worse than using cyanide. > the core body temperature of the mice drops to > essentially ambient temperature and the mice's > metabolism dropped to 10% normal rate thus aging at > 10% normal rate. The mice were kept in such a state of > torpor for 6 hrs then revived with no ill effects. The Don't try this with people. What would happened with your mice after 6 days? 60 days? 6 years? > authors didn't lower their temperature to below 13 > degrees celsius, but I have hunch they could have > lowered it all the way down to just above 0 Celsius at > which point, the mice would have probably not aged > appreciatively at all. No actual freezing means no I recommend you to hit Medline for hypothermia and chilling injury. They wouldn't have aged much, because they would have been dead pretty soon. > freezing damage, yet there is almost no metabolism "almost no metabolism" doesn't mean your biology is frozen in a glass matrix. Your mice continue to unravel at nanoscale, albeit somewhat slowed. Quite soon your cross the point of no return by which the system can resume with own power, and your rodent is gone for good. With vitrification, no damage occurs beyond of the original caused during the suspension. And it quite easy to measure what that damage is, and to gauge how much of it is irreversible information erasure, and which can be transformed back at structure descriptor level. > because there is no oxygen to metabolize. Of course > the authors might have tried this and failed but they > don't mention it. In any case, I think THIS technology > is a bit more immediately attainable than error-free No way. > freeze thawing. Especially because Science is an It would be a rather stupid idea to warm up a vitrified critter. You'd get orders of magnitude more damage than during the suspension. We've been through this before, multiple times, in fact. It might be sufficiently low to allow retransplantation of healthy organs with a survival rate high enough to be practical, but you don't want to have this happen to the whole human primate. Trust me. > impecable peer reviewed journal. There is not much cryobiology in Science. Cryobiology is similiarly peer-reviewed (not impeccable, no journal is that). I wish a had a subscription. Does anyone have institutional access to Cryobiology? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From bradbury at aeiveos.com Tue Oct 11 10:02:18 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 03:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510102055t1392a23dw1d7a81900138adcd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Russell Wallace wrote: > Suppose you stuffed a hundred tons of dynamite down a borehole in the middle > of a break fault and set it off, would that trigger the earthquake early? Quite possibly, but I'm unsure as to how you could make sure it would be less severe than waiting for a natural "break". I assume you are aiming for a bunch of little quakes rather than one big one -- and I don't think that much is known about the underlying geology to get close to that at most earthquake prone regions around the globe. A hundred tons may also be a significant underestimate of the force required. The subduction of the Juan de Fuca plate has produced four or more volcanoes within two hours drive of my home. The forces involved bring to mind the MC Hammer classic "You Can't Touch This". You *might* be able to touch it with a nanorobot designed to operate at very high temperatures and pressures which was designed to either liquify the rock or break in very small areas. But I know of no attempt to design such a nanorobot. And the power requirements would be formidable. You can power them with 148Gd internal reactors but one would need a huge number of surface reactors or breeders to produce the required 148Gd. With enough nanorobots deployed over enough of an area I think you could eliminate the "break" problem. But I'll gracefully exit stage left and suggest this might be a great PhD thesis project. Robert From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 10:11:49 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:11:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo was The Amazing Cellular Repair device In-Reply-To: <20051011093733.GQ2249@leitl.org> References: <0cd801c5ce31$17c457b0$8998e03c@homepc> <20051011090338.32333.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> <20051011093733.GQ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Don't try this with people. What would happened with > your mice after 6 days? 60 days? 6 years? They only put their mice to sleep for 6 hours in 80 ppm H2S. > I wish I had a subscription. Does anyone have institutional > access to Cryobiology? See: The Cryonics Society reviewed this article at: Among other comments they said: Scientists at the European Space Agency (ESA) are investigating the possibility of inducing hibernation-like states in astronauts sent on long trips to the outer planets such as Jupiter and Saturn. However, like other applications, this one may be some way off. "The atmospheric approach to inducing torpor is a nice one because it would diffuse very quickly in the body and saves you having to administer something internally," explained Mark Ayre, of ESA's Advanced Concepts Team at Nordwijk in the Netherlands. Mice do not normally hibernate, but a similar state called clinical torpor can be reached by mice in certain conditions when deprived of food. "We have been looking at suspended animation to cut consumables - food and water - on a journey that could take five years or longer. That is important because missions are driven by the mass of the spacecraft. The other thing is trying to avoid psychological problems. You can have people awake, in which case you need to keep them entertained. That means more volume and potentially a very large mass." He concluded, "you avoid all that by putting them to sleep." ------------------------- I like this as a form of time-travel into the future. Assuming you have investments accumulating faster than the expenses of keeping you in hibernation, you could go to sleep for a year at a time and wake up richer every time. BillK From bradbury at aeiveos.com Tue Oct 11 10:35:40 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 03:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: <20051011075331.330.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Stuart, I'm unaware of the phenomena you mention with birds but do not put it outside of their realm of sensing possibilities. It could perhaps be ultrasonic sensing, perhaps somehow sensing the high pressure build-up, or maybe biomagnetic detection of some type. As the advance detection of an earthquake would have clear survival advantages I would not find it at all unreasonable to have evolved and been incorporated. Human sensing capabilities had (I believe) different evolutionary priorities (unfortunately). If I had to speculate I would tend to link it to birds ability to sense changes in the weather. That would tend to be tied to air pressure which would suggest they are sensing very subtle sudden pressure changes. Robert From bradbury at aeiveos.com Tue Oct 11 10:58:31 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 03:58:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo was The Amazing Cellular Repair device In-Reply-To: <20051011093733.GQ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: Does it *really* matter? A human brain is an information container. Freezing it and thawing it doesn't scramble it all that much. If I do it with a steak I still get back most of the steak. You have to make arguments that information, particularly *critical* information, would be destroyed in the freezing and thawing process. I have yet to see anyone involved in cryonics make that argument in a way that satisfies me from a biological and computer science standpoint. So my conclusion is *any* freezing and unfreezing process is reasonable. Of course work being done by those such as Greg Fahy is a little different because they are trying to get things to the point where you can "unfreeze" (or technically unvitrify) them now. If they could do this on a whole body basis it would mean that the entire concept, legal definition, etc. of "death" would need to be reworked. What I like to tell people is to freeze my head -- that is the essential information content of "Robert". Then if someday that head gets dropped on the floor of some cryonics facility and broken into a zillion little pieces -- it doesn't friggen matter. We are going to have the computer processing capacity to put it all back together. Some of me may get lost. But some of me is lost over time every year anyway. So any reasonable approximation of cryonics will work. What will not work is putting one into an oven and disassembling ones molecules at several thousand degrees. Putting that back together is something that even nanotechnology can probably not do. Robert From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Tue Oct 11 11:04:55 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:04:55 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI's List References: <200510110024.j9B0OpX02247@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <001201c5ce53$9e8fd180$0201a8c0@JPAcer> > From: Dirk Bruere > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the > Futureof ExI's List > To: ExI chat list > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On 10/10/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: >> >> Natasha wrote: >> >> With respect to yourself, I'm a bit like Dirk, I don't understand exactly >> how you see politics. I get that you are not partly political and that >> you >> do not want to see the >> world through a prism that renders all human behaviour political but I >> don't really understand the ambit of what it is that you are discussing >> when >> you talk about politics. >> > > To clarify my position at least... > I see politics as being the medium of interaction between people (or even > the higher animals). > Political ideologies are different because they are essentially a sibling > of > religion in that they attempt to provide an all-encompassing worldview > that > explains, predicts and controls (or tries to). > > By this definition Extropy is a political ideology. > > Dirk BUT... Politics surely is not primarily about individuals and their interrelationships. It is about how groups relate to each other. The Polis is the city-state, politics dictate the will of the group-mind? Between individual rights and and majority rule is a gap wide enough to accomodate some fairly hefty controversy... Jack From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Tue Oct 11 20:12:29 2005 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (david) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:12:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434C1CAD.4040105@optusnet.com.au> Robert J. Bradbury wrote: >On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Russell Wallace wrote: > > > >>Suppose you stuffed a hundred tons of dynamite down a borehole in the middle >>of a break fault and set it off, would that trigger the earthquake early? >> >> > >Quite possibly, but I'm unsure as to how you could make sure >it would be less severe than waiting for a natural "break". > >I assume you are aiming for a bunch of little quakes rather than >one big one -- and I don't think that much is known about the underlying >geology to get close to that at most earthquake prone regions around the >globe. > > Even if you triggered the full-size earthquake I think you could drastically reduce casualties and damage by triggering it on a schedule. eg. "At 10:00 AM on Monday we will have a Richter 8.0 quake. Please prepare your home, and remain outdoors until the all clear is given " There would still be significant structural damage but you could practically eliminate casualties and incidental damage. -David. From bradbury at aeiveos.com Tue Oct 11 11:31:59 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 04:31:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: <434C1CAD.4040105@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: David, Absolutely no argument. By having "planned" quakes one would reduce the number of lives lost significantly. It might also get people to more properly survey everything from their dwelling to their emergency preparations. But I would not like to be on the committee deciding when and where to induce the quakes. Robert From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Tue Oct 11 20:53:14 2005 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (david) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:53:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434C263A.7010200@optusnet.com.au> Robert J. Bradbury wrote: >David, > >Absolutely no argument. By having "planned" quakes one would >reduce the number of lives lost significantly. It might also >get people to more properly survey everything from their dwelling >to their emergency preparations. But I would not like to be on >the committee deciding when and where to induce the quakes. > >Robert > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > The only way I could see it happening is if the Govt. first passed a law giving itself complete immunity to any legal suits. As for where, I am not an earthquake expert, but I thought that would be dictated by the location and weak point(s) of the fault. As for when, I have reconsidered my earlier post and I now think 8.30 am on a Tuesday morning in Summer. All day Monday to prepare, then late enough for everyone to get out of bed, but you have the rest of the day, and then the rest of the week, to organise shelters, begin repair/rebuilding etc. It makes sense, but I think you're right about being on the committee : ) -David From hemm at openlink.com.br Tue Oct 11 12:15:12 2005 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:15:12 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microrobot References: <001801c5ce1e$c7091890$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <01b701c5ce5d$6e6acaa0$fe00a8c0@HEMM> Hello, Can you copy the text? NY Times requires registration to read ----- Original Message ----- From: "Olga Bourlin" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:46 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] Microrobot > ... walks like an inchworm, originates from Dartmouth: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/science/11FIND.html From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 12:24:04 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:24:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI's List In-Reply-To: <001201c5ce53$9e8fd180$0201a8c0@JPAcer> References: <200510110024.j9B0OpX02247@tick.javien.com> <001201c5ce53$9e8fd180$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > > From: Dirk Bruere > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the > > Futureof ExI's List > > To: ExI chat list > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > On 10/10/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > >> > >> Natasha wrote: > >> > >> With respect to yourself, I'm a bit like Dirk, I don't understand > exactly > >> how you see politics. I get that you are not partly political and that > >> you > >> do not want to see the > >> world through a prism that renders all human behaviour political but I > >> don't really understand the ambit of what it is that you are discussing > >> when > >> you talk about politics. > >> > > > > To clarify my position at least... > > I see politics as being the medium of interaction between people (or > even > > the higher animals). > > Political ideologies are different because they are essentially a > sibling > > of > > religion in that they attempt to provide an all-encompassing worldview > > that > > explains, predicts and controls (or tries to). > > > > By this definition Extropy is a political ideology. > > > > Dirk > > BUT... Politics surely is not primarily about individuals and their > interrelationships. It is about how groups relate to each other. The Polis > is the city-state, politics dictate the will of the group-mind? > Between individual rights and and majority rule is a gap wide enough to > accomodate some fairly hefty controversy... > Jack > And how many people constitute a group? Was the bombing by Tim McVeigh political? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 12:30:33 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:30:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microrobot In-Reply-To: <01b701c5ce5d$6e6acaa0$fe00a8c0@HEMM> References: <001801c5ce1e$c7091890$6600a8c0@brainiac> <01b701c5ce5d$6e6acaa0$fe00a8c0@HEMM> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote: > Hello, > > Can you copy the text? NY Times requires registration to read > Use or install the BugMeNot extension on the Firefox browser. BillK From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Oct 11 12:56:49 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 07:56:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day References: <20051011075331.330.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002201c5ce63$3ef8bce0$0100a8c0@kevin> During the aftershocks? Did anyone notice this before the actual quake? I have heard this many times but I wonder if it has been clearly documented to be a true ability. > > Welcome back, Robert. > > I noticed something rather cool during all the > aftershocks of the Northridge quake here in Cali and > that was pigeons and other birds could sense them > coming about 10 - 30 seconds before they happened and > all took to the air in a mad rush. I presume it is > because bird hearing is so much more sensitive than > ours (owls hunt mice by hearing in the dark and robins > can hear worms moving beneath the soil). Has anybody > tried to record a wide band audio spectrum prior to an > earthquake? With a sensitive enough microphone, one > might be able to get more prior warning than even bird > ears allow. > > The Avantguardian > is > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen > > "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Music Unlimited > Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. > http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 13:19:45 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 06:19:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: <380-2200510110194935655@M2W053.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20051011131946.8320.qmail@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > > >To clarify my position at least... > >I see politics as being the medium of interaction between people (or > >even the higher animals). > > Yes, this is what politics means. > > >Political ideologies are different because they are essentially a > >sibling of religion in that they attempt to provide an all- > >encompassing worldview that > >explains, predicts and controls (or tries to). > > >By this definition Extropy is a political ideology. > > "a political ideology is a certain ethical, set of ideals, > principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, > institution, class, or large group that explain how society should > work, and offer some political and cultural blueprint for a certain > social order. A political ideology largely concerns itself with how > to allocate power and to what ends it should be used. It can be a > construct of political thought, often defining political parties > and their policy. The popularity of an ideology is in part due to > the influence of moral entrepreneurs, who sometimes act in their > own interests." > > Extropy is a philosophical viewpoint. Extropy does not have a > political thought that evokes "extropy" in its true sense. Lets see if this is true, or just weasel wording: From:http://extropy.org/principles.htm "Perpetual Progress Extropy means seeking more intelligence, wisdom, and effectiveness, an open-ended lifespan, and the removal of political, cultural, biological, and psychological limits to continuing development. Perpetually overcoming constraints on our progress and possibilities as individuals, as organizations, and as a species. Growing in healthy directions without bound." The above advocates life extension, intelligence and wisdom enhancement, minimizing government and social restrictions on development. This is a political agenda, not just a philosophy. "Self-Transformation Extropy means affirming continual ethical, intellectual, and physical self-improvement, through critical and creative thinking, perpetual learning, personal responsibility, proactivity, and experimentation. Using technology ? in the widest sense to seek physiological and neurological augmentation along with emotional and psychological refinement." This advocates the personal right to technology. This is also a political agenda. "Practical Optimism Extropy means fueling action with positive expectations ? individuals and organizations being tirelessly proactive. Adopting a rational, action-based optimism or "proaction", in place of both blind faith and stagnant pessimism." Proaction is activism, i.e. political advocacy, a political agenda. "Intelligent Technology Extropy means designing and managing technologies not as ends in themselves but as effective means for improving life. Applying science and technology creatively and courageously to transcend "natural" but harmful, confining qualities derived from our biological heritage, culture, and environment." Use of technology to overcome biology, culture, and environment: a political agenda. "Open Society - information and democracy Extropy means supporting social orders that foster freedom of communication, freedom of action, experimentation, innovation, questioning, and learning. Opposing authoritarian social control and unnecessary hierarchy and favoring the rule of law and decentralization of power and responsibility. Preferring bargaining over battling, exchange over extortion, and communication over compulsion. Openness to improvement rather than a static utopia. Extropia ("ever-receding stretch goals for society") over utopia ("no place")." Hmmm. Advocating Freedom of communication, action, experimentation, innovation, questioning, and learning: all political agendas. Opposing authoritarianism, heirarchism and advocating law and decentralization, markets, openness. All political agenda. "Self-Direction Extropy means valuing independent thinking, individual freedom, personal responsibility, self-direction, self-respect, and a parallel respect for others." More political agenda. "Rational Thinking Extropy means favoring reason over blind faith and questioning over dogma. It means understanding, experimenting, learning, challenging, and innovating rather than clinging to beliefs." Advocating reason over faith and dogma: also, a political agenda. The extropian principles are steeped in political ideology. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 13:22:50 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 06:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] brin on the history channel In-Reply-To: <200510110249.j9B2n3X14072@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051011132250.90412.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I believe I've seen that episode. MicroUAVs and all that jazz? --- spike wrote: > > Is anyone catching the Modern Marvels program on > surveillance on the History channel? Brin is on > there, do catch this, MIKE are you there? Watch > this thing man! It is blowing my mind. > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 13:33:53 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 06:33:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Microrobot In-Reply-To: <001801c5ce1e$c7091890$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20051011133353.48256.qmail@web30311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Well, it's not like an inchworm, more like bumper cars or those vibrating hockey and football table games of the 60's and 70's.Watch the videos. --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > ... walks like an inchworm, originates from Dartmouth: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/science/11FIND.html Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From max at maxmore.com Tue Oct 11 13:45:06 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:45:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: <20051011131946.8320.qmail@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <380-2200510110194935655@M2W053.mail2web.com> <20051011131946.8320.qmail@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011084227.04a5aff0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> "Mike Lorrey" -- clearly the name is a political agenda. "Mike" -- obviously chosen so as to assert the right to a loud public voice. "Lorrey" -- obviously intended as a variant on the English "lorry", implying a right to freedom of movement along public and private roads, and the right to transport large objects. Some of your points below are accurate, but others are really stretching things, especially on "Rational Thinking" Max At 08:19 AM 10/11/2005, you wrote: >--- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > > > > > >To clarify my position at least... > > >I see politics as being the medium of interaction between people (or > > >even the higher animals). > > > > Yes, this is what politics means. > > > > >Political ideologies are different because they are essentially a > > >sibling of religion in that they attempt to provide an all- > > >encompassing worldview that > > >explains, predicts and controls (or tries to). > > > > >By this definition Extropy is a political ideology. > > > > "a political ideology is a certain ethical, set of ideals, > > principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, > > institution, class, or large group that explain how society should > > work, and offer some political and cultural blueprint for a certain > > social order. A political ideology largely concerns itself with how > > to allocate power and to what ends it should be used. It can be a > > construct of political thought, often defining political parties > > and their policy. The popularity of an ideology is in part due to > > the influence of moral entrepreneurs, who sometimes act in their > > own interests." > > > > Extropy is a philosophical viewpoint. Extropy does not have a > > political thought that evokes "extropy" in its true sense. > >Lets see if this is true, or just weasel wording: > >From:http://extropy.org/principles.htm >"Perpetual Progress > >Extropy means seeking more intelligence, wisdom, and effectiveness, an >open-ended lifespan, and the removal of political, cultural, >biological, and psychological limits to continuing development. >Perpetually overcoming constraints on our progress and possibilities as >individuals, as organizations, and as a species. Growing in healthy >directions without bound." > >The above advocates life extension, intelligence and wisdom >enhancement, minimizing government and social restrictions on >development. This is a political agenda, not just a philosophy. > >"Self-Transformation > >Extropy means affirming continual ethical, intellectual, and physical >self-improvement, through critical and creative thinking, perpetual >learning, personal responsibility, proactivity, and experimentation. >Using technology ? in the widest sense to seek physiological and >neurological augmentation along with emotional and psychological >refinement." > >This advocates the personal right to technology. This is also a >political agenda. > >"Practical Optimism > >Extropy means fueling action with positive expectations ? individuals >and organizations being tirelessly proactive. Adopting a rational, >action-based optimism or "proaction", in place of both blind faith and >stagnant pessimism." > >Proaction is activism, i.e. political advocacy, a political agenda. > >"Intelligent Technology > >Extropy means designing and managing technologies not as ends in >themselves but as effective means for improving life. Applying science >and technology creatively and courageously to transcend "natural" but >harmful, confining qualities derived from our biological heritage, >culture, and environment." > >Use of technology to overcome biology, culture, and environment: a >political agenda. > >"Open Society - information and democracy > >Extropy means supporting social orders that foster freedom of >communication, freedom of action, experimentation, innovation, >questioning, and learning. Opposing authoritarian social control and >unnecessary hierarchy and favoring the rule of law and decentralization >of power and responsibility. Preferring bargaining over battling, >exchange over extortion, and communication over compulsion. Openness to >improvement rather than a static utopia. Extropia ("ever-receding >stretch goals for society") over utopia ("no place")." > >Hmmm. Advocating Freedom of communication, action, experimentation, >innovation, questioning, and learning: all political agendas. Opposing >authoritarianism, heirarchism and advocating law and decentralization, >markets, openness. All political agenda. > >"Self-Direction > >Extropy means valuing independent thinking, individual freedom, >personal responsibility, self-direction, self-respect, and a parallel >respect for others." > >More political agenda. > >"Rational Thinking > >Extropy means favoring reason over blind faith and questioning over >dogma. It means understanding, experimenting, learning, challenging, >and innovating rather than clinging to beliefs." > >Advocating reason over faith and dogma: also, a political agenda. > >The extropian principles are steeped in political ideology. > > > > >Mike Lorrey >Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH >Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: >http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com >Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > >__________________________________ >Yahoo! Music Unlimited >Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. >http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat _______________________________________________________ Max More, Ph.D. max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org http://www.maxmore.com Strategic Philosopher Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org _______________________________________________________ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 13:53:10 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 06:53:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011084227.04a5aff0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051011135310.97928.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Max More wrote: > "Mike Lorrey" -- clearly the name is a political agenda. > > "Mike" -- obviously chosen so as to assert the right to a loud public > voice. > > "Lorrey" -- obviously intended as a variant on > the English "lorry", implying a right to freedom > of movement along public and private roads, and > the right to transport large objects. > > Some of your points below are accurate, but > others are really stretching things, especially on "Rational > Thinking" Really? So you advocate teaching intelligent design in public schools? Or do you insist on rational thinking, that only reasoned scientific theories of universal and human development be taught? Please stop with the absurdist weaseling, it does you no benefit. Either accept that the principles are a political agenda, or rewrite them (once again). > > At 08:19 AM 10/11/2005, you wrote: > > > >--- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > > > > > > > > >To clarify my position at least... > > > >I see politics as being the medium of interaction between people > (or > > > >even the higher animals). > > > > > > Yes, this is what politics means. > > > > > > >Political ideologies are different because they are essentially > a > > > >sibling of religion in that they attempt to provide an all- > > > >encompassing worldview that > > > >explains, predicts and controls (or tries to). > > > > > > >By this definition Extropy is a political ideology. > > > > > > "a political ideology is a certain ethical, set of ideals, > > > principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, > > > institution, class, or large group that explain how society > should > > > work, and offer some political and cultural blueprint for a > certain > > > social order. A political ideology largely concerns itself with > how > > > to allocate power and to what ends it should be used. It can be a > > > construct of political thought, often defining political parties > > > and their policy. The popularity of an ideology is in part due to > > > the influence of moral entrepreneurs, who sometimes act in their > > > own interests." > > > > > > Extropy is a philosophical viewpoint. Extropy does not have a > > > political thought that evokes "extropy" in its true sense. > > > >Lets see if this is true, or just weasel wording: > > > >From:http://extropy.org/principles.htm > >"Perpetual Progress > > > >Extropy means seeking more intelligence, wisdom, and effectiveness, > an > >open-ended lifespan, and the removal of political, cultural, > >biological, and psychological limits to continuing development. > >Perpetually overcoming constraints on our progress and possibilities > as > >individuals, as organizations, and as a species. Growing in healthy > >directions without bound." > > > >The above advocates life extension, intelligence and wisdom > >enhancement, minimizing government and social restrictions on > >development. This is a political agenda, not just a philosophy. > > > >"Self-Transformation > > > >Extropy means affirming continual ethical, intellectual, and > physical > >self-improvement, through critical and creative thinking, perpetual > >learning, personal responsibility, proactivity, and experimentation. > >Using technology ? in the widest sense to seek physiological and > >neurological augmentation along with emotional and psychological > >refinement." > > > >This advocates the personal right to technology. This is also a > >political agenda. > > > >"Practical Optimism > > > >Extropy means fueling action with positive expectations ? > individuals > >and organizations being tirelessly proactive. Adopting a rational, > >action-based optimism or "proaction", in place of both blind faith > and > >stagnant pessimism." > > > >Proaction is activism, i.e. political advocacy, a political agenda. > > > >"Intelligent Technology > > > >Extropy means designing and managing technologies not as ends in > >themselves but as effective means for improving life. Applying > science > >and technology creatively and courageously to transcend "natural" > but > >harmful, confining qualities derived from our biological heritage, > >culture, and environment." > > > >Use of technology to overcome biology, culture, and environment: a > >political agenda. > > > >"Open Society - information and democracy > > > >Extropy means supporting social orders that foster freedom of > >communication, freedom of action, experimentation, innovation, > >questioning, and learning. Opposing authoritarian social control and > >unnecessary hierarchy and favoring the rule of law and > decentralization > >of power and responsibility. Preferring bargaining over battling, > >exchange over extortion, and communication over compulsion. Openness > to > >improvement rather than a static utopia. Extropia ("ever-receding > >stretch goals for society") over utopia ("no place")." > > > >Hmmm. Advocating Freedom of communication, action, experimentation, > >innovation, questioning, and learning: all political agendas. > Opposing > >authoritarianism, heirarchism and advocating law and > decentralization, > >markets, openness. All political agenda. > > > >"Self-Direction > > > >Extropy means valuing independent thinking, individual freedom, > >personal responsibility, self-direction, self-respect, and a > parallel > >respect for others." > > > >More political agenda. > > > >"Rational Thinking > > > >Extropy means favoring reason over blind faith and questioning over > >dogma. It means understanding, experimenting, learning, challenging, > >and innovating rather than clinging to beliefs." > > > >Advocating reason over faith and dogma: also, a political agenda. > > > >The extropian principles are steeped in political ideology. > > > > > > > > > >Mike Lorrey > >Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > >Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > >http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > >Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > > > > >__________________________________ > >Yahoo! Music Unlimited > >Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. > >http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ > >_______________________________________________ > >extropy-chat mailing list > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________________ > Max More, Ph.D. > max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org > http://www.maxmore.com > Strategic Philosopher > Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org > _______________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Oct 11 14:00:50 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 07:00:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microrobot References: <001801c5ce1e$c7091890$6600a8c0@brainiac> <01b701c5ce5d$6e6acaa0$fe00a8c0@HEMM> Message-ID: <00a101c5ce6c$30c42d40$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Henrique Moraes Machado" > Hello, > > Can you copy the text? NY Times requires registration to read >> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/science/11FIND.html Here you go ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- October 11, 2005 At Dartmouth, a Remote-Controlled Robot By KENNETH CHANG For a steerable piece of dust, look somewhere at Dartmouth College. Researchers there have built what they say is the world's smallest untethered, controllable robot. When placed on a penny, it looks like a mole on the side of Lincoln's chin, measuring a hundredth of an inch by one four-hundredth of an inch. A traffic jam of 200 of them would stretch the length of an M&M. The robot contains no motors or circuitry. Rather, it is a carefully carved piece of silicon that moves across a special surface that contains an embedded electrical grid. The main rectangular piece has one edge bent downward; from the side, it looks like an L that has toppled forward. "You can think of it as a business card with a fold at the end," said Bruce R. Donald, a professor of computer science and leader of the research team. When an electrical voltage is applied, the silicon buckles, and the long leg of the L is pulled down against the surface. When an opposite voltage is applied, the silicon rectangle pops back and pushes the robot forward. "It crawls along like an inchworm," Dr. Donald said. An article describing the microrobot will appear in The Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems. At top speed, the robot zooms around at nearly a hundredth of an inch a second. To turn the robot, a stronger voltage pulse lowers an arm extending off one side of the rectangle. At the end of the arm is what looks like a tiny lollipop with a pointy thorn at the center. The lollipop snags the surface, and the robot runs in circles around it. Another pulse lifts the arm, and the robot heads straight again. Dr. Donald said more sophisticated versions of such robots might one day be used to inspect or fix chips or interact with individual cells. Robots of different shapes could snap together to build larger structures, he said. a.. Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logoprinter.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From d.assange at ugrad.unimelb.edu.au Tue Oct 11 14:08:06 2005 From: d.assange at ugrad.unimelb.edu.au (Daniel Assange) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:08:06 +1000 (AEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: <20051011135310.97928.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I think Max's point is that extropy is a political agenda to the same extent that any agenda can be said to be political. Politics is the method of interaction between groups of humans; and any viewpoint governing the behaviour of individuals in a group will have a diffuse effect on the group's behaviour as a whole. So you aren't really revealing any new information by stating that extropy is a political agenda. -- Daniel Assange "The way to enlightenment is not to admit that you know nothing, but to admit that you can never know enough." On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > --- Max More wrote: > > > "Mike Lorrey" -- clearly the name is a political agenda. > > > > "Mike" -- obviously chosen so as to assert the right to a loud public > > voice. > > > > "Lorrey" -- obviously intended as a variant on > > the English "lorry", implying a right to freedom > > of movement along public and private roads, and > > the right to transport large objects. > > > > Some of your points below are accurate, but > > others are really stretching things, especially on "Rational > > Thinking" > > Really? So you advocate teaching intelligent design in public schools? > Or do you insist on rational thinking, that only reasoned scientific > theories of universal and human development be taught? > > Please stop with the absurdist weaseling, it does you no benefit. > Either accept that the principles are a political agenda, or rewrite > them (once again). From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Oct 11 14:10:18 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:10:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList Message-ID: <380-2200510211141018969@M2W069.mail2web.com> Mike wrote: >Please stop with the absurdist weaseling, it does you no benefit. >Either accept that the principles are a political agenda, or rewrite >them (once again). Mike, you have once again started using derogatory wording for the purpose of intentionally insulting list members. This is unacceptable. You have been warned in the past, but you continue to lash out at anyone who does not agree with you. It is tiresome and disruptive. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From d.assange at ugrad.unimelb.edu.au Tue Oct 11 14:14:53 2005 From: d.assange at ugrad.unimelb.edu.au (Daniel Assange) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:14:53 +1000 (AEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Microrobot In-Reply-To: <00a101c5ce6c$30c42d40$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: New Scientist also has an article on this, and links a site containing AVIs. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/dn8007 -- Daniel Assange "The way to enlightenment is not to admit that you know nothing, but to admit that you can never know enough." On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: "Henrique Moraes Machado" > > > Hello, > > > > Can you copy the text? NY Times requires registration to read > > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/science/11FIND.html > > Here you go ... > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > October 11, 2005 > At Dartmouth, a Remote-Controlled Robot > By KENNETH CHANG > For a steerable piece of dust, look somewhere at Dartmouth College. > > Researchers there have built what they say is the world's smallest > untethered, controllable robot. When placed on a penny, it looks like a mole > on the side of Lincoln's chin, measuring a hundredth of an inch by one > four-hundredth of an inch. > > A traffic jam of 200 of them would stretch the length of an M&M. > > The robot contains no motors or circuitry. Rather, it is a carefully carved > piece of silicon that moves across a special surface that contains an > embedded electrical grid. The main rectangular piece has one edge bent > downward; from the side, it looks like an L that has toppled forward. > > "You can think of it as a business card with a fold at the end," said Bruce > R. Donald, a professor of computer science and leader of the research team. > > When an electrical voltage is applied, the silicon buckles, and the long leg > of the L is pulled down against the surface. When an opposite voltage is > applied, the silicon rectangle pops back and pushes the robot forward. "It > crawls along like an inchworm," Dr. Donald said. > > An article describing the microrobot will appear in The Journal of > Microelectromechanical Systems. At top speed, the robot zooms around at > nearly a hundredth of an inch a second. > > To turn the robot, a stronger voltage pulse lowers an arm extending off one > side of the rectangle. At the end of the arm is what looks like a tiny > lollipop with a pointy thorn at the center. The lollipop snags the surface, > and the robot runs in circles around it. Another pulse lifts the arm, and > the robot heads straight again. > > Dr. Donald said more sophisticated versions of such robots might one day be > used to inspect or fix chips or interact with individual cells. > > Robots of different shapes could snap together to build larger structures, > he said. > > > > a.. Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company > From max at maxmore.com Tue Oct 11 14:27:04 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:27:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList References: <20051011135310.97928.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011092616.04a5e310@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 09:08 AM 10/11/2005, Daniel wrote: >I think Max's point is that extropy is a political agenda to the same >extent that any agenda can be said to be political. YES. Thank *you* for tuning in! Cheers, 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.bruere at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 14:29:58 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:29:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: <380-2200510211141018969@M2W069.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200510211141018969@M2W069.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > Mike wrote: > > >Please stop with the absurdist weaseling, it does you no benefit. > >Either accept that the principles are a political agenda, or rewrite > >them (once again). > > Mike, you have once again started using derogatory wording for the purpose > of intentionally insulting list members. This is unacceptable. > > You have been warned in the past, but you continue to lash out at anyone > who does not agree with you. > > It is tiresome and disruptive. > > I do not agree that the above is insulting. To claim that Extropy is not an ideology is absurd. The fact that is that it is both a philosophical *and* political ideology. As I wrote on the Consensus site, Transhumanism will be the major political issue of this century. Any org that wishes to encompass this aim cannot escape being political. Transhumanism is about both technology and politics. Since ExI claims to subsume Transhumanism within an even wider *political* agenda it really is absurd to say it is not a political ideology *at least*. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Tue Oct 11 14:32:04 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:32:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: <20051011135310.97928.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011084227.04a5aff0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20051011135310.97928.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011092736.04a5e458@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 08:53 AM 10/11/2005, you wrote: > > > > Some of your points below are accurate, but > > others are really stretching things, especially on "Rational > > Thinking" > >Really? So you advocate teaching intelligent design in public schools? >Or do you insist on rational thinking, that only reasoned scientific >theories of universal and human development be taught? I don't insist on *anything* being taught in public schools. In *private* schools I would certain recommend most strongly against teaching intelligent design, but I wouldn't *require* anything unless I owned such a school. That's about as non-political as it's possible to get. >Please stop with the absurdist weaseling, it does you no benefit. >Either accept that the principles are a political agenda, or rewrite >them (once again). I acknowledged that the Principles had plenty of room for political implications. That doesn't make them a political agenda as a whole, and it certainly doesn't make rational thinking more political than any other favored view of cognition. I ask that you apologize and retract your "absurdist weaseling" comment. 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.bruere at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 14:33:56 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:33:56 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011092616.04a5e310@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <20051011135310.97928.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011092616.04a5e310@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, Max More wrote: > > At 09:08 AM 10/11/2005, Daniel wrote: > >I think Max's point is that extropy is a political agenda to the same > >extent that any agenda can be said to be political. > > YES. Thank *you* for tuning in! > > Hardly. The vast majority of individual and group agendas would not qualify as being political ideologies. Extropy is far more than an agenda - it is a philosophical/political ideology unlike most of those that have preceded it. I do not see what the problem is with admitting this. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 14:37:24 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:37:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011092736.04a5e458@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011084227.04a5aff0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20051011135310.97928.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011092736.04a5e458@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, Max More wrote: > > At 08:53 AM 10/11/2005, you wrote: > > > > > > > Some of your points below are accurate, but > > > others are really stretching things, especially on "Rational > > > Thinking" > > > >Really? So you advocate teaching intelligent design in public schools? > >Or do you insist on rational thinking, that only reasoned scientific > >theories of universal and human development be taught? > > I don't insist on *anything* being taught in public schools. In > *private* schools I would certain recommend most strongly against > teaching intelligent design, but I wouldn't *require* anything unless > I owned such a school. That's about as non-political as it's possible to > get. !!!!!!!? You are surely joking! or have you been mixing too much in Libertarian circles? Just about every national government on the planet would disagree - and many of them would put you in their local Gulag for saying so. It is a *highly* political statement. Try popping over to China and mouthing off about the freedom of Falun Gong to teach in their own schools... Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Oct 11 14:41:05 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:41:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList Message-ID: <380-220051021114415757@M2W070.mail2web.com> From: Dirk Bruere >The fact that is that it is both a philosophical *and* political ideology. >As I wrote on the Consensus site, Transhumanism will be the major political >issue of this century. Any org that wishes to encompass this aim cannot >escape being political. Transhumanism is about both technology and politics. I cannot settle for less than what extropy could represent if it were truly a futurist political means for dealing with the future of transhumanism. Currently, there are no hard and clear tools. There could be, but they have not been developed. To realize this goal - creating a future-oriented political viewpoint for extropy - would require a team of people (multidisciplinary would be preferred) who have experience and knowledge about society, how it works, the nature of transhumanism - what its stakeholders need, and what is possible and preferable. To realize a truly extropic political agenda, or a political agenda that is Extropy - there would have to be some clear-headed, sophisticated, relevant and meaningful models that expressly emphasize and illustrate a political agenda for transhumanism. Until this is realized, if it is going to be realized, extropy, in my view, is more of a philosophical viewpoint - outlook - than a political agenda. Having a civil and constructive brain-trust of thought on this would be far more beneficial in realizing the future of Extropy. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 14:42:19 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 07:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: <380-2200510211141018969@M2W069.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20051011144219.30258.qmail@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > Mike wrote: > > >Please stop with the absurdist weaseling, it does you no benefit. > >Either accept that the principles are a political agenda, or rewrite > >them (once again). > > Mike, you have once again started using derogatory wording for the > purpose > of intentionally insulting list members. This is unacceptable. > > You have been warned in the past, but you continue to lash out at > anyone who does not agree with you. > > It is tiresome and disruptive. Natasha, deconstructing my name and calling it 'political' is absurdist, and that is descriptive, not derogatory. Also, "weasel wording" is a common wiki term for writing used to cover up or sneak in opinion without support. It also is not derogatory, it is descriptive. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 15:25:56 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:25:56 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: <380-220051021114415757@M2W070.mail2web.com> References: <380-220051021114415757@M2W070.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > > From: Dirk Bruere > > >The fact that is that it is both a philosophical *and* political > ideology. > >As I wrote on the Consensus site, Transhumanism will be the major > political > >issue of this century. Any org that wishes to encompass this aim cannot > >escape being political. Transhumanism is about both technology and > politics. > > I cannot settle for less than what extropy could represent if it were > truly > a futurist political means for dealing with the future of transhumanism. > Currently, there are no hard and clear tools. There could be, but they > have > not been developed. To realize this goal - creating a future-oriented > political viewpoint for extropy - would require a team of people > (multidisciplinary would be preferred) who have experience and knowledge > about society, how it works, the nature of transhumanism - what its > stakeholders need, and what is possible and preferable. To realize a truly > extropic political agenda, or a political agenda that is Extropy - there > would have to be some clear-headed, sophisticated, relevant and meaningful > models that expressly emphasize and illustrate a political agenda for > transhumanism. > > Until this is realized, if it is going to be realized, extropy, in my > view, > is more of a philosophical viewpoint - outlook - than a political agenda. > > Having a civil and constructive brain-trust of thought on this would be > far > more beneficial in realizing the future of Extropy. > I'm not sure that such a thing is required, except possibly on a national basis as a tailoring of Extropy to the local political scene. In such a case, every interpretation will be different. I don't think there can, at present, be any global political interpretation of ExI. However, that does not make it apolitical - far from it. IMO the discourse of the ExI document is rather like a 21st century version of the Communist Manifesto. For those who have never read it http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Oct 11 16:21:01 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:21:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList Message-ID: <380-220051021116211439@M2W069.mail2web.com> From: Dirk Bruere >I'm not sure that such a thing is required, except possibly on a national >basis as a tailoring of Extropy to the local political scene. I don't think you read my post to the list last week. You can find it in the archives. It suggests a transparent ubiquitous concept. >In such a >case, every interpretation will be different. I don't know what you are referring to. >I don't think there can, at >present, be any global political interpretation of ExI. However, that does >not make it apolitical - far from it. ExI is an organization, extropy is a philosophical worldview. Extropy is not "apolitical." I agree with Brett on our shared view on what politics means. On another note, Extropy Institute is non-partisian. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From bradbury at aeiveos.com Tue Oct 11 16:42:38 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: <20051011075331.330.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: A sad addition to my previous note. In my long since past world traveling days, I have been to Srinagar, which is only about 50 miles from Muzaffarabad (which has basically been flattened). I also walked across the land border between India and Pakistan (Amritsar to Lahore) which is only a couple of hundred miles south of the earthquake region. My comments would be that Srinagar, and Kashmir in general, are quite beautiful. And that walking across the only "open" in the '70s land crossing between India and Pakistan can best be described as an "experience". However, as the numbers keep rising, it would appear that the death toll is going to stretch towards those of the 2004 tsunami. Unfortunately. Robert From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 16:53:55 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:53:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0510102055t1392a23dw1d7a81900138adcd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510110953j26311555u9637db183f6776ff@mail.gmail.com> On 10/11/05, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Russell Wallace wrote: > > > Suppose you stuffed a hundred tons of dynamite down a borehole in the > middle > > of a break fault and set it off, would that trigger the earthquake > early? > > Quite possibly, but I'm unsure as to how you could make sure > it would be less severe than waiting for a natural "break". > > I assume you are aiming for a bunch of little quakes rather than > one big one -- and I don't think that much is known about the underlying > geology to get close to that at most earthquake prone regions around the > globe. As another poster observed, the issue isn't the size, but having it happen at a known time - that way, you still have property damage, but the death toll goes from 30,000 down to 0. A hundred tons may also be a significant underestimate of the force > required. The subduction of the Juan de Fuca plate has produced four > or more volcanoes within two hours drive of my home. The forces > involved bring to mind the MC Hammer classic "You Can't Touch This". *nods* It was a question, not an estimate. A big earthquake can easily release energy in the hundreds of megatons. Suppose the trigger needs to be 1% of that; then it needs to be a megaton warhead. Still a cheap way to save 30,000 lives, but so far outside the realm of political possibility that there's no point in bothering to suggest it except to be able to say "I told you so". But I haven't a clue whether there is any such relationship between the trigger and the final energy release; was hoping someone who knows more about geology or mechanical engineering than I do might be able to answer that one. You *might* be able to touch it with a nanorobot designed to > operate at very high temperatures and pressures which was designed > to either liquify the rock or break in very small areas. But I > know of no attempt to design such a nanorobot. And the power > requirements would be formidable. You can power them with 148Gd > internal reactors but one would need a huge number of surface reactors > or breeders to produce the required 148Gd. With enough nanorobots > deployed over enough of an area I think you could eliminate the "break" > problem. But I'll gracefully exit stage left and suggest this > might be a great PhD thesis project. I don't think nanotechnology is at all the right tool for this job. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 16:55:19 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:55:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: References: <20051011075331.330.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510110955p192ba346w5252d9a729356bc0@mail.gmail.com> On 10/11/05, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > > As the advance detection of an earthquake would have > clear survival advantages I would not find it at all > unreasonable to have evolved and been incorporated. Would it? How would an earthquake harm a pigeon on the ground? It doesn't normally harm humans on the ground (at least not enough to exert significant selection pressure); it's being in a brick/stone/concrete building that kills you. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 17:02:13 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011092736.04a5e458@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051011170213.33148.qmail@web30309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Max More wrote: > At 08:53 AM 10/11/2005, you wrote: > > > > > > > Some of your points below are accurate, but > > > others are really stretching things, especially on "Rational > > > Thinking" > > > >Really? So you advocate teaching intelligent design in public > schools? > >Or do you insist on rational thinking, that only reasoned scientific > >theories of universal and human development be taught? > > I don't insist on *anything* being taught in public schools. In > *private* schools I would certain recommend most strongly against > teaching intelligent design, but I wouldn't *require* anything unless > I owned such a school. That's about as non-political as it's possible > to get. Hardly. Your opinion here, as far as the public schoolers are concerned, is about as extremist as any homeschooler advocate. > > >Please stop with the absurdist weaseling, it does you no benefit. > >Either accept that the principles are a political agenda, or rewrite > >them (once again). > > I acknowledged that the Principles had plenty of room for political > implications. That doesn't make them a political agenda as a whole, > and it certainly doesn't make rational thinking more political than > any other favored view of cognition. > > I ask that you apologize and retract your "absurdist weaseling" > comment. I'm sorry you feel offended that I described your evasive, cagey equivocations as "weasely" and your absurd deconstruction of my name as "absurdist". When you get to the point of being 'outraged' over such a measely statement, you'll truly have become a politician. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From patrickfallon at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 17:02:18 2005 From: patrickfallon at gmail.com (Pat Fallon) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:02:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Our Conscious Mind Could Be An Electromagnetic Field Message-ID: <3ea7740d0510111002o40395670j11b4c667bbea17ff@mail.gmail.com> I apologize if this has already been referenced... Our Conscious Mind Could Be An Electromagnetic Field: http://unisci.com/stories/20022/0516026.htm Pat Fallon patrickfallon at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Oct 11 17:11:19 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 03:11:19 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. Message-ID: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc> A couple of people posted me off list asking what I thought politics was. I wrote. ------ I think politics is behaviour that arises when there is a recognition that some mutually desired resource is scarce. Its fundamental. Only social creatures that recognize other social creatures are potentially aspiring for the same scarce resource will practice politics. Fundamentally, to understand human politics we have to understand that humans are social creatures that perceive a shortage of resources. The recognition of resource scarcity results in competitive behaviour that can include cooperating with some others to better compete for scarce resources. There's more, but I think that is it in a nut shell. ----- This is no great working definition, its just my seat of the pants sense. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aiguy at comcast.net Tue Oct 11 17:12:12 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:12:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510102055t1392a23dw1d7a81900138adcd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00ad01c5ce86$ec267510$74550318@ZANDRA2> >> Suppose you stuffed a hundred tons of dynamite down a borehole in the middle of a break fault and set it off, would that trigger the earthquake early? What if you used a deep under ground nuclear blast to create a large hollow or molten area at the point where the plates come together. Since the plates move so little per year, wouldn't the hollow/magma area allow for future movement to occur gradually rather than causing the pressure to accumulate. I would think that even though almost no mass is actually consumed in the reaction that sufficient compaction of less dense materials would occur to create more room for the plates to slide to. _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Wallace Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:55 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] A sad day On 10/11/05, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: One also has to differentiate between "slip" faults and "break" faults. Very different and not always clearly separate. I would suggest that the lubricant approach would work with slip faults. It would not work with break faults. In (a) you are dealing with plates slipping past each other; in (b) you are dealing with plates running into each other such that the only way around is to snap one of the plates. Very distinct phenomena. Suppose you stuffed a hundred tons of dynamite down a borehole in the middle of a break fault and set it off, would that trigger the earthquake early? - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Oct 11 17:17:03 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:17:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011115841.03002fc0@mail.gmu.edu> "The Great Rationality Debate" by Philip E. Tetlock, Barbara A. Mellers, Psychological Science, January 2002 - Vol. 13 Issue 1 Page 1-99 is a review of this book: Choices, Values, and Frames, editors Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky Cambridge University Press (September 25, 2000) Here is an interesting section of their review: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INSIDE VERSUS OUTSIDE VIEWS Kahneman and Tversky draw a sharp distinction between two modes of forecasting. Inside forecasts are generated by focusing on the case at hand, by considering the intentions of the key players and the obstacles to achieving their goals, and by extrapolating trends and constructing scenarios. The inside view is unrepentantly idiographic, anchored in a detailed understanding of the particular. The outside view is adamantly nomothetic: It ignores the details of the case at hand, and focuses on classificatory variables with demonstrable predictive power. Kahneman and Lovallo mince no words: "It should be obvious that when both methods are applied with equal intelligence and skill, the outside view is much more likely to yield a realistic estimate" (p. 406). Nonetheless, people overwhelmingly prefer the inside perspective and, once in that mind-set, often become ensnared in scenario thinking that makes it all too easy to mobilize support for far-out predictions. The more ideational momentum that people can generate for anticipating outcomes with low base-rate probabilities, the greater the risk of overconfidence. Camerer and Lovallo show just how treacherous inside views can be in their analysis of the excess entry of entrepreneurs into competitive markets. Entrepreneurs are often far more optimistic about their prospects for success than actual base rates suggest they should be. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the Kahneman and Lovallo chapter mentioned above: Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking Daniel Kahneman and Dan Lovallo, pp. 393-413 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The application to our forecasts about the future should be obvious: Do we overestimate technical change because we tend to take an inside view, imagining the particular process that produces some innovation, instead of an outside view, looking at how long similar innovations have taken in the past? I couldn't find a copy online. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 17:24:17 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:24:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: <434C1CAD.4040105@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <20051011172417.31843.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > >On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Russell Wallace wrote: > Even if you triggered the full-size earthquake I think you could > drastically reduce casualties and damage by triggering it on a > schedule. Actually, as tension tends to build over time, if you release it early, you will naturally get a less severe quake. It would be a constant exercise, though, as release of tension on one point of a fault tends to translate most of that tension to other points on the fault or onto nearby faults. See the following: http://www.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/research/oncelagu2002.pdf http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa022303a.htm This is why you get aftershocks, for instance: you translate stress to other locations that are less solid, and rapidly release. It would take a significant amount of explosive, though, to trigger a quake, though the effect could be amplified by drilling and injecting water and/or CO2 into a fault to help lubricate it. Even if this practice works, it likely won't help areas like Pakistan. Typically areas with significiant government or insurance industry funding would afford to maintain such operations on an ongoing basis, like ski patrollers blasting avalanches. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 17:34:58 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:34:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Our Conscious Mind Could Be An Electromagnetic Field In-Reply-To: <3ea7740d0510111002o40395670j11b4c667bbea17ff@mail.gmail.com> References: <3ea7740d0510111002o40395670j11b4c667bbea17ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, Pat Fallon wrote: > > I apologize if this has already been referenced... > Our Conscious Mind Could Be An Electromagnetic Field: > http://unisci.com/stories/20022/0516026.htm > There is a lot there that is wrong. For example, our heads do *not* protect the brain from em fields. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 17:41:59 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:41:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. In-Reply-To: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc> References: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <470a3c520510111041q6b30dae2qfac507bb56e66f48@mail.gmail.com> I think Brett gives a good definition of what politics *should be*. If a resource that everyone needs is scarce we can either shoot each other or trying to find a mutually acceptable agreement. This is called politics. Unfortunately in the real world things that have nothing to do with resource allocation becomes a part of the political debate. Take gay marriage for example - two adults of the same sex who want to get married do not take anything out of my pocket, or in general do not take any resource away from me, so I do not think such things should be part of politics. G. On 10/11/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > A couple of people posted me off list asking what I thought politics was. > I wrote. > > ------ > > I think politics is behaviour that arises when there is a recognition > that some mutually desired resource is scarce. > > Its fundamental. Only social creatures that recognize other social > creatures are potentially aspiring for the same scarce resource > will practice politics. > > Fundamentally, to understand human politics we have to understand > that humans are social creatures that perceive a shortage of resources. > > The recognition of resource scarcity results in competitive behaviour > that can include cooperating with some others to better compete for > scarce resources. > > There's more, but I think that is it in a nut shell. > > ----- > > This is no great working definition, its just my seat of the pants sense. From max at maxmore.com Tue Oct 11 17:44:23 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:44:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011084227.04a5aff0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20051011135310.97928.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011092736.04a5e458@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011124147.04d79680@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 09:37 AM 10/11/2005, you wrote: >I don't insist on *anything* being taught in public schools. In >*private* schools I would certain recommend most strongly against >teaching intelligent design, but I wouldn't *require* anything unless >I owned such a school. That's about as non-political as it's possible to get. > > >!!!!!!!? >You are surely joking! or have you been mixing too much in >Libertarian circles? >Just about every national government on the planet would disagree - >and many of them would put you in their local Gulag for saying so. >It is a *highly* political statement. Are you *deliberately* misinterpreting what I'm saying? The Principle of Rational Thinking says NOTHING about what public schools can or cannot do. As such, it is entirely non-political. MM From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 17:50:58 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:50:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy, Political Viewpoint and the Futureof ExI'sList In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011124147.04d79680@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011084227.04a5aff0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20051011135310.97928.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011092736.04a5e458@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011124147.04d79680@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, Max More wrote: > > At 09:37 AM 10/11/2005, you wrote: > > > >I don't insist on *anything* being taught in public schools. In > >*private* schools I would certain recommend most strongly against > >teaching intelligent design, but I wouldn't *require* anything unless > >I owned such a school. That's about as non-political as it's possible to > get. > > > > > >!!!!!!!? > >You are surely joking! or have you been mixing too much in > >Libertarian circles? > >Just about every national government on the planet would disagree - > >and many of them would put you in their local Gulag for saying so. > >It is a *highly* political statement. > > Are you *deliberately* misinterpreting what I'm saying? > > The Principle of Rational Thinking says NOTHING about what public > schools can or cannot do. As such, it is entirely non-political. > > Tell me that the Enlightenment was not political. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Oct 11 18:00:30 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 04:00:30 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. References: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc> <470a3c520510111041q6b30dae2qfac507bb56e66f48@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0f0801c5ce8d$ab5b38c0$8998e03c@homepc> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 writes: >I think Brett gives a good definition of what politics *should be*. > If a resource that everyone needs is scarce we can either shoot each > other or trying to find a mutually acceptable agreement. This is > called politics. > Unfortunately in the real world things that have nothing to do with > resource allocation becomes a part of the political debate. Take gay > marriage for example - two adults of the same sex who want to get > married do not take anything out of my pocket, or in general do not > take any resource away from me, so I do not think such things should > be part of politics. Don't gay marriages in Europe result in a better claim on the spouses assets? Don't arbitrary meaningless demands that place an impost on some outgroup cause benefits to flow disproportionately to one's ingroup? Where there is agreed to be a common wealth, (ie, when that is a given) all rights that are recognized as rights are claims on that common wealth. Denying others their rights however arbitrarily means that there is more of the common wealth (tax dollars to allocate say) left over for one's own group. Brett Paatsch From hal at finney.org Tue Oct 11 18:48:17 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts Message-ID: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> Robin writes: > The application to our forecasts about the future should be obvious: > Do we overestimate technical change because we tend to take an inside > view, imagining the particular process that produces some innovation, > instead of an outside view, looking at how long similar innovations have > taken in the past? I am inclined to think that this is not the reason. I may not fully understand this distinction, but it sounds like the "inside view" is based on analysis from a position of some expertise and detailed knowledge of the problem domain. Scenarios and extrapolations are constructed based on this detailed knowledge. I don't think our predictions rely on such detailed knowledge. Instead, we tend to be generalists, polymaths, people with strong opinions on topics that we don't know much about. Take cryonics, for example. Most optimism there comes from people who know nothing of the details. The more you know, the less optimistic you are. AI is another area where, with a few exceptions, most of our more grandiose predictions come from people who have never worked in the field. Drexlerian nanotech, likewise, is mostly supported by software engineers (in fact when I finally found Nanosystems in the bookstore, it was in the software section). There's not a chemist in the world who believes in this stuff. I think our errors are fundamentally from the outside view. So why do we do so badly, given that this article claims that outside-view predictions are better? Well, there's no guarantee that just because you're a no-nothing, you'll be right! You can make just as many mistakes as an outsider as an insider, they're just different mistakes. We once discussed predictions by science writer G. Harry Stein, who writing in the 1960s made a series of very extropian-sounding, grandiose predictions, based on outside-view reasoning. For example, he fitted a curve to the fastest a man had travelled, and found that people should be going at the speed of light by the 1980s. Most of his other predictions were equally over-optimistic. Or look at Kurzweil or Moravec, who engage in similar curve fitting exercises and find us on the cusp of stupendous change. These are not inside-view predictions, they are very broad-based attempts to generalize from the past into the future. Why do these predictions fail? I will suggest that the fault is not in us, it is in the world. Our predictions were reasonable. It was the world that failed. I suspect that the world has changed, that it has fallen off the exponential curve. The real shape is an S curve, the logistic curve of yeast growth. It is hard to tell the two apart as you move through the inflection point. We were using a reasonable methodology in making predictions, but it assumed continued exponential or even hyperbolic growth. That was in fact a fair reading of the history of humanity up through the early 20th century. The world changed, and it did not continue to grow as fast as it should have, as we predicted it would. Whether due to social friction, diminishing returns, complicated economic limitations, or the presence of whatever ideology you want to cast as a villain, technological and scientific progress has slowed. As a result, with a few exceptions the world of today is not much different from the world of decades past. Who could have predicted that, after centuries of accelerating change? I don't think anyone could reasonably do so, certainly not from the outside view. If anything, I suspect that inside-view analysis would have been more likely to anticipate the change, by looking at details of what the prospects would be for growth in different areas. Hal From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Oct 11 19:00:29 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:00:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011115841.03002fc0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <20051011190029.10223.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> --- Robin Hanson wrote: > Do we overestimate technical change because we tend to take an inside > view, imagining the particular process that produces some innovation, > instead of an outside view, looking at how long similar innovations > have > taken in the past? That can be turned on its head. It has frequently been observed that predictions overpromise in the nearterm, and underpromise in the long term. Perhaps the problem is not so much that outside techniques should be emphasized in all circumstances, as that people tend to focus too much on the current case's details (inside techniques) in the near term, and ignore or overlook relevant details (outside techniques) in the long term. The solution, then, would be two-fold. When predicting things in the near term, look to similar situations for likely outcomes (where you can not find solid reason why the situation at hand will be different - although, you can often also look to similar situations with poor results, find out what caused them, and look for said causes in your current situation to make sure that your situation really will be different). When predicting things in the long term, do look for historical analogues but keep in mind any relevant changes you now face (example: when trying to imagine future government systems for long-lived societies, one may see the wealth of monarchies and other dictatorships in the past, but one should not overlook the general empowerment of common citizens over the past two centuries - which has greatly aided the spread of functional republics, and kept many though not all of them from falling to corrupt dictators, and eventually helped restore most of those that have fallen). It is not often the case that one technique can totally dominate another in all circumstances. Whenever I see such a claim, in a field with which I have some familiarity, I usually look to see where the "dominated" technique can be superior in certain circumstances - or if the new technique is actually a refinement of the old, acknowledging the old technique's (limited) place (which is most likely to truly dominate). From bradbury at aeiveos.com Tue Oct 11 19:07:52 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A sad day In-Reply-To: <00ad01c5ce86$ec267510$74550318@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Gary Miller wrote: > What if you used a deep under ground nuclear blast to create a > large hollow or molten area at the point where the plates come together. Gary, an underground nuclear blast could well trigger a shift in the plates. Which if you do it frequently as Mike suggests for avalanche control could well work. The strategy isn't going to create a large hollow area (at least not without perhaps creating as many problems as its trying to solve). A large liquid area could help if you are in effect converting a break fault into a slip fault. But in any case, triggering a 4.0 is much better than waiting for a 7.6. Its one of the first good suggestions (other than diverting incoming asteroids) that I've seen for the use of nuclear devices. The other would perhaps involve a long discussion about the Orion Project [1]. Robert 1. For those unaware of the Orion Project you can google it or look it up in wikipedia. It was basically a plan for an atomic bomb powered spacecraft. Freeman Dyson was involved with it for some period of time back in the '60s. From eugen at leitl.org Tue Oct 11 19:38:41 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:38:41 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> References: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> Message-ID: <20051011193841.GO2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 11:48:17AM -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote: > Take cryonics, for example. > Most optimism there comes from people who know nothing of the details. I do know some of the details, and yet remain cautiously optimistic (cautiosly, as it needing a quantitative assessement of vitrification damage before a verdict is out either way). Ask the Society for Cryobiology, and they'll roast you alive on a slow fire (and it's even pure politics, individual folks dare not break out of the front lest they be excommunicated from the hallowed halls). > The more you know, the less optimistic you are. AI is another area > where, with a few exceptions, most of our more grandiose predictions come > from people who have never worked in the field. Drexlerian nanotech, > likewise, is mostly supported by software engineers (in fact when I > finally found Nanosystems in the bookstore, it was in the software > section). There's not a chemist in the world who believes in this stuff. Not quite correct. Machine-phase chemistry (albeit not under this name) papers are published in refereed journals. Is the reaction set library sufficiently powerful for self-replication? That, no one knows for certain, yet. Yet, as a chemist, I remain cautiously optimistic. The Drexler/Merkle/Freitas community has moved on to mapping the set abstraction/deposition reaction computationally. And it's the only thing you can do, given limited resources, and politics. > Why do these predictions fail? I will suggest that the fault is not in > us, it is in the world. Our predictions were reasonable. It was the > world that failed. The worse for the world, eh? Seriously, it is only a fool who takes those predictions seriously. You cannot predict a nonlinear system. The more precise the prediction, the more brittle. Negative predictions are easier. > I suspect that the world has changed, that it has fallen off the > exponential curve. The real shape is an S curve, the logistic curve Not all metrics follow the exponential, at all time. In fact, the real world can never follow an exponential for any meaningful periods, before the spacetime itself has to give (spacetime being quite resilient, it is usually the exponential that has to give in). > of yeast growth. It is hard to tell the two apart as you move through > the inflection point. We were using a reasonable methodology in making > predictions, but it assumed continued exponential or even hyperbolic We were completely unreasonable. We were smoking crack. We still do, in fact. That's okay, as long as we know what we're predicting is completely kaka. It's just entertainment, and spinning of scenarios. There's a niche in selling scenarios. This doesn't mean our insight is special in any way. Presuming anything else is utterly unreasonable, given our methods (rather, lack thereof), and the abysmal track record. > growth. That was in fact a fair reading of the history of humanity up > through the early 20th century. > > The world changed, and it did not continue to grow as fast as it > should have, as we predicted it would. Whether due to social friction, I disagree. Not from over here. The world is essentially the same, it is the irrational exhuberance that has diminished. (And good riddance). > diminishing returns, complicated economic limitations, or the presence > of whatever ideology you want to cast as a villain, technological and The ideology has zero to do with it. Not even societies' attitudes have shifted, merely the geographical focus. I notice a curious absence of the Asian input in our forum right here. > scientific progress has slowed. As a result, with a few exceptions the > world of today is not much different from the world of decades past. The world of yesterday used to be not much different than kiloyears past. Thankfully, the bad old times are past. > Who could have predicted that, after centuries of accelerating change? You *are* kidding, aren't you? > I don't think anyone could reasonably do so, certainly not from the > outside view. If anything, I suspect that inside-view analysis would > have been more likely to anticipate the change, by looking at details > of what the prospects would be for growth in different areas. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Oct 11 21:01:52 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:01:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. In-Reply-To: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc> References: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <22360fa10510111401v2b6fd0d9s122132be28cef85f@mail.gmail.com> Why should politics be limited to issues of scarcity? Of course, all actions are considered and taken within a context of constraints such as time, energy, materials, knowledge, but I don't think you meant such constraints when you specified scarcity. Isn't it appropriately called political action when working together to promote development toward increasing abundance...even after basic needs have been met within a given context? [please, no red-herrings about how much of the world is lacking in the basics. True, but a different argument.] I understand the 20th century perception of politics typically having to do with power, authority, government, and sure, competition for scarce resources--all zero-sum views--but can't we see beyond to a more general concept encompassing the current popular understanding but accomodating--or rather, encouraging--positive-sum growth? I suspect that the seeds of an effective politics for the 21st century involves implementing principles of effective interaction to achieve growth (of what works over increasing scope, relative to human goals of increasing scope) given any baseline of relative scarcity or abundance. Yesterday I suggest a definition of politics as social decision-making applied to groups, expecially with respect to methods of influence within those processes. Comments? - Jef On 10/11/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > A couple of people posted me off list asking what I thought politics was. > I wrote. > ------ > I think politics is behaviour that arises when there is a recognition > that some mutually desired resource is scarce. > > Its fundamental. Only social creatures that recognize other social > creatures are potentially aspiring for the same scarce resource > will practice politics. > > Fundamentally, to understand human politics we have to understand > that humans are social creatures that perceive a shortage of resources. > > The recognition of resource scarcity results in competitive behaviour > that can include cooperating with some others to better compete for > scarce resources. > > There's more, but I think that is it in a nut shell. > ----- > This is no great working definition, its just my seat of the pants sense. > > 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: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 21:15:34 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:15:34 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. In-Reply-To: <22360fa10510111401v2b6fd0d9s122132be28cef85f@mail.gmail.com> References: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc> <22360fa10510111401v2b6fd0d9s122132be28cef85f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, Jef Allbright wrote: > > Why should politics be limited to issues of scarcity? > > Of course, all actions are considered and taken within a context of > constraints such as time, energy, materials, knowledge, but I don't think > you meant such constraints when you specified scarcity. > > Isn't it appropriately called political action when working together to > promote development toward increasing abundance...even after basic needs > have been met within a given context? [please, no red-herrings about how > much of the world is lacking in the basics. True, but a different argument.] > > I understand the 20th century perception of politics typically having to > do with power, authority, government, and sure, competition for scarce > resources--all zero-sum views--but can't we see beyond to a more general > concept encompassing the current popular understanding but accomodating--or > rather, encouraging--positive-sum growth? > > I suspect that the seeds of an effective politics for the 21st century > involves implementing principles of effective interaction to achieve growth > (of what works over increasing scope, relative to human goals of increasing > scope) given any baseline of relative scarcity or abundance. > > Yesterday I suggest a definition of politics as social decision-making > applied to groups, expecially with respect to methods of influence within > those processes. > > Comments? > Politics arises from a conflict of interests, perceptions, opinions, data etc Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 21:20:28 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:20:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. In-Reply-To: <470a3c520510111041q6b30dae2qfac507bb56e66f48@mail.gmail.com> References: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc> <470a3c520510111041q6b30dae2qfac507bb56e66f48@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510111420y2539381dgf9c5b5656b43a099@mail.gmail.com> On 10/11/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > I think Brett gives a good definition of what politics *should be*. > If a resource that everyone needs is scarce we can either shoot each > other or trying to find a mutually acceptable agreement. This is > called politics. > Unfortunately in the real world things that have nothing to do with > resource allocation becomes a part of the political debate. Take gay > marriage for example - two adults of the same sex who want to get > married do not take anything out of my pocket, or in general do not > take any resource away from me, so I do not think such things should > be part of politics. > But they take a resource away from the government, and the resource they take away is the one that must always necessarily be scarce: _power_. Any decision about how you live your life, if it is taken by you, therefore cannot be taken by the government; so from their viewpoint, any increase of freedom takes away the one resource they value above all others. (Not that every last individual in the government is obsessed with power above all else, but government as an institution necessarily tends to behave as though it thought that way.) This matters because, while our competitive instincts evolved in a time when material resources were scarce, that time has passed; power, that which all social species use as a token for material resources, is now the main thing fought over for its own sake. The distinction makes a difference: remember the Falklands war, when observers were arguing about whether the islands' material resources were worth fighting over, failing to realize that both governments had already agreed to give those up? Sovereignty was the one non-negotiable issue they had to go to war over. When entering a conflict, it's important to know what you're fighting for. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Oct 11 21:34:34 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:34:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> References: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011172705.02fd6ef8@mail.gmu.edu> At 02:48 PM 10/11/2005, Hal Finney wrote: > > The application to our forecasts about the future should be obvious: > > Do we overestimate technical change because we tend to take an inside > > view, imagining the particular process that produces some innovation, > > instead of an outside view, looking at how long similar innovations have > > taken in the past? > >I am inclined to think that this is not the reason. I may not fully >understand this distinction, but it sounds like the "inside view" is based >on analysis from a position of some expertise and detailed knowledge of >the problem domain. Scenarios and extrapolations are constructed based >on this detailed knowledge. That is not how I read the distinction. It seems to me more about imagining a story about the process. So people basing their forecasts on science fiction novels would count as an inside view. But I won't know for sure until I can read the paper. >I suspect that the world has changed, that it has fallen off the >exponential curve. The real shape is an S curve, the logistic curve >of yeast growth. It is hard to tell the two apart as you move through >the inflection point. We were using a reasonable methodology in making >predictions, but it assumed continued exponential or even hyperbolic >growth. That was in fact a fair reading of the history of humanity up >through the early 20th century. ... >Who could have predicted that, after centuries of accelerating change? It seems to me that change has not really accelerated in the twentieth century. In many ways change was faster in the first half of last century. There is an academic literature on economic growth and technical change and it seems to me that the standard views in those literatures is of roughly steady, not accelerating, growth. Yes, over billions of years change has accelerated, but not continuously. Instead, growth rates have remained steady until they reached transition points where they then jumped by two orders of magnitude (http://hanson.gmu.edu/longgrow.pdf). Another big transition may well happen this century, to a much faster growth rate. But until that transition I expect steady growth to continue. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Oct 11 21:36:54 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:36:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <20051011190029.10223.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011115841.03002fc0@mail.gmu.edu> <20051011190029.10223.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011173517.02f58a70@mail.gmu.edu> At 03:00 PM 10/11/2005, Adrian Tymes wrote: >It has frequently been observed that predictions overpromise in the >nearterm, and underpromise in the long term. I've heard this claim made too, but I wonder: has anyone ever systematically collected evidence to test this claim? Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 21:48:14 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo was The Amazing Cellular Repair device In-Reply-To: <20051011093733.GQ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20051011214814.12126.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Yes. But my take on cryogenics is not to freeze > people > > It's cryonics. > Cryogenics is something different. I don't like the term cryonics. Whatever the "truth" of the matter may be, that word has a bad reputation in mainstream scientific circles. Since I am a in mainstream science, I prefer to use a different label that has less of a stigma. No offense to anyone intended, but words carry political baggage. > > No can do, save of a time-freeze spell. Given that > our current knowledge of physics doesn't even give a > hint how that could be possible, your next best bet > is > a modern cryopreservation method. > > These are actually quite good, and can't be (much) > improved upon -- especially if you're aiming for > structural preservation, and not viability (which > is a somewhat different, and harsher metric). That's my point. I am aiming at viability, a harsher metric yes, but the only one I would pay for. Mechanists might disagree with me but I am a vitalist. Structure without the spark is a corpse. Chemically equivalent to the living, but not alive. > > Have you ever worked with H2S? Not in the lab, but I have eggs go bad on me. That sulfer smell of rotten eggs is H2S. Many bacteria release it as a waste product. > > http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&hs=50u&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=scholart&q=H2S+toxicity+humans > > You don't want to gas a primate with H2S, oh no. > This is worse than using cyanide. According to table 1 of the toxicology article that was one of the first hits in the google search link you sent me available at this URL: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.pa.32.040192.000545;jsessionid=iUq1MikKgRGg According to this toxicology article by Reiffenstein et al. , 50-100 ppm of H2S (the concentration used by Blackstone et al. was 80 ppm) results in "irritation of the respiratory tract" whereas 500-1000 ppm results in unconsiousness, neural paralysis, and death. I would *personally* take my chances with 80 ppm. > Don't try this with people. What would happened with > your mice after 6 days? 60 days? 6 years? I don't know. I hope Blackstone and his colleagues try it out at colder temps and longer times. They aren't my mice, I wish they were. > I recommend you to hit Medline for hypothermia and > chilling injury. They wouldn't have aged much, > because > they would have been dead pretty soon. I am pretty familiar with hypothermia. It has actually been purposely induced in patients undergoing open heart surgery, to slow down ischemic damage to the brain and other organs. The trick is to warm them up slowly, preferably from the inside out. > > > freezing damage, yet there is almost no metabolism > > "almost no metabolism" doesn't mean your biology is > frozen in a glass matrix. Your mice continue to > unravel > at nanoscale, albeit somewhat slowed. > Quite soon > your cross the point of no return by which the > system > can resume with own power, and your rodent is gone > for good. I think that if 1% BMR can be achieved, than it would be transhumanism's ticket to SENS. Go to sleep, a hundred years go by in the outside world, you age 1 year, wake up and bingo, they have a cure for what ails you, possibly even old-age. Then again, you might wake up to find that medicine has been banned and you have a bunch luddites praying for your soul. It would still be a gamble. > > With vitrification, no damage occurs beyond of the > original caused during the suspension. And it quite > easy to measure what that damage is, and to gauge > how much of it is irreversible information erasure, > and which can be transformed back at structure > descriptor > level. We don't even have a structure descriptor for memory let alone consciousness in humans. If 20 years from now, we find out that consciousness is all volatile RAM, it aint gonna do much good for all the frozen heads. > No way. Hey, nobody is twisting your arm to be a believer. All I am saying is that *I* would sign up for this and that *I* would invest what chump change I can scrape together in a company that does this. They're rationale and mouse demonstration has me sold. Especially if someone else can verify. *You* are free to do what *you* want. > It would be a rather stupid idea to warm up a > vitrified > critter. You'd get orders of magnitude more damage > than > during the suspension. We've been through this > before, > multiple times, in fact. > > It might be sufficiently low to allow > retransplantation > of healthy organs with a survival rate high enough > to > be practical, but you don't want to have this happen > to > the whole human primate. Trust me. If preserving my structure is all that mattered, why not just fossilize myself in epoxy like a bug in amber? That way my relatives can use me as a doorstop or something else useful. Why bother to have a hard to maintain cryonics facility keep me at liquid N2 temp if there is no intention of ever thawing me out? > I wish a had a subscription. Does anyone have > institutional > access to Cryobiology? I do. Send me a reasonably short wish list of articles and I can help you out. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 21:49:29 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:49:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] energy from osmosis In-Reply-To: <20051002231109.93604.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051011214929.84264.qmail@web60011.mail.yahoo.com> This is fun! Thanks, Spike. In his original post Spike tells us that the pipe must go down approx 9600 meters for the fresh water to come up and out the fresh water pipe at an elevation above that of the source sea level. Then he rightly adds that the pipe need not be vertical. With this we gain the concept of horizontal travel for the outlet stream. Let me than add that there are various land locations on the planet that are at elevations significantly below sea level: Dead Sea: -411m Lake Assal, Djibouti: ?156 m Turfan, China: -154m Death Valley, Calif.: ?86 m Valdes Peninsula, Argentina: ?40 m The Qattara Depression contains the second lowest point in Africa, is approximately 15,000 square km and is largely below sea level: lowest point: -133 m So how about a calculation for the pipe depths necessary to bring up fresh water to these lower elevations? ************************** Also, regarding schemes of this sort, osmotic differential is by no means the only opportunity for exploitation: Mediterranean-Qattara solar-hydro and pumped-storage development http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80858e/80858E0a.htm Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 21:55:08 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:55:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011173517.02f58a70@mail.gmu.edu> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011115841.03002fc0@mail.gmu.edu> <20051011190029.10223.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011173517.02f58a70@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510111455q2173c21bi8c5b95cdcd2813b7@mail.gmail.com> On 10/11/05, Robin Hanson wrote: > > At 03:00 PM 10/11/2005, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >It has frequently been observed that predictions overpromise in the > >nearterm, and underpromise in the long term. > > I've heard this claim made too, but I wonder: has anyone ever > systematically collected evidence to test this claim? > In particular, it's usually justified by saying people predict linearly rather than exponentially, but Malthus was the last author I've heard of to meet that description; every prediction I've read that has growth continuing at all, has taken exponential growth as a conservative baseline (sometimes accurate), and often then added shortenings of doubling time, asymptotic growth etc (thus far always inaccurate). I'd be interested in counterexamples. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Oct 11 23:12:05 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 09:12:05 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. References: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc> <22360fa10510111401v2b6fd0d9s122132be28cef85f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0fb601c5ceb9$324484b0$8998e03c@homepc> Jef Allbright wrote: > Why should politics be limited to issues of scarcity? Because we are built of biological stuff. Selfish genes that wanted to replicate. > Of course, all actions are considered and taken within a > context of constraints such as time, energy, materials, > knowledge, but I don't think you meant such constraints > when you specified scarcity. Yes I did. To mortals time matters. Humans are mortals. If one wants the assistance or attention of others to pursue ones needs/wants/desires one usually has to compete for it because the others that can help are mortal too. Their attention and concentration of others is itself a limited resource. We humans can't do much on our own and we have evolved to be social and to try to do what we can to get copies of our own genes into the next generation. You would have heard of lobbyists talking of "access" to politicians. And of donations to political parties buying "access". The media clamours for the attention of consumers. Because the things that consumers attend to they might buy and those they don't they won't. The transhumanist themes weren't opposed by governments they were crowded off the agenda recently by things like wars, terrorism, disasters. But the point the very attention of others is limited. Memes have to struggle for mindspace. > Isn't it appropriately called political action when working > together to promote development toward increasing > abundance...even after basic needs have been met within > a given context? [please, no red-herrings about how much > of the world is lacking in the basics. True, but a different > argument.] Maybe. The words are too general for me to say. > I understand the 20th century perception of politics typically > having to do with power, authority, government, and sure, > competition for scarce resources--all zero-sum views--but > can't we see beyond to a more general concept encompassing > the current popular understanding but accomodating--or rather, > encouraging--positive-sum growth? I once thought that transhumanisms great offering and political promise might have been something along the lines of a bold offering to the haves (and have nots) of something they didn't have. More time. The attention grabber for transhumanists and the way to influence for transhumanist thinkers was the vision that offered something. Immortality was what it was offering. That was the bold product. That product has been offered before but not credibly. By coupling the product with technology transhumanism might have managed to offer it credibly. > I suspect that the seeds of an effective politics for the 21st > century involves implementing principles of effective interaction > to achieve growth (of what works over increasing scope, relative > to human goals of increasing scope) given any baseline of relative > scarcity or abundance. I don't understand what you mean. > Yesterday I suggest a definition of politics as social decision-making > applied to groups, expecially with respect to methods of influence > within those processes. > > Comments? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. One of Natasha's posts explored the idea of building new media. New communications channels. To the extent that those new media can be built and can gain a share of public attention or the attention of influential people or build a new form of power then of course they would be politically effective. Brett Paatsch From sentience at pobox.com Wed Oct 12 00:23:33 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:23:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011172705.02fd6ef8@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011172705.02fd6ef8@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <434C5785.7030309@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 02:48 PM 10/11/2005, Hal Finney wrote: > >>> The application to our forecasts about the future should be >>> obvious: Do we overestimate technical change because we tend to >>> take an inside view, imagining the particular process that >>> produces some innovation, instead of an outside view, looking at >>> how long similar innovations have >>> taken in the past? >> >> I am inclined to think that this is not the reason. I may not >> fully understand this distinction, but it sounds like the "inside >> view" is based on analysis from a position of some expertise and >> detailed knowledge of the problem domain. Scenarios and >> extrapolations are constructed based on this detailed knowledge. > > That is not how I read the distinction. It seems to me more about > imagining a story about the process. So people basing their > forecasts on science fiction novels would count as an inside view. > But I won't know for sure until I can read the paper. I've read the paper and this is correct. The inside view is based on telling stories about the process. The outside view is based on stupidly using the mere statistical base rate, without any attempt whatsoever to "adjust" for the "special features" of the case. Needless to say, the outside view works far better. Here's one story from my notes on "Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts": Kahneman was part of a team working out a high school heuristics-and-biases curriculum for students in Israel. Kahneman asked everyone present to indicate on a slip of paper how many months they thought it would take before the project was finished - resulting range, 18 to 30 months. Kahneman then turns to an expert in curriculum development and asks, of projects that already got this far, how long did it take them to finish? The expert replies that only 40% ever did finish, and of the rest, it took no less than seven years, nor more than ten. Everyone sitting at the table knew about heuristics and biases, so they looked at each other with pale faces - they couldn't just reject the outside view out of hand, as most people would, though seven to ten years was entirely unacceptable. But they didn't want to just cancel the project. So the project struggled on and eventually concluded eight years later. Moral 1: The outside view always wins. Moral 2: It requires domain expertise to take an "outside" view; you need a pool of similar cases. Moral 3: If no statistics are available because you're trying to predict an event that is substantially novel relative to previous ones, you can bloody well forget about making quantitative predictions. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Oct 12 00:56:16 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:56:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <434C5785.7030309@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20051012005616.27877.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > Moral 1: The outside view always wins. But only so long as the outside view uses relevant data. Example: predicting personal computing, back in the '60s and early '70s. Citing a large and growing number of industrial computing users, each and every one requiring a support staff dedicated solely to keeping their computers up, industry leaders felt confident in predicting that computers small yet functional enough for a private citizen to use, without said support staff, would never come to be. I'm typing this on an example of that prediction's failure. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Oct 12 01:37:50 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:37:50 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo was The Amazing Cellular Repairdevice References: <20051011090338.32333.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <100e01c5cecd$8e9fc4e0$8998e03c@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > >> Whilst looking through my hardcopy files for the >> Fahy article on the feasibility of brain repair I found >> these diagrams on a "Merckle-Drexler scenario" for >> a "Nanotechnology derived Cell Repair Device". The >> source (which does contain the Fahy article, is an >> Alcor publication from 1993). > > I found the Fahy article (a Fahy article?) Fahy et > al., Cryobiology 2004. Will read it when I get a > chance. That's not the one I meant.. I've scanned the Fahy paper which he entitled (A "Realistic" scenario for Repair) and put the pages on a web site. This is an inelegant way (but quick for me way) of providing them to you but it might be an easy way for you to see if you care enough to read further. http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/_Fahy%20Disclaimer.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/1.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/2.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/3.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/4.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/5.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/6.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/7.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/8.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/9.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/10.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/11.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/12.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/13.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/14.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/15.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/16.jpg http://www.entrepitec.com.au/images/17.jpg > Yes. But my take on cryogenics is not to freeze people > and to repair the damage later but figure out a way to > put them in suspended animation without damaging them > in the first place. It might not even require lowering > their temperature to 0 Celsius. That won't help folks that are going to die in the next 10 or so years, which is what I thought you said you were interested in. It's what a lot of them are interested in. Can cryonics work for them. Discussions about the technology might actually *reduce* their peace of mind. But what is true is true and what isn't isn't. Some people might prioritise their time differently and make different choices about where to spend their time and money if they think they are mortal and if they come to accept that as a bed rock reality. Perhaps its only when we have to face the total loss of self that we can think about what we want our finite lives to mean. Perhaps we will live more in the moments we have. > Are you familiar with > the work of Blackstone et al., Science 2005? No. > Here's the link, I assume you have an institutional > subscription: > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5721/518 Yes. Thanks. Brett Paatsch From sentience at pobox.com Wed Oct 12 02:03:09 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:03:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <20051012005616.27877.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051012005616.27877.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <434C6EDD.6000203@pobox.com> Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > >>Moral 1: The outside view always wins. > > But only so long as the outside view uses relevant data. > > Example: predicting personal computing, back in the '60s and early > '70s. Citing a large and growing number of industrial computing users, > each and every one requiring a support staff dedicated solely to > keeping their computers up, industry leaders felt confident in > predicting that computers small yet functional enough for a private > citizen to use, without said support staff, would never come to be. > I'm typing this on an example of that prediction's failure. Let me rephrase: The outside view always wins over the inside view. Naturally, predictions sometimes fail. It's what they do. Have you any evidence that, in the 60s, I could have done systematically better by accepting "inside views" of computing - stories told about how, in particular, computing power would grow - over outside views? It is not enough to find one inside view that turned out to be correct. That could be luck. If enough people make enough different guesses one of them is bound to be correct. Outside views fail when conditions change. The outside view does not tell you that computers ten years later will need a support staff, it tells you that, right now, you can do better by asking how much support staff are *actually* required to support similar computers, rather than drawing up a project diagram which shows that only three people should be required. As for the idea that you can figure out how much support computers will need ten years later, there is no evidence that this could be done with an inside view either. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Oct 12 02:15:14 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:15:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <434C5785.7030309@pobox.com> References: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011172705.02fd6ef8@mail.gmu.edu> <434C5785.7030309@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011220720.0305ee08@mail.gmu.edu> At 08:23 PM 10/11/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >>>>The application to our forecasts about the future should be >>>>obvious: Do we overestimate technical change because we tend to >>>>take an inside view, imagining the particular process that >>>>produces some innovation, instead of an outside view, looking at >>>>how long similar innovations have taken in the past? >>> >>>I am inclined to think that this is not the reason. I may not >>>fully understand this distinction, but it sounds like the "inside >>>view" is based on analysis from a position of some expertise and >>>detailed knowledge of the problem domain. Scenarios and >>>extrapolations are constructed based on this detailed knowledge. >>That is not how I read the distinction. It seems to me more about >>imagining a story about the process. So people basing their >>forecasts on science fiction novels would count as an inside >>view. But I won't know for sure until I can read the paper. > >I've read the paper and this is correct. The inside view is based >on telling stories about the process. The outside view is based on >stupidly using the mere statistical base rate, without any attempt >whatsoever to "adjust" for the "special features" of the case. I've now also read the paper and I agree. The paper says: >An inside view forecast is generated by focusing on the case at >hand, by considering the plan and the obstacles to its completion, >by constructing scenarios of future progress, and by extrapolating >current trends. The outside view ... ignores the details of the case >at hand, and involves no attempt at detailed forecasting of the >future history of the project. Instead, it focuses on the statistics >of a class of cases chosen to be similar in relevant respects to the >present one. ... An inside view forecast draws on knowledge of the >specifics of the case, the details of the plan that exists, some >ideas about likely obstacles and how they might be overcome. In an >extreme form, the inside view involves an attempt to sketch a >representative scenario that captures the essential elements of the >history of the future. In contrast, the outside view is essentially >statistical and comparative, and involves no attempt to divine >future history at any level of detail. It still seems to me that this group tends to base its forecasts a bit too much on constructing scenarios, and a bit too little on statistics about similar past situations. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From sentience at pobox.com Wed Oct 12 03:06:51 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:06:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011220720.0305ee08@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011172705.02fd6ef8@mail.gmu.edu> <434C5785.7030309@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011220720.0305ee08@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <434C7DCB.6010100@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > > It still seems to me that this group tends to base its forecasts a bit > too much on constructing scenarios, and a bit too little on statistics > about similar past situations. It seems to me that there are *no* past situations similar enough to permit an outside view. For an outside view to work, you need data that verges on i.i.d. - independent and identically distributed. *Analogies* to past situations are not outside views, and they tend to be chosen after the analogizer has already decided what the results ought to be. There *is* no outside view of when AI will arrive. Anyone who tries to pin a quantitative prediction on the date is just... plain... screwed. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From alito at organicrobot.com Wed Oct 12 03:44:47 2005 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:44:47 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011172705.02fd6ef8@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011172705.02fd6ef8@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <1129088688.16556.90.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 17:34 -0400, Robin Hanson wrote: > It seems to me that change has not really accelerated in the twentieth > century. In many ways change was faster in the first half of last century. > There is an academic literature on economic growth and technical change and > it seems to me that the standard views in those literatures is of roughly > steady, not accelerating, growth. Yes, over billions of years change has > accelerated, but not continuously. Instead, growth rates have remained > steady until they reached transition points where they then jumped by two > orders of magnitude (http://hanson.gmu.edu/longgrow.pdf). > I don't see that big a discrepancy. "Steady" growth is exponential growth, so the whackos predict as much change in the next 15 years as in the whole of the last century, and the boring conservatives predict as much GDP increase in the next 15 years (from your pdf) as in the whole human history. From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Oct 12 03:36:52 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:36:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <434C7DCB.6010100@pobox.com> References: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011172705.02fd6ef8@mail.gmu.edu> <434C5785.7030309@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011220720.0305ee08@mail.gmu.edu> <434C7DCB.6010100@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011232458.02ee6a00@mail.gmu.edu> At 11:06 PM 10/11/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >Robin Hanson wrote: >>It still seems to me that this group tends to base its forecasts a >>bit too much on constructing scenarios, and a bit too little on >>statistics about similar past situations. > >It seems to me that there are *no* past situations similar enough to >permit an outside view. For an outside view to work, you need data >that verges on i.i.d. - independent and identically >distributed. *Analogies* to past situations are not outside views, >and they tend to be chosen after the analogizer has already decided >what the results ought to be. There *is* no outside view of when AI >will arrive. Anyone who tries to pin a quantitative prediction on >the date is just... plain... screwed. The article says nothing about needing data verging on i.i.d., and for good reason. There are lots of ways to make useful comparisons with other cases without needing such a strong constraint. Yes of course there are ways to be biased with outside views, just as if one works hard enough one can bias any analysis. But that doesn't mean such analysis isn't useful, or better than alternative ways to analyze. Consider the class of situations in which someone predicted an event that they said was so different from existing events that nothing else was similar to it. We could collect data on this and look at what fraction of the time the predicted event actually happened, and how far into the future it did happen if it did. Even if we had no other info about the event, that would give a useful estimate of the chance of it happening and when. Of course we could also look at other characteristics of such predictions and do a multiple regression to take all of the characteristics into account together. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 12 04:30:06 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:30:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] crockumentary: the future of food In-Reply-To: <1c45691041ed8d199f71e13f20857daf@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <200510120430.j9C4UBe23871@tick.javien.com> Anti-Biotech Film a 'Crockumentary' Thursday, October 06, 2005 By Steven Milloy .Anti-Biotech Film a 'Crockumentary' The biotech scare is back - or, at least, a new movie is trying to bring it back. Playing in small movie houses, "The Future of Food" dusts off, and presents in ominous fashion, all the Greens' long-discredited arguments against agricultural biotechnology. Produced by Deborah Koons Garcia, the widow of the Grateful Dead's Jerry Garcia, the movie's overriding themes are allegations that biotech crops and food are unsafe and that a government-industry cabal is foisting dangerous products on an unwitting public. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Biotech crops and foods are among the most thoroughly tested products available. No other food crops in history have been so thoroughly tested and regulated. Before biotech products are marketed, they undergo years of safety testing including thousands of tests for potential toxicity, allergenicity and effects on non-target insects and the environment. "The Future of Food," for example, dredges up the 2000 scare involving a biotech corn that had not yet been approved for human consumption but that was detected in Taco Bell taco shells. A few consumers, egged on by anti-biotech activists, alleged the corn caused allergic reactions. But the movie glossed over the fact that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tested those consumers and reported there was no evidence that the biotech corn caused any allergic reaction in anyone. Another long-buried myth excavated by Garcia was that biotechnology harms biodiversity. But so far it doesn't appear to represent any greater risk to biodiversity than conventional agriculture and it actually seems to have some demonstrable beneficial impacts on biodiversity. An infamous biodiversity scare featured in the movie involved Monarch butterflies. The scare occurred during 1999-2000 when the media trumpeted alarmist results from two laboratory studies reporting that biotech corn might harm Monarch butterfly larvae. Subsequent field studies soon debunked the scare, reporting that Monarch larvae actually fared better inside biotech cornfields than in natural areas because of less pressure from predators. Needless to say, Monarchs in biotech cornfields also did much better than those in conventional cornfields sprayed with insecticides. The movie claims that once biotech crops are planted, control over them is lost and they "contaminate" non-biotech or organic crops. This is misleading since 100 percent purity has never been the reality in agriculture. Biological systems are dynamic environments, meaning that regardless of the method of production -- conventional, organic or biotech -- trace levels of other materials are always present in seed and grain. Since all commercial biotech traits are fully approved by U.S. regulatory agencies, their presence -- in large amounts or trace amounts -- is fully legal and safe. With respect to organic farmers, the Department of Agriculture's rules for organic products specifically say that the certification of organic products is process-based -- meaning that if the proper processes are followed, the unintended presence of non-organic or biotech traits doesn't disqualify the product from being labeled as "organic." To date, biotech crops haven't harmed organic farmers. The coexistence of biotech, conventional and organic corn, soybean, and canola has been effectively working since 1995, when the first biotech crops were introduced. During that period, in fact, both biotech and organic farming have grown remarkably. Garcia wants movie viewers to overlook the fact that U.S. regulators -- including the Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration -- have established a robust framework and rigorous process for evaluating biotech product safety. Developers spend years generating data for one product to be submitted for approval. A major take-home message of the movie is that consumers should demand labeling of biotech foods. But this would only increase the cost of food production while failing to provide any meaningful information to consumers. Biotech crops have been determined by regulators to be essentially equivalent to those of conventional crops. Corn is corn, in other words, no matter what anti-biotech activists would have us believe. While emphasizing "scare," the movie overlooks biotechnology's advantages. Biotech crops require less tilling. This reduces soil erosion; improves moisture retention; increases populations of soil microorganisms, earthworms and beneficial insects; and reduces sediment runoff into streams. The movie mocks biotechnology's potential value to the developing world, characterizing the argument as one designed for public relations use. But biotech crops such as "golden rice" could help with the severe Vitamin A deficiency that afflicts hundreds of millions in Africa and Asia, - including 500,000 children who lose their eyesight each year. As pointed out by Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, now a vociferous critic of the activist group, "Greenpeace activists threaten to rip the biotech rice out of the fields if farmers dare to plant it. They have done everything they can to discredit the scientists and the technology. "A commercial variety is now available for planting, but it will be at least five years before Golden Rice will be able to work its way through the Byzantine regulatory system that has been set up as a result of the activists' campaign of misinformation and speculation," Moore said. "So the risk of not allowing farmers in Africa and Asia to grow Golden Rice is that another 2.5 million children will probably go blind." Garcia's "The Future of Food" is steeped in the Greens' tragic campaign of misinformation. Many long-time anti-biotech campaigners helped her make the movie, in which not a balancing thought or counter-opinion is presented. The "Future of Food" purports to be a "documentary" - a movie that sticks to the facts. It doesn't. Hollywood will need a new Oscar category for this one. How about "crockumentary"? From d.assange at ugrad.unimelb.edu.au Wed Oct 12 08:58:09 2005 From: d.assange at ugrad.unimelb.edu.au (Daniel Assange) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:58:09 +1000 (AEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] crockumentary: the future of food In-Reply-To: <200510120430.j9C4UBe23871@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: This is a prime example of how the media can retard scientific progress. I think the main problem here is buzzwords. The common person sees "genetically modified" or "biotech" organisms as somehow sharing some common property that sets them apart from your average artificially selected creature. The focus needs to be moved from ridiculous generalisations about "biotech food" to individual scenarios; then we might be able to get somewhere. Even the supporters often make the mistake of talking about genetic modification in general. There is no `in general'. A biotech cat would share no property in common with the aforementioned corn plant. The only situation in which such a generalisation might make sense would be a moral one- however that belongs to the realm of the evil `ethics committees', which should be abolished anyhow. -- Daniel Assange "The way to enlightenment is not to admit that you know nothing, but to admit that you can never know enough." On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, spike wrote: > > > > Anti-Biotech Film a 'Crockumentary' > Thursday, October 06, 2005 > By Steven Milloy > > .Anti-Biotech Film a 'Crockumentary' > > The biotech scare is back - or, at least, a new movie is trying to bring it > back. Playing in small movie houses, "The Future of Food" dusts off, and > presents in ominous fashion, all the Greens' long-discredited arguments > against agricultural biotechnology. > > Produced by Deborah Koons Garcia, the widow of the Grateful Dead's Jerry > Garcia, the movie's overriding themes are allegations that biotech crops and > food are unsafe and that a government-industry cabal is foisting dangerous > products on an unwitting public. > > Nothing could be farther from the truth. > > Biotech crops and foods are among the most thoroughly tested products > available. No other food crops in history have been so thoroughly tested and > regulated. Before biotech products are marketed, they undergo years of > safety testing including thousands of tests for potential toxicity, > allergenicity and effects on non-target insects and the environment. > > "The Future of Food," for example, dredges up the 2000 scare involving a > biotech corn that had not yet been approved for human consumption but that > was detected in Taco Bell taco shells. A few consumers, egged on by > anti-biotech activists, alleged the corn caused allergic reactions. But the > movie glossed over the fact that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and > Prevention tested those consumers and reported there was no evidence that > the biotech corn caused any allergic reaction in anyone. > > Another long-buried myth excavated by Garcia was that biotechnology harms > biodiversity. But so far it doesn't appear to represent any greater risk to > biodiversity than conventional agriculture and it actually seems to have > some demonstrable beneficial impacts on biodiversity. > > An infamous biodiversity scare featured in the movie involved Monarch > butterflies. The scare occurred during 1999-2000 when the media trumpeted > alarmist results from two laboratory studies reporting that biotech corn > might harm Monarch butterfly larvae. Subsequent field studies soon debunked > the scare, reporting that Monarch larvae actually fared better inside > biotech cornfields than in natural areas because of less pressure from > predators. Needless to say, Monarchs in biotech cornfields also did much > better than those in conventional cornfields sprayed with insecticides. > > The movie claims that once biotech crops are planted, control over them is > lost and they "contaminate" non-biotech or organic crops. This is misleading > since 100 percent purity has never been the reality in agriculture. > Biological systems are dynamic environments, meaning that regardless of the > method of production -- conventional, organic or biotech -- trace levels of > other materials are always present in seed and grain. Since all commercial > biotech traits are fully approved by U.S. regulatory agencies, their > presence -- in large amounts or trace amounts -- is fully legal and safe. > > With respect to organic farmers, the Department of Agriculture's rules for > organic products specifically say that the certification of organic products > is process-based -- meaning that if the proper processes are followed, the > unintended presence of non-organic or biotech traits doesn't disqualify the > product from being labeled as "organic." > > To date, biotech crops haven't harmed organic farmers. The coexistence of > biotech, conventional and organic corn, soybean, and canola has been > effectively working since 1995, when the first biotech crops were > introduced. During that period, in fact, both biotech and organic farming > have grown remarkably. > > Garcia wants movie viewers to overlook the fact that U.S. regulators -- > including the Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency and > the Food and Drug Administration -- have established a robust framework and > rigorous process for evaluating biotech product safety. Developers spend > years generating data for one product to be submitted for approval. > > A major take-home message of the movie is that consumers should demand > labeling of biotech foods. But this would only increase the cost of food > production while failing to provide any meaningful information to consumers. > Biotech crops have been determined by regulators to be essentially > equivalent to those of conventional crops. Corn is corn, in other words, no > matter what anti-biotech activists would have us believe. > > While emphasizing "scare," the movie overlooks biotechnology's advantages. > Biotech crops require less tilling. This reduces soil erosion; improves > moisture retention; increases populations of soil microorganisms, earthworms > and beneficial insects; and reduces sediment runoff into streams. > > The movie mocks biotechnology's potential value to the developing world, > characterizing the argument as one designed for public relations use. But > biotech crops such as "golden rice" could help with the severe Vitamin A > deficiency that afflicts hundreds of millions in Africa and Asia, - > including 500,000 children who lose their eyesight each year. > > As pointed out by Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, now a vociferous > critic of the activist group, "Greenpeace activists threaten to rip the > biotech rice out of the fields if farmers dare to plant it. They have done > everything they can to discredit the scientists and the technology. > > "A commercial variety is now available for planting, but it will be at least > five years before Golden Rice will be able to work its way through the > Byzantine regulatory system that has been set up as a result of the > activists' campaign of misinformation and speculation," Moore said. "So the > risk of not allowing farmers in Africa and Asia to grow Golden Rice is that > another 2.5 million children will probably go blind." > > Garcia's "The Future of Food" is steeped in the Greens' tragic campaign of > misinformation. Many long-time anti-biotech campaigners helped her make the > movie, in which not a balancing thought or counter-opinion is presented. > > The "Future of Food" purports to be a "documentary" - a movie that sticks to > the facts. It doesn't. Hollywood will need a new Oscar category for this > one. How about "crockumentary"? > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 12 09:59:01 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:59:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo was The Amazing Cellular Repair device In-Reply-To: <20051011214814.12126.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051011093733.GQ2249@leitl.org> <20051011214814.12126.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051012095901.GT2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 02:48:14PM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > I don't like the term cryonics. Whatever the "truth" > of the matter may be, that word has a bad reputation > in mainstream scientific circles. Since I am a in > mainstream science, I prefer to use a different label > that has less of a stigma. No offense to anyone > intended, but words carry political baggage. But cryogenics is already taken, and with a different meaning. Cryopreservation is neutral, and mainstream. Suspension is not yet tainted. Both are good alternatives. > That's my point. I am aiming at viability, a harsher > metric yes, but the only one I would pay for. Brain vitrification is assessed by viability. Current viability (cortical slices Na/K ratio) is however insufficient, if structural disruption on the neuron periphery is considerable. The problem with viability is that it is artificial metjric, because no one can afford to warm unprocessed tissue in the first place, because it's not going to last on animal scale. Organ scale, maybe. But notice that you still need to fix cryofractures for perfusion. This is not possible without extensive reprocessing. > Mechanists might disagree with me but I am a vitalist. > Structure without the spark is a corpse. Chemically > equivalent to the living, but not alive. I agree that if there are low-toxicity alternatives that we should be choosing those. Fortunately, the recent progress says that the current recipes are almost good enough for indefinitely viable renal implant. The brain is different, however. We might or might not soon get word on how well that is going. > Not in the lab, but I have eggs go bad on me. That > sulfer smell of rotten eggs is H2S. Many bacteria > release it as a waste product. I've worked with H2S. It's more toxic than HCN, and it's toxic *by the same route*. If you think irreversibly removing iron from Cytochrome C (among other things) is a good way to suspend, you're pretty isolated with that opinion. > According to this toxicology article by Reiffenstein > et al. , 50-100 ppm of H2S (the concentration used by > Blackstone et al. was 80 ppm) results in "irritation > of the respiratory tract" whereas 500-1000 ppm results > in unconsiousness, neural paralysis, and death. I > would *personally* take my chances with 80 ppm. We're talking to a chronic exposure to an agent which http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12767687&dopt=Abstract Toxicology. 2003 Jun 30;188(2-3):149-59. Related Articles, Links Cytotoxic mechanisms of hydrosulfide anion and cyanide anion in primary rat hepatocyte cultures. Thompson RW, Valentine HL, Valentine WM. Department of Pathology and Center in Molecular Toxicology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Rm 109 MCS Annex Bldg., 1401 21st Ave South, Nashville, TN 37232-2561, USA. Hydrogen sulfide and hydrogen cyanide are known to compromise mitochondrial respiration through inhibition of cytochrome c oxidase and this is generally considered to be their primary mechanism of toxicity. Experimental studies and the efficiency of current treatment protocols suggest that H(2)S may exert adverse physiological effects through additional mechanisms. To evaluate the role of alternative mechanisms in H(2)S toxicity, the relative contributions of electron transport inhibition, uncoupling of mitochondrial respiration, and opening of the mitochondrial permeability transition pore (MPTP) to hydrosulfide and cyanide anion cytotoxicity in primary hepatocyte cultures were examined. Supplementation of hepatocytes with the glycolytic substrate, fructose, rescued hepatocytes from cyanide anion induced toxicity, whereas fructose supplementation increased hydrosulfide anion toxicity suggesting that hydrosulfide anion may compromise glycolysis in hepatocytes. Although inhibitors of the MPTP opening were protective for hydrosulfide anion, they had no effect on cyanide anion toxicity, consistent with an involvement of the permeability transition pore in hydrosulfide anion toxicity but not cyanide anion toxicity. Exposure of isolated rat liver mitochondria to hydrosulfide did not result in large amplitude swelling suggesting that if H(2)S induces the permeability transition it does so indirectly through a mechanism requiring other cellular components. Hydrosulfide anion did not appear to be an uncoupler of mitochondrial respiration in hepatocytes based upon the inability of oligomycin and fructose to protect hepatocytes from hydrosulfide anion toxicity. These findings support mechanisms additional to inhibition of cytochrome c oxidase in hydrogen sulfide toxicity. Further investigations are required to assess the role of the permeability transition in H(2)S toxicity, determine whether similar affects occur in other cell types or in vivo and evaluate whether this may provide a basis for the design of more effective therapeutic measures for hydrogen sulfide intoxication. PMID: 12767687 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Rodents are not people. Check out Tvedt, B; Skyberg, K; Aaserud, O; et al. (1991b) Brain damage caused by hydrogen sulfide: a follow-up study of six patients. Am. J. Ind. Med. 20:91-101. > I don't know. I hope Blackstone and his colleagues try > it out at colder temps and longer times. They aren't > my mice, I wish they were. I'm glad I'm not your rodent ;p > I am pretty familiar with hypothermia. It has actually > been purposely induced in patients undergoing open > heart surgery, to slow down ischemic damage to the Mild hypothermia. This is a good thing. Severe hypothermia means accumulating additional damage while not even being able to homeostate existing structures, which deteriorate. Severe hypothermia is a good thing only in stabilizing patients heading for cryopreservation. I don't think anyone will ever recover a human primate from a day of severe hypothermia. Maybe a couple of days, tops. > I think that if 1% BMR can be achieved, than it would > be transhumanism's ticket to SENS. Go to sleep, a You age in your sleep. Hibernation causes damage of its own, though I'm not enough of a biologist to pull up a few references. > hundred years go by in the outside world, you age 1 > year, wake up and bingo, they have a cure for what > ails you, possibly even old-age. Then again, you might > wake up to find that medicine has been banned and you > have a bunch luddites praying for your soul. It would > still be a gamble. > > > > > With vitrification, no damage occurs beyond of the > > original caused during the suspension. And it quite > > easy to measure what that damage is, and to gauge > > how much of it is irreversible information erasure, > > and which can be transformed back at structure > > descriptor > > level. > > We don't even have a structure descriptor for memory I'm talking about ultrascale structure and below. > let alone consciousness in humans. If 20 years from > now, we find out that consciousness is all volatile > RAM, it aint gonna do much good for all the frozen > heads. We already know that flat EEG lacunes (even prolonged ones in medicated hypothermia) do not destroy the person, both in humans and animals. It is really the structure, not electrochemical activity of the structure, which is transient, and regenerated by the structure once it's reperfused and warmed up. > > > No way. > > Hey, nobody is twisting your arm to be a believer. All > I am saying is that *I* would sign up for this and > that *I* would invest what chump change I can scrape > together in a company that does this. They're > rationale and mouse demonstration has me sold. > Especially if someone else can verify. *You* are free > to do what *you* want. I might be mistaken. But I do not think H2S is going to work in primates, human or otherwise for the purpose intended (inducing hibernation). I would not invest in hibernation for the purpose of skipping centuries, anyway. It only buys you years, maybe a decade. It will not buy you even half a century. Now a decade might to matter towards our life's end, but right now it does not. > If preserving my structure is all that mattered, why > not just fossilize myself in epoxy like a bug in > amber? That way my relatives can use me as a doorstop Because preservation in amber isn't. Nor is plastination. Look at it in TEM and at molecular scale, and you see something which looks very bad. These things are like plastic dummies. They only look like a human as long as you don't look too close. Mummies look like people, too. So do statues. > or something else useful. Why bother to have a hard to > maintain cryonics facility keep me at liquid N2 temp > if there is no intention of ever thawing me out? Because your reconstruction does not require devitrification by thermal ascent, whether RF-heated or otherwise which does not require extensive reprocessing (such as integrating fractal heat exchanges into the bulk of vitrified tissue -- which is not something we can do within the next 50 years). It a major source of damage. > > I wish a had a subscription. Does anyone have > > institutional > > access to Cryobiology? > > I do. Send me a reasonably short wish list of articles > and I can help you out. Thanks lots. I will contact you offlist, but it might take time (work things are a bit crazy right now). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From max at maxmore.com Wed Oct 12 11:10:08 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:10:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011232458.02ee6a00@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011172705.02fd6ef8@mail.gmu.edu> <434C5785.7030309@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011220720.0305ee08@mail.gmu.edu> <434C7DCB.6010100@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011232458.02ee6a00@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051012060752.04ad5a10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Excellent discussion. Below is a commentary I wrote on a piece by Kahneman and a co-author, along with a piece of my own that drew on their work. Do go to the URLs if you want to read the actual articles, as well as find plenty of links to related work. Max Outside Looking In: Maximize Project Success Rates with Premortem Strategy by Max More, ManyWorlds, 04/09/2004 http://www.manyworlds.com/index2.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO490411554857 Why do highly intelligent and capable business leaders, backed by an army of talent and a flood of information, make so many extremely expensive mistakes? This article looks at the role of mental models in decision making and forecasting and suggests effective and efficient methods for improving. ?Premortem strategy? reverses the effects of incentives that typically bias thinking, encouraging project planners and forecasters to check their assumptions. The premortem strategy raises awareness of assumptions made and ignored while coming to a conclusion, making it far easier to give due attention to alternatives that might avoid a costly failure. This premortem method works especially well, argues Max More, when combined with what Lovallo and Kahneman have called ?the outside view?. Technically known as ?reference-class forecasting?, taking the outside view counters excessive optimism, being especially valuable when it comes to projects or initiatives that companies have never attempted before, whether entering a new market or implementing an unfamiliar process technology. Reference-class forecasting works by having you reevaluate your conclusion in the objective context of a class of similar projects, initiatives, or forecasts. The article concludes by noting intriguing parallels and complementarities of premortem strategy and the outside view with role playing as a forecasting tool and some uses of scenario planning. Despite Ed Harris? stirring words in Apollo 13, failure always is an option. Use these methods to minimize failure and to improve the odds of selecting the optimal choice. Delusions of Success: How Optimism Undermines Executives' Decisions by Dan Lovallo, Daniel Kahneman Harvard Business Review, published on 07/01/2003 http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO77031947495 If you strode into your office today, feeling especially eager and optimistic, this is just the article to deflate your balloon. According to authors Dan Lovallo and Nobel-Prize winner Daniel Kahneman, letting out some of the pressurized optimism will probably save you and your company much grief in the future. That?s an enormous simplification of the message of this excellent paper applying cognitive psychology to forecasting and strategic decision-making. In reality, you may not need to change your extremely can-do ways. Near the end of the article, Lovallo and Kahneman make a particularly useful point. The pervasive human tendency for over-optimism ? with all its costly consequences in business decisions ? can be highly beneficial when confined to the right places. To the extent that your company can cleanly separate functions and positions that involve or shape decision-making and those that promote or guide action, optimism can be left untouched in the latter but not the former. As the authors note, an optimistic CFO is a disaster waiting to happen, but optimism in a sales force or in some aspects of R&D should be healthy. Business writers and analysts have made us all well aware of the high rate of failure, disaster, and debacle when it comes to mergers and acquisitions, entering new markets, and large capital investment projects. Because we naturally adopt an ?inside view? of the situation and decision to be made, we nevertheless greatly overestimate our chances of success. Economists are no help; those not well versed in the dark arts of behavioral finance will only feed our optimism with academic cocaine that explains all those hugely costly mistakes as risky but rational decisions. Lovallo and Kahneman will have none of this exculpatory nonsense. They locate the problem in several factors: A combination of cognitive biases including attribution errors, anchoring and competitor neglect, along with organizational pressures including stretch goals, discouragement of ?disloyal? pessimism, and the pressure to present proposals in the best possible light in order to secure funding and support. All is not lost. Lovallo and Kahneman explain how taking ?the outside view? can counter endemic over-optimism. They show how to apply an outside perspective to planning and forecasting processes in five steps. This involves using an objective, external ?reference class? to correct your intuitive estimate. The research demonstrates that ?reference-class forecasting?, though ignoring the details of the current project, greatly improves realism and reliability. As we have suggested in ?Rationality: The Next Competitive Advantage?, mastering these cognitive and emotional aspects of business decision-making and realigning organizational culture and processes accordingly could become a prime competitive differentiator. _______________________________________________________ Max More, Ph.D. max at maxmore.com or more at extropy.org http://www.maxmore.com Strategic Philosopher Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org ________________________________________________________________ Director of Content Solutions, ManyWorlds Inc.: http://www.manyworlds.com --- Thought leadership in the innovation economy m.more at manyworlds.com _______________________________________________________ From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 11:47:09 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:47:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011220720.0305ee08@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011172705.02fd6ef8@mail.gmu.edu> <434C5785.7030309@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011220720.0305ee08@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: On 10/12/05, Robin Hanson wrote: > > > It still seems to me that this group tends to base its forecasts a > bit too much on constructing scenarios, and a bit too little on > statistics about similar past situations. > I don't think so, except in very specific predictions. The two key Transhumanist predictions, agreed by both insiders and outsiders is that computing power will continue along a steepening exponential curve for at least two more decades; and that the bio sciences are entering the steep part of exponential growth similar to computer tech circa 1975 (or thereabouts). General predictions can be drawn from both of these observations. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bradbury at aeiveos.com Wed Oct 12 13:42:03 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:42:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech becoming more "real"... Message-ID: >From Science: "A Reversible, Unidirectional Molecular Rotary Motor Driven by Chemical Energy", Fletcher, S.P. et al. "With the long-term goal of producing nanometer-scale machines, we describe here the unidirectional rotary motion of a synthetic molecular structure fueled by chemical conversions. The basis of the rotation is the movement of a phenyl rotor relative to a naphthyl stator about a single bond axle. The sense of rotation is governed by the choice of chemical reagents that power the motor through four chemically distinct stations. Within the stations, the rotor is held in place by structural features that limit the extent of the rotor's Brownian motion relative to the stator." Perhaps of note is that this is coming out of the Netherlands. Presumably not a country where there are gigabucks going into nanotechnology R&D. Suggests (to me) that a little cleverness can go a long way. Robert From bradbury at aeiveos.com Wed Oct 12 14:21:25 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 07:21:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Dirk Bruere wrote: > I don't think so, except in very specific predictions. > The two key Transhumanist predictions, agreed by both insiders and outsiders > is that computing power will continue along a steepening exponential curve > for at least two more decades; The "agreement" doesn't mean that they are right. You have about 4, maybe 5 generations left in terms of current processes (go read the ITRS/SEMATECH roadmap reports). Then things are going to have to shift significantly. So I would say you have a decade -- maybe 15 years. > and that the bio sciences are entering the > steep part of exponential growth similar to computer tech circa 1975 (or > thereabouts). Not "quite" so. Though semi-industry evolution has largely been one of a continual refinement of a basic process, bio-industry evolution has required significant invention of new methods for the significant advancements. The rates of advancement do not compare well. (One can be viewed as relatively continuous while the other is more discontinuous.) Robert From megao at sasktel.net Wed Oct 12 13:46:16 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:46:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] crockumentary: the future of food In-Reply-To: <200510120430.j9C4UBe23871@tick.javien.com> References: <200510120430.j9C4UBe23871@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <434D13A8.8040109@sasktel.net> Those of us following nutrigenomics do recognize that the potential exists in all foods for combinatorial or stand-alone modification of genetic expression. Normal, everyday foods upregulate normal genetic interactions. We are discovering some food components that go beyond the staus quo and as genetic marker screening becomes more cost effective gene activity will be more closely monitored as no doubt food like drug can effect genetic expression. Whether a roundup-ready soy protein can by itself turn of or on dangerous gene switch combinations is what the current anti-biotech-luddites have the predjudices towards. The thought of monitoring these potential changes from consumption of novel crops is valid. But in my opinion the more radical new food combinations have more value to watch than "new-protein configg'ed wheat". What we should be watching is the interaction between the commonly available foods and supplements both from a positive and negative aspect. When I make my chocolate/coffee/buffaloberry leaf/hemp bud/ fruit yogurt this morning I am combining it shortly after with amantadine, alpha-lioic acid, B-12, folic acid, multiple vitamin and mineral supplement, omega3 and 6 oils, lipitor, garlic, vitaminE, Conjugated linoleic acid, and ginseng and a cranberry-grape beverage. This all goes into a gut and addtionally is bioreacted by gut microbes. Then I have other goodies consumed at other times of the day. And of course when I go to the city some custom smorg food combinations. Add to that an occaisional one of those vitamin/stimulant blend energy drinks and you have The chances are far higher that I am switching novel gene combinations on and off than the guy eating a GMO soyburger. Medicine should be tagging us with chip based microarrays and attempting to analyse this as out of the nutrigenomic soup may come some unique nutritional do's and don'ts. It is from this aspect that I think the anti-biotech food people are doing some marginal good .... in suggesting that they believe that what you eat does make you different from your neighbour. >Anti-Biotech Film a 'Crockumentary' >Thursday, October 06, 2005 >By Steven Milloy > >.Anti-Biotech Film a 'Crockumentary' > > From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 14:43:07 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:43:07 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism in Spanish media Message-ID: <470a3c520510120743o796018b5x3cb8bfbd32200b46@mail.gmail.com> Last week I chaired a Transhumanist panel in a mainstream science policy conference in Madrid, with Nick Bostrom, Adolfo Castilla, Jos? Cordeiro, James Hughes and Philippe van Nedervelde. The first press report has been the article of Eduardo Martinez on Tendencias Cientificas. Eduardo quotes the conference closing address and says that in the US the enhancement of the human species, with all the challenges it presents, is accepted as possible and desirable, while Europe has a more careful approach: Sin embargo, en el congreso qued? de manifiesto la diferente concepci?n del desarrollo tecnol?gico que existe entre Europa y Estados Unidos, tema recurrente de las dos mesas redondas dedicadas a la convergencia tecnol?gica del Siglo XXI: NBIC. Al otro lado del Atl?ntico se acepta como posible y deseable la mejora de la especie humana con todos los desaf?os que ello implica. En Europa el redise?o de la especie es contemplado con m?s recelos y los horizontes tecnol?gicos asumidos son m?s lineales. This reflects the "cowboys ws. bureaucrats" metaphor used at the conference to describe the difference between the US and European approaches to NBIC, but unfortunately we know that the "desirable" part is not yet accepted in the US. La Vanguardia, one of the most popular Spanish newspapers, has an article on transhumanism titled "Cyborgs and Immortals - technology advances will enable an evolutionary leap of the human species" [the previous link requires registration, you can also read the article on the WTA site ]. The article mentions arguments both in favor and against transhumanism, but is fundamentally positive. Covers life extension, cryonics, mind uploading, Fukuyama's and others' critics, and future social issues: [Giulio Prisco] defiende los postulados del movimiento, que no son m?s que el reconocimiento del hecho de que se puede utilizar la tecnolog?a para mejorar radicalmente a los seres humanos (como individuos, como sociedades y como especie), as? como pensar que hacerlo es bueno. Los argumentos en contra se refieren a menudo a ideas tan nebulosas como la dignidad humana y es f?cil reconocerlos como viejos argumentos religiosos... adelanta una forma de conjurar hasta el peligro de accidente. Se trata de una tecnolog?a por inventar denominada mind uploading, que consistir?a en hacer una copia de seguridad de la informaci?n contenida en la mente, para poder volverla a cargar en un nuevo cerebro biol?gico o rob?tico. I have recorded an interview for the radio show *ENIGMES I MISTERIS*on Radio Nacional de Espa?a en Catalu?a next Saturday. The interview will be available in streaming audio format. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 12 14:55:31 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:55:31 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051012145531.GJ2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 07:21:25AM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > I don't think so, except in very specific predictions. > > The two key Transhumanist predictions, agreed by both insiders and outsiders > > is that computing power will continue along a steepening exponential curve > > for at least two more decades; > > The "agreement" doesn't mean that they are right. You have about 4, maybe 5 There is no agreement at all. Even using the sufficiently biased to be useless SPEC CINT metric the data does not look so very good: http://www.ce.chalmers.se/research/group/hpcag/publ/2004/EWN04/performancegrowth_tr-2004-9.pdf Real-world application benchmarks are even worse than this synthetic (a single sub-benchmark of an obsoleted benchmark suite) metric, but somewhat more difficult to come by. COTS clusters can buffer this because price/performance ratio, but only for well-scaling massively parallel applications. You're golden if you're one of those. > generations left in terms of current processes (go read the ITRS/SEMATECH > roadmap reports). Then things are going to have to shift significantly. > So I would say you have a decade -- maybe 15 years. All hinges on whether molecular electronics can continue where semiconductor photolithography has bitten the dust, and offer us self-assembly, especially in 3d. Whether this will happen on-track, is anybody's guess. > > and that the bio sciences are entering the > > steep part of exponential growth similar to computer tech circa 1975 (or > > thereabouts). > > Not "quite" so. Though semi-industry evolution has largely been > one of a continual refinement of a basic process, bio-industry > evolution has required significant invention of new methods for > the significant advancements. The rates of advancement do > not compare well. (One can be viewed as relatively continuous > while the other is more discontinuous.) Btw, welcome back, Robert. You were sorely missed. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Oct 12 16:16:19 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 09:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <434C6EDD.6000203@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20051012161620.2271.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > Let me rephrase: The outside view always wins over the inside view. > Naturally, predictions sometimes fail. It's what they do. Have you > any > evidence that, in the 60s, I could have done systematically better by > accepting "inside views" of computing - stories told about how, in > particular, computing power would grow - over outside views? It is > not > enough to find one inside view that turned out to be correct. That > could be luck. If enough people make enough different guesses one of > them is bound to be correct. Actually, luck is enough to invalidate "always". "Always" means 100%, no chance of luck messing things up. So it is, in fact, enough to find just one inside view that turned out to be correct: just one counterexample is all that is needed to disprove a logical absolute. I will grant that it is possible that most, maybe all, of the specific cases where the inside view wins can be argued to be luck. I do not have any data to prove that, in any given case where this has been measured, the fraction of outside-view predictions that proved correct did not exceed the fraction of inside-view predictions that proved correct. Then again, is there data to prove the opposite case, which you are asserting? Has outside view vs. inside view actually been statistically measured in any given case? From outlawpoet at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 17:51:45 2005 From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:51:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanlaw Colloquium in Florida Message-ID: <3ad827f30510121051p5fec71d4s4fe474def17888ed@mail.gmail.com> I don't remember this being mentioned on the list, there will be a Colloquium in Florida by the same people who did that mock trial for the life of an AI seeking an injunction against it's owning company, who wanted to turn it off. Our own Eliezer Yudkowsky will be presenting there, on December 10th. Peter Voss, from my company will also be presenting, and Susan Fonseca-Klein of Imminst will be representing the Respondent in a Hearing of "on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction of BINA48 to Prevent Discontinuation of Power and Functionality by Exabit Corporation", which, needless to say, sounds cool. We'll be having a Kifune this sunday also, where Peter will be presenting a version of the talk he'll give there, on the moral and legal implications of AI. Martine Rothblatt is the primary sponsor and seeming organizer, you might know her as one of the founders of Sirius Satellite Radio. She has a history of interesting companies, like PanAmSat, and Worldspace. I'm interested in what people think of 'conferences' like this, where people are gathered, ostensibly, to answer a theoretical question, in addition to the usual "get a lot of people in a building and make them pay you to talk to each other" conference schtick. I think it could be pretty interesting, in addition, it introduces an organization which is new to me, the "Terasem Movement", which seems to be focused on popularizing extending human life through speculative ultratech, nano, uploading, etc. Does anyone additionally know who is involved in this organization? Any body on here? -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com From sentience at pobox.com Wed Oct 12 18:02:27 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:02:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051011232458.02ee6a00@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011172705.02fd6ef8@mail.gmu.edu> <434C5785.7030309@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011220720.0305ee08@mail.gmu.edu> <434C7DCB.6010100@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011232458.02ee6a00@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <434D4FB3.1060500@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 11:06 PM 10/11/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >> >> It seems to me that there are *no* past situations similar enough to >> permit an outside view. For an outside view to work, you need data >> that verges on i.i.d. - independent and identically distributed. >> *Analogies* to past situations are not outside views, and they tend to >> be chosen after the analogizer has already decided what the results >> ought to be. There *is* no outside view of when AI will arrive. >> Anyone who tries to pin a quantitative prediction on the date is >> just... plain... screwed. > > The article says nothing about needing data verging on i.i.d., and for > good reason. There are lots of ways to make useful comparisons with > other cases without needing such a strong constraint. Yes of course > there are ways to be biased with outside views, just as if one works > hard enough one can bias any analysis. But that doesn't mean such > analysis isn't useful, or better than alternative ways to analyze. > > Consider the class of situations in which someone predicted an event > that they said was so different from existing events that nothing else > was similar to it. We could collect data on this and look at what > fraction of the time the predicted event actually happened, and how far > into the future it did happen if it did. Even if we had no other info > about the event, that would give a useful estimate of the chance of it > happening and when. Of course we could also look at other > characteristics of such predictions and do a multiple regression to take > all of the characteristics into account together. This is exactly what I think you can't do. If the reference class isn't immediately obvious, you can't make one up and call that an 'outside view'. Developing a heuristics-and-biases curriculum for high school is not something that shares a few arguable similarities with other attempts to develop high-school curricula. The reference class was obvious - that's why the outside view worked. I'm not sure there's any point in trying to list out what makes a reference class "obvious"; that will just entice people to take nonobvious reference classes and argue that they're obvious. Or alternatively, entice people to argue that trying to develop a heuristics-and-biases curriculum *doesn't* belong to the obvious reference class for yada-yada reason. As you say, if one works hard enough, one can bias any analysis - but that's no excuse for issuing engraved invitations. This is one of those cases where, if you don't already have a good commonsense understanding of what constitutes shooting yourself in the foot, making up complicated lists of criteria just introduces independent opportunities for motivated cognition on each list item. If you've already formulated your question, much less already have an answer in mind, and *then* you go around formulating "a class of situations" and collecting instances, your intended result will bias what you think is a relevant instance, and, in fact, what you believe to be a relevant reference class. "The class of situations in which someone predicted an event that they said was so different from existing events that nothing else was similar to it" is, already, an obviously biased reference class where you had a pretty good idea in mind of what sort of data you might collect at the time you chose the reference class. Why not the class of predictions about technology? Why not the class of predictions made by people whose name ends in 'N'? And there's no pre-existing source in which you can look up all the relevant instances - you'll have to decide what's a relevant instance and what's not, and it seems likely that your decision about 'relevant instances' will use an archetype-based retrieval schema that recalls 'successful predictions of novel events' or 'failed prediction of novel events', depending on your thesis. That's not an outside view. Outside views are when you can pick up a statistical paper or turn to a domain expert and find out what happened the last dozen times someone tried pretty much the same thing. Outside views are fast and cheap and introduce few opportunities to make errors. Selecting analogies to support your argument is a whole different ballgame, even if you dress it up in statistical lingerie. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Wed Oct 12 18:06:55 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:06:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <20051012161620.2271.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051012161620.2271.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <434D50BF.1050303@pobox.com> Adrian Tymes wrote: > > Then again, is there data to prove the opposite case, which > you are asserting? Has outside view vs. inside view actually been > statistically measured in any given case? Yes, of course, that's what this thread is all about. Whenever measured statistically, the outside view wins overwhelmingly. See e.g. "Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking" by Daniel Kahneman and Dan Lovallo, as previously referenced in this thread, which you can find in the edited volume "Choices, Values, and Frames". -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Oct 12 19:54:58 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:54:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. In-Reply-To: <0fb601c5ceb9$324484b0$8998e03c@homepc> References: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc> <22360fa10510111401v2b6fd0d9s122132be28cef85f@mail.gmail.com> <0fb601c5ceb9$324484b0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <22360fa10510121254o2cfef565y1ab12f51839c6b4c@mail.gmail.com> On 10/11/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > Jef Allbright wrote: > > > Why should politics be limited to issues of scarcity? > > Because we are built of biological stuff. Selfish genes that > wanted to replicate. Actually, if I were arguing your point, I would argue at the cultural level, with a legacy of Malthusian scarcity driving our traditional political approach. But we're already moving past the assumptions of Malthus, Paul Erlich, Club of Rome due to the changes in societal choices and increasingly efficient production accompanying accelerating technology. [Which breed new challenges along with opportunities, and increasing awareness of the need to develop innovation/sustainability together, but that's for later discussion.] To mortals time matters. Humans are mortals. > If one wants the assistance or attention of others to pursue > ones needs/wants/desires one usually has to compete for > it because the others that can help are mortal too. Their > attention and concentration of others is itself a limited > resource. We humans can't do much on our own and we > have evolved to be social and to try to do what we can > to get copies of our own genes into the next generation. I would say you're still confusing the evolved biological basis for human behavior with the dynamics of the larger socio-economic system. But we agree that effective social interaction is key to our survival and growth. > Isn't it appropriately called political action when working > > together to promote development toward increasing > > abundance... > > Maybe. The words are too general for me to say. My point was to generalize a conception of politics, not mired in competitive zero-sum thinking related to reducing scarcity or authority, but in functionally neutral terms, and open to cooperative positive-sum thinking related to increasing growth and freedom. I suggested that we think of politics as "social decision-making applied to groups, expecially with respect to methods of influence within those processes." This definition works at all scales, and applies to directly competitive as well as directly cooperative approaches. I once thought that transhumanisms great offering and political promise > might have been something along the lines of a bold offering to the > haves (and have nots) of something they didn't have. More time. My own view is that the best we can do is decide and act in the present such that we maximize the survival and growth of our subjective interests. Since my interests include a vision of increasing opportunities for growth, it follows that I am motivated to promote improved frameworks of awareness and cooperation to facilitate this vision. I think it is misguided to hope for more time, given the environment in which we find ourselves. With the promise and peril of nanotechnology upon us, most likely followed by recursively improving AI, but not necessarily in that order, it appears that we have only a brief window within which to promote the growth of those human values which work, and thus perhaps improve the odds of living in a future more of our choosing--before the rules of the game change drastically. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Oct 12 20:36:32 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:36:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanlaw Colloquium in Florida Message-ID: <380-2200510312203632406@M2W110.mail2web.com> Justin wrote: >I think it could be pretty interesting, in addition, it introduces an >organization which is new to me, the "Terasem Movement", which seems >to be focused on popularizing extending human life through speculative >ultratech, nano, uploading, etc. Does anyone additionally know who is >involved in this organization? Any body on here? I gave a talk at its webcast conference in Vermont, as did Max, Ray Kurzweil and Mark Treder. Martine Rothblatt is the founder of the Terasem Foundation and she is also a member of Extropy Institute. Best, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Oct 12 20:36:20 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:36:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <434D4FB3.1060500@pobox.com> References: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011172705.02fd6ef8@mail.gmu.edu> <434C5785.7030309@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011220720.0305ee08@mail.gmu.edu> <434C7DCB.6010100@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011232458.02ee6a00@mail.gmu.edu> <434D4FB3.1060500@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051012150650.03107fc0@mail.gmu.edu> At 02:02 PM 10/12/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >>>It seems to me that there are *no* past situations similar enough >>>to permit an outside view. For an outside view to work, you need >>>data that verges on i.i.d. - independent and identically >>>distributed. ... There *is* no outside view of when AI will arrive. >> >>The article says nothing about needing data verging on i.i.d., and >>for good reason. There are lots of ways to make useful comparisons >>with other cases without needing such a strong constraint. ... >>Consider the class of situations in which someone predicted an >>event that they said was so different from existing events that >>nothing else was similar to it. We could collect data on this and >>look at what fraction of the time the predicted event actually >>happened, and how far into the future it did happen. > >This is exactly what I think you can't do. If the reference class >isn't immediately obvious, you can't make one up and call that an >'outside view'. Developing a heuristics-and-biases curriculum for >high school is not something that shares a few arguable similarities >with other attempts to develop high-school curricula. The reference >class was obvious - that's why the outside view worked. I'm not >sure there's any point in trying to list out what makes a reference >class "obvious"; ... If you've already formulated your question, >much less already have an answer in mind, and *then* you go around >formulating "a class of situations" and collecting instances, your >intended result will bias what you think is a relevant instance, >and, in fact, what you believe to be a relevant reference >class. "The class of situations in which someone predicted an event >that they said was so different from existing events that nothing >else was similar to it" is, already, an obviously biased reference >class where you had a pretty good idea in mind of what sort of data >you might collect at the time you chose the reference class. Why >not the class of predictions about technology? Why not the class of >predictions made by people whose name ends in 'N'? ... That's not >an outside view. Outside views are when you can pick up a >statistical paper or turn to a domain expert and find out what >happened the last dozen times someone tried pretty much the same >thing. Outside views are fast and cheap and introduce few >opportunities to make errors. Selecting analogies to support your >argument is a whole different ballgame, even if you dress it up in >statistical lingerie. The paper we are discussion does not seem to take such a restrictive view of "outside view", and it cautions against making too many excuses not to use outside views: >Our analysis implies that the adoption of an outside view, in which >the problem at hand is treated as an instance of a broader category, >will generally reduce the optimistic bias and may facilitate the >application of a consistent risk policy. This happens as a matter of >course in problems of forecasting or decision that the organization >recognizes as obviously recurrent or repetitive. However, we have >suggested that people are strongly biased in favor of the inside >view, and that they will normally treat significant decision >problems as unique even when information that could support an >outside view is available. The adoption of an outside view in such >cases violates strong intuitions about the relevance of information. >Indeed, the deliberate neglect of the features that make the current >problem unique can appear irresponsible. A deliberate effort will >therefore be required to foster the optimal use of outside and >inside views in forecasting, and the maintenance of globally >consistent risk attitudes in distributed decision systems. I say you can do statistical analysis on *any* dataset. For any set of items with any set of descriptors you can put together a model class, assign a prior, and turn the Bayes rule crank. Of course some model classes may work better than others. And yes, if you throw away some items or descriptors or model terms *because* you have some idea of which direction including them would change the results, you may bias your results. But don't let the best be the enemy of the good. The inside view is so often bad that even a crude outside view is typically a big improvement. That is the idea of the surprising usefulness of simple linear models. Yes, the world isn't linear, but simple linear models often beat the hell out of "sophisticated" human inside-view intuition. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From sentience at pobox.com Wed Oct 12 21:07:00 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:07:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051012150650.03107fc0@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011172705.02fd6ef8@mail.gmu.edu> <434C5785.7030309@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011220720.0305ee08@mail.gmu.edu> <434C7DCB.6010100@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011232458.02ee6a00@mail.gmu.edu> <434D4FB3.1060500@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051012150650.03107fc0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <434D7AF4.70408@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > > But don't let the best be the enemy of the good. The inside view is so > often bad that even a crude outside view is typically a big > improvement. That is the idea of the surprising usefulness of simple > linear models. Yes, the world isn't linear, but simple linear models > often beat the hell out of "sophisticated" human inside-view intuition. Don't let the worse be the argument for the bad. I wasn't saying that you should use inside views instead. I was proposing that you were just screwed. Robyn Dawes makes a similar point in his chapter on the robustness of linear models: when the best linear model predicts only 4% of the variance (and, of course, sophisticated human intuition doesn't predict anything at all), it may be that the phenomenon in question is just not very predictable. What makes people think they *can* predict student performance ten years out on the basis of a five-minute interview? What makes people think they can predict the arrival time of AI? Yes, people seek excuses to reject outside views (typically bearing bad news) in favor of inside views (typically optimistic). But that the outside views work is tied to the existence of an obvious reference class in the experimental tests, making the outside view fast, cheap, and simple. Now it would be shooting off your own foot to believe that the inside view somehow works better on hard problems than on easy ones - naturally it will work worse. But, of course, the outside view will also tend to work worse as as the problem becomes harder - as the reference class becomes less obvious, the analogies become more distant and complex, and people start to argue about the reference class and introduce motivated cognition into the arguments. With enough opportunities for motivated cognition, why should selected arguments from analogies work any better than inside views, even dressed up in statistics? What evidence is there that this sort of thing will work? Linear models are great stuff but neither linear models nor human intuitive judgment will predict next week's lottery numbers. What makes you think you can do better than chance? Why are you not simply screwed? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 21:34:01 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:34:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/12/05, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > > > > On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > I don't think so, except in very specific predictions. > > The two key Transhumanist predictions, agreed by both insiders and > outsiders > > is that computing power will continue along a steepening exponential > curve > > for at least two more decades; > > The "agreement" doesn't mean that they are right. You have about 4, maybe > 5 > generations left in terms of current processes (go read the ITRS/SEMATECH > roadmap reports). Then things are going to have to shift significantly. > So I would say you have a decade -- maybe 15 years. > > I have a 1982 copy of the Transactions of the IEEE. In it there is an article which explains in great detail why the ultimate limits to Si technology would be 100nm and why anything smaller would not work and new processes would have to be found. IIRC labs are running experimental Si at 22nm. Given that carbon nanotubes have already been built into gigabit NVRAM I think 15 yrs for going to new tech is a tad pessimistic. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 21:36:24 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:36:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. In-Reply-To: <22360fa10510121254o2cfef565y1ab12f51839c6b4c@mail.gmail.com> References: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc> <22360fa10510111401v2b6fd0d9s122132be28cef85f@mail.gmail.com> <0fb601c5ceb9$324484b0$8998e03c@homepc> <22360fa10510121254o2cfef565y1ab12f51839c6b4c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/12/05, Jef Allbright wrote: > > > > I would say you're still confusing the evolved biological basis for human > behavior with the dynamics of the larger socio-economic system. But we agree > that effective social interaction is key to our survival and growth. > True only to a limited extent. That social interaction can be and should be exclusionary as well as inclusive. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Oct 12 22:23:06 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:23:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. In-Reply-To: References: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc> <22360fa10510111401v2b6fd0d9s122132be28cef85f@mail.gmail.com> <0fb601c5ceb9$324484b0$8998e03c@homepc> <22360fa10510121254o2cfef565y1ab12f51839c6b4c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10510121523x9fb1efel9a20548bcefd6b75@mail.gmail.com> On 10/12/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > On 10/12/05, Jef Allbright wrote: > > > > > > > > I would say you're still confusing the evolved biological basis for > > human behavior with the dynamics of the larger socio-economic system. But we > > agree that effective social interaction is key to our survival and growth. > > > > True only to a limited extent. > That social interaction can be and should be exclusionary as well as > inclusive. Yes, thanks for pointing that out. While cooperation is generally preferred for its win-win nature, there are situations such as in self-defense (immediate or anticipated threat) that cooperation is clearly ruled out. In fact, to not defend one's self (one's self interests) in such a case is clearly immoral. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Oct 12 23:38:52 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:38:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <434D7AF4.70408@pobox.com> References: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011172705.02fd6ef8@mail.gmu.edu> <434C5785.7030309@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011220720.0305ee08@mail.gmu.edu> <434C7DCB.6010100@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011232458.02ee6a00@mail.gmu.edu> <434D4FB3.1060500@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051012150650.03107fc0@mail.gmu.edu> <434D7AF4.70408@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051012182517.02e7fd60@mail.gmu.edu> At 05:07 PM 10/12/2005, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >>But don't let the best be the enemy of the good. The inside view >>is so often bad that even a crude outside view is typically a big >>improvement. That is the idea of the surprising usefulness of >>simple linear models. Yes, the world isn't linear, but simple >>linear models often beat the hell out of "sophisticated" human >>inside-view intuition. > >Don't let the worse be the argument for the bad. I wasn't saying >that you should use inside views instead. I was proposing that you >were just screwed. Robyn Dawes makes a similar point in his chapter >on the robustness of linear models: when the best linear model >predicts only 4% of the variance (and, of course, sophisticated >human intuition doesn't predict anything at all), it may be that the >phenomenon in question is just not very predictable. What makes >people think they *can* predict student performance ten years out on >the basis of a five-minute interview? What makes people think they >can predict the arrival time of AI? > >Yes, people seek excuses to reject outside views (typically bearing >bad news) in favor of inside views (typically optimistic). But that >the outside views work is tied to the existence of an obvious >reference class in the experimental tests, making the outside view >fast, cheap, and simple. ... the outside view will also tend to >work worse as as the problem becomes harder - as the reference class >becomes less obvious, the analogies become more distant and complex, >and people start to argue about the reference class and introduce >motivated cognition into the arguments. With enough opportunities >for motivated cognition, why should selected arguments from >analogies work any better than inside views, even dressed up in >statistics? What evidence is there that this sort of thing will >work? Linear models are great stuff but neither linear models nor >human intuitive judgment will predict next week's lottery >numbers. What makes you think you can do better than chance? Why >are you not simply screwed? This nice thing about using formal statistical analysis is that if you do it right it should tell you when you are screwed. If your posterior isn't much different from you prior, why then the data didn't tell you much. So there's not much harm in trying the statistics. We can't pretend we don't have beliefs on hard problems - so we have to try what we can to get the best estimates we can. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From extropy at unreasonable.com Wed Oct 12 23:58:03 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:58:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hans Bethe Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051012193935.07d627a8@unreasonable.com> The October 2005 issue of Physics Today is out. It's a special issue devoted to Hans Bethe, who died this past March. It includes pieces by John Bahcall, Freeman Dyson, and Dick Garwin. There's a great picture of Bethe sitting atop a peak in the Alps, Bethe with Feynman and Dyson, Bethe with JFK, etc. Elsewhere in the issue is a fascinating letter from Einstein and a news story on latest ideas about quantum computing. http://www.physicstoday.org/ or your local library. -- David Lubkin. From sentience at pobox.com Thu Oct 13 01:30:58 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:30:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051012182517.02e7fd60@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011172705.02fd6ef8@mail.gmu.edu> <434C5785.7030309@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011220720.0305ee08@mail.gmu.edu> <434C7DCB.6010100@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011232458.02ee6a00@mail.gmu.edu> <434D4FB3.1060500@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051012150650.03107fc0@mail.gmu.edu> <434D7AF4.70408@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051012182517.02e7fd60@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <434DB8D2.4060602@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > > This nice thing about using formal statistical analysis is that if you > do it right it should tell you when you are screwed. If your posterior > isn't much different from you prior, why then the data didn't tell you > much. So there's not much harm in trying the statistics. We can't > pretend we don't have beliefs on hard problems - so we have to try what > we can to get the best estimates we can. Ideally, yeah. If you don't have reference class fights. Let's put it this way: If you set up a reference class and your formal statistical analysis claims we're not screwed and makes a definite prediction with a confidence bound, and I set up a different reference class and my formal statistical analysis claims we're not screwed and makes a definite prediction with a confidence bound, and the two confidence bounds don't remotely overlap, then I stand by my statement that we're screwed. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Oct 13 01:43:30 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:43:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <434DB8D2.4060602@pobox.com> References: <20051011184817.C66A957EF9@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011172705.02fd6ef8@mail.gmu.edu> <434C5785.7030309@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011220720.0305ee08@mail.gmu.edu> <434C7DCB.6010100@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051011232458.02ee6a00@mail.gmu.edu> <434D4FB3.1060500@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051012150650.03107fc0@mail.gmu.edu> <434D7AF4.70408@pobox.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051012182517.02e7fd60@mail.gmu.edu> <434DB8D2.4060602@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051012214023.02eb6e28@mail.gmu.edu> At 09:30 PM 10/12/2005, you wrote: >Robin Hanson wrote: >>This nice thing about using formal statistical analysis is that if >>you do it right it should tell you when you are screwed. If your >>posterior isn't much different from you prior, why then the data >>didn't tell you much. So there's not much harm in trying the >>statistics. We can't pretend we don't have beliefs on hard >>problems - so we have to try what we can to get the best estimates we can. > >Ideally, yeah. If you don't have reference class fights. Let's put >it this way: If you set up a reference class and your formal >statistical analysis claims we're not screwed and makes a definite >prediction with a confidence bound, and I set up a different >reference class and my formal statistical analysis claims we're not >screwed and makes a definite prediction with a confidence bound, and >the two confidence bounds don't remotely overlap, then I stand by my >statement that we're screwed. "Reference class" is unusual terminology in this context. But I think you mean to refer to statistical modeling choices. If we can agree on a prior over the space of models, we can agree on the posterior implied by the data. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Oct 13 03:26:53 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:26:53 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. References: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc><22360fa10510111401v2b6fd0d9s122132be28cef85f@mail.gmail.com><0fb601c5ceb9$324484b0$8998e03c@homepc> <22360fa10510121254o2cfef565y1ab12f51839c6b4c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <12de01c5cfa5$f4c127e0$8998e03c@homepc> Jef Allbright wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: Jef Allbright To: ExI chat list Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 5:54 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. On 10/11/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: Jef Allbright wrote: > Why should politics be limited to issues of scarcity? Because we are built of biological stuff. Selfish genes that wanted to replicate. Actually, if I were arguing your point, I would argue at the cultural level, with a legacy of Malthusian scarcity driving our traditional political approach. But we're already moving past the assumptions of Malthus, Paul Erlich, Club of Rome due to the changes in societal choices and increasingly efficient production accompanying accelerating technology. [Which breed new challenges along with opportunities, and increasing awareness of the need to develop innovation/sustainability together, but that's for later discussion.] To mortals time matters. Humans are mortals. If one wants the assistance or attention of others to pursue ones needs/wants/desires one usually has to compete for it because the others that can help are mortal too. Their attention and concentration of others is itself a limited resource. We humans can't do much on our own and we have evolved to be social and to try to do what we can to get copies of our own genes into the next generation. I would say you're still confusing the evolved biological basis for human behavior with the dynamics of the larger socio-economic system. But we agree that effective social interaction is key to our survival and growth. By talking of selfish genes I'm probably going down too far. For present purposes at least and indeed perhaps generally. My inclination is to try to understand human behavior by seeing it connectedness to social animal behaviour which is what politics must be at its most basic level. The virtue of this approach, if it can be successful, is that it places the political within the sphere of the scientific and only one meta-model is then necessary. But lets leave that alone as too low for present purposes. You say "the dynamics of the larger socio-economic sytem". That is something that is made up of individual decision making agents. Humans. Right? Mortal, biological humans, with potentials they want to develop and selves they want to actualise. All of which most of them perceive they will have to do within the context of some life expectancy and development stereotype that is influenced by culture but is largely based on the fact that they people are biologically animals whose growth and development is conditional on getting the resources they need at each stage of their development in order to proceed on to the next. > Isn't it appropriately called political action when working > together to promote development toward increasing > abundance... Maybe. The words are too general for me to say. My point was to generalize a conception of politics, not mired in competitive zero-sum thinking related to reducing scarcity or authority, but in functionally neutral terms, and open to cooperative positive-sum thinking related to increasing growth and freedom. I don't think one can steam-brush what politics essentially is, in order to make it nicer and more appealing. It is what it is. Behavioral epiphenomena arising from individuals competing with other individuals for mutually desired goods, when goods include the favour of and finite attention of other individuals. Whether those individuals be voters, funders, consumers, or even sexual partners or parents with finite time. Aren't you trying to sort of nice-up politics a bit? To try to make it nicer by defining away unpleasantness? I suggested that we think of politics as "social decision-making applied to groups, expecially with respect to methods of influence within those processes." I'm getting stuck with phrase "social decision-making". I'm wondering if it is an oxymoron. I can see how one can call a meeting and invite attendees to come and discuss things and try to agree. I can see how one might do that online and use new communication technologies and new media to do that. But in the end the people that may or may not choose to go to the meeting or use the new media are the same people as existed before. You are just employing another tactic to get their attention and to win their support. It seem to me that trying to find new technologies to use is really like trying to find ways to be more personally influential in the finite universe of influence. There is nothing wrong with that at all. Nothing wrong with trying to self empower and with trying to peer group empower. One can plan a party, build a nest, put on fine clothes, read poetry, sing songs, or do whatever the heck one can to *try* to attract the interest and support of other persons or people but in the end there is only a finite amount of other-concentration to be had and one IS necessarily competing for it whenever others want it as well. And others do want it. They do want to grab some of that finite resource, that attention. That attention which is necessary for getting votes, funding, or even returned smiles. That's politics (or part of it). There is only so much attention to go around and individuals that don't get enough of it don't survive and thrive. This definition works at all scales, and applies to directly competitive as well as directly cooperative approaches. I once thought that transhumanisms great offering and political promise might have been something along the lines of a bold offering to the haves (and have nots) of something they didn't have. More time. My own view is that the best we can do is decide and act in the present such that we maximize the survival and growth of our subjective interests. Since my interests include a vision of increasing opportunities for growth, it follows that I am motivated to promote improved frameworks of awareness and cooperation to facilitate this vision. You mean "of our subjective interests" collectively? I think it is misguided to hope for more time, given the environment in which we find ourselves. I agree. But I think that the attention grabbing thing that transhumanism had going for it for a while was the possibility of giving people including powerful people that already have a lot of things, more time. It lost those things and lost the attention grabbing thing when the wheels came off the Drexlerian nanotech applecart, which is needed to make the cryonics promise credible. With the promise and peril of nanotechnology upon us, most likely followed by recursively improving AI, but not necessarily in that order, it appears that we have only a brief window within which to promote the growth of those human values which work, and thus perhaps improve the odds of living in a future more of our choosing--before the rules of the game change drastically. This is away from the issue either of what politics is, or what you want to define it to be and get agreement on. The promises and perils you percieve mark you out as a particular sort of person. A transhuman subcultural insider. But the subcultures best claims for the attention of the mainstream have not born sufficient fruit to continue to be credible or particularly attention demanding of the mainstream. Both the promise and peril of nanotech that you talk of are intended to be attention grabbers. And for a while they were attention grabbers. But their attention grabbing power has been lost relative to other promises and threats that the mainstream feels it is facing. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Oct 13 03:51:55 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:51:55 +1000 Subject: The Amazing Cellular Repair device was Re: [extropy-chat] FuturesPast Message-ID: <133601c5cfa9$74769bc0$8998e03c@homepc> Eugen wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 04:57:49PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Whilst looking through my hardcopy files for the Fahy article on the > feasibility of brain repair I found these diagrams on a "Merckle-Drexler > scenario" for a "Nanotechnology derived Cell Repair Device". The > source (which does contain the Fahy article, is an Alcor publication > from 1993). > Here's the device. http://www.entrepitec.com.au/page2A.html > > Here's the device shown against a background with red blood > cells. http://www.entrepitec.com.au/page3A.html > More or less accurate scale. > Compare with http://moleculardevices.org/howbig.htm Yep, I do like the tech used in illustrating the relationships here. I remember you posting this before but also with some extras that you'd added yourself. I think they showed gears or pumps from Nanosystems. > I'm not sure what your point is trashing a single picture, done > by an artist (these usually don't have scientific training). My point is that the schematic is obviously wrong in terms of scale because it can't possibly be the same device at both the nano and micron scale. I don't know if an artist produced the diagrams. They look to me like the sort of hand drawn schematic that an engineer type might quickly sketch out. The only names associated are those of Merkle and Drexler. A lot of people would not have good intuitive understandings of the relative scales of biological structures such as red blood cells and synapses because these things exist at scales that are way below their normal sensory radar. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Oct 13 10:26:58 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:26:58 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo was The Amazing CellularRepair device References: Message-ID: <13a401c5cfe0$a4a52f00$8998e03c@homepc> Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > Does it *really* matter? Well yes of course it matters, unless the truth is irrelevant to the construction of your models about how to build a better world. If cryonics is prohibited by the laws of physics would you want to know that and deal with it or would you want to continue with an illusion ? In your position, I'd want to know the warts and all truth, because I might choose to allocate my resources and energies differently if I found that one path was hopeless. You once asked me a very good question. What does one do if one realised that one's own generation is not going to make it? Does one give a shit about the next generation and try to help them. I think the answer is yes. I think we don't bring unnecessary suffering into a world that already has enough of it. We clean inherited single nucleotide polymorphism diseases right out of the gene pool. No more kids born with cystic fibrosis, or huntingtons. We cut the suffering that clearly can be cut off at the root. > A human brain is an information container. > > Freezing it and thawing it doesn't scramble it all that > much. If I do it with a steak I still get back most of the > steak. > > You have to make arguments that information, particularly > *critical* information, would be destroyed in the freezing > and thawing process. I have yet to see anyone involved in > cryonics make that argument in a way that satisfies me from > a biological and computer science standpoint. What is your current level of understanding of the neuronal structure of the brain and how memories are stored in that structure ? What is the most recent fact you learned in this knowledge domain that made any sort of impression on you ? These sort of questions and your answers to them might enable us to think critically about such questions as how much of the essential Robert information store is too much to lose even for Robert. If your answer is that you don't care how much you lose some is better than nothing then I'd reply well why don't you just freeze some body cells and send a letter to the future requesting they clone you. That would be a heck of a lot cheaper and easier. > So my conclusion is *any* freezing and unfreezing process > is reasonable. Of course work being done by those such as > Greg Fahy is a little different because they are trying to > get things to the point where you can "unfreeze" (or technically > unvitrify) them now. If they could do this on a whole body > basis it would mean that the entire concept, legal definition, > etc. of "death" would need to be reworked. What a yawn. Some legal weavil makes some change in the definition of death on paper. Nothing substantive changes at all. Or the legislators ignore the whole thing and individual doctors continue to exercise their own judgement as to whether a particular death has occured or not. > What I like to tell people is to freeze my head -- that is the > essential information content of "Robert". Then if someday > that head gets dropped on the floor of some cryonics facility > and broken into a zillion little pieces -- it doesn't friggen > matter. We are going to have the computer processing capacity > to put it all back together. Some of me may get lost. But > some of me is lost over time every year anyway. Okay what is your figure for the amount of computing processing power that is needed to rebuild the pattern in your brain? What is you figure for the economic cost of running that computerised process? Do you have a cost of your own or are you relying on someone elses projections? > So any reasonable approximation of cryonics will work. > > What will not work is putting one into an oven and > disassembling ones molecules at several thousand degrees. > Putting that back together is something that even nanotechnology > can probably not do. Probably not indeed. Brett Paatsch From bradbury at aeiveos.com Thu Oct 13 13:55:01 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 06:55:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo was The Amazing CellularRepair device In-Reply-To: <13a401c5cfe0$a4a52f00$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > > > Does it *really* matter? > > Well yes of course it matters, unless the truth is irrelevant to > the construction of your models about how to build a better > world. Granted but the discussion about how to get more people to recognize that some form of information suspension will likely work and get them to engage in thinking along those lines is so much larger (I've tried this with my parents -- so far unsuccessfully). And that discussion is still a much smaller part of trans/posthumanism as a whole. > If cryonics is prohibited by the laws of physics would you > want to know that and deal with it or would you want to > continue with an illusion ? At some point in life you just have to say "trust me" or trust the people I trust. I trust Merkle and Freitas because I've read most of everything they have written and know they are both signed up for cryonic suspension. I believe Minsky is as well. I have further thought about the problem myself from an information theoretic and biological standpoint -- there isn't a big problem here. > What is your current level of understanding of the neuronal > structure of the brain and how memories are stored in that > structure ? What is the most recent fact you learned in this > knowledge domain that made any sort of impression on > you ? I am not the neuroscientist that Anders is but I've got a good understanding of how the brain works and how the information is stored in it. I've got a 1447 page book ("The Cognitive Neurosciences") sitting beside my desk. It is probably the largest single volume book I own (and I own a *lot* of textbooks). This isn't a topic one discusses by email. > If your answer is that you don't care how much you lose > some is better than nothing then I'd reply well why don't > you just freeze some body cells and send a letter to the > future requesting they clone you. That would be a heck > of a lot cheaper and easier. I may very well do that (and have discussed the need for freezing self stem cell sources on the GRG list extensively). I also have taken this to the level where I have a very different perspective of "self-preservation". I could be reconstructed from fragments of my brain to fragments of my parents DNA and the recorded history of my life. One has to ask *How much of "Robert" is in the Extropian archives? I strongly suspect that "killing" Robert is impossible unless one has a destructive hard singularity take-off or all of the protons in the universe decay. > Okay what is your figure for the amount of computing processing > power that is needed to rebuild the pattern in your brain? I don't know. But its a number one can deal with -- take 10^11 neurons, 10^3 synapses (average) per neuron, perhaps 10^2 receptors per synapse, etc. Dealing with the molecular complexity and rearrangement is *way* below the computational capacity of what an MBrain will have available. (You have to think in terms of the limits that I tend to think in.) Bear in mind perhaps two things. First, that *most* of the information in the brain is redundant -- i.e. the DNA in each cell, the protein sequences, etc. Second, what is unique is the pattern of the cell structure. Dealing with that from from an MBrain perspective is trivial. One has a lifetime of trillions of years, so a "Robert" reassembly process could be something done in its "spare" time. > What is you figure for the economic cost of running that > computerised process? Do you have a cost of your own or > are you relying on someone elses projections? There are no "real" costs once the hardware/software have been designed. You have to take the Drexler estimate of $1.00/kg and then discount it because nanotechnology makes everything cheaper, then discount it again because construction of JBrains or MBrains make everything even cheaper. The "economic" cost is whether or not a JBrain or MBrain has something better to do with its time than reassemble "Robert". (When I speak of a "reassembly" I mean either the "wetware" version or a "virtual" version. This is the point where I have differed sharply with others on the list in the past. >From a computer science perspective if the file has the same MD5 checksum the probability is high that its the same file whether it is copy #1 or copy #10,000. From a social (human) perspective if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck -- I'm going to treat it as a duck.) Robert From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Oct 13 15:06:04 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:06:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] 2006 TED Prize Announces Winners Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051013100054.02c72d98@pop-server.austin.rr.com> I'd like to collaborate with Robin Hanson and Ray Kurzweil and develop a Trans/Post-human Futures Society project for 2007. Cheers! Natasha 2006 TED Prize Winners Announced Dr. Larry Brilliant, Jehane Noujaim and Cameron Sinclair Granted Wishes To Change the World New York, October 12, 2005 Physician Larry Brilliant, documentary filmmaker Jehane Noujaim, and Architecture for Humanity founder Cameron Sinclair have been named recipients of the 2006 TED Prize, announced at a private event Tuesday night in New York City. Now in its second year, the TED prize, an initiative of the legendary TED Conference (Technology, Entertainment, Design), grants its recipients one world changing wish which they present to attendees of the conference, a group of more than 800 catalysts for change, ranging from Fortune 500 executives to dedicated non-profit professionals. This unique community then seeks to make the wish come true. Brilliant, Noujaim and Sinclair will now have several months to formulate their wishes before unveiling them live at TED 2006 in Monterey, California on February 23. The winners receive $100,000 each to support fulfillment of the wish. "We're proud to be honoring three such remarkable individuals," says Chris Anderson, Curator of the TED Conference. We believe they will inspire the TED Community and perhaps many others to play a role in nudging our world toward a better future. About This Year's Winners Dr. Larry Brilliant is an epidemiologist who helped manage the World Health Organization's highly successful campaign against smallpox in India. Dr. Brilliant is the cofounder of the Seva Foundation, a non-profit organization committed to building partnerships to respond to locally defined problems with culturally sustainable solutions. The organization is responsible for providing more than 2 million blind men and women with free eye operations. Dr. Brilliant is also an accomplished technology entrepreneur, having confounded The Well and a series of innovative tech companies. Jehane Noujaim is an award-winning documentary filmmaker responsible for films that include Startup.com and Control Room, a groundbreaking documentary on the Arab news network Al Jazeera. Noujaim is the recipient of the Director's Guild of America and IDA Award, among others. Cameron Sinclair is cofounder and executive director of Architecture for Humanity, a six year-old charitable organization seeking architectural solutions to humanitarian crises and providing design services to communities in need. Sinclair is working on a wide range of projects, including school building in India, issues of homelessness, tsunami reconstruction, developing mobile medical facilities to combat HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa and rebuilding communities devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Oct 13 15:41:04 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:41:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. In-Reply-To: <12de01c5cfa5$f4c127e0$8998e03c@homepc> References: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc> <22360fa10510111401v2b6fd0d9s122132be28cef85f@mail.gmail.com> <0fb601c5ceb9$324484b0$8998e03c@homepc> <22360fa10510121254o2cfef565y1ab12f51839c6b4c@mail.gmail.com> <12de01c5cfa5$f4c127e0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <22360fa10510130841q567b4389v1539195de1a6a7d2@mail.gmail.com> On 10/11/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > Jef Allbright wrote: > > > > > Why should politics be limited to issues of scarcity? > > > > Because we are built of biological stuff. Selfish genes that > > wanted to replicate. > > By talking of selfish genes I'm probably going down too far. > For present purposes at least and indeed perhaps generally. > My inclination is to try to understand human behavior by > seeing it connectedness to social animal behaviour which is > what politics must be at its most basic level. The virtue of > this approach, if it can be successful, is that it places the > political within the sphere of the scientific and only one > meta-model is then necessary. > Yes, a single, more encompassing meta-model is our goal in this discussion. But each level of organization has characteristics not evident in the simpler levels below it. There is a meta-model that encompasses your concept of politics being essentially related to "competition over issues of scarcity." That particular concept is only a part of the phase space of a broader concept of "effective interaction of agents." > You say "the dynamics of the larger socio-economic > sytem". That is something that is made up of individual > decision making agents. Humans. Right? > Yes. Mortal, biological humans, with potentials they want to > develop and selves they want to actualise. All of which > most of them perceive they will have to do within the context > of some life expectancy and development stereotype that is > influenced by culture but is largely based on the fact that > they people are biologically animals whose growth and > development is conditional on getting the resources they > need at each stage of their development in order to proceed > on to the next. > > > Isn't it appropriately called political action when working > > > together to promote development toward increasing > > > abundance... > > > > Maybe. The words are too general for me to say. > > > My point was to generalize a conception of politics, not mired in > competitive zero-sum thinking related to reducing scarcity or authority, but > in functionally neutral terms, and open to cooperative positive-sum thinking > related to increasing growth and freedom. > > Aren't you trying to sort of nice-up politics a bit? To try to make it > nicer > by defining away unpleasantness? > No, and that has been a point of frustration during this discussion. There is ugliness in politics, and in the situations that motivate politics. I am not trying to define away the ugliness; I'm trying to show that thinking in terms of scarcity is self-limiting because that is only one aspect of the system, and that scarcity thinking is rapidly becoming less appropriate--less effective--due to changes in the environment in which we interact. The population bomb appears to have been defused, efficiency of production continues to increase, and most importantly--information technology allows us to increasingly (1) see the bigger picture consequences of our actions and (2) see the subjective values that drive our actions, and (3) implement collaboration frameworks that apply #1 and #2 to produce more effective social decision-making. I suggested that we think of politics as "social decision-making applied to > groups, expecially with respect to methods of influence within those > processes." > I'm getting stuck with phrase "social decision-making". > I'm wondering if it is an oxymoron. > Ah, perhaps this is the crux of the matter. One can plan a party, build a nest, put on fine clothes, read > poetry, sing songs, or do whatever the heck one can to *try* to > attract the interest and support of other persons or people but > in the end there is only a finite amount of other-concentration > to be had and one IS necessarily competing for it whenever > others want it as well. And others do want it. They do want > to grab some of that finite resource, that attention. That attention > which is necessary for getting votes, funding, or even returned > smiles. > That's politics (or part of it). There is only so much attention > to go around and individuals that don't get enough of it don't > survive and thrive. > I once thought that transhumanisms great offering and political promise > > might have been something along the lines of a bold offering to the > > haves (and have nots) of something they didn't have. More time. > > > > My own view is that the best we can do is decide and act in the present > such that we maximize the survival and growth of our subjective interests. > Since my interests include a vision of increasing opportunities for growth, > it follows that I am motivated to promote improved frameworks of awareness > and cooperation to facilitate this vision. > > You mean "of our subjective interests" collectively? > Yes, in the sense of an expanding sphere of interests in common based on increasing awareness of who we are and what works. Note that this does not mean that eventually we all become identical, because the process of evolutionary growth entails increasing diversity. I think it is misguided to hope for more time, given the environment in > which we find ourselves. > > I agree. But I think that the attention grabbing thing that transhumanism > had going for it for a while was > the possibility of giving people including powerful people that already > have a lot of things, more time. > It lost those things and lost the attention grabbing thing when the > wheels came off the Drexlerian > nanotech applecart, which is needed to make the cryonics promise credible. > > > With the promise and peril of nanotechnology upon us, most likely > followed by recursively improving AI, but not necessarily in that order, it > appears that we have only a brief window within which to promote the growth > of those human values which work, and thus perhaps improve the odds of > living in a future more of our choosing--before the rules of the game change > drastically. > > This is away from the issue either of what politics is, or what you want > to define it to be and get agreement on. > Promoting our values and effectively influencing choices for our future is very close to the point of this discussion. The promises and perils you percieve mark you out as a particular sort of > person. A transhuman subcultural insider. But the subcultures best claims > for the attention of the mainstream have not born sufficient fruit to > continue to be credible or particularly attention demanding of the > mainstream. Both the promise and peril of nanotech that you talk of are > intended to be attention grabbers. And for a while they were attention > grabbers. But their attention grabbing power has been lost relative to other > promises and threats that the mainstream feels it is facing. > Brett, I think I clearly understand your position, and disappointment, that transhumanism seems to be failing to grab sufficient popular attention. I think this "failure" is quite understandable, not least because of the very counter-productive label "transhumanism" and because most of what seems obvious to insiders seems threatening and out of touch to most outsiders. Rather than trying to grab attention and spotlight some key issues, I'm saying that a general framework of collaboration is emerging, and that it will increase the effective intelligence of our social decision-making. It's already happening, with google increasing our accessability to knowledge, blogster, flickr, various collaborative filtering systems for music and video, the rise of blogging to make worldwide news and opinion more immediate and less central... All of these trends are seductively leading to increasing awareness of ourselves (our values) and our world (what works) and providing a more effective framework for social decision-making applied to groups. It's happening, but it's not at all clear that it's happening fast enough and effectively enough to deal with the approaching threats of ubiquitous nanotech and recursively improving AI. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Oct 13 18:07:59 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:07:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." Message-ID: <20051013180759.58679.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> While watching Serenity last night, I recalled concern on this list over the sentiment against "making people better". But that seems to be a misinterpretation of the context of that line. * Don't want someone else to "make people BETTER" - standard Luddite refrain. * Don't want someone else to "MAKE people better" - the way the line was apparently actually meant. Making people better without their consent - "meddling", as another character in the movie put it - fundamentally warps the definition of "better" in this case. It only needs to be "better" in the eyes of those doing the making - which, as evidenced in the movie, can be very much worse in the eyes of those remade (even if things do not malfunction, but especially if they do: those doing the making are not directly affected, thus they have less incentive to get things right). I have noticed, in conversations with luddish people, that the true concern is not actually over "better", but over "make". When presented with the possibility of completely voluntary self-improvement, they may fluster a bit, but they rarely have any true objection to that. (Unless the improvement is so useful that many people adopt it, forcing the rest to either adopt it or be competed out of jobs and starve. I would counter that, if any improvement does prove itself to be that useful, then maybe *at that time* compelling it would become acceptable. After all, this is the model that basic schooling and education followed, and few people today question the compulsory education of children. There is some debate as to the best specific means of education, but the end goal itself rarely faces disagreement.) Just an observation. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Oct 13 18:19:58 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:19:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <20051013180759.58679.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051013180759.58679.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510131119n1aa74844r7fa94c1b273777f1@mail.gmail.com> On 10/13/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > I have noticed, in conversations with luddish people, that the true > concern is not actually over "better", but over "make". Absolutely. If transhumanists came across as saying "we want technology to improve ourselves, if other people want to use it too that's fine with us, it's a matter of individual choice", most people's reaction wouldn't be worse than "eh, those guys are weird". The reason people like Fukuyama regard transhumanism as something to be feared and hated is that they (not without reason) perceive transhumanists as saying "we want technology to improve ourselves, those who join us will be saved, all others will be forcibly converted or exterminated like the inferior creatures you are!" - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Oct 13 20:20:52 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:20:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510131119n1aa74844r7fa94c1b273777f1@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051013180759.58679.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510131119n1aa74844r7fa94c1b273777f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/13/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 10/13/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > > I have noticed, in conversations with luddish people, that the true > > concern is not actually over "better", but over "make". > > > Absolutely. > > If transhumanists came across as saying "we want technology to improve > ourselves, if other people want to use it too that's fine with us, it's a > matter of individual choice", most people's reaction wouldn't be worse than > "eh, those guys are weird". > > The reason people like Fukuyama regard transhumanism as something to be > feared and hated is that they (not without reason) perceive transhumanists > as saying "we want technology to improve ourselves, those who join us will > be saved, all others will be forcibly converted or exterminated like the > inferior creatures you are!" > > The reason people like Fukuyama regard transhumanism as something to be feared and hated is that they (not without reason) perceive transhumanists as saying "we want technology to improve ourselves, those who join us will be immortal geniuses, all others will be unemployable retards!" Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 22:05:35 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051013220535.59153.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> > > On 10/13/05, Adrian Tymes > wrote: > > If transhumanists came across as saying "we want > technology to improve > > ourselves, if other people want to use it too > that's fine with us, it's a > > matter of individual choice", most people's > reaction wouldn't be worse than > > "eh, those guys are weird". > >> On 10/13/05, Russell Wallace > wrote: > > The reason people like Fukuyama regard > transhumanism as something to be > > feared and hated is that they (not without reason) > perceive transhumanists > > as saying "we want technology to improve > ourselves, those who join us will > > be saved, all others will be forcibly converted or > exterminated like the > > inferior creatures you are!" --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > The reason people like Fukuyama regard > transhumanism as something to be > feared and hated is that they (not without reason) > perceive transhumanists > as saying "we want technology to improve ourselves, > those who join us will > be immortal geniuses, all others will be > unemployable retards!" So the question remains what if any of these reactions do we want to engender? On one hand, Dirk and Russell's message is guaranteed to bring us stiff opposition and controversy. This will in turn bring us much publicity, mostly bad, although it is said that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Adrian's message on the other hand, will not garner us much publicity good or bad, but will allow us to work our plans to fruition without too much opposition. So I suppose the dillemma boils down to whether or not progress or notoriety is more important to our cause? Notoriety will gain us more converts no matter what we are pitching. Advertise sewage well enough and people will buy it, such is the nature of publicity. But will we ever get enough converts to effect the majority necessary for support from a democratically elected government? I seriously doubt it. However without SOME converts will we probably not attain the resources we need to fulfill our ambitions either, even if we were completely unopposed. So perhaps our message should be more subtle, the interpretation of which can constitute a qualifying test for membership: "We want the technology to improve ourselves, those who join us will be improved, all others will be in the hands of nature and nature's God." The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Oct 13 23:36:08 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:36:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <20051013220535.59153.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051013233608.54833.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> ...attributions, please: > > > On 10/13/05, Adrian Tymes > > wrote: > > > If transhumanists came across as saying "we want > > technology to improve > > > ourselves, if other people want to use it too > > that's fine with us, it's a > > > matter of individual choice", most people's > > reaction wouldn't be worse than > > > "eh, those guys are weird". Not quite what I said, and definitely not what I wrote. --- The Avantguardian wrote: > Adrian's message on the other hand, will not garner us > much publicity good or bad, but will allow us to work > our plans to fruition without too much opposition. I beg to differ. Yes, it's not "join us OR ELSE" - but people can already see the "else". It's all around them already, and growing almost every day. No need to harp on it. On the other hand, many people don't see a way that they can prosper from what's going on - thus their fear. That's where we come in. > However without SOME converts will we probably not > attain the resources we need to fulfill our ambitions > either, even if we were completely unopposed. Give those who are afraid of the future a way out - a way which happens to lead to our side - and we'll gain those converts. The more of the desired future that we make real, the easier this will be. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 00:07:21 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:07:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <20051013233608.54833.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051014000722.895.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > ...attributions, please: Sorry buddy, sometimes the thread gets somewhat convoluted with nested attributions. I got confuzzled. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Oct 14 00:53:17 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <20051014000722.895.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051014005318.91859.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > ...attributions, please: > > Sorry buddy, sometimes the thread gets somewhat > convoluted with nested attributions. I got confuzzled. No prob. It happens. Just so long as the record's straight. :) From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 01:12:25 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 02:12:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: References: <20051013180759.58679.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510131119n1aa74844r7fa94c1b273777f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510131812y53d92d5ft99760f8cb0b6e358@mail.gmail.com> On 10/13/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > The reason people like Fukuyama regard transhumanism as something to be > feared and hated is that they (not without reason) perceive transhumanists > as saying "we want technology to improve ourselves, those who join us will > be immortal geniuses, all others will be unemployable retards!" That's a contributor too, but I think you'll find fear of extinction gets you a stronger reaction than fear of mere unemployment. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Oct 14 04:27:28 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:27:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510140427.j9E4RYe07812@tick.javien.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dirk Bruere ... The reason people like Fukuyama regard transhumanism as something to be feared and hated is that they (not without reason) perceive transhumanists as saying "we want technology to improve ourselves, those who join us will be immortal geniuses, all others will be unemployable retards!" Dirk Let us keep in mind that at some level, humans are all in competition with each other. This is so very natural to the high schooler, who is in direct competition for girls. Those of us who had little money were immediate losers compared to the guys who could afford nice cars. It doesn't surprise me a bit that there are Fukuyamans who squirm at the notion that their wealthier neighbors will soon be able to buy yet another advantage over them. spike From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Oct 14 06:14:49 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:14:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Any progress towards AI at all? In-Reply-To: <20051010091117.GZ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 10/10/05 2:11 AM, "Eugen Leitl" wrote: > On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 10:11:59PM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: >> To an outsider, little has changed in the last decade in AI. To an insider, >> theoretical progress in the last five years or so has been hyperactive and >> qualitative. This sea change just is not something that is easily seen or > > How do we measure that progress, however? Do we have benchmarks on practical > systems? I don't see much progress in practice, but I'm admittedly not looking > very hard (it would be a full-time job). For almost the entire history of AI research, there has been no coherent general theoretical model for intelligent systems. In the last few years, something that looks very much like a comprehensive theoretical description and framework for intelligent systems in the abstract has been coalescing very nicely. The net effect is that it is starting to transition from looking like a really hard theoretical problem to a really hard engineering problem. And the engineering problems that follow do not look like classical AI, so we know that we have something interesting and new rather than rehashing an old concept with a fresh coat of paint. To the man on the street those two states look the same, but for someone in the trenches that looks like real progress for a change. That is the basis on which I am saying AI has been making real progress. Solving a problem that one cannot even describe in the theoretical abstract is nigh impossible, but engineering problems are something humans are reasonably good at brute-forcing in many cases. There are still legions of academics and clueless researchers following their One True Religion and living off grant mills that prefer minor variations of very old (and dead) ideas, but these people have never defined progress in the field and a lot of really good work is being done by multiple research groups on various aspects of core theory. The main thing to take away from this is that AI research is not nearly as stalled as a cursory examination of its history might suggest. For the first time in its history, it is starting to look interesting at something other than an academic level. J. Andrew Rogers From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 12:45:03 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:45:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Any progress towards AI at all? In-Reply-To: References: <20051010091117.GZ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 10/14/05, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > On 10/10/05 2:11 AM, "Eugen Leitl" wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 10:11:59PM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > >> To an outsider, little has changed in the last decade in AI. To an > insider, > >> theoretical progress in the last five years or so has been hyperactive > and > >> qualitative. This sea change just is not something that is easily seen > or > > > > How do we measure that progress, however? Do we have benchmarks on > practical > > systems? I don't see much progress in practice, but I'm admittedly not > looking > > very hard (it would be a full-time job). > > > For almost the entire history of AI research, there has been no coherent > general theoretical model for intelligent systems. In the last few years, > something that looks very much like a comprehensive theoretical > description > and framework for intelligent systems in the abstract has been coalescing > very nicely. The net effect is that it is starting to transition from > looking like a really hard theoretical problem to a really hard > engineering > problem. And the engineering problems that follow do not look like > classical AI, so we know that we have something interesting and new rather > than rehashing an old concept with a fresh coat of paint. To the man on > the > street those two states look the same, but for someone in the trenches > that > looks like real progress for a change. > > That is the basis on which I am saying AI has been making real progress. > Solving a problem that one cannot even describe in the theoretical > abstract > is nigh impossible, but engineering problems are something humans are > reasonably good at brute-forcing in many cases. There are still legions of > academics and clueless researchers following their One True Religion and > living off grant mills that prefer minor variations of very old (and dead) > ideas, but these people have never defined progress in the field and a lot > of really good work is being done by multiple research groups on various > aspects of core theory. > > The main thing to take away from this is that AI research is not nearly as > stalled as a cursory examination of its history might suggest. For the > first time in its history, it is starting to look interesting at something > other than an academic level. > Tow other crucial factors: a) We now have significant cheap computing power that is rapidly getting cheaper. It's no longer a case of a megabuck per MIPS. b) AI applications look feasible on near-term mass market machines. That is, there is a lot of money to be made - it's not just academics messing about. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bradbury at aeiveos.com Fri Oct 14 15:19:51 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 08:19:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <200510140427.j9E4RYe07812@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: Spike wrote, > Let us keep in mind that at some level, humans are > all in competition with each other. Noticing the recent successes in the DARPA car race (as well as the fact that software can "understand" speech, can speak, and rewrite news articles) people should realize that the competition down the road is going to be wish computer software & AIs not so much with other humans. For example -- how long before all truck drivers are replaced with "driving" software? 5 years? 10 years? One of the reasons Volkswagon contributed to the Stanford car effort is because they want to put the driving software into cars to make them safer. Once you do that then replacing the driver become only a matter of time. The one hope here is that we get the nanotech breakthroughs that allow "Sapphire Mansions". In such environments the concept of "wealth" has to shift. Robert From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 15:26:31 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:26:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: References: <200510140427.j9E4RYe07812@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 10/14/05, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > > > Spike wrote, > > > Let us keep in mind that at some level, humans are > > all in competition with each other. > > Noticing the recent successes in the DARPA car race > (as well as the fact that software can "understand" > speech, can speak, and rewrite news articles) people > should realize that the competition down the road > is going to be wish computer software & AIs not > so much with other humans. For example -- how long > before all truck drivers are replaced with "driving" > software? 5 years? 10 years? One of the reasons > I've been hearing that since the 1960s. The answer is "not this side of the singularity". Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Fri Oct 14 16:32:41 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:32:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Any progress towards AI at all? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434FDDA9.60607@pobox.com> J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > For almost the entire history of AI research, there has been no coherent > general theoretical model for intelligent systems. In the last few years, > something that looks very much like a comprehensive theoretical description > and framework for intelligent systems in the abstract has been coalescing > very nicely. The net effect is that it is starting to transition from > looking like a really hard theoretical problem to a really hard engineering > problem. And the engineering problems that follow do not look like > classical AI, so we know that we have something interesting and new rather > than rehashing an old concept with a fresh coat of paint. To the man on the > street those two states look the same, but for someone in the trenches that > looks like real progress for a change. This work is just getting started. Most of the major problems I'm interested in are not solvable in current formal frameworks even with unbounded computing power (generally due to indefinite recursion). -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 16:51:23 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:51:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Any progress towards AI at all? In-Reply-To: <434FDDA9.60607@pobox.com> References: <434FDDA9.60607@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 10/14/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > This work is just getting started. Most of the major problems I'm > interested in are not solvable in current formal frameworks even with > unbounded computing power (generally due to indefinite recursion). > See NYT: Behind Artificial Intelligence, a Squadron of Bright Real People By JOHN MARKOFF Published: October 14, 2005 SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 12 - The five robots that successfully navigated a 132-mile course in the Nevada desert last weekend demonstrated the re-emergence of artificial intelligence, a technology field that for decades has overpromised and underdelivered. The ability of the vehicles to complete a complex everyday task - driving - underscores how artificial intelligence may at last be moving beyond the research laboratory. While artificial intelligence technology is already in use in telephone answering systems with speech recognition and in popular household gadgets like the iRobot vacuum cleaner, none of the existing systems have been as ambitious as Darpa's Grand Challenge road race. This leap was possible, in large part, because researchers are moving from an approach that relied principally on logic and rule-based systems to more probability or statistics-oriented software technologies. Until recently, progress in artificial intelligence lagged so far behind computing technology that some in the field talked about an "A.I. winter," after commercial and government funding evaporated in the mid-1980's. Now there is talk about an A.I. spring among researchers like Sebastian Thrun, the director of the Stanford lab. "The amount of journalistic interest and investor interest has fluctuated wildly," said John McCarthy, a pioneer in the field and now professor emeritus in the computer science department at Stanford University. "A.I. has continued all along, thanks to the interest among researchers and the continued support of government agencies, especially Darpa." The enthusiasm is already spreading. Researchers point out that an obvious and powerful application for A.I. technology is in automobile safety systems. "Any time you create a technology that has the potential of saving 20,000 to 30,000 lives in a year, one has to sit up and take notice," said Raj Reddy, a professor of computer science and robotics at Carnegie Mellon University. "If you look at automotive accidents in the United States, the repair bill is about $55 billion each year." ---------------------- BillK From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 18:16:07 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:16:07 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Jean Paul Baquiast - A propos du transhumanisme Message-ID: <470a3c520510141116r6c5112ddhc249dd11e5895b25@mail.gmail.com> Jean Paul Baquiast , editor of the French web magazine Automates Intelligents, has written a positive and thoughtful review of transhumanist ideas. The article is also available on the WTA website. Definitely worth reading for those who read French. I found especially interesting Jean Paul's conclusion: "Nous pensons que le mouvement transhumaniste ne progressera, tout au moins en France, que s'il s'ouvre un peu ? l'humour et au ludique, en abandonnant une sorte de rigueur protestante qui l'impr?gne encore", or in other words "We think the transhumanist movement will advance only, at least in France, if it becomes more open to humor and playfulness, leaving aside a sort of protestant rigor that still pervades it". Food for thought. Source: Le blog d'Automates Intelligents - Le weblog du site et de la revue en ligne Automates Intelligents http://www.automatesintelligents.com A propos du transhumanisme - Pr?sentation et commentaire de Transhumanist FAQ, ouvrage collectif ?dit? par la World Tranhumanist Association par Jean Paul Baquiast 14/10/05 Voici d?j? quelques temps que nous souhaitions pr?senter ? ceux de nos lecteurs qui l'ignoreraient encore ? un mouvement de pens?e qui nous parait riche d'avenir, le transhumanisme. Le hasard ? voulu que je rencontre moi-m?me ? Madrid, lors du Colloque des 5/7 octobre consacr? ? la souverainet? technologique europ?enne, l'un des p?res de ce mouvement, le philosophe et scientifique Nick Bostrom. L'occasion ?tait belle pour rapprocher les r?flexions de l'?cole transhumaniste et celles que, de temps ? autres, nous abordons dans notre revue en examinant notamment les cons?quences des sciences ?mergentes (Nano-bio-info ou NBIC) sur l'avenir de l'humanit?. Nous vous proposons de le faire ici en pr?sentant et discutant une brochure publi?e ? la fois sur le web et sous forme de document papier, The Transhumanist FAQ. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 14 18:28:00 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:28:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Jean Paul Baquiast - A propos du transhumanisme In-Reply-To: <470a3c520510141116r6c5112ddhc249dd11e5895b25@mail.gmail.co m> References: <470a3c520510141116r6c5112ddhc249dd11e5895b25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051014132556.01d00ec8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:16 PM 10/14/2005 +0200, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >Jean Paul >Baquiast, editor of the French web magazine >Automates Intelligents, has written >a positive and thoughtful review of transhumanist ideas. ..."We think the >transhumanist movement will advance only, at least in France, if it >becomes more open to humor and playfulness, leaving aside a sort of >protestant rigor that still pervades it". Obviously hasn't been hanging around this list, or reading my fiction or Charlie Stross's, or for that matter reading GREAT MAMBO CHICKEN. Damien Broderick From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 18:48:59 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:48:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Jean Paul Baquiast - A propos du transhumanisme In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051014132556.01d00ec8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <470a3c520510141116r6c5112ddhc249dd11e5895b25@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051014132556.01d00ec8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520510141148g40648dfey988696b7fc094b95@mail.gmail.com> Somehow I don't see Jean Paul reading Stross. Perhaps he would enjoy your books, especially the "education" of Matthewmark in Transcension. I believe he knows the Spike. Unfortunately on this list we *do* see too much "protestant rigor" at times. This is especially evident when we discuss... oh forget it. G. On 10/14/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:16 PM 10/14/2005 +0200, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > >Jean Paul > >Baquiast, editor of the French web magazine > >Automates Intelligents, has written > >a positive and thoughtful review of transhumanist ideas. ..."We think the > >transhumanist movement will advance only, at least in France, if it > >becomes more open to humor and playfulness, leaving aside a sort of > >protestant rigor that still pervades it". > > Obviously hasn't been hanging around this list, or reading my fiction or > Charlie Stross's, or for that matter reading GREAT MAMBO CHICKEN. > > Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 21:57:59 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051014215759.86901.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote: > Noticing the recent successes in the DARPA car race > (as well as the fact that software can "understand" > speech, can speak, and rewrite news articles) people > should realize that the competition down the road > is going to be wish computer software & AIs not > so much with other humans. Being "downsized" and replaced by automation is one of the big fears of luddites. It is not competition per se, because the software gets nothing for its efforts. How can anybody compete with something capable of working 24/7 for free? For example -- how long > before all truck drivers are replaced with "driving" > software? 5 years? 10 years? One of the reasons > Volkswagon contributed to the Stanford car effort > is because they want to put the driving software > into cars to make them safer. Once you do that > then replacing the driver become only a matter > of time. I don't think so. Autopilot and aviation software has been around for years and most commercial airliners essentially fly themselves most of the time. But pilots are necessary to handle any unforeeable circumstances and hardware failures that come up. It's one thing for the vehicles in the Darpa challenge to successfully navigate a course. It is quite another thing for them to have one of its tires blow out at high speed and evasively steer their disabled selves around a school bus full of children and pedestrians on the sidewalk. > > The one hope here is that we get the nanotech > breakthroughs > that allow "Sapphire Mansions". In such > environments > the concept of "wealth" has to shift. I don't see how nanotech is going to solve this problem. Using nanotech to create sapphires at will isn't going to build wealth for people who have been pushed out the job market by automation. It is just going to make sapphires worthless. If the concept of wealth shifts it will be torward those things that intelligent machines would find valuable. Which immediately excludes many commodities that people find valuable. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat Oct 15 02:01:43 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:01:43 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. References: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc><22360fa10510111401v2b6fd0d9s122132be28cef85f@mail.gmail.com><0fb601c5ceb9$324484b0$8998e03c@homepc><22360fa10510121254o2cfef565y1ab12f51839c6b4c@mail.gmail.com><12de01c5cfa5$f4c127e0$8998e03c@homepc> <22360fa10510130841q567b4389v1539195de1a6a7d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <16db01c5d12c$6414d420$8998e03c@homepc> Jeff Allbright wrote: I suggested that we think of politics as "social decision-making applied to groups, expecially with respect to methods of influence within those processes." I'm getting stuck with phrase "social decision-making". I'm wondering if it is an oxymoron. Ah, perhaps this is the crux of the matter. That I'm getting stuck, that I'm wondering, or that social decison-making is an oxymoron? I might have cut out more than you wanted me in this reply but I prefer to focus on the crux of the matter. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat Oct 15 04:01:44 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 14:01:44 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo was The Amazing CellularRepairdevice References: Message-ID: <16fd01c5d13d$27e07980$8998e03c@homepc> >> Robert J. Bradbury wrote: >>From a computer science perspective if the file has the same > MD5 checksum the probability is high that its the same file > whether it is copy #1 or copy #10,000. But how do you compare the *original* analog store with digital copy #1 ? How would you do a baseline MD5 checksum on the frozen or vitrified brain? Brett Paatsch From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 15 04:25:30 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:25:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] competition with computers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510150425.j9F4PPe08117@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert J. Bradbury > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." > > > Spike wrote, > > > Let us keep in mind that at some level, humans are > > all in competition with each other. > > Noticing the recent successes in the DARPA car race > (as well as the fact that software can "understand" > speech, can speak, and rewrite news articles) people > should realize that the competition down the road > is going to be with computer software & AIs not > so much with other humans... > > Robert On a slight tangent, is this not a wonderful sport that has been recently born, the DARPA grand challenge races? Since it is a new sport, the optimal strategy has not yet really been found. Anyone with a reasonable sum of money and some engineering talent can play, unlike the more established motor sports, such as the Indy 500 or NASCAR. I can easily envision DARPA sponsoring robot races every other year for decades, and the cars getting faster and better each time. It will really be cool when they rig motorcycles to go on their own. I want to see a motorcycle flat track race, humans vs machines. The machines should have an edge, since they could be lighter than a human, with less wind resistance. It would be sooo wicked cool to see an apparently riderless bike powersliding in the turns. {8^D spike From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Oct 15 04:43:30 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:43:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. In-Reply-To: <16db01c5d12c$6414d420$8998e03c@homepc> References: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc> <22360fa10510111401v2b6fd0d9s122132be28cef85f@mail.gmail.com> <0fb601c5ceb9$324484b0$8998e03c@homepc> <22360fa10510121254o2cfef565y1ab12f51839c6b4c@mail.gmail.com> <12de01c5cfa5$f4c127e0$8998e03c@homepc> <22360fa10510130841q567b4389v1539195de1a6a7d2@mail.gmail.com> <16db01c5d12c$6414d420$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <22360fa10510142143k6e6c9dd9rcea973e7d7fac469@mail.gmail.com> On 10/14/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > Jeff Allbright wrote: > > I suggested that we think of politics as "social decision-making > > applied to groups, expecially with respect to methods of influence within > > those processes." > > I'm getting stuck with phrase "social decision-making". > > I'm wondering if it is an oxymoron. > > > > > Ah, perhaps this is the crux of the matter. > > That I'm getting stuck, that I'm wondering, or that social decison-making > is an oxymoron? > Suggest you try each of your three possibilities in a sentence and see which of the three might be worth discussing. I might have cut out more than you wanted me in this reply but I prefer to > focus on the crux of the matter. > Well, Lizbeth and I just got home from a wonderful Moroccan dinner and my thoughts are more on belly dancing than dialog at the moment. [Added Dionysian aside for benefit of Jean Paul who would like to see us lighten up.] In the part of the email that you cut, I did try to explain. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Oct 15 05:55:06 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 06:55:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <20051014215759.86901.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051014215759.86901.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510142255x6d875e13va1ad6a30335d5c21@mail.gmail.com> On 10/14/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Being "downsized" and replaced by automation is one of > the big fears of luddites. It is not competition per > se, because the software gets nothing for its efforts. > How can anybody compete with something capable of > working 24/7 for free? Yep. After all there's 95% unemployment now because computers have replaced human "computers" (yes, it used to be a job title) and assembly line workers and clerks etc, and most of the population have starved to death... ...meanwhile back here on Earth, that hasn't happened at all, has it? Why not? Go ahead and declare your agenda to be the extermination of the human race, go ahead and declare your enemies' fear to be only that of unemployment, if that's your choice. I'm inclined to wish you wouldn't, because I think Charybdis is deadlier than Scylla, but I have no power over you. But one thing you can never truthfully say is that I didn't tell you so. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Sat Oct 15 06:14:09 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 08:14:09 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] nonradiative energies References: <200510150425.j9F4PPe08117@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <000301c5d14f$a8779d00$eabc1b97@administxl09yj> What will be the next great invention on the order of the laser? We don't know, but clever new ideas keep coming along. The second-place award in the technological innovation competition went to Marin Soljacic (MIT) for his concept of wireless, non-radiative energy transmission. Just as in the quantum case in which the Schrodinger equation allows for a wave trapped in a box to tunnel out, so Maxwell's equations allow for the leakage of electromagnetic energy from an electromagnetic resonance object. If another such object were placed not far from the first one, and the resonant frequencies of both were the same, then the energy could be transferred between them with very little energy lost to other objects in the nearby environmental that do not share the same resonant frequency. The transmitted energy, although electromagnetic in nature, would not be referred to as "radiation" since it is bound to the resonant objects. It is rather an example of "near-field" physics. Soljacic avoids words like "antenna," since the process does not involve broadcasts of energy in the usual sense. In contrast, the vast majority of energy radiated by antennas is typically wasted and lost into free space, while only a small portion is picked up by the eventual receivers. Instead, Soljacic uses terms like "source" and "drain" in analogy with transistors to describe the movement of energy. An exemplary setup might consist of a transmitter in a ceiling and devices in that room (e.g robots, or computers) being powered wirelessly by this energy. Marin Soljacic's page http://www.mit.edu/~soljacic/ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 06:40:44 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510142255x6d875e13va1ad6a30335d5c21@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051015064044.10439.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > Yep. After all there's 95% unemployment now because > computers have replaced > human "computers" (yes, it used to be a job title) > and assembly line workers > and clerks etc, and most of the population have > starved to death... Without the invention of the foodstamp would this had been the case? Clerks are not unemployed because to date computers are still only a medium and can't generate their own content. > ...meanwhile back here on Earth, that hasn't > happened at all, has it? Why > not? Because of welfare systems and imperfect automation. > Go ahead and declare your agenda to be the > extermination of the human race, > go ahead and declare your enemies' fear to be only > that of unemployment, if > that's your choice. My agenda is neither. My agenda is sustainability followed by interstellar diaspora. > I'm inclined to wish you > wouldn't, because I think > Charybdis is deadlier than Scylla, but I have no > power over you. But one > thing you can never truthfully say is that I didn't > tell you so. I concur with your assessment that Charybdis is the the deadlier of the two. But wisdom would dictate that we chart a course that doesn't take us through that particular straight. After all even in this early stage of our evolution, we are supposedly superior to lemmings. With foresight comes the ability to alter the future. After all are we not trying to strip Atropos of her shears? The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From scerir at libero.it Sat Oct 15 06:47:21 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 08:47:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] the medium is the message References: <200510150425.j9F4PPe08117@tick.javien.com> <000301c5d14f$a8779d00$eabc1b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <009201c5d154$4b9bd8d0$eabc1b97@administxl09yj> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510102 'Message in the Sky' Authors: S. Hsu, A. Zee 'We argue that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) provides a stupendous opportunity for the Creator of our universe (assuming one exists) to have sent a message to its occupants, using known physics. The medium for the message is unique. We elaborate on this observation, noting that it requires only careful adjustment of the fundamental Lagrangian, but no direct intervention in the subsequent evolution of the universe.' Dave Bacon http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1098 especially likes the last paragraph of that paper: 'In conclusion, we believe that we have raised an intriguing possibility: a universal message might be encoded in the cosmic background. When more accurate CMB data becomes available, we urge that it be analyzed carefully for possible patterns. This may be even more fun than SETI.' I hope that Guy Consolmagno will add a new chapter at the end of his new book http://www.indcatholicnews.com/et.html like: 'Would humans recognise intelligent 'verbum' if they see it?' But how can we distinguish messages from CBR? In general a message transmitted over a limited channel (limited bandwith) is not easily distinguishable from random noise to a receiver who is not familiar with the language, or the coding, of the message itself. Messages might encode information using direction, or timing, or polarization, or energy, or ... Hawking black-hole radiation? From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat Oct 15 07:53:13 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:53:13 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. References: <0eac01c5ce86$cc11b820$8998e03c@homepc><22360fa10510111401v2b6fd0d9s122132be28cef85f@mail.gmail.com><0fb601c5ceb9$324484b0$8998e03c@homepc><22360fa10510121254o2cfef565y1ab12f51839c6b4c@mail.gmail.com><12de01c5cfa5$f4c127e0$8998e03c@homepc><22360fa10510130841q567b4389v1539195de1a6a7d2@mail.gmail.com><16db01c5d12c$6414d420$8998e03c@homepc> <22360fa10510142143k6e6c9dd9rcea973e7d7fac469@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <17a201c5d15d$7ecb3ee0$8998e03c@homepc> ----- Original Message ----- From: Jef Allbright To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] A view of what politics is. On 10/14/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: Jeff Allbright wrote: I suggested that we think of politics as "social decision-making applied to groups, expecially with respect to methods of influence within those processes." I'm getting stuck with phrase "social decision-making". I'm wondering if it is an oxymoron. Ah, perhaps this is the crux of the matter. That I'm getting stuck, that I'm wondering, or that social decison-making is an oxymoron? Suggest you try each of your three possibilities in a sentence and see which of the three might be worth discussing. I left that exercise for you. You said you were frustrated. So was I. You asked for comment, I gave it. Sometimes the email medium makes comment and feedback too much trouble to provide. Sometimes frankly the thickness of the one one is conversing with does. I feel that way sometimes, although not usually with you. I presumed you might too thats why I put the question the way I did. I might have cut out more than you wanted me in this reply but I prefer to focus on the crux of the matter. Well, Lizbeth and I just got home from a wonderful Moroccan dinner and my thoughts are more on belly dancing than dialog at the moment. [Added Dionysian aside for benefit of Jean Paul who would like to see us lighten up.] In the part of the email that you cut, I did try to explain. So did I. You seemed to miss the point. Yet you evidence it. People prioritise their time even within social contexts. People make choices about what they attend to. Some prefer Moroccan dinners or light banter to discussions about politics. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Sat Oct 15 07:57:04 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:57:04 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510131119n1aa74844r7fa94c1b273777f1@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051013180759.58679.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510131119n1aa74844r7fa94c1b273777f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520510150057g76564fc1t95d9266bdfacd921@mail.gmail.com> I think Russel is correct in saying that some people hate transhumanism because they fear that "humans will be exterminated by posthumans". But there is a very deep misunderstanding here. Example: I think in the developed world there must be still a few percent completely illiterate people, but suppose one day the NYT publishes an article titled "There are no illiterate Americans left - everybody in the US can read and write". Of course, every sensible person would think this is good news. Now take the alternative formulation "Illiterate Americans have been exterminated by those who can read and write". Sounds sort of wrong, and indeed it is semantically wrong because you cannot use the word "exterminate" in this context. To make things even clearer think of describing the impact of a cure for HIV with the words "HIV sufferers will be exterminated in 5 years". This would be e very unfortunate choice of words indeed, even if the author simply means that everybody with HIV will have been cured in 5 years. The wording suggests mass execution instead of healing. Now lets examine "humans will be exterminated by posthumans". The sentence is semantically meaningful if we take "humans" and "posthumans" as two separate species defined by different biologies, but not if posthumans means voluntarily enhanced humans with non-inheritable or genetically inheritable mods. And I don't think anyone, at least on this list, would seriously consider any forced enhancement concept. More likely, competitive pressure would incentive people to consider enhancement, and market dynamics with public aid programs would make enhancement affordable. So, as it usually happens the problem loops back to the words used to state it. My proposal, which I have made many times on this and other list, is to stop using the words "transhuman" and "posthuman". The name of our species is "humans". Humans is what we were thousands of years ago, humans is what we are now, humans is what we will be as members of a galactic civilization radically enhanced wrt our current biology, and humans is what we will be as AI-enhanced uploads running on a computronium substrate. On 10/13/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 10/13/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > I have noticed, in conversations with luddish people, that the true > > concern is not actually over "better", but over "make". > > Absolutely. > > If transhumanists came across as saying "we want technology to improve > ourselves, if other people want to use it too that's fine with us, it's a > matter of individual choice", most people's reaction wouldn't be worse than > "eh, those guys are weird". > > The reason people like Fukuyama regard transhumanism as something to be > feared and hated is that they (not without reason) perceive transhumanists > as saying "we want technology to improve ourselves, those who join us will > be saved, all others will be forcibly converted or exterminated like the > inferior creatures you are!" > > - Russell From eugen at leitl.org Sat Oct 15 09:07:29 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:07:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo was The Amazing CellularRepairdevice In-Reply-To: <16fd01c5d13d$27e07980$8998e03c@homepc> References: <16fd01c5d13d$27e07980$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051015090728.GT2249@leitl.org> On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 02:01:44PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote: > But how do you compare the *original* analog store with digital > copy #1 ? How would you do a baseline MD5 checksum on > the frozen or vitrified brain? A cryptographic checksum is a wrong metaphor to use on a physical system. Measurements are almost always precise in a discrete system, so single bit errors almost never occur (and if they do, you usually notice them quite soon). Cryptographic checksums are deliberately designed to be brittle enough to detect single bit mutation. Moreover, it is a digest (tiny destillate of a large mass) by definition. Of what value is a brittle digest on a very large, very dynamic, nonlinear but also self-homeostating system? There are many ways to describe a complex physical system, the space between our ears included. Shape and property descriptors, and similiarity metrics upon it are not that hard, actually. A really dumb brute-force approach would just destructively scan the bulk at atomic resolution, and store atomic properties along with the position. You could even compute a hash on that vector, though I don't see why one would want to do that. It would also be a pretty idiotic representation level for whole body/brain emulation similiarity metrics, as the relevant function occurs quite a few storeys above, at single cell and cell compartment level. A good metric would be spatiotemporal activity patterns, in which case picking out a few relevant ones for a fingerprint (not hash) would do. A crude fingerprint of a physical system would be high-resolution fMRI, MEG and EEG. A less crude one would be instrumenting each 100th cell or so with a realtime recording probe and extract operational signatures from the trajectory, and correlates with internal and external stimuli. For obvious reasons, this won't be practical for quite a long time. It is, however, the only way to make sure your process is accurate enough and doesn't confabulate similiar but not identical people. In ALife simulations individuals are characterized by behaviour, which we are well equipped to abstract. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Oct 15 12:06:41 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:06:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <20051015064044.10439.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0510142255x6d875e13va1ad6a30335d5c21@mail.gmail.com> <20051015064044.10439.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510150506j3fe8ed54w2fb6d386e817b47c@mail.gmail.com> On 10/15/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > I concur with your assessment that Charybdis is the > the deadlier of the two. But wisdom would dictate that > we chart a course that doesn't take us through that > particular straight. After all even in this early > stage of our evolution, we are supposedly superior to > lemmings. With foresight comes the ability to alter > the future. After all are we not trying to strip > Atropos of her shears? I agree completely! Now if you know of a course that doesn't pass through the strait of Messina, I'm all ears. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Oct 15 12:08:59 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:08:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <470a3c520510150057g76564fc1t95d9266bdfacd921@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051013180759.58679.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510131119n1aa74844r7fa94c1b273777f1@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510150057g76564fc1t95d9266bdfacd921@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510150508lef7874aof04749bd49238067@mail.gmail.com> On 10/15/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > So, as it usually happens the problem loops back to the words used to > state it. My proposal, which I have made many times on this and other > list, is to stop using the words "transhuman" and "posthuman". I agree completely. And to those people who've been calling humans "monkeys" and "primates", for God's sake stop doing it. Better yet, grow out of the attitude that led you to do it in the first place; if you can't do that, then at least confine the language to when you're drunk. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Oct 15 12:13:05 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:13:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510150508lef7874aof04749bd49238067@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051013180759.58679.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510131119n1aa74844r7fa94c1b273777f1@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510150057g76564fc1t95d9266bdfacd921@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510150508lef7874aof04749bd49238067@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/15/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 10/15/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > > > So, as it usually happens the problem loops back to the words used to > > state it. My proposal, which I have made many times on this and other > > list, is to stop using the words "transhuman" and "posthuman". > > > I agree completely. And to those people who've been calling humans > "monkeys" and "primates", for God's sake stop doing it. Better yet, grow out > of the attitude that led you to do it in the first place; if you can't do > that, then at least confine the language to when you're drunk. > > And stop using words like "transhumanism" and "singularity" too (just in case anyone asks what they mean). Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Oct 15 14:05:32 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:05:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Jean Paul Baquiast - A propos du transhumanisme In-Reply-To: <470a3c520510150229r200baf68o73e6c9e60839ffc5@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520510141116r6c5112ddhc249dd11e5895b25@mail.gmail.com> <20051015072144.58848.qmail@web33314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <470a3c520510150229r200baf68o73e6c9e60839ffc5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/15/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > It is a long article, I have no time to translate it all. Too bad > because I agree with a good 95% of what Jean Paul says. > He describes the content of the FAQ then makes his main points: > 1) Transhumanism should distance itself from its early "science > fiction cult" image. > 2) Transhumanism should open itself to contemporary social issues: > "Aussi faudra-t-il, pour ?viter cela, que les promoteurs du mouvement > transhumaniste s'int?ressent en priorit? aux perspectives d'am?liorer > la soci?t? d'aujourd'hui." > 3) Transhumanists should not lock themselves in an intellectual ivory > tower but learn how to "talk to the people". This is how I read the > last sentence whose literal translation I gave in the message quoted > below. > Also in my own opinions, these 3 points should be the main agenda > items for transhumanism (besides getting sufficient funding to do > them). > G. > Oh, all right then. I wasn't going to bother doing a translation if nobody showed any interest, but here is a quick effort, with the help of translation software. Some sentences are a bit back to front in English, but that's the way they talk in French. :) If I get too colloquial in English, then it strays rather far from the original. Translation is an art as well as a science. BillK In connection with transhumanism. Presentation and comment on the Transhumanist FAQ, a collective work published by the World Tranhumanist Association by Jean Paul Baquiast 14/10/05 Here already a few times we have wanted to introduce to those of our readers who are still unaware of it, a philosophical movement which appears future-rich to us, Transhumanism. The happy chance occurred in Madrid, at the time of the Conference of 5/7 October devoted to European technological sovereignty, to meet one of the fathers of this movement, the philosopher and scientist Nick Bostrom. The occasion was ideal to bring closer the thoughts of the transhumanist school and those which, from time to time, we approach in our journal by in particular examining the consequences of emergent sciences (Nano-bio-info or NBIC) on the future of humanity. We propose to you to do it here by presenting and discussing a booklet published at the same time on the Web and in the form of a paper document, The Transhumanist FAQ. To know some more The Transhumanist FAQ, version HTML http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html version pdf http://transhumanism.org/resources/FAQv21.pdf The World Tranhumanist Association http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/index/ Personal page of Nick Bostrom http://www.nickbostrom.com/ Future The of Humanity Institute http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/ Let us announce for the French-speaking people the opening of a new site, "Perspectives post-human", created by a Belgian expert of emerging technologies, who collaborates sometimes in our journal, Alain De Neve http://www.post-humain.org/ Definition. What is transhumanism? Let us summarize the booklet initially quickly, for those who do not know English well. The Transhumanist FAQ (FAQ means: answers to the frequently asked questions) presents initially a definition of transhumanism, in which most of us will recognize their concerns when they practise or study the development of new sciences. Transhumanism proposes the theory that mankind has not reached its final state and undoubtedly awaits, like all the other species, multiple evolutions in the future. This gives to mankind the possibility of changing while growing rich by all the contributions of new sciences and technologies. One finds the concept of augmented (enhanced) mankind more and more in use today. Augmented mankind will give up many of the forms and the behaviors which characterize it today, but it will have to be, the transhumanists believe, with the profit of new values extending those which make the best current humanism. Transhumanism does not yield to happy optimism. These new sciences and technologies carry as much risks as promises. It is thus necessary to discuss them and propose ways of controlling them, within forums and debates bringing together the scientists, the philosophers, the political and economic decision makers, without forgetting, obviously, the citizens agreement also. Transhumanism is distinguished from Posthumanism which, according to authors', is more radical. Posthumanism considers a futuristic world, where humanity would have succeeded in extending to environments and places which are currently inaccessible to mankind and his thought, for example the networked world or the intergalactic medium. To be a transhumanist, like being a posthumanist also, from this point of view, thus consists in believing (it really is a question of belief, we will come back to that), that a truly different future, thanks to new sciences, is possible and desirable for the humanity of today. The tranhumanist endeavours to facilitate the transition between the current world, very largely past inherited and encumbered with contradictions, towards a world more open to profitable evolutions. It was F.M. Estfandiary (renamed FM 2030) who posed the concept of transhumanism for the first time in a book already old "Are you a Transhuman? Warner, 1989) See http://www.fm2030.com/. But it was the philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pearce who really founded the movement, by joining together several tens then today several thousands of participants and members. The principal objective of David Pearce is to abolish the suffering (see http://www.hedweb.com/ ). The Transhumanist FAQ presents then, in a 2nd part, various sciences and the developments that they expect during this next half-century, which will be able to cause the transition towards transhumanism. These are biotechnologies (in particular genetic engineering, cell stocks, cloning), nanotechnologies (with their most revolutionary aspect although not yet controlled, molecular nanotechnologies), super or ultra intelligent systems associating artificial intelligence and neurosciences, virtual reality, cryonics, methods of uploading the living and the cerebral contents of mankind on artificial systems, all of this leading to the Singularity promised by the futurologists, in particular Ray Kurzweil (see his last work "The Singularity is near", about which we will speak later). http://www.singularity.com/ All this does not present any new character for the readers of this blog. In what concerns us however, we will not agree necessarily with the transhumanists in the interest that some of them carry to cryogenics, i.e. the way of freezing a dead body and hoping that it could be resuscitated in future centuries. It seems like a folklore which makes wrong other sciences. On the other hand, we propose to retain the distinction made in the work between weak superintelligence and strong superintelligence. The first aims at accelerating the processing of information by the brain (if our basic cycle were accelerated 100 times, time for us would be shortened by the same quantity, which would increase in theory our capacities for adaptation and reasoning). The strong superintelligence adds to that the possibility of providing to the brain multiple new information about the world, provided thanks to new instruments and new networks. As for uploading and the Singularity, it is wise to think of it in order not to let it surprise us by always possible emergences. Let us add for our part, to the list of new sciences likely to upset the methods of calculation, the quantum computer. Therefore, one sees that to understand the problems of transhumanism, it is necessary to have well understood the possibilities of NBIC. This is not always the case, unfortunately, in particular in France. The majority of the philosophers and decision makers seem to refuse to be open to the sciences and their stake in it. The Transhumanist FAQ, in a 3rd part, attempts to answer the multiple objections made to the transhumanist approach. Will it profit only rich people? Will it support eugenics? Will it create insurmountable risks? Won't it worsen the current problems, in particular overpopulation? Will it not benefit the future to the detriment of the present?.... More generally by which ethical values will it be inspired? What will be exactly, finally, the transhuman society, a nightmare or a paradise? These questions are discussed in detail in the booklet. We will not repeat the arguments here, about which one can guess the tone. Generally, transhumanists support liberalism. Each one will have to be able to remain free to choose their way of life and the modes of evolution of their body and spirit. Those who do not want to evolve too quickly must be able to remain faithful to their traditions. But on the other hand those who are eager to try new adventures should not be opposed by inherited laws, moral beliefs or past inherited policies that have no more reason to exist. It is obvious on this point that faced with a new science, society tends to be divided into two unequal parts, the majority who are afraid of an uncertain future, criticizes and wants to possibly prohibit all new experimentation - and the minority who are willing to bet on the beneficial effects and want to be organized so that this bet succeeds. We line up obviously, like the majority of our readers undoubtedly, in this last camp. But, in democracy, one should not refuse confrontations. Still it should be done by people who know exactly what they talk about and do not support fantasies or worse, political arguments intended to make them famous by the media. In its 4th part, The Transhumanist FAQ wonders about the relations which transhumanists will be able to maintain with nature, human nature and, in the broader aspect, the natural environment. There still, one should not lend to nature qualities which it does not have. It was said of human nature ("I do not see, remarked the geneticist Cricks, that current mankind is so perfect that one should not seek to improve it"). It is the same for all the rest. The biosphere and more generally the physico-chemical medium in which we live present many risks for mankind and the future of the current world. Admittedly, to intervene there mistakenly can cause increased risks, but not to try to improve the conditions under which the men of the future will be able to exist would be a failure, almost a crime. The Transhumanist FAQ raises the question which everyone expects. How this new step forms part of the old history of more than 2.000 years of the relations between philosophy and science? The work quotes the sources of the movement, since the Age of the Enlightenment and more recently, with the multiplication of the texts published in particular in the United States in connection with the prospects for new sciences. It then discusses the various "currents" which share the transhumanist space. That these currents exist and tend to be opposed one to the others is normal. But it is not necessary that they harden on quasi sectarian attitudes which would harm the overall movement, just as the multiple currents which share medical space harm medicine. A last question finally is tackled in this 5th part. It is for us essential. Let us return the reader to the recent analyses which we made of the modern materialistic thought (see for example the materialists and their detractors http://www.admiroutes.asso.fr/larevue/2005/67/materialisme.htm ). The authors of The Transhumanist FAQ specify that transhumanism, like a religion, proposes a vision in the very long term of what could make the safety of humanity within an improved environment. But contrary to the religions, sects and various mystics, it does not refer to supernatural sources or divine interventions that churches and priests would claim to impose on mankind. It is restricted to continue by extending it the march of Western rational and scientific thought, marked by agnosticism if not atheism. That certain transhumanists refer to God for their account, it is their business - just as certain scientists are spiritualistic - but these references, especially if they were incarnated in fanaticism and intolerance, would be unacceptable. For as much as transhumanism does not want to set up in dogma, it is agnostic. It acts, according to promoters of the movement, as a family of evolving worldviews open to all new experiments and suggestions. The work does not finish there. It proposes then a certain number of answers to practical questions. We return the reader there. Discussion Within the questions and answers evoked in The Transhumanist FAQ or on the various sites relating to transhumanism, we would like for our part to look again at some questions insufficiently treated, in our opinion. 1. Doesn't transhumanism mix in a hazardous way science and science fiction? Such a mixture can discredit the movement, whether it is to the scientists themselves or an informed public. The naive ones are indeed likely to leap on the prospects for long-term transformation of the world evoked by certain transhumanists, by thinking that these prospects will be carried out tomorrow. That will do nothing but encourage them to turn to the false prophets of science, illusionists and spiritualists who proliferate already in current society. Let us take the assumption of the multi-universe or multiverse, about which we have often spoken in this journal. It is a conjecture suggested by certain cosmologists, who readily recognize that nothing makes it possible today to prove it or to falsify it starting from experimental data. This assumption is undoubtedly useful for science, as are all those which discuss unsolved questions of the various disciplines. It encourages and will encourage research. Can one however base on them the thoughts of the future proposed by the transhumanists or the posthumanists? Undoubtedly, but with infinite precautions, and while repeating, as we have just done it, the warnings. Very different will be the attitude to be adopted for concrete prospects, that interest the humans of today or those of the next years, for example with regard to therapeutic cloning or the development of autonomous robots. This mixture of genres between what concerns the scientific imagination and what rises from science into the daily newspaper undoubtedly pushes away the majority of scientists from transhumanism. The majority of them, who are generally materialists if not scientistic, should join this school of thought. But they will not make it if they have the impression that they must take hazardous if not sulfurous routes likely to discredit them. As it will be necessary to avoid that, the promoters of the transhumanist movement are primarily interested in the prospects to improve the society of today. It is good that this is so for the most famous of them, encouraged besides by universities or even by certain political authorities. Let us quote for example the creation of the Future of Humanity Institute, attached to the James Martin School for the 21st Century at the University of Oxford, of which Nick Bostrom has been appointed director. More generally, it will constantly be necessary to distinguish between what concerns the belief in science (a little like religious belief and undoubtedly resting on the same neural basis) and what concerns experimental scientific practice. 2. Can one, as seem to think the promoters of transhumanism, decide in a voluntary way what will be the transhuman future of our societies, either with regard to the status of the individuals, or with regard to the functions of the institutions? The determinists are tempted to think that it is the unrestricted evolution of science and technology, resulting itself from unforeseeable and unverifiable factors, which defines what will be the future. Even the concepts of transhumanism or Singularity were not invented by the futurologists who contributed to popularize them. They appeared at a certain time in the evolution of Western society, in the form of emergence. They are spread today according to processes of the now well-known memetic contamination. Science and technology relating to NBIC will continue to practically develop without any control of the governments and public opinion - this perhaps under the influence of laboratories working in an irresponsible way for the military of certain countries. What good is it then to discuss it in public think tanks? The response of good direction to this argument is that, on the contrary, not being able to say what influences or not a complex development unrolling in chaotic mode, the fact that the citizens try to adapt themselves to the prospects for a transhuman future can do no harm to anybody. One thus should not give up trying to direct evolution according to the values which one gives oneself. 3. Let us finish this short presentation of the transhumanist movement by a thought inspired of an old individualistic, undoubtedly inappropriate thought. Many people of quality feel repulsed by what appears to them to be an futile intellectual pursuit. This results in the disaffection of certain good spirits with regard to political movements or intellectual circles that were agnostic like frank-ma?onnerie or free-thought. We think that the transhumanist movement will not progress, at least in France, until it opens up a little to humour and lightheartedness, by giving up the kind of Protestant rigour which still permeates it. From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Oct 15 14:55:37 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 07:55:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Social decision-making Message-ID: <22360fa10510150755w3d7dbc64p9d7c7c20df38f20c@mail.gmail.com> > On 10/14/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > > Jeff Allbright wrote: > > > > I suggested that we think of politics as "social decision-making > > > applied to groups, expecially with respect to methods of influence within > > > those processes." > > > I'm getting stuck with phrase "social decision-making". > > > I'm wondering if it is an oxymoron. > > > > > > > > > Ah, perhaps this is the crux of the matter. > > > > That I'm getting stuck, that I'm wondering, or that social > > decison-making is an oxymoron? > > > In an earlier discussion, Brett stated that competition over scarce resources, especially attention, was an essential element of politics. Jef suggested that while "scarcity-thinking" certainly seems to be a common driver of political action, a more encompassing understanding of politics might be something like "social decision-making applied to groups, expecially with regard to methods of influence within those processes." "Methods of influence" includes the necessity of getting others to spend some of their limited attention on an issue, but the issue need not be one of scarcity. For example, the issue might be whether the community should develop an infrastructure providing no-charge wireless net access in public areas. Such an issue is clearly one of enhancing growth, rather than alleviating scarcity, although if one really wanted to they could frame it either way. So what might be the disconnect here? Brett has not yet said why he thinks the phrase may be an oxymoron, so I'll speculate in an attempt to get the discussion back on track. My guess is that Brett is thinking that decision-making only really occurs at the level of the individual human being, and that the concept of higher level desion-making--decisions emerging at the group level that are not implicit in the decisions of the individuals--may seem to him unfounded. I'm not sure whether Brett is interested in contributing to this line of thought, or whether he may only be playing his frequent role of public's advocate, wanting to be fed a tasty transhumanist meme packaged for popular consumption. Personally, I see the development of effective social decision-making as key to our near future, and I'm highly interested in working together to clarify our thinking as well as building tools and frameworks to help make it happen. A lot of it is already happening, but seductively oriented toward consumer needs. The web itself, google, wikipedia, collaborative blogging, collaborative tagging such as del.icio.us , collaborative music, picture and video rating and sharing and so on, are all contributing to knowledge at a higher level than that of any individual human. What is yet to be developed is public awareness that (1) greater understanding of the world around us and how it works, with (2) greater understanding of ourselves and our values, can be applied to better decision-making that will be increasingly seen as increasingly moral. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 15 16:19:45 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:19:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo was The AmazingCellularRepairdevice In-Reply-To: <20051015090728.GT2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl > > ... > > A really dumb brute-force approach would just destructively scan the bulk > at atomic resolution, and store atomic properties along with > the position. You could even compute a hash on that vector, > though I don't see why one would want to do that... > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl Actually I would think that kind of information would be better than keeping the actual lump of frozen meat. If in the far future they figure out how to place atoms in any given state in any given position, the futurians would have an outside chance of recreating our brains, in fresh new bodies. I want a buff one this time. If a destructive brain scan could somehow be performed without the freezing process, that might be a more promising approach than cryonics. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 15 16:41:03 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:41:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510150508lef7874aof04749bd49238067@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200510151640.j9FGeve27646@tick.javien.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Wallace Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." On 10/15/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: ... stop using the words "transhuman" and "posthuman". I agree completely. And to those people who've been calling humans "monkeys" and "primates", for God's sake stop doing it... - Russell Stop calling humans apes and monkeys? OK. Stop calling humans primates? Hmmm, I don't see it. Maybe. Stop using transhuman and posthuman? No way. Those are legitimate and useful terms. What would you substitute? spike From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat Oct 15 16:41:42 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:41:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510150508lef7874aof04749bd49238067@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/15/05 5:08 AM, "Russell Wallace" wrote: > > And to those people who've been calling humans "monkeys" > and "primates", for God's sake stop doing it. Using the term "monkey" or "primate" for humans is a useful literary device in some contexts, and I would dismiss your suggestion on those grounds. On some levels it is intentionally offensive to those that need to hear it most. There is a common way of lazy thinking that assumes humans are divorced from the rest of the animal kingdom, that would do not express or possess the primary attributes we attribute to animals that supposedly make them inferior to us, and that we are intrinsically special or valuable in some way. Using the term "primate" or "monkey" instead of "human" when in a discussion where the absolute sanctity and special-ness of "human-ness" is assumed is a reminder that we are essentially very clever critters with bulk behaviors and properties that are largely indistinguishable from the rest of the animal kingdom in the abstract. Even to the cleverest of monkeys is not immune to mathematics and physics. There are many humans that would do well to understand this, but most do not. J. Andrew Rogers From eugen at leitl.org Sat Oct 15 21:10:30 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:10:30 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510150508lef7874aof04749bd49238067@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051013180759.58679.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510131119n1aa74844r7fa94c1b273777f1@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510150057g76564fc1t95d9266bdfacd921@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510150508lef7874aof04749bd49238067@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051015211030.GW2249@leitl.org> On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 01:08:59PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > I agree completely. And to those people who've been calling humans "monkeys" > and "primates", for God's sake stop doing it. Better yet, grow out of the I can think of only one person who's been doing it, while tongue firmly in cheek. > attitude that led you to do it in the first place; if you can't do that, > then at least confine the language to when you're drunk. I think canned monkeys as code for "Men... in Spaaaaace!" is funny. YMMV. If you also think you're not a human primate, but the summit of evolutionary design instead of an arbitrary point on an open-ended evolutionary trajectory, pretty close to the point of origin and very remote from the ceiling, you've not been reading the fossil record. Be careful not to become a stratum in it. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 15 21:10:58 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 14:10:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] supermajority support stem cell research In-Reply-To: <20051011214929.84264.qmail@web60011.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200510152110.j9FLApe31754@tick.javien.com> Hey cool, it is rare to see a supermajority on anything. This report says that more than 2/3 of yanks approve of embyronic stem cell research: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172326,00.html {8-] Perhaps we are not heading into a new dark ages. spike From eugen at leitl.org Sat Oct 15 21:50:51 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:50:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo was The AmazingCellularRepairdevice In-Reply-To: <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com> References: <20051015090728.GT2249@leitl.org> <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051015215051.GF2249@leitl.org> On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 09:19:45AM -0700, spike wrote: > Actually I would think that kind of information would > be better than keeping the actual lump of frozen > meat. If in the far future they figure out It would be, because we then could keep redundant, self-repairing copies across remote locations. Basically, the same approach as today's backups: keep at least two copies remote enough from causal entanglement with a disaster destroying the master. Unfortunately, no such scanning technology currently exists, so the best storage medium for the cephalon in the vitrified noggin, verbatim. Just top off the dewar with liquid nitrogen regularly, and all is dandy. > how to place atoms in any given state in any > given position, the futurians would have an > outside chance of recreating our brains, in > fresh new bodies. I want a buff one this time. If you have a system capable of imaging a kg chunk of biological tissue at atomic resolution at cryogenic conditions, you would also have a system which could extrude arbitrary number of copies of it. (Or any frozen dinners, for that compiler-matter). Or also build honking large computers which could do some interesting processing on slices of such arrays containing digitized neuroanatomy. But, hey, I am a broken record. > If a destructive brain scan could somehow > be performed without the freezing process, > that might be a more promising approach than > cryonics. Alas, no can do. The only way to scan live tissue in situ is with invasive nanoware, and that need not be destructive. Also, without an AI-driven Singularity we won't have those within our natural biological lifespans, so the dewar continues to beckon with a grisly charm. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Oct 15 22:19:44 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:19:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] EVENT: Thomas Barnett Book Tour in Second Life on 26 October 2005 Message-ID: <5366105b0510151519j484ec28fr7d162127ded55462@mail.gmail.com> Saturday, 15 October 2005 Hello all: Thomas Barnett, author of "The Pentagon's New Map," has a stop on the tour for his new book, "Blueprint for Action," in Second Life on October 26, 11:30am-1pm PST. Learn more at "A New Map for A New World," http://secondlife.blogs.com/nwn/2005/10/a_new_map_for_a.html If you haven't heard his presentation, I think it's worthwhile in its own right. If you want to debate the politics of it, please do and please omit me. More importantly, now that SL has free accounts, does this event mark a shift to teleconferencing for publicity tours and business meetings? I hope not yet--corporate aviation pays my salary. Should the next ExI or WTA conference take place on-line? In any case, I hope to see some of you there. -- Jay Dugger http://www.redcross.org Please donate if you can. If you're a misanthrope, consider donating to the Humane Society. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat Oct 15 23:01:25 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:01:25 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo was TheAmazingCellularRepairdevice References: <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc> spike wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl >> >> ... >> >> A really dumb brute-force approach would just destructively scan the bulk >> at atomic resolution, and store atomic properties along with >> the position. You could even compute a hash on that vector, >> though I don't see why one would want to do that... >> -- >> Eugen* Leitl leitl > > Actually I would think that kind of information would > be better than keeping the actual lump of frozen > meat. If in the far future they figure out > how to place atoms in any given state in any > given position, the futurians would have an > outside chance of recreating our brains, in > fresh new bodies. I want a buff one this time. > > If a destructive brain scan could somehow > be performed without the freezing process, > that might be a more promising approach than > cryonics. The atoms that you are composed of are mostly the ones used by growing things. The organic chemistry ones. Organic chemistry grows well but extrudes baddly. I don't see how any future technology could put your atoms back together by rebuilding the organic chemistry structures. You grew Spike. Your weren't put together in lego block fashion. The organic chemistry, proteins, lipids etc that make you up and hold your atoms in position only hold together as they do under certain limits of temperature and pressure etc. If we could magically put all your atoms (the organic chemistry atoms) into a file, the take that file and magically recreate all the structures in the same place then I'd agree we'd have a perfect functional equivalent of the old Spike. But that process involves magic at a couple of steps. Its not clear to me that you can make a new Spike like brain and body with a lego-block assembly approach any more than you can make say an ice cream out of steal. You can't keep the heat out of the reassembly meat. You can't get the nanobots if you had them small enough to get into the spaces you need them too in sufficient numbers fast enough because the organic stuff your building with (cos that whats your old info pattern was based on) will start to break down faster than you can possibly build it (even with magic nanobot technology). Brett Paatsch From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Oct 15 23:09:16 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:09:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] EVENT: Thomas Barnett Book Tour in Second Life on 26 October 2005 In-Reply-To: <5366105b0510151519j484ec28fr7d162127ded55462@mail.gmail.com> References: <5366105b0510151519j484ec28fr7d162127ded55462@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/15/05, Jay Dugger wrote: > > Saturday, 15 October 2005 > > Hello all: > > Thomas Barnett, author of "The Pentagon's New Map," has a stop on the > tour for his new book, "Blueprint for Action," in Second Life on > October 26, 11:30am-1pm PST. Learn more at "A New Map for A New > World," http://secondlife.blogs.com/nwn/2005/10/a_new_map_for_a.html > > If you haven't heard his presentation, I think it's worthwhile in its > own right. If you want to debate the politics of it, please do and > please omit me. > > More importantly, now that SL has free accounts, does this event mark > a shift to teleconferencing for publicity tours and business meetings? > I hope not yet--corporate aviation pays my salary. > > Should the next ExI or WTA conference take place on-line? > > Only if it's hi-res fully interactive realtime many-to-many video. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Oct 16 00:49:41 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 10:49:41 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Social decision-making References: <22360fa10510150755w3d7dbc64p9d7c7c20df38f20c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <028701c5d1eb$7e4f1980$8998e03c@homepc> To: ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 12:55 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] Social decision-making On 10/14/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: Jeff Allbright wrote: I suggested that we think of politics as "social decision-making applied to groups, expecially with respect to methods of influence within those processes." I'm getting stuck with phrase "social decision-making". I'm wondering if it is an oxymoron. Ah, perhaps this is the crux of the matter. That I'm getting stuck, that I'm wondering, or that social decison-making is an oxymoron? In an earlier discussion, Brett stated that competition over scarce resources, especially attention, was an essential element of politics. Jef suggested that while "scarcity-thinking" certainly seems to be a common driver of political action, a more encompassing understanding of politics might be something like "social decision-making applied to groups, expecially with regard to methods of influence within those processes." "Methods of influence" includes the necessity of getting others to spend some of their limited attention on an issue, but the issue need not be one of scarcity. For example, the issue might be whether the community should develop an infrastructure providing no-charge wireless net access in public areas. Such an issue is clearly one of enhancing growth, rather than alleviating scarcity, although if one really wanted to they could frame it either way. So what might be the disconnect here? Brett has not yet said why he thinks the phrase may be an oxymoron, so I'll speculate in an attempt to get the discussion back on track. My guess is that Brett is thinking that decision-making only really occurs at the level of the individual human being, and that the concept of higher level desion-making--decisions emerging at the group level that are not implicit in the decisions of the individuals--may seem to him unfounded. I'm not sure whether Brett is interested in contributing to this line of thought, or whether he may only be playing his frequent role of public's advocate, wanting to be fed a tasty transhumanist meme packaged for popular consumption. Personally, I see the development of effective social decision-making as key to our near future, and I'm highly interested in working together to clarify our thinking as well as building tools and frameworks to help make it happen. A lot of it is already happening, but seductively oriented toward consumer needs. The web itself, google, wikipedia, collaborative blogging, collaborative tagging such as del.icio.us, collaborative music, picture and video rating and sharing and so on, are all contributing to knowledge at a higher level than that of any individual human. What is yet to be developed is public awareness that (1) greater understanding of the world around us and how it works, with (2) greater understanding of ourselves and our values, can be applied to better decision-making that will be increasingly seen as increasingly moral. - Jef I think Jef has done a good job of fairly and accurately representing my position above. So I want to give him feedback and credit for that. And I like the way Jef is thinking. He seems to have a lot in common with the way Natasha is thinking about politics. So thats at least two good folk on this list looking at the same important area. I like that. And I will remember that they have that interest. But I can't always pick up conversations that require a lot of detail thinking and editting over email as easily as I could if I was talking to someone face to face. And I know that no one else can either. We posters to this list live in different time zones. We have other stuff going on in our lives from time to time. That means that the conversations about important topics sometimes get cut off in a way that is not quite like conversations in face to face space. But it also means that they can potentially be picked up again at a future date. That is how I feel about this one now. Its a conversation that I'd like to pick up at a later date. Now, slightly on topic, I suspect that is how a lot of people feel about a lot of "issues" in the world. The see merit in certain causes. They see people who'se values and attitudes they like and want to support and get closer to. But they have to make choices about where they spend their time. And sometimes very good ways to spend ones time are not followed up on, and very pleasant acquaintances aren't developed into friendships, simply because we have to make choices and respond to our own needs. Needs for food. Needs for money. Needs like what Maslow talks about in his hierarchy of needs. Its in that sense of the inevitable contingency of being a human being that I say that politics is ultimately about a shortage of resources. When one goes to a meeting or posts to a forum like this one there are always choices about which potentials one chooses to develop. I've heard political commentators reflect my own observation that politics is often about which questions, which issues (to put it in Jef's terms) get to be discussed at all. My interest in this list is not to advocate for the public, though sometimes I think like that, it is mostly just my interests that are being reflected by my posts. I do like it when a choice transhuman meme is served up though. I like the skill in it. I think Jef has served up a bit of a choice transhuman meme. I agree with Guilio's comment in another post about not using the terms transhuman and posthuman, from the standpoint that I imagine he is opperating from at the time he said it. But people do have a need to describe clusters of ideas with *some* terminology. I don't consider myself to be a transhumanist, but there is no denying that I post to a transhumanist mailing list. I know that I might be considered to be a transhumanist simply by association and some of those associations I really don't want. Perhaps this causes me to be too negative sometimes. If that is so my apologies. If readers think that is so you can tell me on or offlist and I will at least listen to any criticism. Sorry about the essay here, but I figure anyone can prune the end of this in Jef's post and reply to Jef's post if they want to and this is a bit related to Jef's post. Jef, I don't like this microsoft outlook express way of replying to email with lines down the side its pretty cumbersome and has meant I've spent less time working your substantive points than I might have because I was messing about with how to reply to your post. Cheers, Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 16 01:02:56 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 20:02:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] plasma vs microorganisms Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051015200021.01cb08a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> from The Virginian-Pilot - Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA http://tinyurl.com/9hz7b October 15, 2005 ODU Pioneer Refines Healing Power Of Plasma By Philip Walzer NORFOLK Old Dominion University researcher Mounir Laroussi, an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering, has developed a "plasma pencil," The pencil, a hand-held cylinder 5 inches long and one inch in diameter, passed its first test: It can kill E. coli bacteria but leaves skin cells unscathed. "When we got this to work," Laroussi said this week, "we knew we were sitting on something really special." He says this is just the beginning. The device, he hopes, will do even more: cleansing and healing wounds, treating dental plaque, even killing cancer tumors without damaging the surrounding tissue. Like the whirling electrons and ions that Laroussi has studied for nearly 15 years, scientists have been buzzing since his paper was published last month in the journal Applied Physics Letters . His progress has been reported on Web sites such as www.nature.com and www.physicsweb.org . A plasma researcher in New Mexico calls Laroussi a pioneer in the field. "It's really the first demonstration of this technology that is embodied in a practical manner," said Edl Schamiloglu , a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of New Mexico. "In general," said another engineering professor, George Collins of Colorado State, "his plasma work is world-class and full of wonderful new innovations that are advancing the state of the art." Its benefits, Laroussi said, have been exploited in such items as fluorescent lights and semiconductor chips. "We wanted to push plasma where it hasn't been before, which is biotechnology," he said. First, he needed to cool it off. In its normal state, at hundreds of degrees Celsius, the plasma could burn away the good with the bad. So he brought it down to room temperature. That way, it can kill the bacteria. But it doesn't harm healthy cells. Laroussi proved the point at his lab this week. He turned on the power for the pencil. A narrow, 2-inch-long purple beam =96 Laroussi calls it a "plume" =96 shot out of it. He brought it across the hands of two visitors. Nothing happened. No singed flesh. He's done this with hundreds of others. The first guinea pig was Laroussi himself. Of course, he wasn't scared. "I know what I have," he said. Schamiloglu , the New Mexico professor, said the pencil improves upon two previous inventions in plasma research. One was a "plasma torch." It was too unwieldy, he said. And, running on uncooled plasma, it could get too hot to handle. The other was a "plasma needle" the size of a syringe. Much easier to maneuver. But also prone to pricking the fingers of even the most scrupulous technician. "The plasma pencil represents a good compromise," Schamiloglu said. "It's always satisfying to see something practical emerge from basic research in universities." Laroussi has received nearly half a million dollars in federal grants for his work. His spacious lab is on the fifth floor of the Norfolk Public Health Center on Brambleton Avenue, off Colley Avenue. The lab is part of the Frank Reidy Research Center for Bioelectrics , a partnership between Old Dominion and Eastern Virginia Medical School. Laroussi has collaborated with a postdoctoral research associate, Xinpei Lu , and he has begun working with other ODU professors in the areas of biology, oceanography and dental hygiene. One of them, Wayne Hynes , an associate professor of biological sciences, also holds high hopes. "If it works and doesn't do any tissue damage," Hynes said, "it would potentially be able to kill the organisms associated with plaque and therefore decrease tooth decay and gingivitis." From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Sun Oct 16 01:21:12 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:21:12 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> > > On 10/14/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > > > Jeff Allbright wrote: > > > > I suggested that we think of politics as "social decision-making > > > applied to groups, expecially with respect to methods of influence within > > > those processes." > > > I'm getting stuck with phrase "social decision-making". > > > I'm wondering if it is an oxymoron. I posted this before - I still think the best definition of politics is: The relationships between groups! At any level - from office factions to negotiations between superpowers. Politics is only incidentally social decision making. it is wholly about interacting communities. Jack Parkinson From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 01:34:24 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 02:34:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] plasma vs microorganisms In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051015200021.01cb08a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051015200021.01cb08a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/16/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > > from The Virginian-Pilot - Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA > > http://tinyurl.com/9hz7b > > October 15, 2005 > > > ODU Pioneer Refines Healing Power Of Plasma > > By Philip Walzer > > NORFOLK > Old Dominion University researcher Mounir Laroussi, > an associate professor of electrical and computer > engineering, has developed a "plasma pencil," > > The pencil, a hand-held cylinder 5 inches long and one inch in > diameter, passed its first test: It can kill E. coli bacteria > but leaves skin cells unscathed. > > "When we got this to work," Laroussi said this week, "we knew we > were sitting on something really special." > > He says this is just the beginning. The device, he hopes, will > do even more: cleansing and healing wounds, treating dental > plaque, even killing cancer tumors without damaging the > surrounding tissue. > > Like the whirling electrons and ions that Laroussi has studied > for nearly 15 years, scientists have been buzzing since his > paper was published last month in the journal Applied Physics > Letters . > > His progress has been reported on Web sites such as > www.nature.com and > < http://www.physicsweb.org>www.physicsweb.org . > > A plasma researcher in New Mexico calls Laroussi a pioneer in > the field. > > "It's really the first demonstration of this technology that is > embodied in a practical manner," said Edl Schamiloglu , a > professor of electrical and computer engineering at the > University of New Mexico. > > "In general," said another engineering professor, George Collins > of Colorado State, "his plasma work is world-class and full of > wonderful new innovations that are advancing the state of the > art." > > > > Its benefits, Laroussi said, have been exploited in such items > as fluorescent lights and semiconductor chips. > > "We wanted to push plasma where it hasn't been before, which is > biotechnology," he said. > > First, he needed to cool it off. In its normal state, at > hundreds of degrees Celsius, the plasma could burn away the good > with the bad. > > So he brought it down to room temperature. That way, it can kill > the bacteria. But it doesn't harm healthy cells. > > Laroussi proved the point at his lab this week. > > He turned on the power for the pencil. A narrow, 2-inch-long > purple beam =96 Laroussi calls it a "plume" =96 shot out of it. He > brought it across the hands of two visitors. > > Nothing happened. No singed flesh. > > He's done this with hundreds of others. The first guinea pig was > Laroussi himself. > > Of course, he wasn't scared. "I know what I have," he said. > > Schamiloglu , the New Mexico professor, said the pencil improves > upon two previous inventions in plasma research. > > One was a "plasma torch." It was too unwieldy, he said. And, > running on uncooled plasma, it could get too hot to handle. > > The other was a "plasma needle" the size of a syringe. Much > easier to maneuver. But also prone to pricking the fingers of > even the most scrupulous technician. > > "The plasma pencil represents a good compromise," Schamiloglu > said. "It's always satisfying to see something practical emerge > from basic research in universities." > > Laroussi has received nearly half a million dollars in federal > grants for his work. His spacious lab is on the fifth floor of > the Norfolk Public Health Center on Brambleton Avenue, off > Colley Avenue. The lab is part of the Frank Reidy Research > Center for Bioelectrics , a partnership between Old Dominion and > Eastern Virginia Medical School. > > Laroussi has collaborated with a postdoctoral research > associate, Xinpei Lu , and he has begun working with other ODU > professors in the areas of biology, oceanography and dental > hygiene. > > One of them, Wayne Hynes , an associate professor of biological > sciences, also holds high hopes. > > "If it works and doesn't do any tissue damage," Hynes said, "it > would potentially be able to kill the organisms associated with > plaque and therefore decrease tooth decay and gingivitis." > Sounds like a fancy way of describing an ion wind from a point source. The killer would be ozone. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 01:45:19 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 02:45:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] nonradiative energies In-Reply-To: <000301c5d14f$a8779d00$eabc1b97@administxl09yj> References: <200510150425.j9F4PPe08117@tick.javien.com> <000301c5d14f$a8779d00$eabc1b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: On 10/15/05, scerir wrote: > > What will be the next great invention on the order of the laser? > We don't know, but clever new ideas keep coming along. > The second-place award in the technological innovation competition > went to Marin Soljacic (MIT) for his concept of wireless, non-radiative > energy transmission. Just as in the quantum case in which the > Schrodinger equation allows for a wave trapped in a box to tunnel > out, so Maxwell's equations allow for the leakage of electromagnetic > energy from an electromagnetic resonance object. If another such > object were placed not far from the first one, and the resonant > frequencies of both were the same, then the energy could be > transferred between them with very little energy lost to other > objects in the nearby environmental that do not share the same > resonant frequency. The transmitted energy, although > electromagnetic in nature, would not be referred to as "radiation" > since it is bound to the resonant objects. It is rather an example > of "near-field" physics. Soljacic avoids words like "antenna," > since the process does not involve broadcasts of energy in the usual > sense. In contrast, the vast majority of energy radiated by > antennas is typically wasted and lost into free space, while only a > small portion is picked up by the eventual receivers. Instead, > Soljacic uses terms like "source" and "drain" in analogy with > transistors to describe the movement of energy. An exemplary setup > might consist of a transmitter in a ceiling and devices in that room > (e.g robots, or computers) being powered wirelessly by this energy. > > Marin Soljacic's page http://www.mit.edu/~soljacic/ > > http://amasci.com/search.html Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 01:50:56 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 21:50:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> Message-ID: <7641ddc60510151850m3f8bd68asbdde73327384b9@mail.gmail.com> On 10/15/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: I posted this before - I still think the best definition of politics is: The > relationships between groups! At any level - from office factions to > negotiations between superpowers. Politics is only incidentally social > decision making. it is wholly about interacting communities. ### Is buying T-shirts from China a form of politics? Is imprisoning an individual dissenter not a form of politics? I think something is missing from your definition of politics. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Oct 16 01:56:24 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:56:24 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> Message-ID: <02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc> Jack Parkinson wrote: >> On 10/14/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: >> > >> > Jeff Allbright wrote: >> > >> > I suggested that we think of politics as "social decision-making >> > > applied to groups, expecially with respect to methods of influence > within >> > > those processes." >> > > I'm getting stuck with phrase "social decision-making". >> > > I'm wondering if it is an oxymoron. > > I posted this before - I still think the best definition of politics is: > The > relationships between groups! At any level - from office factions to > negotiations between superpowers. Politics is only incidentally social > decision making. it is wholly about interacting communities. I had meant to leave this topic and list alone for a bit but I'm weak. For definitions dictionarys aren't bad places to start. But if we want to understand politics better we need more than dictionary definitions we need to start to develop our own political theory. I think what I have been doing is expound, in a sort of half arse way that I should have more sense about, a political theory. Might be worth bearing in mind a theory and a definition are a bit different. With respect to your offered best definition that politics is "The relationships between groups" I'm left with the sense that what I want to know is what you mean by "relationships". I wonder what you'd think a politician was, as a politician is normally an individual not a group. I wonder whether you think a person approaching others to persuade them to some cause is a politician. Perhaps this is the problem with trying to use definitions as theories. One ends up not having enough explanatory power in the theory and a lot of other people have their own theories and will see problems with a definition that seems to omit the part of their political theory that seems good to them. Here's my last tip on this topic for a bit. Work out whether what one wants is merely a definition. Something to start to have a discussion with. Or a theory. I initially baulked at a post Natasha posted because she seemed to me to be using a word, politics, in a way that clashed with my theory of politics and that was why I wanted to get her to define it. Later offlist, quite reasonably, she asked me for my definition and I responded with a sort of half baked theory not a definition. Brett Paatsch From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 01:56:29 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 02:56:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60510151850m3f8bd68asbdde73327384b9@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <7641ddc60510151850m3f8bd68asbdde73327384b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/16/05, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > > On 10/15/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > > I posted this before - I still think the best definition of politics is: > > The > > relationships between groups! At any level - from office factions to > > negotiations between superpowers. Politics is only incidentally social > > decision making. it is wholly about interacting communities. > > > ### Is buying T-shirts from China a form of politics? > Definately Is imprisoning an individual dissenter not a form of politics? > > I think something is missing from your definition of politics. > > The smallest group has a membership of one. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Oct 16 03:21:12 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 20:21:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [Meta] Mail format Message-ID: <22360fa10510152021y4eb49856m2d0f6132c72581e@mail.gmail.com> On 10/15/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > Jef, I don't like this microsoft outlook express way of replying to email with lines down the side its pretty cumbersome and has meant I've spent less time working your > substantive points than I might have because I was messing about with how to reply to your post. > Sorry about the format. I switched a few weeks ago from Mozilla Thunderbird to Gmail (second attempt, now that Gmail has added a few more features) to see how well I could do with a 100% web based platform, and I'm still learning to cope with it. - Jef From emlynoregan at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 05:00:00 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:30:00 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] National Novel Writing Month - who's game to try? Message-ID: <710b78fc0510152200s4520764et@mail.gmail.com> I was just forwarded information about National Novel Writing Month. Has anyone here heard of it? Basically, the idea is that over November, you (and a zillion other people who've signed up) write a novel, from scratch. http://www.nanowrimo.org/ >From the website: "What is NaNoWriMo? National Novel Writing Month is a fun, seat-of-your-pants approach to novel writing. Participants begin writing November 1. The goal is to write a 175-page (50,000-word) novel by midnight, November 30. Valuing enthusiasm and perseverance over painstaking craft, NaNoWriMo is a novel-writing program for everyone who has thought fleetingly about writing a novel but has been scared away by the time and effort involved. Because of the limited writing window, the ONLY thing that matters in NaNoWriMo is output. It's all about quantity, not quality. The kamikaze approach forces you to lower your expectations, take risks, and write on the fly. Make no mistake: You will be writing a lot of crap. And that's a good thing. By forcing yourself to write so intensely, you are giving yourself permission to make mistakes. To forgo the endless tweaking and editing and just create. To build without tearing down. As you spend November writing, you can draw comfort from the fact that, all around the world, other National Novel Writing Month participants are going through the same joys and sorrows of producing the Great Frantic Novel. Wrimos meet throughout the month to offer encouragement, commiseration, and -- when the thing is done -- the kind of raucous celebrations that tend to frighten animals and small children." I'm going to do it. It should be an absolute hoot! It's historically had a social aspect too, people get together and write these novels, or have a group experience of it in some way - the site calls this "Novelling". So, I'm wondering, are there are any other extros with the bottle to give it a go? If you are going to do it, go sign up on the site and post back here about it. Apparently it is forbidden to start writing before November 1, and you must start from scratch. However, it would be a really good idea to plan out what you are going to do before starting. Once the month starts, individual and collective word counts are tracked as an indicator of progress. Also choosing a genre that doesn't require any research, or too much actual background knowledge, or internal consistency / logic / rationality, is a good idea imo. I can't stomach writing a romance novel, however, so my next best bet is a rollicking fantasy :-) So, who's with me? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Sun Oct 16 05:04:33 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:04:33 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack> Rafal said On 10/15/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: I posted this before - I still think the best definition of politics is: The relationships between groups! At any level - from office factions to negotiations between superpowers. Politics is only incidentally social decision making. It is wholly about interacting communities. ### Is buying T-shirts from China a form of politics? No! Unless you are doing this as an expression of group values concerning Chinese group values... Is imprisoning an individual dissenter not a form of politics? Yes! The group expresses it'd disapproval of dissent - by sanctions against representatives of groups that oppose it... I think something is missing from your definition of politics. Rafal I don't think anything is missing! Jack Parkinson From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 05:10:18 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 06:10:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] National Novel Writing Month - who's game to try? In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0510152200s4520764et@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0510152200s4520764et@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510152210g50eb307dy95cd1946969a9163@mail.gmail.com> On 10/16/05, Emlyn wrote: > > I was just forwarded information about National Novel Writing Month. > Has anyone here heard of it? Basically, the idea is that over > November, you (and a zillion other people who've signed up) write a > novel, from scratch. > > So, who's with me? Hadn't heard of that, but it sounds like a lot of fun! I'd like to have a go at it, but realistically I'm not going to have time; but I will wish you and the other participants luck. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Sun Oct 16 05:15:08 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:15:08 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <003501c5d210$998e80d0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> > Jack Parkinson wrote: > > I posted this before - I still think the best definition of politics is: > > The > > relationships between groups! At any level - from office factions to > > negotiations between superpowers. Politics is only incidentally social > > decision making. It is wholly about interacting communities. > > Brett Paatsch wrote: > For definitions dictionarys aren't bad places to start. But if we want > to understand politics better we need more than dictionary definitions > we need to start to develop our own political theory. > > I think what I have been doing is expound, in a sort of half arse > way that I should have more sense about, a political theory. > > Might be worth bearing in mind a theory and a definition are > a bit different. > > With respect to your offered best definition that politics is > "The relationships between groups" I'm left with the sense > that what I want to know is what you mean by "relationships". > > I wonder what you'd think a politician was, as a politician > is normally an individual not a group. > > I wonder whether you think a person approaching others > to persuade them to some cause is a politician. > > Perhaps this is the problem with trying to use definitions as > theories. I would certainly agree that a definition does not constitute a theory or plan of action - just a baseline reference check. And yes, I do see a 'politician' as essentially a persuader - any person who attempts to guide and/or influence the group. Without wanting to appear too metaphysical - I suggest politics, philosophy and religion are all the same thing - in that they are all attempts to answer the ultimate question: "How shall we live our lives?" It seems to me that this ultimate question is perhaps not so pressing when sheer survival is sufficient to provide meaning. That is: you work, you feed, clothe and educate your family and fill your life with material comforts. These are life-goals in our 'economics of scarcity' society - they provide meaning enough for a fulfilled life for most people. I can't see how this model holds up in a post-human 'economics of plenty' society with unlimited life expectation. It strikes me that once we get tired of playing with all our new toys, we might start looking for some ultimate purpose, philosophy, commitment etc... In this hugely different world, a moral philosophy - a well-thought out outlook on life would appear to be highly desirable, if not essential. I think we need a transhuman moral/philosophic/political theory! Jack Parkinson From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 06:22:09 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 02:22:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc> <002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack> Message-ID: <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> On 10/16/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > Rafal said > On 10/15/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > I posted this before - I still think the best definition of politics is: > The > relationships between groups! At any level - from office factions to > negotiations between superpowers. Politics is only incidentally social > decision making. It is wholly about interacting communities. > > ### Is buying T-shirts from China a form of politics? > No! Unless you are doing this as an expression of group values concerning > Chinese group values... ### Now it is getting more complicated - so politics is not merely "relationships between groups" but rather "relationships between groups expressing group values". And what are "group values"? It's getting positively baroque. --------------------------------------- > Is imprisoning an individual dissenter not a form of politics? > Yes! The group expresses it'd disapproval of dissent - by sanctions > against representatives of groups that oppose it... ### Oh, our dissenter has not joined a group. Is he a group all by himself? So you seem to say that imprisoning a single dissenter is politics. What about hiring a hangman? Is this politics ("a group's expression of approval of willingness to kill for money")? What about a town hiring a garbage collector? A group of garbage collectors? Which one is not politics? ------------------------------------------ I think something is missing from your definition of politics. > Rafal > > I don't think anything is missing! ### I do think a bit more of my questioning will convince the onlookers that a lot is. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 06:32:37 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:32:37 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc> <002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520510152332j32e2a37aw19216f9ddc88d8f6@mail.gmail.com> Fundamental concepts are often the most difficult to define precisely. I propose: Politics = solving conflicts without using violence G. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 06:47:01 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 02:47:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <470a3c520510152332j32e2a37aw19216f9ddc88d8f6@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc> <002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152332j32e2a37aw19216f9ddc88d8f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60510152347g57ca1be9kdcffe592a9effd67@mail.gmail.com> On 10/16/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > Fundamental concepts are often the most difficult to define precisely. > I propose: > Politics = solving conflicts without using violence ### You remember my exchange with that dude on wta, and you use the exact opposite of what I wrote! Excellent. I only need to ask the same questions that stymied him: Is the extermination of political prisoners not politics? Is the trade in apples (resolving a conflict over who owns them) a form of politics? Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 06:56:59 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:56:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60510152347g57ca1be9kdcffe592a9effd67@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc> <002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152332j32e2a37aw19216f9ddc88d8f6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510152347g57ca1be9kdcffe592a9effd67@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520510152356k178cdcf0idcb7ae6908ec99be@mail.gmail.com> Hi Rafal, No I don't remember this exchange. I don't read all messages. What did you write? I concede that I would not be surprised to see an article on the extermination of political prisoners listed under the "Politics" section of a journal, so it is politics in some sense. Take my tentative definition as: Good Politics = solving conflicts without using violence On 10/16/05, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > On 10/16/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > Fundamental concepts are often the most difficult to define precisely. > > I propose: > > Politics = solving conflicts without using violence > > ### You remember my exchange with that dude on wta, and you use the exact > opposite of what I wrote! > > Excellent. I only need to ask the same questions that stymied him: > > Is the extermination of political prisoners not politics? > Is the trade in apples (resolving a conflict over who owns them) a form of > politics? > > Rafal From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Sun Oct 16 07:50:11 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:50:11 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc> <002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005b01c5d226$40733750$0801a8c0@EF02jack> On 10/15/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: >>> I posted this before - I still think the best definition of politics is: The >>> relationships between groups! At any level - from office factions to >>>negotiations between superpowers. Politics is only incidentally social >>> decision making. It is wholly about interacting communities. >> ### Is buying T-shirts from China a form of politics? >>No! Unless you are doing this as an expression of group values >>concerning Chinese group values... >### Now it is getting more complicated - so politics is not merely >"relationships between >groups" but rather "relationships between groups >expressing group values". And what >are "group values"? It's getting >positively baroque. We are discussing the meaning of politics - not the meaning of groups. A group has some points of congruence and some disconnectedness. Politics is how these opposing points develop. --------------------------------------- >>>Is imprisoning an individual dissenter not a form of politics? >>Yes! The group expresses it's disapproval of dissent - by sanctions against representatives of groups that oppose it... >### Oh, our dissenter has not joined a group. Is he a group all by himself? Lone dissenters are NEVER 'political' - they are rugged individualists, deviants, and/or eccentrics until such time as they represent a group. If they are really unlucky they are criminals to boot! But they are not politicians until they can claim to represent a constituency... >>So you seem to say that imprisoning a single dissenter is politics. What >>about hiring a hangman? Is this politics ... Yes! >>("a group's expression of approval of willingness to kill for money")? No! A group's expression of it's willingness to force compliance... >>What about a town hiring a garbage collector? A group of garbage collectors? >>Which one is not politics? I fail to see any conflict here? The group hire garbage collector(s) because the group prefers (on consensus) hygiene! ------------------------------------------ >>>I think something is missing from your definition of politics. >>>>Rafal >I don't think anything is missing! >### I do think a bit more of my questioning will convince the onlookers that >a lot is. Rafal I very much doubt that! A body politic is always and everywhere a group! Or please show me otherwise... Jack Parkinson From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Oct 16 09:09:12 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:09:12 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com><003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack><02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc><002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack><7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> <005b01c5d226$40733750$0801a8c0@EF02jack> Message-ID: <03b701c5d231$46b71040$8998e03c@homepc> Jack Parkinson wrote: > Lone dissenters are NEVER 'political' - they are rugged individualists, > deviants, and/or eccentrics until such time as they represent a group. If > they are really unlucky they are criminals to boot! But they are not > politicians until they can claim to represent a constituency... Lee Harvey Oswald? Brett Paatsch From benboc at lineone.net Sun Oct 16 09:57:04 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 10:57:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo, was TheAmazingCellularRepairdevice In-Reply-To: <200510160622.j9G6Mee27155@tick.javien.com> References: <200510160622.j9G6Mee27155@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <435223F0.8020807@lineone.net> Brett Paatsch wrote: >I don't see how any future technology could put your atoms back together by rebuilding the organic chemistry structures. So, what, are you saying there's a proof that this can't be done, or asserting that because you can't imagine how it might be done, that in fact it can't be done? (*any* future technology? any at all? - that's a hell of a claim!) Remember, nobody could see how Bumblebees could possibly fly, either. I wouldn't rule something like this out just because i couldn't see how to do it. In a way, this is what cryonics is all about, isn't it? A gamble on future capabilities (and motivations). But anyway, what does it matter if the recreated body is exactly the Spike body that was originally scanned or not? The only thing that does matter is the identity of the mind that comes along with recreating the brain. You are thinking in terms of 'Star-Trek' style assembler tech., it seems. What about tissue engineering tech.? I don't think it's inconceivable that something along these lines couldn't be guided by information from a scanned cryopreserved body and brain. Don't ask me for details, i'm just saying it's conceivable. I doubt you'd have to build cells from the molecules up, for example, just put cells together according to a scheme, maybe with some tweaking of the characteristics of those cells as you go along. (For that matter, what's wrong with growing a complete body from a single cell, as long as you could somehow guide the development of the neural pathways along specific paths, to end up with a brain identical in all the important ways to the original Spike?). It always makes me uncomfortable when someone (especially in the ^H community) says something is impossible, and even more so when it's something to do with biology. (Sorry, just re-read the post, and you didn't actually say it's impossible, but you did imply it) Of course, all this biology could be moot anyway, if you can just recreate the whole thing in VR, and take it from there. Isn't this the goal of many of us anyway? (actually, that's an interesting question in itself - I know some ^H's want to stay biological, and some want to shuck it off asap. I wonder what the distribution is?) ben From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 10:18:53 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 03:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051016101853.307.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> > On 10/15/05 5:08 AM, "Russell Wallace" > wrote: > > > > And to those people who've been calling humans > "monkeys" > > and "primates", for God's sake stop doing it. > --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > There is a common way of lazy thinking that assumes > humans are divorced from > the rest of the animal kingdom, that would do not > express or possess the > primary attributes we attribute to animals that > supposedly make them > inferior to us, and that we are intrinsically > special or valuable in some > way. I would have to agree with J. Andrew on this one, Russell. I think the biggest threat to mankind's continued existense is that we continue to ACT much as monkeys and primates do while simultaneously living in blatant of denial of this fact. We must come to the realization that for all our sophistry and rationalizations of superiority, we are essentially apes. If I were to stop calling humans primates, I would have to start calling monkeys sub-humans and the great apes demi-humans. Or perhaps call the great apes trans-monkeys and humans post-monkeys. The truth is that you can draw the line wherever you want so long as you maintain the ordering of the points relative to the line. In order to demonstrate this one need not look much farther than a typical office or night club. The whole concept of politics is quintessentially primate in nature and rooted firmly in the animal kingdom. We still carry within us the primate obsession with power and position to extent of using violence to obtain it. We fight wars with neighboring troops for prized territories and resources. That we fight over petroleum whilst the chimps fight over mango trees is but a technicality. We practice deception against our fellows to gain military, political, and sexual advantage over our fellows as do other primates as lowly as vervet monkeys. We engage in elaborate dominance and submission rituals such as calling meetings and figuratively kissing ass whilst pygmy chimps literally perform oral sex on their superiors. The list of "monkey" activities we engage in goes on and on. You might think that a Presidential State of the Union address is something more than a primate dominance ritual but it isn't... at least not qualitatively. When a low ranking monkey vocalizes, few of his fellows heed him. When the alpha monkey calls out, every head in the troop turns torward him and hang on his every utterance. His vocabulary might be a lot smaller than that of most presidents but not the degree of "respect" he demands from his fellows. We are separated from the apes simply by degree and not essential character. It is as if we were merely one more iteration of the monkey fractal, more complex for sure but all the more monkey becuase of it. Chimps use sticks to dig for termites and will throw stones or fruit or even their own feces at predators and thus have crude weapons and tools but our weapons and tools are much more complex. This in turn brings us to the very crux of the problem. In an age of nukes, biotech, and soon to be nanotech, this illusion of "specialness" is no longer something we can live with. If we want to claim distinction from "monkeys" than we must earn it the hard way. Chimps can wage war and kill each other for access to fresh water and banana trees without repercussions that go far beyond the individual chimps involved. But one human alpha male with delusions of grandeur can wipe all of us from the face of the planet with the push of a button. We cannot long continue to wield the power of gods whilst maintaining the social sensibilities of monkeys without dire consequences befalling us. If being called a monkey offends you, take care to not act like one. This is harder than it sounds. The next time you are revving the engine of your fancy sports car at a stop light to impress the ladies, reflect on the gorilla pounding its chest. Next time you feel tempted to berate a waiter for getting your order wrong, contemplate a dominant chimp giving his subordinate a sound thrashing so he does not forget his place. Next time you compliment your boss on her attire, meditate upon the bonobo orally gratifying her matron. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 10:47:13 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:47:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <20051016101853.307.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051016101853.307.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510160347q13287e16t56c38bce7f567c92@mail.gmail.com> On 10/16/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > We cannot long continue to wield the power of gods > whilst maintaining the social sensibilities of monkeys > without dire consequences befalling us. If being > called a monkey offends you, take care to not act like > one. You're missing the point: I'm not the one you need to worry about offending! Yes, of course the world would be a better place if we all gave more weight to reason and less to our social dominance instincts. But calling people monkeys will not produce that result. If you call people monkeys, they won't conclude "I guess these guys have a point, we should change our behavior". They'll conclude "these guys are scum, maybe the people who say we ought to shut them down have a point". This isn't rocket science, it's basic psychology, not the sort taught in a first year college psychology class, but the sort learned in kindergarten. Seriously, most 6 year olds understand that insulting people makes them dislike you and not want to do things your way; it should not be beyond the grasp of the super-geniuses we have on this list. If you still don't believe me, try it on some normal people face to face and see what result you get. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 10:49:19 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 03:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Question for Rafal was Alternative to Cryo In-Reply-To: <021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051016104919.42757.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Rafal. I am glad you have started posting again. Since you are the list expert on mitochondria, I am very curious as to your opinion on Blackstone et al.'s recent proof of principle that reversible electron transport chain inhibitors could be used to slow down metabolism, and thus aging through ROS, by inducing a hibernation-like state of suspended animation. The article in question is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5721/518 The question I have is could this theoretically allow the elderly or the terminally ill to survive the several decades for SENS and other medical advancements to come up with cures for their conditions? Could this be a viable alternative to cryogenic suspension? Also there is much controversy in the literature regarding the neurotoxic effects of the hydrogen sulphide (H2S) gas that Blackstone uses to induce this condition in mice. Do you know of any other reversible inhibitors of cytochrome c or the other components of the ETC that could serve the same purpose with less toxicity? The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From pharos at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 13:14:37 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:14:37 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <03b701c5d231$46b71040$8998e03c@homepc> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc> <002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> <005b01c5d226$40733750$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <03b701c5d231$46b71040$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: On 10/16/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Jack Parkinson wrote: > > > Lone dissenters are NEVER 'political' - they are rugged individualists, > > deviants, and/or eccentrics until such time as they represent a group. > > If they are really unlucky they are criminals to boot! But they are not > > politicians until they can claim to represent a constituency... > > Lee Harvey Oswald? > Like most "big subject" words in English, 'politics' means different things at different times and scales from the largest to the smallest. 'politics' 1) can mean the art, science or study of government of states and other political units, and leads on to 'government' and 'political science'. Sub-types of this meaning of 'politics' are 'geopolitics', 'realpolitik', 'practical politics' and even 'social science'. 2) can also mean the opinion (personal belief or judgment) you hold with respect to political questions. This leads on to 'political sympathies'. 3) can also mean social relations involving authority or power, 'political relations', the use of strategic maneuvering within a group to obtain power or control. 4) can also mean the profession devoted to governing and to political affairs. So, Lee Harvey Oswald had type 2) 'politics' - i.e. his political beliefs. His actions followed from these beliefs. His actions were also a type 3), political social relations, where he demonstrated his power to affect the group. But, the discussion rapidly becomes meaningless with 'big subject' words unless you restrict the meaning to what you want to discuss. So, if you want to discuss 'politics' as 'power maneuvering within groups', or 'negotiations between groups', then say so at the outset. BillK From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 14:49:24 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:49:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [Meta] Mail format In-Reply-To: <22360fa10510152021y4eb49856m2d0f6132c72581e@mail.gmail.com> References: <22360fa10510152021y4eb49856m2d0f6132c72581e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/16/05, Jef Allbright wrote: > > On 10/15/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > > > Jef, I don't like this microsoft outlook express way of replying to > email with lines down the side its pretty cumbersome and has meant I've > spent less time working your > > substantive points than I might have because I was messing about with > how to reply to your post. > > > > > Sorry about the format. I switched a few weeks ago from Mozilla > Thunderbird to Gmail (second attempt, now that Gmail has added a few > more features) to see how well I could do with a 100% web based > platform, and I'm still learning to cope with it. > > In my case you can blame the spammers. I used to us a normal email account and now use gmail. The reason is that apart from my websites I also post on Usenet a lot. Consequently I get (on the old address) some 200 pieces of crap every day. Not so on gmail. Their filter system is wellnigh perfect. The overall effect of spam is going to be the rise to dominance in communications of big players like MS and Google. Apart from their filters they are the only people powerful enough to hunt down spammers and actually put them in prison. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Oct 16 15:46:58 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:46:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rachel Carson In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051004234009.079efb10@unreasonable.com> References: <20051004212759.23205.qmail@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20051004233852.46669.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051004205941.077959b0@unreasonable.com> <20051005030556.GB31732@ofb.net> <6.2.3.4.2.20051004234009.079efb10@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20051016154658.GA22231@ofb.net> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 12:21:03AM -0400, David Lubkin wrote: > http://www.malaria.org/news132.html [quoting Bruce Ames] > http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm [citing studies] > http://reason.com/rb/rb061202.shtml Conversely: http://timlambert.org/category/science/ddt/ One key point: there's a global ban on DDT use for agriculture, not for disease control. Another point: http://junkscience.com/malaria_clock.htm seems to blame 90 million deaths on the EPA's DDT ban. But malaria was eradicated in the US before the ban, and the EPA only affects the US, not anyone else. And the fifth footnote openly admits using inflated numbers. "However, certain in the knowledge that even one human sacrificed on the altar of green misanthropy is infinitely too many, I let stand the linear extrapolation of numbers from an instant start on the 1st of the month following this murderous ban." Estimates have their place in science, but not on a page whose first impression is of a clock with exact numbers. -xx- Damien X-) From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 15:55:00 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:55:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <005b01c5d226$40733750$0801a8c0@EF02jack> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc> <002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> <005b01c5d226$40733750$0801a8c0@EF02jack> Message-ID: <7641ddc60510160855l2646025bp165eb7805aa8b86a@mail.gmail.com> On 10/16/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > On 10/15/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > >>> I posted this before - I still think the best definition of politics > is: The > >>> relationships between groups! At any level - from office factions to > >>>negotiations between superpowers. Politics is only incidentally social > >>> decision making. It is wholly about interacting communities. > > >> ### Is buying T-shirts from China a form of politics? > >>No! Unless you are doing this as an expression of group values > >>concerning Chinese group values... > >### Now it is getting more complicated - so politics is not merely > >"relationships between >groups" but rather "relationships between groups > >expressing group values". And what >are "group values"? It's getting > >positively baroque. > > We are discussing the meaning of politics - not the meaning of groups. A > group has some points of congruence and some disconnectedness. Politics is > how these opposing points develop. ### You wrote that not all relationships between groups are politics (thus contradicting your initial definition), and specifically you wrote that buying T-shirts from China is not politics unless it "expresses group values". Since you introduced this additional qualification to your definition, you need to explain it. --------------------------------------- > > >>>Is imprisoning an individual dissenter not a form of politics? > >>Yes! The group expresses it's disapproval of dissent - by sanctions > against representatives of groups that oppose it... > > >### Oh, our dissenter has not joined a group. Is he a group all by > himself? > > Lone dissenters are NEVER 'political' - they are rugged individualists, > deviants, and/or eccentrics until such time as they represent a group. If > they are really unlucky they are criminals to boot! But they are not > politicians until they can claim to represent a constituency... ### Aha. So if your group kills every rugged individualist individually opposing the confiscation of his land, or every eccentric they disapprove of, it is not politics. ------------------------------------- >>So you seem to say that imprisoning a single dissenter is politics. What > >>about hiring a hangman? Is this politics ... > Yes! > >>("a group's expression of approval of willingness to kill for money")? > > No! A group's expression of it's willingness to force compliance... > > >>What about a town hiring a garbage collector? A group of garbage > collectors? > >>Which one is not politics? > > I fail to see any conflict here? The group hire garbage collector(s) > because > the group prefers (on consensus) hygiene! ### So you imply that any hiring of an individual by a group is politics. But killing people one by one, is not. Interestingly, buying things from another group is not politics, according to your views on T-shirts from China. Curiouser and curiouser. --------------------------------------- >### I do think a bit more of my questioning will convince the onlookers > that > >a lot is. > Rafal > > I very much doubt that! > > A body politic is always and everywhere a group! Or please show me > otherwise... ### A definition must not only allow the inclusion of all instances of the defined entity, it must also exclude other entities that partially share characteristics with the defined entity. To wit, when defining a triangle you must say more than "a thingy made of line segments". You must also make the definition specific enough to exlude non-triangular thingies made of segments. So, although your enthusiasm about your definition is quite refreshing, you need to add something to your definition to exclude all the relationships involving groups that are not politics. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Oct 16 16:01:13 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:01:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rachel Carson In-Reply-To: <20051016154658.GA22231@ofb.net> References: <20051004212759.23205.qmail@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20051004233852.46669.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051004205941.077959b0@unreasonable.com> <20051005030556.GB31732@ofb.net> <6.2.3.4.2.20051004234009.079efb10@unreasonable.com> <20051016154658.GA22231@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20051016160113.GA29340@ofb.net> http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2001/03/02-03-01/WHO.htm "WHO Wins Reprieve for DDT Against Malaria" Some ban. http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0920-harvard.html DDT linked to Early Miscarriages - Harvard Study with link to the original article http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/kwi275?ijkey=h9AKIxsz45iaLkB&keytype=ref (I note the newspaper article quoting Wikipedia in a sidebar. Hah.) -xx- Damien X-) From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Oct 16 16:07:42 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:07:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] EVENT: Thomas Barnett Book Tour in Second Life on 26 October 2005 In-Reply-To: <5366105b0510151519j484ec28fr7d162127ded55462@mail.gmail.com> References: <5366105b0510151519j484ec28fr7d162127ded55462@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10510160907r76d9d71ch4af6f264fec00d15@mail.gmail.com> On 10/15/05, Jay Dugger wrote: > Thomas Barnett, author of "The Pentagon's New Map," has a stop on the > tour for his new book, "Blueprint for Action," in Second Life on > October 26, 11:30am-1pm PST. Learn more at "A New Map for A New > World," http://secondlife.blogs.com/nwn/2005/10/a_new_map_for_a.html I highly recommend Barnett's _The Pentagon's New Map_ as well. > More importantly, now that SL has free accounts, does this event mark > a shift to teleconferencing for publicity tours and business meetings? > I hope not yet--corporate aviation pays my salary. > > Should the next ExI or WTA conference take place on-line? Second Life and the other virtual 3D worlds are not yet ready for prime time. As "Jef Ambassador" I own (virtual) land in Second Life and have started construction of a futurist museum, but that project is on hold pending the (overdue) release of in-world html capability. In-world conferences are being held regularly in Second Life--I enjoyed Cory Doctorow's visit two months ago. Positives: * The benefits of real-time interaction of attendees and presenters with a real sense of being there together, overcoming limitations of geography. * Because the chat is text-based, it supports multiple asynchronous dialogs and commentary without the disruptive effects of competing voices in a room, and each participant can easily review what has been said. * And [a capability I've dreamed of for most of my life] the potential to instantly display charts/graphs/diagrams/pictures/video/animations in mid-air to support points being made in a conversation. Negatives: * In-world HTML will provide a huge improvement in the flexibility of information display, but delivery of this feature keeps slipping. * Currently a maximum of 40 avatars can be supported in one region, due to limits on computational capacity of the simulators. It's possible, but cumbersome, to work around this by owning adjacent land in separate simulators and thus support up to 160 participants. [Other architectures, such as the peer-to-peer Croquet project, are another way to improve scalability] * While audio and video presentations are supported, they are currently limited to a single feed per location (although effective work-arounds are becoming available.) I'm enthusiastic about the potential for virtual worlds to augment and enhance human interaction, and the Second Life model with its thriving internal economy seems to be leading the way, but there's still a lot of work to be done before conferences in the metaverse will overtake the "real" world. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 16:10:34 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:10:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Question for Rafal was Alternative to Cryo In-Reply-To: <20051016104919.42757.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc> <20051016104919.42757.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60510160910r44935fbbp55af2a7eb8673871@mail.gmail.com> On 10/16/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Hi Rafal. I am glad you have started posting again. > Since you are the list expert on mitochondria, I am > very curious as to your opinion on Blackstone et al.'s > recent proof of principle that reversible electron > transport chain inhibitors could be used to slow down > metabolism, and thus aging through ROS, by inducing a > hibernation-like state of suspended animation. The > article in question is here: > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5721/518 > > The question I have is could this theoretically allow > the elderly or the terminally ill to survive the > several decades for SENS and other medical > advancements to come up with cures for their > conditions? Could this be a viable alternative to > cryogenic suspension? ### Unlikely, although not wholly impossible. Metabolism cannot function in a mammal without mitochondria for long, so you can only partially suppress it (inducing a coma because the brain *really* needs its mitos), and you still have many forms of entropic decay during hibernation, even with lower levels of ROS. This means that there are biological limits on the duration of hibernation (absent in cryosuspension), and to achieve decades of hibernation you would need to cycle on and off and periodically turn up mitochondria to allow cellular repair. This makes it all more and more tricky. ---------------------------------------------------- Also there is much controversy > in the literature regarding the neurotoxic effects of > the hydrogen sulphide (H2S) gas that Blackstone uses > to induce this condition in mice. Do you know of any > other reversible inhibitors of cytochrome c or the > other components of the ETC that could serve the same > purpose with less toxicity? ### Beta-amyloid. In hibernating animals amyloid accumulates to high levels and participates in the induction of hibernation, to be degraded as the spring comes. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sun Oct 16 16:19:58 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:19:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo wasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice References: <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com> <021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <005501c5d26d$7d7699c0$b8f04d0c@MyComputer> "Brett Paatsch" > Your weren't put together in lego block fashion. You were put together in exactly a Lego block fashion. One tiny transfer RNA molecule grabbed hold of an even smaller amino acid molecule and brought it to a place dictated by a large messenger RNA molecule that was created by an even larger DNA molecule. A fraction of a second later another transfer RNA molecule grabbed hold of a different amino acid and the messenger RNA told it to place if very carefully next to the first amino acid and then it connected to it. Repeat this assembly process several thousand times and you have a long sequence of amino acids, release this sequence and it folds up into a very complex shape called a protein. Repeat this protein making process several million billion times and we get you. > I don't see how any future technology could put your > atoms back together by rebuilding the organic chemistry > structures. And I don't see why not, but actually the question is irrelevant. Once there was a readout of the position of all the molecules in your body (a much lower resolution would probably be sufficient) I very much doubt anyone would even try to reconstruct another body made of proteins and fats floating in water like we have now, rather the function of the brain neurons would be duplicated in silicon hardware, or perhaps just in software, if done carefully we'd never notice the difference. > you can make say an ice cream out of steal. Your brain and mine were made from last years potatoes, and more than 20 years ago somebody made diamonds out of peanut butter; ice cream out of steal would be more difficult because you'd have to transmute iron into carbon hydrogen oxygen and nitrogen and a few other trace elements, but it wouldn't be magic, transmutation has been accomplished, and on a industrial scale too. It's not like time travel or perpetual motion or anti gravity, it wouldn't violate any known law of physics. John K Clark From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 16:30:07 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:30:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <470a3c520510160118i1c954004q865902ad97fd344@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc> <002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152332j32e2a37aw19216f9ddc88d8f6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510152347g57ca1be9kdcffe592a9effd67@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152356k178cdcf0idcb7ae6908ec99be@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510160025n71b48fddua040a30511ef7098@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510160118i1c954004q865902ad97fd344@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60510160930p7056e5e8l802aed52ec6d9118@mail.gmail.com> On 10/16/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > So perhaps we can merge the two definitions as: > 1) Bad Politics is the organized application of violence to achieve > dominance > 2) Good Politics is solving conflicts without using violence ### That's progress but questions remain. To avoid overinclusiveness, you need to specify what is not Good Politics but still solves conflicts without using violence. ------------------------------------------------ > 3) We are halfway between Bad Politics and Good Politics, the degree > depending on specific local practices. > 4) We should move away from 1 and towards 2. > Regarding the apples thing, I cannot answer without more info on the > trading mechanism. Having to trade apple at gunpoint, and being paid > with the right to stay alive until next time, is what I would call Bad > Politics. ### Let's assume that it involves two farmers, peers in all respects. One has an apple, and intends to feed it to his hogs. The other desires the apple with all his soul, dreaming of the juicy, crisp, flavory crunch. Obviously, there is a conflict between their desires as to the preferred fate of the apple. Being honest people, and utterly respectful of each other, they would never threaten violence (unless threatened). After some friendly negotiations, where violence is not even a dark unsaid shadow, they exchange the apple for some corn. Both farmers, and the hogs, are better off. Is this politics? Rafal PS. As you may realize, what I am driving at is to say that all politics is bad, and all "good politics", is in fact trade, or forbearance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From outlawpoet at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 16:31:37 2005 From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:31:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] National Novel Writing Month - who's game to try? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510152210g50eb307dy95cd1946969a9163@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0510152200s4520764et@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510152210g50eb307dy95cd1946969a9163@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3ad827f30510160931qf5f0f47jc8d1c8d1d8067e99@mail.gmail.com> On 10/15/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > Hadn't heard of that, but it sounds like a lot of fun! I'd like to have a > go at it, but realistically I'm not going to have time; but I will wish you > and the other participants luck. I'm planning on participating in a limited way. I don't have much time either, so I'll be writing 15 min to an hour a night. -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 16:56:13 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:56:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60510160855l2646025bp165eb7805aa8b86a@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc> <002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> <005b01c5d226$40733750$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <7641ddc60510160855l2646025bp165eb7805aa8b86a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/16/05, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > On 10/16/05, Jack Parkinson < isthatyoujack at icqmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/15/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > > > >>> I posted this before - I still think the best definition of politics > > > > is: The > > >>> relationships between groups! At any level - from office factions to > > >>>negotiations between superpowers. Politics is only incidentally > > social > > >>> decision making. It is wholly about interacting communities. > > > > >> ### Is buying T-shirts from China a form of politics? > > >>No! Unless you are doing this as an expression of group values > > >>concerning Chinese group values... > > >### Now it is getting more complicated - so politics is not merely > > >"relationships between >groups" but rather "relationships between > > groups > > >expressing group values". And what >are "group values"? It's getting > > >positively baroque. > > > > We are discussing the meaning of politics - not the meaning of groups. A > > group has some points of congruence and some disconnectedness. Politics > > is > > how these opposing points develop. > > > ### You wrote that not all relationships between groups are politics (thus > contradicting your initial definition), and specifically you wrote that > buying T-shirts from China is not politics unless it "expresses group > values". Since you introduced this additional qualification to your > definition, you need to explain it. > > An act that has political ramifications is political, no matter what opinions others hold. The very fact that *I* think it's political makes it political. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Oct 16 17:01:14 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 10:01:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to CryowasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice In-Reply-To: <005501c5d26d$7d7699c0$b8f04d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200510161701.j9GH16e16206@tick.javien.com> > CryowasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice > > "Brett Paatsch" ... > > > ...you can make say an ice cream out of steal... > ...ice cream out of steal would be more difficult... If you really intended ice cream larceny, then I have no comment. But if you meant to make ice cream out of steel, then your best bet would be to separate the iron from the carbon, throw away the iron, (this being the lowest energy nucleus on the chart), extract the nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen from the surrounding air, then use these materials to make a no-calcium ice cream imitation. Actually the carbon could come from the air too, so the steel isn't necessary at all. Come to think of it, perhaps it would be far easier to simply steal the ice cream, which was produced in the traditional way involving sugar cane and cows. spike {8^D From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 17:01:14 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:01:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60510160930p7056e5e8l802aed52ec6d9118@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc> <002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152332j32e2a37aw19216f9ddc88d8f6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510152347g57ca1be9kdcffe592a9effd67@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152356k178cdcf0idcb7ae6908ec99be@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510160025n71b48fddua040a30511ef7098@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510160118i1c954004q865902ad97fd344@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510160930p7056e5e8l802aed52ec6d9118@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/16/05, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > ### Let's assume that it involves two farmers, peers in all respects. One > has an apple, and intends to feed it to his hogs. The other desires the > apple with all his soul, dreaming of the juicy, crisp, flavory crunch. > Obviously, there is a conflict between their desires as to the preferred > fate of the apple. > > Being honest people, and utterly respectful of each other, they would > never threaten violence (unless threatened). After some friendly > negotiations, where violence is not even a dark unsaid shadow, they exchange > the apple for some corn. Both farmers, and the hogs, are better off. > Is this politics? > And if the farmer with the apple has all he needs, he feeds it to the hogs and tells the other one to get lost. Or, alternatively, he demands a price that is exhorbitant and either the other farmer gives up resentfully, or pays that high price, resentfully. Is this politics? Is it politics when the man who desires the apple is a starving pauper with nothing to trade? Rafal > > PS. As you may realize, what I am driving at is to say that all politics > is bad, and all "good politics", is in fact trade, or forbearance. > You are confusing the objective with the subjective. Politics is objective. 'Good' and 'bad' are subjective (and often depend for their definition on politics). Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 17:05:39 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:05:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60510160930p7056e5e8l802aed52ec6d9118@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc> <002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152332j32e2a37aw19216f9ddc88d8f6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510152347g57ca1be9kdcffe592a9effd67@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152356k178cdcf0idcb7ae6908ec99be@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510160025n71b48fddua040a30511ef7098@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510160118i1c954004q865902ad97fd344@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510160930p7056e5e8l802aed52ec6d9118@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520510161005m3e98f056k7a5fc494f1095389@mail.gmail.com> First let us define violence. Let me define it as "using a weapon to solve a conflict". And we still have to define "weapon". Of course a gun is a weapon - the first image of my definition of violence that comes to my mind is someone forcing me to deliver my wallet at gunpoint. But also superior physical strength or fighting skills are weapons. In the example above nothing changes if the bad guy has no gun but is a black belt twice bigger than I. And also superior financial strength is a weapon, as the mafia guy explains to Andy Garcia in Codfather 3. Everyone who has played serious poker knows the golden rule that you don't play against people with much more money than you. In the apples example one of the farmers can be much richer than the other and threaten to force him out of business (for example by underselling until the other is broke) unless he sells the apple at a given price. Assuming they are peers, your apple example is good politics. With the definitions above, I cannot think of something that is not Good Politics but still solves conflicts without using violence. Of course, there is good politics and better politics. I don't agree that that all politics is bad, and all "good politics", is in fact trade, or forbearance. How do you accommodate civil rights or criminal law policies (just to make two examples) in the definition? I think fair trade is a necessary element of good politics, but I do not think all politics can be reduced to trade. G. On 10/16/05, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > On 10/16/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > So perhaps we can merge the two definitions as: > > 1) Bad Politics is the organized application of violence to achieve > dominance > > 2) Good Politics is solving conflicts without using violence > > ### That's progress but questions remain. To avoid overinclusiveness, you > need to specify what is not Good Politics but still solves conflicts without > using violence. > ------------------------------------------------ > > > 3) We are halfway between Bad Politics and Good Politics, the degree > > depending on specific local practices. > > 4) We should move away from 1 and towards 2. > > Regarding the apples thing, I cannot answer without more info on the > > trading mechanism. Having to trade apple at gunpoint, and being paid > > with the right to stay alive until next time, is what I would call Bad > > Politics. > > ### Let's assume that it involves two farmers, peers in all respects. One > has an apple, and intends to feed it to his hogs. The other desires the > apple with all his soul, dreaming of the juicy, crisp, flavory crunch. > Obviously, there is a conflict between their desires as to the preferred > fate of the apple. > > Being honest people, and utterly respectful of each other, they would never > threaten violence (unless threatened). After some friendly negotiations, > where violence is not even a dark unsaid shadow, they exchange the apple for > some corn. Both farmers, and the hogs, are better off. > > Is this politics? > > Rafal > > PS. As you may realize, what I am driving at is to say that all politics is > bad, and all "good politics", is in fact trade, or forbearance. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 16 17:11:30 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:11:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <20051016101853.307.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051016101853.307.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051016120809.01cc2330@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:18 AM 10/16/2005 -0700, Stuart wrote: >You might think that a Presidential State of the Union >address is something more than a primate dominance >ritual but it isn't... at least not qualitatively. >When a low ranking monkey vocalizes, few of his >fellows heed him. When the alpha monkey calls out, >every head in the troop turns torward him and hang on >his every utterance. What about when the dork monkey calls out, the one the wily alphas have shoved forward? This is not a partisan query; I've never met Bush, but from a distance he doesn't give a very convincing impression of an alpha male to me. Cheney, presumably, is one. Damien Broderick From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 18:20:41 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:20:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <470a3c520510161005m3e98f056k7a5fc494f1095389@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152332j32e2a37aw19216f9ddc88d8f6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510152347g57ca1be9kdcffe592a9effd67@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152356k178cdcf0idcb7ae6908ec99be@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510160025n71b48fddua040a30511ef7098@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510160118i1c954004q865902ad97fd344@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510160930p7056e5e8l802aed52ec6d9118@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510161005m3e98f056k7a5fc494f1095389@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60510161120r447ea40we5db1a25b980e889@mail.gmail.com> On 10/16/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > First let us define violence. > Let me define it as "using a weapon to solve a conflict". > And we still have to define "weapon". > Of course a gun is a weapon - the first image of my definition of > violence that comes to my mind is someone forcing me to deliver my > wallet at gunpoint. > But also superior physical strength or fighting skills are weapons. In > the example above nothing changes if the bad guy has no gun but is a > black belt twice bigger than I. > And also superior financial strength is a weapon, as the mafia guy > explains to Andy Garcia in Codfather 3. Everyone who has played > serious poker knows the golden rule that you don't play against people > with much more money than you. > In the apples example one of the farmers can be much richer than the > other and threaten to force him out of business (for example by > underselling until the other is broke) unless he sells the apple at a > given price. > Assuming they are peers, your apple example is good politics. > With the definitions above, I cannot think of something that is not > Good Politics but still solves conflicts without using violence. Of > course, there is good politics and better politics. > I don't agree that that all politics is bad, and all "good politics", > is in fact trade, or forbearance. How do you accommodate civil rights > or criminal law policies (just to make two examples) in the > definition? I think fair trade is a necessary element of good > politics, but I do not think all politics can be reduced to trade. > G. ### So refusing to sell a single apple is using "violence"? Having a black belt while buying apples is being "violent"? Being rich while selling apples is being "violent"? Of course, if you redefine all words, from "violence", to "apple" and "orange", you can make your definition of "politics" apply to whatever you want. I am not saying that all politics is trade - I am saying it is antithetical to trade. Trade is voluntary exchange, not compelled by the threat of violence. Politics is the use of organized violence to achieve dominance. Perhaps I should add "politics is the use of organized violence to achieve, or deny dominance". This would accommodate the organized resistance to politics in the form of insistence on maintaining personal freedom, as a form of politics, although I would rather call it anti-politics. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 18:25:36 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:25:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60510161120r447ea40we5db1a25b980e889@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152332j32e2a37aw19216f9ddc88d8f6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510152347g57ca1be9kdcffe592a9effd67@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152356k178cdcf0idcb7ae6908ec99be@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510160025n71b48fddua040a30511ef7098@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510160118i1c954004q865902ad97fd344@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510160930p7056e5e8l802aed52ec6d9118@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510161005m3e98f056k7a5fc494f1095389@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510161120r447ea40we5db1a25b980e889@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/16/05, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > ### So refusing to sell a single apple is using "violence"? > > Having a black belt while buying apples is being "violent"? > > Being rich while selling apples is being "violent"? > > Of course, if you redefine all words, from "violence", to "apple" and > "orange", you can make your definition of "politics" apply to whatever you > want. > > I am not saying that all politics is trade - I am saying it is > antithetical to trade. Trade is voluntary exchange, not compelled by the > threat of violence. Politics is the use of organized violence to achieve > dominance. > > Perhaps I should add "politics is the use of organized violence to > achieve, or deny dominance". This would accommodate the organized resistance > to politics in the form of insistence on maintaining personal freedom, as a > form of politics, although I would rather call it anti-politics. > > Trade is only applicable to those who have something to trade. See Marx, and the real world, when that is not true. If you are starving and have nothing I want then your only options are theft, intimidation, charity or death. When large groups are involved you get revolution and war. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Oct 16 20:22:03 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:22:03 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo was TheAmazingCellularRepairdevice In-Reply-To: <021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc> References: <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com> <021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051016202203.GP2249@leitl.org> On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 09:01:25AM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote: > The atoms that you are composed of are mostly the ones > used by growing things. The organic chemistry ones. Atoms have no identity. They are freely exchangeable, and sometimes it doesn't even have to be right isotope, provided it's stable and is not hydrogen. > Organic chemistry grows well but extrudes baddly. Organic chemistry is absolutely useless for both the scan, the processing, and deposition of a copy. (Assuming someone would want a copy of a cryopreserved cephalon, I fail to see any motivation why one would). > I don't see how any future technology could put your > atoms back together by rebuilding the organic chemistry > structures. Here's an outline of a way: http://e-drexler.com/d/05/00/DC10C-mechanosynthesis.pdf > You grew Spike. Your weren't put together in lego > block fashion. The organic chemistry, proteins, lipids The structure contains no information by which it was created. Whether you grew, or were created from thin air and dirt a few seconds ago there's no way for you to tell. > etc that make you up and hold your atoms in position > only hold together as they do under certain limits of > temperature and pressure etc. We're talking about a chunk of tissue glass at 77 K or below. This isn't particulary difficult to image at molecular scale even today, the current limitation is that this doesn't scale to the volume. > If we could magically put all your atoms (the organic > chemistry atoms) into a file, the take that file and > magically recreate all the structures in the same place > then I'd agree we'd have a perfect functional equivalent > of the old Spike. But that process involves magic at > a couple of steps. If magic means "I have no idea how this would work" I would have to disagree. > Its not clear to me that you can make a new Spike like > brain and body with a lego-block assembly approach > any more than you can make say an ice cream out of > steal. It's not a living Spike, but a chunk of Spike frozen solid. > You can't keep the heat out of the reassembly meat. Yes, you just have to deposit layer by layer, and sufficiently slow (actually, I would just prefab most of the molecular species and precursors, and reassemble Spike mostly from stock). > You can't get the nanobots if you had them small > enough to get into the spaces you need them too You don't need access to the volume. Both abrasion and deposition occurs at the surface, layer by layer. > in sufficient numbers fast enough because the organic > stuff your building with (cos that whats your old info > pattern was based on) will start to break down faster > than you can possibly build it (even with magic nanobot > technology). Not at cryogenic conditions. (Not that most of the above is just a gedanken exercise, because nobody is going to do that in practice. There are much easier ways to skin your cat). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 22:51:24 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:21:24 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] National Novel Writing Month - who's game to try? In-Reply-To: <3ad827f30510160931qf5f0f47jc8d1c8d1d8067e99@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0510152200s4520764et@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510152210g50eb307dy95cd1946969a9163@mail.gmail.com> <3ad827f30510160931qf5f0f47jc8d1c8d1d8067e99@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0510161551j1757a410q@mail.gmail.com> On 17/10/05, justin corwin wrote: > On 10/15/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > > Hadn't heard of that, but it sounds like a lot of fun! I'd like to have a > > go at it, but realistically I'm not going to have time; but I will wish you > > and the other participants luck. > > I'm planning on participating in a limited way. I don't have much time > either, so I'll be writing 15 min to an hour a night. That's my plan too, although we (my wife & I) did a test run last night - this is going to be around an hour a day if we don't worry about the quality of the writing :-) So what's limited participation? Are you going to push for the 50K words? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From outlawpoet at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 23:04:17 2005 From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:04:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] National Novel Writing Month - who's game to try? In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0510161551j1757a410q@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0510152200s4520764et@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510152210g50eb307dy95cd1946969a9163@mail.gmail.com> <3ad827f30510160931qf5f0f47jc8d1c8d1d8067e99@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0510161551j1757a410q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3ad827f30510161604g23ba0c69qdd7c6894144dd99a@mail.gmail.com> On 10/16/05, Emlyn wrote: > That's my plan too, although we (my wife & I) did a test run last > night - this is going to be around an hour a day if we don't worry > about the quality of the writing :-) > > So what's limited participation? Are you going to push for the 50K words? Well, It's National Novel Writing Month, which to me would imply completion. I'm just going to try to be past 50k words by the deadline, which will likely be far from a completed novel. To speak nothing of editing and rewriting, which would push the needed involvement much higher. I'm just going to tack this onto the end of the day, pushing out some personal recreation, because my schedule is already 'full'. If I were a little more flexible, I might try to spend more time on it. It would be nice to see a spate of good short science fiction come out of this, I see the sci fi section of the nanowrimo.org forums is pretty busy. -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 16 23:15:58 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:15:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] National Novel Writing Month - who's game to try? In-Reply-To: <3ad827f30510161604g23ba0c69qdd7c6894144dd99a@mail.gmail.co m> References: <710b78fc0510152200s4520764et@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510152210g50eb307dy95cd1946969a9163@mail.gmail.com> <3ad827f30510160931qf5f0f47jc8d1c8d1d8067e99@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0510161551j1757a410q@mail.gmail.com> <3ad827f30510161604g23ba0c69qdd7c6894144dd99a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051016181401.02f11d60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 06:04 PM 10/16/2005, justin corwin wrote: >On 10/16/05, Emlyn wrote: > > That's my plan too, although we (my wife & I) did a test run last > > night - this is going to be around an hour a day if we don't worry > > about the quality of the writing :-) > > > > So what's limited participation? Are you going to push for the 50K words? > >Well, It's National Novel Writing Month, which to me would imply >completion. I'm just going to try to be past 50k words by the >deadline, which will likely be far from a completed novel. To speak >nothing of editing and rewriting, which would push the needed >involvement much higher. > >I'm just going to tack this onto the end of the day, pushing out some >personal recreation, because my schedule is already 'full'. If I were >a little more flexible, I might try to spend more time on it. > >It would be nice to see a spate of good short science fiction come out >of this, I see the sci fi section of the nanowrimo.org forums is >pretty busy. This is exciting! Good luck! Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Sun Oct 16 23:26:09 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:26:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Six Thinking Hats Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051016175221.04e05308@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Many of you will be familiar with Edward de Bono and his "six thinking hats". For those who are not (or who would like a refresher), here's a summary I wrote a few weeks ago: Six Thinking Hats http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO9150511345045 Question: Can you point me toward similar methods of encouraging and strengthening distinct perspectives on a decision? (Other than devils advocacy, which I have covered.) Onward! Max _______________________________________________________ Max More, Ph.D. max at maxmore.com or more at extropy.org http://www.maxmore.com Strategic Philosopher Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org ________________________________________________________________ Director of Content Solutions, ManyWorlds Inc.: http://www.manyworlds.com --- Thought leadership in the innovation economy m.more at manyworlds.com _______________________________________________________ From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Oct 16 23:37:33 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:37:33 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to CryowasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice References: <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com><021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc> <005501c5d26d$7d7699c0$b8f04d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <047101c5d2aa$95087580$8998e03c@homepc> John Clarke wrote: > "Brett Paatsch" > >> Your weren't put together in lego block fashion. > > You were put together in exactly a Lego block fashion. Lego block construction proceeds with the construction tools (the kids hands) outside the block. And the instructions/design decisions about what will be build also outside the block (in the kids head). The lego blocks don't grow and divide steering themselves down developmental paths (as cells do), construction proceeds with the lego blocks being snapped in discretely to the outside of the first block that was laid down. Nature in growing Spike had the advantage of not caring about what particular Spike (Spikes neural structure and memories) in a range of possible Spikes would emerge as a result of the dna instructions meeting extracellular environmental stimuli. Nature wasn't trying to reverse engineer a particular Spike it was just getting on with building an original from a make-something-like -a-Spike genetic instruction set in the dna formed when Spike's mum and dad's dna got together. If you were going to use Drexlerian nanotechnology to build the cellular structure of Spikes brain you'd be trying to building lego block fashion using atoms as your base construction element not cells. But to recreate Spikes brain in flesh (and get Spike back) you would have to create a whole lot of cells (trillions of them) capable of functioning as the massive specific concert of cells that was biological Spike. And you'd have to create them on location because you couldn't move them past each other as assembled cells. Their shapes which are interlocking wouldn't allow that. To build lipid layers of cells on location without using water chemistry (which you couldn't because of the temperature constraint, water doesn't act like water when its ice) you'd be placing molecules of lipid with nanobot tweezers. A broken lipid cell membrane (width 6 nanometres) means a non functional cell or cellular compartment and it would certainly mean non-functioning mitochondrion in the cell. It would take too long (I don't know how long but perhaps age of the universe timescales) to construct like this unless you had a massively parallel construction operation going on. And you can't do that because there isn't space between the being build cells for your nanobots that are having to place molecules to less than 6 nanometre precision to get functioning cells. > One tiny transfer RNA > molecule grabbed hold of an even smaller amino acid molecule and brought > it > to a place dictated by a large messenger RNA molecule that was created by > an > even larger DNA molecule. A fraction of a second later another transfer > RNA > molecule grabbed hold of a different amino acid and the messenger RNA told > it to place if very carefully next to the first amino acid and then it > connected to it. Repeat this assembly process several thousand times and > you > have a long sequence of amino acids, release this sequence and it folds up > into a very complex shape called a protein. Repeat this protein making > process several million billion times and we get you. All of which happens in a watery chemistry environment (important for causing the proteins made up of amino acids to take the three dimensional shapes they do and for lipids to arrange themselves as they do) inside the cell at temperature of around 37 degrees. Much away from 37 degrees and the water chemistry wouldn't have worked and the development of Spike from that first cell containing the how-to-build-something-like-spike-dna-by growing-and-then-dividing-at-the-right- time doesn't work and the development of Spike wouldn't have proceeded. >> I don't see how any future technology could put your >> atoms back together by rebuilding the organic chemistry >> structures. > > And I don't see why not, but actually the question is irrelevant. > > Once there > was a readout of the position of all the molecules in your body (a much > lower resolution would probably be sufficient) I very much doubt anyone > would even try to reconstruct another body made of proteins and fats > floating in water like we have now, rather the function of the brain > neurons > would be duplicated in silicon hardware, or perhaps just in software, if > done carefully we'd never notice the difference. I'm effectively certain that they wouldn't try to. But that was the scenario Spike was musing over, he wasn't musing over uploading (a separate thing with its own problems) he wanted his brain back in a new buff body. Brett Paatsch > > you can make say an ice cream out of steal. > > Your brain and mine were made from last years potatoes, and more than 20 > years ago somebody made diamonds out of peanut butter; ice cream out of > steal would be more difficult because you'd have to transmute iron into > carbon hydrogen oxygen and nitrogen and a few other trace elements, but > it > wouldn't be magic, transmutation has been accomplished, and on a > industrial > scale too. It's not like time travel or perpetual motion or anti gravity, > it > wouldn't violate any known law of physics. > > > John K Clark > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 23:46:08 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Serenity: "...make people better." In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510160347q13287e16t56c38bce7f567c92@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051016234608.72829.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > You're missing the point: I'm not the one you need > to worry about offending! > Yes, of course the world would be a better place if > we all gave more weight > to reason and less to our social dominance > instincts. But calling people > monkeys will not produce that result. If you call > people monkeys, they won't > conclude "I guess these guys have a point, we should > change our behavior". > They'll conclude "these guys are scum, maybe the > people who say we ought to > shut them down have a point". I do see your point. But my intention is not to insult or offend them. I myself am willing to admit that I am a monkey. The only difference between me and the offended is that I recognize it and try to overcome it. Whereas the offended live in denial of it. What is worse: a painful truth or a debilitating lie? Can an alcoholic stop drinking without realizing he has a drinking problem? Can we stop being monkeys without realizing that we are monkeys? What else do we call them that would be more politically correct? Sleepers? The unawakened? Reactive minds? Infidels? The rationally challenged? The differently aware? > > This isn't rocket science, it's basic psychology, > not the sort taught in a > first year college psychology class, but the sort > learned in kindergarten. > Seriously, most 6 year olds understand that > insulting people makes them > dislike you and not want to do things your way; it > should not be beyond the > grasp of the super-geniuses we have on this list. To call people on this list supergeniuses is probably just exacerbating already swollen egos. Swollen egos that can hamper true progress. After all if Wile E. Coyote simply worked on improving his sprint times instead of indulging his supergenius-sized ego with overly complicated technical solutions, he probably would have caught the road runner by now. > If > you still don't believe > me, try it on some normal people face to face and > see what result you get. Well if I walk up to a stranger, point at him, and say, "YOU, sir, are a monkey!" Thereby insinuating that that he is a monkey and that I am not, then yes I fully expect for him to become offended and possibly lash out at me. On the other hand if I walk up to him and look him earnestly in the eyes and say with all the pathos I can muster, "WE, my brother, are monkeys but WE can change!", then the expected reaction would be anything from mild amusement to fear and bewilderment. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Oct 16 23:54:08 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:54:08 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo wasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice References: <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com><021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc> <20051016202203.GP2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <048801c5d2ac$e614ae10$8998e03c@homepc> Eugen wrote: [referring to a post where I was considering Spike's wouldn't it be good to have a new brain in a buff body scenario] > (Not that most of the above is just a gedanken exercise, > because nobody is going to do that in practice. There are > much easier ways to skin your cat). I agree Eugen. Why don't you outline your most likely scenario in an essay or a paper? It really hard to engage with this subject in email as you'd appreciate. There is just too much material in it. I quite like the idea of engaging with a good cogent articulation of an approach to cryonics and the best I've found is the one put together by Fahy. I posted links to pages of the Fahy paper earlier in this thread if you want to check out which one I mean. I know that you and Rafal and possibly some others like John do have a reasonable cogent idea of how things might work in your heads but so far as I know you haven't put your own scenarios down on paper in an essay or semi formal paper like Merkle did (too badly for me to work with) and Fahy did (better). If you do I'd take a look. Otherwise it gets too hard to keep track of the various assumptions you might be making, or Robert might be, or John or Rafal as you all sort of jump in to defend an idea that I think is actually no one idea of how cryonics might work but a bunch of separate ideas. Because I'm studying, when I can concentrate on it, biochemistry, I enjoy the challenge of thinking about this stuff from a sciencey and engineering standpoint but its too time consuming to wade into too many disparate scenarios that aren't themselves structured into a particular framework or approach. Cheers, Brett Paatsch From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Oct 17 00:34:30 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:34:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism &Teenagers Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051016192739.0299afc0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Peaches Geldof, teenage daughter of Sir Bob Geldof, has produced a documentary film on issues that teenagers are facing today about the future tomorrow.The segment she interviewed me for is on transhumanism. We discussed the future, life extension and future technologies to extend life. The film will be airing in Britain on Monday 31st Oct at 9pm. Peaches is an honorary membership to ExI. She is excited about transhumans and the future. http://www.bobgeldof.info/ Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Oct 17 00:52:44 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:52:44 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo wasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice References: <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com><021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc> <20051016202203.GP2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <04f301c5d2b5$160a6260$8998e03c@homepc> Eugen wrote: > > I don't see how any future technology could put your >> atoms back together by rebuilding the organic chemistry > > structures. > > Here's an outline of a way: > http://e-drexler.com/d/05/00/DC10C-mechanosynthesis.pdf I just took a *very* quick look. The diagrams look like tools tips intended for manufacturing. But not for manufacturing organic chemistry molecules like proteins or lipids or sugars. Hard to say exactly how big the tool tips are (because what they are to be attached to matters) but they look like they are already approaching a few nanometres in size already. I'm thinking 10 hydrogen atoms (daltons) are about a nanometre across. And the diagrams would probably be using carbons not hydrogens in the tips. Is it really your view that this paper outlines a way of rebuilding organic chemical structures? Or are you just sort of showing me that there is a new paper by Drexler? Brett Paatsch From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 01:08:53 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:38:53 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] National Novel Writing Month - who's game to try? In-Reply-To: <3ad827f30510161604g23ba0c69qdd7c6894144dd99a@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0510152200s4520764et@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510152210g50eb307dy95cd1946969a9163@mail.gmail.com> <3ad827f30510160931qf5f0f47jc8d1c8d1d8067e99@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0510161551j1757a410q@mail.gmail.com> <3ad827f30510161604g23ba0c69qdd7c6894144dd99a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0510161808m515242eaq@mail.gmail.com> On 17/10/05, justin corwin wrote: > On 10/16/05, Emlyn wrote: > > That's my plan too, although we (my wife & I) did a test run last > > night - this is going to be around an hour a day if we don't worry > > about the quality of the writing :-) > > > > So what's limited participation? Are you going to push for the 50K words? > > Well, It's National Novel Writing Month, which to me would imply > completion. I'm just going to try to be past 50k words by the > deadline, which will likely be far from a completed novel. To speak > nothing of editing and rewriting, which would push the needed > involvement much higher. No no, it's really just a first draft as far as I understand it. Here are some excerpts from the FAQ: --- How do you win? Are there judges? What are the prizes? The way to win NaNoWriMo is by writing 50,000 words by midnight on November 30. Every year, there are many, many winners. There are no "Best Novel" or "Quickest-Written Novel" awards given out. All winners will get an official "Winner" web icon and certificate. --- What if I hit 50,000 words but I'm only halfway through my story? The 50,000 word limit is a threshold, not necessarily a stopping place. Reaching 50k and realizing you still have a lot of wrapping up to do is a good thing---it gives you something to come back and work on later. --- Do I have to start my novel from scratch on November 1? Yes. This sounds like a dumb, arbitrary rule, we know. But bringing a half-finished manuscript into NaNoWriMo all but guarantees a miserable month. You'll simply care about the characters and story too much to write with the gleeful, anything-goes approach that makes NaNoWriMo such a creative rush. Give yourself the gift of a clean slate, and you'll tap into realms of imagination and intuition that are out-of-reach when working on pre-existing manuscripts. --- Does that mean I can't use an outline or notes? Outlines and plot notes are very much encouraged, and can be started months ahead of the actual novel-writing adventure. Previously written prose, though, is punishable by death. --- Can anyone participate in NaNoWriMo? No. People who take their writing (and themselves) very seriously should probably go elsewhere. Everyone else, though, is warmly welcomed. --- Also, I think that editing and rewriting are out of the picture for the month. My thoughts on this are that, to succeed, you need to be aiming at what is really a first draft (hey, do an edit if you come in early, but how likely is that?). You need to *not* be writing the great novel you always wanted to write, but some cheapy idea that you kind of like but aren't too attached to. Especially if you are an aspiring writer, for Dog's sake don't work on anything precious to you; you'll be too worried about wrecking it in the frenzy. So it sounds like what you are trying to do is exactly on target for what the event is all about. Don't call it limited participation, you are going the whole hog! > > I'm just going to tack this onto the end of the day, pushing out some > personal recreation, because my schedule is already 'full'. If I were > a little more flexible, I might try to spend more time on it. Well, the point is to do it, whatever it takes, but not to overdo it I reckon. The method you describe there is exactly what I'll be doing, and I'm way overloaded already. However, I've developed a bad habit of watching late night tv in recent times, so I'm hoping to replace it with "novelling" for a while... --- (from the "History" section of the site) But fun? Fun was a revelation. Novel-writing, we had discovered, was just like watching TV. You get a bunch of friends together, load up on caffeine and junk food, and stare at a glowing screen for a couple hours. And a story spins itself out in front of you. --- I think these people must have quite intellectually abusive televisions. > > It would be nice to see a spate of good short science fiction come out > of this, I see the sci fi section of the nanowrimo.org forums is > pretty busy. I wouldn't be able to write a hard sci fi in the time frames, it just requires too much brainwork, planning, research. Bah. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 01:31:05 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 02:31:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism &Teenagers In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051016192739.0299afc0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051016192739.0299afc0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/17/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > Peaches Geldof, teenage daughter of Sir Bob Geldof, has produced a > documentary film on issues that teenagers are facing today about the future > tomorrow.The segment she interviewed me for is on transhumanism. We > discussed the future, life extension and future technologies to extend life. > The film will be airing in Britain on Monday 31st Oct at 9pm. > > Peaches is an honorary membership to ExI. She is excited about transhumans > and the future. > > http://www.bobgeldof.info/ > > Has she ever considered murdering her parents for that name? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 01:35:54 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 02:35:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Six Thinking Hats In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051016175221.04e05308@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051016175221.04e05308@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/17/05, Max More wrote: > > Many of you will be familiar with Edward de Bono and his "six > thinking hats". For those who are not (or who would like a > refresher), here's a summary I wrote a few weeks ago: > > Six Thinking Hats > http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO9150511345045 > > Question: Can you point me toward similar methods of encouraging and > strengthening distinct perspectives on a decision? (Other than devils > advocacy, which I have covered.) > > Analogical and magickal thinking. Brainstorming and associative thinking. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Mon Oct 17 01:35:46 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:35:46 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is References: <200510161701.j9GH1ge16301@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <000501c5d2be$786f0c90$0201a8c0@JPAcer> From: Rafal Smigrodzki >### Let's assume that it involves two farmers, peers in all respects. One >has an apple, and intends to feed it to his hogs. The other desires the >apple with all his soul, dreaming of the juicy, crisp, flavory crunch. >Obviously, there is a conflict between their desires as to the preferred >fate of the apple. >Being honest people, and utterly respectful of each other, they would never >threaten violence (unless threatened). After some friendly negotiations, >where violence is not even a dark unsaid shadow, they exchange the apple >for >some corn. Both farmers, and the hogs, are better off. >Is this politics? >Rafal Nope! This is commerce (and interpersonal relations)! Politics is still between groups... And I can't see a logical inconsistency with any objection that Rafal has raised so far - in fact I would go so far as to say: there isn't one! I am not saying that politics occupies some isolated box - it permeates our lives in the same way that science and art permeate and influence each other. However this does not alter our fairly strict definitions of science and art. Politics is always about groups - don't be cofused because some individual receives undue approbation or sanction. The group rewards and punishes. But it is fundamental that the individual 'does not take the law into their own hands' - Groups rule! Even autocrats and monarchs need group support. A group is not one and is not two - after that we are talking politics... On the same question, Brett Paatsch mentioned Lee Harvey Oswald. I have to say that I never heard anyone suggest he was a politician before! An assassin yes. Crazy? Maybe. Criminal - definitely. However , I would be willing to concede that if he was acting on behalf of a group - or was even deluded enough to believe that this was the case, then this was a political act. BUT, if he WAS acting alone he was just a murderer... (political ramifications notwithstanding) Jack Parkinson From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 02:07:01 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 03:07:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <000501c5d2be$786f0c90$0201a8c0@JPAcer> References: <200510161701.j9GH1ge16301@tick.javien.com> <000501c5d2be$786f0c90$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Message-ID: On 10/17/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: and art. Politics is always about groups - don't be cofused because some > individual receives undue approbation or sanction. The group rewards and > punishes. But it is fundamental that the individual 'does not take the law > into their own hands' - Groups rule! Even autocrats and monarchs need > group > support. A group is not one and is not two - after that we are talking > politics... You are making a political assumption. On the same question, Brett Paatsch mentioned Lee Harvey Oswald. I have to > say that I never heard anyone suggest he was a politician before! An > assassin yes. Crazy? Maybe. Criminal - definitely. > > However , I would be willing to concede that if he was acting on behalf of > a > group - or was even deluded enough to believe that this was the case, then > this was a political act. > BUT, if he WAS acting alone he was just a murderer... (political > ramifications notwithstanding) > > As for individuals, they can act on behalf of political *ideas*, which are certainly just as valid in this context as groups. If LHO was acting because of his Communist beliefs, is the assassination still not a political act? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Mon Oct 17 05:09:14 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:09:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative toCryowasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice References: <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com><021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc><005501c5d26d$7d7699c0$b8f04d0c@MyComputer> <047101c5d2aa$95087580$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <001f01c5d2d8$f2224bf0$cdee4d0c@MyComputer> "Brett Paatsch" >Lego block construction proceeds with the construction > tools (the kids hands) outside the block. Amino acids are put into a sequence with construction tools (transfer RNA) outside the protein. > the instructions/design decisions about what will be build also outside > the block (in the kids head). the instructions/design decisions about what will be build are also outside the protein (in the DNA communicated by means of messenger RNA) > The lego blocks don't grow and divide Individual amino acids don't grow and divide. > construction proceeds with the lego blocks being snapped in discretely to > the outside of the first block that was laid down. Construction proceeds with the amino acids being snapped into a sequence one after another. > Nature wasn't trying to reverse engineer a particular Spike Yes, and that gives us an advantage nature did not have, reverse engineering a brain is not easy but it's easier than making one from scratch, it won't take us 3 billion years as it took nature. > to recreate Spikes brain in flesh In the flesh? What's the point? > (and get Spike back) What has that to do with flesh? > you would have to create a whole lot of cells (trillions of them) > capable of functioning as the massive specific concert of cells > that was biological Spike. I'm far more interested in putting the information in Spikes organic brain (or mine) into some more permanent media than I am in recreating another meat computer exactly like the primitive thing we have now; however if you really wanted to do it I can think of one way with minimal use of Drexlerian technology. We would certainly know Spike's genome so we could grow a brain from that, then just use the Drexlerian technology to modify the interconnections in the neurons of the new brain so they have the same memories the original brain had. As I said I very much doubt anyone will bother to actually do something like that because they would regard it as comic. > your nanobots that are having to place molecules to less than 6 nanometre > precision to get functioning cells. And you are claiming that the only way to achieve such precision is the way nature stumbled upon 3 billion years ago and intelligence can never beat random mutation and natural selection. That strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely. > I'm effectively certain that they [Jupiter brains presumably] wouldn't try > to [duplicate a meat computer]. Now that I agree with. John K Clark From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Oct 17 05:46:52 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:46:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative toCryowasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice In-Reply-To: <001f01c5d2d8$f2224bf0$cdee4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200510170546.j9H5kxe18095@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark > > "Brett Paatsch" > > > ...to recreate Spikes brain in flesh > > In the flesh? What's the point? > I was a really fun guy? > ... As I said I very much doubt anyone will > bother to actually do something like that because they would regard it as > comic... John K Clark I see your point. If we could somehow read and store the positions and states of all 10^26 atoms in spike's brain, there is no reason to put the meat back together in the original configuration. I wouldn't exactly *object* of course, but it would be as pointless as constructing a giant abacus by welding together a trillion Macintoshes. spike From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 05:58:26 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:58:26 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60510161120r447ea40we5db1a25b980e889@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152332j32e2a37aw19216f9ddc88d8f6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510152347g57ca1be9kdcffe592a9effd67@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152356k178cdcf0idcb7ae6908ec99be@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510160025n71b48fddua040a30511ef7098@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510160118i1c954004q865902ad97fd344@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510160930p7056e5e8l802aed52ec6d9118@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510161005m3e98f056k7a5fc494f1095389@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510161120r447ea40we5db1a25b980e889@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520510162258o7310101eh3768777c1975ad12@mail.gmail.com> Having a black belt, or being rich, while buying apples is not being "violent". But threatening to beat the other guy to a pulp, or force him out of business, if he does not sell at a given price, is violence. Look Rafal, we have been discussing this for years on this list. I do not question that free trade between consenting individuals, without using violence, where every player is free to set a fair price for products and services, and free market dynamics does the work, is a good thing. All I am saying is that it does not happen in the real world. In the real world power is a runaway phenomenon - more power you have, more power you get - and those with power can and do disrupt free market dynamics. Instead of buying apples at the fair price set by the market, the guy with the big guns can force all producers to sell at a minimum price barely sufficient for subsistence. This is what happens in the real world unless some kind of balancing mechanism is put in place. G. On 10/16/05, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On 10/16/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > > First let us define violence. > > Let me define it as "using a weapon to solve a conflict". > > And we still have to define "weapon". > > Of course a gun is a weapon - the first image of my definition of > > violence that comes to my mind is someone forcing me to deliver my > > wallet at gunpoint. > > But also superior physical strength or fighting skills are weapons. In > > the example above nothing changes if the bad guy has no gun but is a > > black belt twice bigger than I. > > And also superior financial strength is a weapon, as the mafia guy > > explains to Andy Garcia in Codfather 3. Everyone who has played > > serious poker knows the golden rule that you don't play against people > > with much more money than you. > > In the apples example one of the farmers can be much richer than the > > other and threaten to force him out of business (for example by > > underselling until the other is broke) unless he sells the apple at a > > given price. > > Assuming they are peers, your apple example is good politics. > > With the definitions above, I cannot think of something that is not > > Good Politics but still solves conflicts without using violence. Of > > course, there is good politics and better politics. > > I don't agree that that all politics is bad, and all "good politics", > > is in fact trade, or forbearance. How do you accommodate civil rights > > or criminal law policies (just to make two examples) in the > > definition? I think fair trade is a necessary element of good > > politics, but I do not think all politics can be reduced to trade. > > G. > > ### So refusing to sell a single apple is using "violence"? > > Having a black belt while buying apples is being "violent"? > > Being rich while selling apples is being "violent"? > > Of course, if you redefine all words, from "violence", to "apple" and > "orange", you can make your definition of "politics" apply to whatever you > want. > > I am not saying that all politics is trade - I am saying it is antithetical > to trade. Trade is voluntary exchange, not compelled by the threat of > violence. Politics is the use of organized violence to achieve dominance. > > Perhaps I should add "politics is the use of organized violence to achieve, > or deny dominance". This would accommodate the organized resistance to > politics in the form of insistence on maintaining personal freedom, as a > form of politics, although I would rather call it anti-politics. > > Rafal From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 17 07:10:38 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:10:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo wasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice In-Reply-To: <04f301c5d2b5$160a6260$8998e03c@homepc> References: <20051016202203.GP2249@leitl.org> <04f301c5d2b5$160a6260$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051017071038.GN2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 10:52:44AM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote: > I just took a *very* quick look. The diagrams look like tools tips > intended for manufacturing. But not for manufacturing organic Yes. It illustrates a tool for a specific deposition cycle. > chemistry molecules like proteins or lipids or sugars. Use the above to build a pipeline of artificial catalytic sites and active transport to synthesize the basic building blocks of a primate. Transport molecules or precursors to deposition site at cryogenic conditions, modifying them in situ if necessary. Assemble bulk from legos via convergent assembly. > Hard to say exactly how big the tool tips are (because what they It doesn't matter, because they operate upon a flat surface, and can be tilted. > are to be attached to matters) but they look like they are already > approaching a few nanometres in size already. I'm thinking 10 The dimer to be deposited is facing you. C-C is 154 pm, C=C is 134 pm. The tool is roughly oval in shape, and has a tip of just two carbon atoms across. The volume excluded by the tip is in Fig. 2. > hydrogen atoms (daltons) are about a nanometre across. And > the diagrams would probably be using carbons not hydrogens > in the tips. The tool contains carbons and hydrogens (turquoise and white). > Is it really your view that this paper outlines a way of rebuilding > organic chemical structures? Or are you just sort of showing That we can create and dissociate individual bonds under numerical and monkey-driven (grad student) control is hardly news. The question is how to deposit at a sufficient rate to be able to build interesting structures, including some or parts of the deposition system itself. It is really my view that such systems can be built, and we should be working on that. > me that there is a new paper by Drexler? I suggest you read it. It is really quite good. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Mon Oct 17 07:10:59 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:10:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism &Teenagers References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051016192739.0299afc0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <008801c5d2e9$f70c0460$0300a8c0@Nano> Wonderful! Congratulations on reaching a very important group. After all, if all goes well they will be our infinite neighbors, and friends. They are the future, and we want to be in it : ) Hats off to you Natasha. Kind regards, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org ; bjk at imminst.org Cc: wta-talk at transhumanism.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 5:34 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism &Teenagers Peaches Geldof, teenage daughter of Sir Bob Geldof, has produced a documentary film on issues that teenagers are facing today about the future tomorrow.The segment she interviewed me for is on transhumanism. We discussed the future, life extension and future technologies to extend life. The film will be airing in Britain on Monday 31st Oct at 9pm. Peaches is an honorary membership to ExI. She is excited about transhumans and the future. http://www.bobgeldof.info/ Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 17 09:04:55 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:04:55 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo wasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice In-Reply-To: <048801c5d2ac$e614ae10$8998e03c@homepc> References: <20051016202203.GP2249@leitl.org> <048801c5d2ac$e614ae10$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051017090455.GP2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 09:54:08AM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote: > >(Not that most of the above is just a gedanken exercise, > >because nobody is going to do that in practice. There are > >much easier ways to skin your cat). > > I agree Eugen. Why don't you outline your most likely scenario > in an essay or a paper? Hm, let me think... No. Because I'm not paid to do so, it would cut into quality time, and because it wouldn't appear in a peer-reviewed journal (I'd be willing to sacrifice maybe a week otherwise). You should have asked about a decade ago. > It really hard to engage with this subject in email as you'd > appreciate. There is just too much material in it. Sorry, email is all you're going to get. Email is much more effective to address specific objections than a paper anyway, which has to anticipate everything in advance. (And then some mystic starts talking about qualia, or offer philosophical objections with a furrowed brow, and you realize you needn't have bothered in the first place). > I quite like the idea of engaging with a good cogent articulation of > an approach to cryonics and the best I've found is the one put > together by Fahy. > > I posted links to pages of the Fahy paper earlier in this thread > if you want to check out which one I mean. I'm pretty familiar with Fahy's stuff (in fact I worked with him for a while). Destructive tissue mapping at cryogenic conditions isn't well covered anywhere I'm aware of (which isn't much). You could ask Robert Freitas, however. > I know that you and Rafal and possibly some others like John > do have a reasonable cogent idea of how things might work in > your heads but so far as I know you haven't put your own > scenarios down on paper in an essay or semi formal paper > like Merkle did (too badly for me to work with) and Fahy did > (better). > > If you do I'd take a look. Otherwise it gets too hard to keep > track of the various assumptions you might be making, or > Robert might be, or John or Rafal as you all sort of jump in > to defend an idea that I think is actually no one idea of how > cryonics might work but a bunch of separate ideas. There is no single scenario. There are several that could work. To find out which one would have to try several. > Because I'm studying, when I can concentrate on it, biochemistry, > I enjoy the challenge of thinking about this stuff from a sciencey > and engineering standpoint but its too time consuming to wade > into too many disparate scenarios that aren't themselves structured > into a particular framework or approach. My favourite approach is destructive imaging of vitrified cephalon at cryogenic conditions. Cryosection into specimens of adequate size, image with adaptive step size (sampling specific voxels at high resolution) with a MEMS pipeline, extract higher order descriptors (shape and shape property) and assemble individual mosaic pieces. Load this representation into a dedicated computing engine (traced as a virtual machine in computronium, or a direct representation in a suitable substrate). I presume you're going to already object on the ground that WBE is someone else (as most people would), not you, so we don't have to bother discussing the rest, and can postpone it until individually accurate uploads of small critters have been demoed. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 17 09:26:58 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:26:58 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative to CryowasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice In-Reply-To: <047101c5d2aa$95087580$8998e03c@homepc> References: <005501c5d26d$7d7699c0$b8f04d0c@MyComputer> <047101c5d2aa$95087580$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051017092658.GQ2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 09:37:33AM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote: > >You were put together in exactly a Lego block fashion. > > Lego block construction proceeds with the construction tools > (the kids hands) outside the block. And the instructions/design > decisions about what will be build also outside the block (in the > kids head). The lego blocks don't grow and divide steering > themselves down developmental paths (as cells do), construction > proceeds with the lego blocks being snapped in discretely to the > outside of the first block that was laid down. All accurate objections. But making copies of objects from biological tissue glass at cryogenic conditions is something else than weaving a live critter into being on a nanoscaffold loom. That one is so much harder than one has to deposit a vitrified critter around the scaffold, and flash-defrost it into life. (Again, this is a ridiculous scenario I'm describing just for the sake of what is possible in principle). > Nature in growing Spike had the advantage of not caring about > what particular Spike (Spikes neural structure and memories) in > a range of possible Spikes would emerge as a result of the dna > instructions meeting extracellular environmental stimuli. Nature > wasn't trying to reverse engineer a particular Spike it was just > getting on with building an original from a make-something-like > -a-Spike genetic instruction set in the dna formed when Spike's > mum and dad's dna got together. Yes, nature does something different. We're not nature, so we're taking a different approach, to achieve something else (nature doesn't deal with resurrection nor immortality for higher organisms, for instance). > If you were going to use Drexlerian nanotechnology to build the > cellular structure of Spikes brain you'd be trying to building lego > block fashion using atoms as your base construction element not Not atoms, just precursor feedstock. > cells. But to recreate Spikes brain in flesh (and get Spike back) > you would have to create a whole lot of cells (trillions of them) You recreate structure. That it describes cell at some pretty high level is implicit to the replication process. > capable of functioning as the massive specific concert of cells > that was biological Spike. And you'd have to create them on > location because you couldn't move them past each other as > assembled cells. Their shapes which are interlocking wouldn't > allow that. Of course. You can assemble blocks of them convergently, however. > To build lipid layers of cells on location without using water > chemistry (which you couldn't because of the temperature > constraint, water doesn't act like water when its ice) you'd be > placing molecules of lipid with nanobot tweezers. A broken > lipid cell membrane (width 6 nanometres) means a non > functional cell or cellular compartment and it would certainly > mean non-functioning mitochondrion in the cell. So, don't make holes into lipid bilayer membranes when nanoprinting them. (Actually, preassembling whole mitochondrions and using them as a building block is a good idear). > It would take too long (I don't know how long but perhaps > age of the universe timescales) to construct like this unless > you had a massively parallel construction operation going How else do you expect this could be done? Of course you have to use massive parallelism. If you're limited to surface work, this means convergent assembly. There is no other way. > on. And you can't do that because there isn't space between > the being build cells for your nanobots that are having to > place molecules to less than 6 nanometre precision to get > functioning cells. No. See convergent assembly. Besides, no-one suggests you nail down the entire structure from the atom tacker, nail by nail. This is a bit like manicuring your golf course with nail clippers. > All of which happens in a watery chemistry environment (important > for causing the proteins made up of amino acids to take the three > dimensional > shapes they do and for lipids to arrange themselves as they do) inside the > cell > at temperature of around 37 degrees. Much away from 37 degrees and the The prefolded protein at 77 K or below is a hard brick, and can be easily inserted as a whole before being cemented with water in place. Very much like bricks, mortar and trowels. Very small trowels, of course. > I'm effectively certain that they wouldn't try to. > > But that was the scenario Spike was musing over, he wasn't musing over > uploading (a separate thing with its own problems) he wanted his brain > back in a new buff body. And a habitat for life-support of that new buff body, no doubt. Sure, if he wants to be a live exhibit in the zoo. (And if there are zoos. Solid state culture, mumble. Rendering a fake is so much more cost-effective that building a huge honking real thing, and the real thing is so *glacially slow* it bores you to virtual tears. A bit like watching the glacier front receding due to climate change). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 17 09:34:23 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 02:34:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <005b01c5d226$40733750$0801a8c0@EF02jack> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <003501c5d1ef$e90190b0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc> <002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> <005b01c5d226$40733750$0801a8c0@EF02jack> Message-ID: <1B223C83-F993-4054-BEDB-AF8413E7B05C@mac.com> On Oct 16, 2005, at 12:50 AM, Jack Parkinson wrote: > On 10/15/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > >>>> I posted this before - I still think the best definition of >>>> politics >>>> > is: The > >>>> relationships between groups! At any level - from office >>>> factions to >>>> negotiations between superpowers. Politics is only incidentally >>>> social >>>> decision making. It is wholly about interacting communities. >>>> > > >>> ### Is buying T-shirts from China a form of politics? >>> No! Unless you are doing this as an expression of group values >>> concerning Chinese group values... >>> >> ### Now it is getting more complicated - so politics is not merely >> "relationships between >groups" but rather "relationships between >> groups >> expressing group values". And what >are "group values"? It's getting >> positively baroque. >> > > We are discussing the meaning of politics - not the meaning of > groups. A > group has some points of congruence and some disconnectedness. > Politics is > how these opposing points develop. > > You used "groups" in your purported meaning so you have to say what you mean by the term. > --------------------------------------- > > >>>> Is imprisoning an individual dissenter not a form of politics? >>>> >>> Yes! The group expresses it's disapproval of dissent - by sanctions >>> > against representatives of groups that oppose it... > > >> ### Oh, our dissenter has not joined a group. Is he a group all by >> himself? >> > > Lone dissenters are NEVER 'political' - they are rugged > individualists, > deviants, and/or eccentrics until such time as they represent a > group. If Oh my. So you reject individualism, individual rights, natural rights and so on in a single blow. Disagree with the group and be labeled a deviant! > they are really unlucky they are criminals to boot! But they are not > politicians until they can claim to represent a constituency... > So politics is only what politicians do? How do you connect politics to ethics if you do away with the relevance of individuals? - samantha From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Oct 17 09:42:20 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:42:20 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative toCryowasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice References: <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com><021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc><005501c5d26d$7d7699c0$b8f04d0c@MyComputer><047101c5d2aa$95087580$8998e03c@homepc> <001f01c5d2d8$f2224bf0$cdee4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <056401c5d2ff$11eb64a0$8998e03c@homepc> John K Clark wrote: > "Brett Paatsch" > >>Lego block construction proceeds with the construction >> tools (the kids hands) outside the block. > > Amino acids are put into a sequence with construction tools (transfer RNA) > outside the protein. tRNAs just give us something like amino acid beads on a string they don't create (ie. construct) 3 dimensional functional proteins. Its the way the amino acid side chains (the beads) react with their watery environment (and each other and with chaperons that causes the proteins to adopt their particular 3 dimensional shape). >> The lego blocks don't grow and divide > > Individual amino acids don't grow and divide. No. But unless your suggesting that its possible to build a biological brain with Drexlerian nanotech by placing amino acids or proteins as the building blocks I don't follow your point. Nature uses the cell as the basic unit of life and inside the cell is not just proteins, but dna and lipids and sugars and mitochondria and some rnas. >> construction proceeds with the lego blocks being snapped in discretely to >> the outside of the first block that was laid down. > > Construction proceeds with the amino acids being snapped into a sequence > one > after another. No thats an oversimplification. See above. >> Nature wasn't trying to reverse engineer a particular Spike > > Yes, and that gives us an advantage nature did not have, reverse > engineering > a brain is not easy but it's easier than making one from scratch, it won't > take us 3 billion years as it took nature. If the objective was just to build any old brain then take two fertile adults and let them do their thing. Or use cloning. The objective we've been talking about is to build a duplicate of Spikes brain (including neural pattern) which would have a unique synaptic network that his genes didn't fully prespecify. >> to recreate Spikes brain in flesh > > In the flesh? What's the point? > >> (and get Spike back) > > What has that to do with flesh? I was using flesh as shorthand for the biological brain made up of proteins and lipids etc arranged in particular fashions with synapses and receptors on cells. >> you would have to create a whole lot of cells (trillions of them) >> capable of functioning as the massive specific concert of cells >> that was biological Spike. > > I'm far more interested in putting the information in Spikes organic brain > (or mine) into some more permanent media than I am in recreating another > meat computer exactly like the primitive thing we have now; I realise that. > however if you > really wanted to do it I can think of one way with minimal use of > Drexlerian > technology. I'm all ears. >We would certainly know Spike's genome so we could grow a brain > from that, then just use the Drexlerian technology to modify the > interconnections in the neurons of the new brain so they have the same > memories the original brain had. Oh, that was it? I agree that with Spikes genome it would be, in future, trivial to grow a clone of Spike if ethics were not a consideration. But once you've got that living clone I find it hard to imagine that a future society would wipe its personality and memories to replace it with Spike. What sort of society would favour Spike over his identical twin? > As I said I very much doubt anyone will bother to actually do something > like that because they would regard it as comic. I think they'd either regard it as barbaric if they have any sort of ethical system (to kill/wipeout one biological human to make another one) or too absurd to bother doing at all. Perhaps I'm overlooking reasons why they'd do that. >> your nanobots that are having to place molecules to less than 6 nanometre >> precision to get functioning cells. > > And you are claiming that the only way to achieve such precision is the > way > nature stumbled upon 3 billion years ago and intelligence can never beat > random mutation and natural selection. That strikes me as extraordinarily > unlikely. The key thing is that nature wasn't *aiming* at a production of a biological Spike, Spike just popped out of the process, (as did you and I and all individual living things), whereas those trying to recreate him would be aiming at a fashioning a very, very, very, particular thing, out of materials (biological molecules) that only works under tight limits of temperature and pressure. Aren't you thinking of likelihood/probability the wrong way? Seems to me you are. >> I'm effectively certain that they [Jupiter brains presumably] wouldn't >> try >> to [duplicate a meat computer]. > > Now that I agree with. Thought you would. Brett Paatsch From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 17 09:44:31 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 02:44:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <000501c5d2be$786f0c90$0201a8c0@JPAcer> References: <200510161701.j9GH1ge16301@tick.javien.com> <000501c5d2be$786f0c90$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Message-ID: <77D5BDD8-B3B2-4009-97EA-9068217013E7@mac.com> On Oct 16, 2005, at 6:35 PM, Jack Parkinson wrote: > From: Rafal Smigrodzki > > >> ### Let's assume that it involves two farmers, peers in all >> respects. One >> has an apple, and intends to feed it to his hogs. The other >> desires the >> apple with all his soul, dreaming of the juicy, crisp, flavory >> crunch. >> Obviously, there is a conflict between their desires as to the >> preferred >> fate of the apple. >> > > >> Being honest people, and utterly respectful of each other, they >> would never >> threaten violence (unless threatened). After some friendly >> negotiations, >> where violence is not even a dark unsaid shadow, they exchange the >> apple for >> some corn. Both farmers, and the hogs, are better off. >> > > >> Is this politics? >> Rafal >> > > Nope! This is commerce (and interpersonal relations)! Politics is > still between groups... What, by your acclamation? > > And I can't see a logical inconsistency with any objection that > Rafal has raised so far - in fact I would go so far as to say: > there isn't one! Then you are missing the point. - s From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 17 09:53:18 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 02:53:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <470a3c520510162258o7310101eh3768777c1975ad12@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152332j32e2a37aw19216f9ddc88d8f6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510152347g57ca1be9kdcffe592a9effd67@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152356k178cdcf0idcb7ae6908ec99be@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510160025n71b48fddua040a30511ef7098@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510160118i1c954004q865902ad97fd344@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510160930p7056e5e8l802aed52ec6d9118@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510161005m3e98f056k7a5fc494f1095389@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510161120r447ea40we5db1a25b980e889@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510162258o7310101eh3768777c1975ad12@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 16, 2005, at 10:58 PM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Having a black belt, or being rich, while buying apples is not being > "violent". But threatening to beat the other guy to a pulp, or force > him out of business, if he does not sell at a given price, is > violence. Precisely. Violence is forcing the mind of another. It is a violation of freedom. "Weapons" are irrelevant. > All I am saying is that it does not happen in the real world. > In the real world power is a runaway phenomenon - more power you have, > more power you get - and those with power can and do disrupt free > market dynamics. Irrelevant. You attempt to sneak your notions of economic inequality in as being due to "violence" and thus are less able to say what violence is. > Instead of buying apples at the fair price set by the > market, the guy with the big guns can force all producers to sell at a > minimum price barely sufficient for subsistence. How so? This is very much not what happens in the real world generally. In the real world those without such big guns often can do work at a cheaper rate than in the country with the big guns. The cheaper rate is often relatively riches in the less gun endowed country due to cost of living differentials, So the country relatively without guns sets the price. Where is the violence you insist on there? > This is what happens > in the real world unless some kind of balancing mechanism is put in > place. Nope. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 17 09:54:20 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 02:54:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <470a3c520510161005m3e98f056k7a5fc494f1095389@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510151406.j9FE6Ge11086@tick.javien.com> <02dc01c5d1f4$d04ab6f0$8998e03c@homepc> <002601c5d20f$1c567e20$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <7641ddc60510152322t49b4ec4dvd8006589f1e9cf9e@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152332j32e2a37aw19216f9ddc88d8f6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510152347g57ca1be9kdcffe592a9effd67@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510152356k178cdcf0idcb7ae6908ec99be@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510160025n71b48fddua040a30511ef7098@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510160118i1c954004q865902ad97fd344@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60510160930p7056e5e8l802aed52ec6d9118@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510161005m3e98f056k7a5fc494f1095389@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <704E8717-29F6-428A-AE9E-4E651DEE3005@mac.com> On Oct 16, 2005, at 10:05 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > First let us define violence. > Let me define it as "using a weapon to solve a conflict". As you proceed to show this is not a workable definition. Violence is forcing the mind of another. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Mon Oct 17 14:10:28 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:10:28 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is References: <200510161701.j9GH1ge16301@tick.javien.com> <000501c5d2be$786f0c90$0201a8c0@JPAcer> <77D5BDD8-B3B2-4009-97EA-9068217013E7@mac.com> Message-ID: <006801c5d324$89b43820$0201a8c0@JPAcer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Samantha Atkins" To: "Jack Parkinson" ; "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 5:44 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is > On Oct 16, 2005, at 6:35 PM, Jack Parkinson wrote: > >> From: Rafal Smigrodzki >> >> >>> ### Let's assume that it involves two farmers, peers in all respects. >>> One >>> has an apple, and intends to feed it to his hogs. The other desires the >>> apple with all his soul, dreaming of the juicy, crisp, flavory crunch. >>> Obviously, there is a conflict between their desires as to the >>> preferred >>> fate of the apple. >>> >> >> >>> Being honest people, and utterly respectful of each other, they would >>> never >>> threaten violence (unless threatened). After some friendly >>> negotiations, >>> where violence is not even a dark unsaid shadow, they exchange the >>> apple for >>> some corn. Both farmers, and the hogs, are better off. >>> >> >> >>> Is this politics? >>> Rafal >>> >> >> Nope! This is commerce (and interpersonal relations)! Politics is still >> between groups... > > What, by your acclamation? > >> >> And I can't see a logical inconsistency with any objection that Rafal >> has raised so far - in fact I would go so far as to say: there isn't >> one! > > Then you are missing the point. > > - s Really? Well, perhaps you would be good enough to enlighten me? Rafal thinks two people coveting the same apple and then reaching a compromise is politics. I say its not. Acclaim whichever you like - but its not nearly as convincing as hard facts. The OED says: POLITICS. The science and art of government; the science dealing with the form, organization, and administration of a state or part of one, and with the regulation of its relations with other states (hence, name="5"imperial, name="6"national, name="7"domestic, name="8"municipal, name="9"communal, name="10"parochial, name="11"foreign politics, etc.). Also name="12"?the politics, public or social ethics, that branch of moral philosophy dealing with the state or social organism as a whole Nothing there about individuals - right? Politics is NOT individual action unless that action is undertaken on behalf of a constituency (=group) Note that the OED says politics is "that branch of moral philosophy dealing with the state or social organism as a whole" (by 'whole' I think you can safely read group) ... As I said - politics is about relations between groups. So, if you want to make a political statement. Better get a group behind you. Or without group sanction, you WILL be labelled as eccentric, individual, deviant, original, humorous, interesting, criminal, insane or whatever - but you will never be acknowledged as engaging in politics... Jack Parkinson From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 14:34:20 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:34:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <006801c5d324$89b43820$0201a8c0@JPAcer> References: <200510161701.j9GH1ge16301@tick.javien.com> <000501c5d2be$786f0c90$0201a8c0@JPAcer> <77D5BDD8-B3B2-4009-97EA-9068217013E7@mac.com> <006801c5d324$89b43820$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Message-ID: On 10/17/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > Really? > Well, perhaps you would be good enough to enlighten me? > Rafal thinks two people coveting the same apple and then reaching a > compromise is politics. I say its not. Acclaim whichever you like - but > its > not nearly as convincing as hard facts. > The OED says: > > POLITICS. The science and art of government; the science dealing with the > form, organization, and administration of a state or part of one, and with > the regulation of its relations with other states (hence, > name="5"imperial, > name="6"national, name="7"domestic, name="8"municipal, name="9"communal, > name="10"parochial, name="11"foreign politics, etc.). Also name="12"?the > politics, public or social ethics, that branch of moral philosophy dealing > with the state or social organism as a whole > > Nothing there about individuals - right? > Politics is NOT individual action unless that action is undertaken on > behalf > of a constituency (=group) Note that the OED says politics is "that branch > of moral philosophy dealing with the state or social organism as a whole" > (by 'whole' I think you can safely read group) ... > > As I said - politics is about relations between groups. So, if you want to > make a political statement. Better get a group behind you. Or without > group > sanction, you WILL be labelled as eccentric, individual, deviant, > original, > humorous, interesting, criminal, insane or whatever - but you will never > be > acknowledged as engaging in politics... > Jack Parkinson > > So if Tim McVeigh said "I blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City because I don't like the government" that is not political. However, if he said "I blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City on behalf of all those who don't like the government" it *is* political. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Mon Oct 17 15:01:52 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:01:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative toCryowasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice References: <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com><021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc><005501c5d26d$7d7699c0$b8f04d0c@MyComputer><047101c5d2aa$95087580$8998e03c@homepc><001f01c5d2d8$f2224bf0$cdee4d0c@MyComputer> <056401c5d2ff$11eb64a0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <002601c5d32b$be0c51a0$e0f04d0c@MyComputer> "Brett Paatsch" > tRNAs just give us something like amino acid beads > on a string they don't create (ie. construct) 3 dimensional > functional proteins. Because a unique amino acid sequence in a unique environment produces a unique 3 dimensional structure your objection eludes me. > not just proteins, but dna DNA is child's play to make compared with proteins. > and lipids and sugars Ditto, except even easier to make. > and mitochondria Mostly RNA and like all nucleic acids very easy to make compared with proteins. > I was using flesh as shorthand for the biological brain made up of > proteins and lipids etc I understand that, what I don't understand is why you think anyone would even bother making such a thing when they had a better technology that was a billion times faster and used a billion times less recourse. Would it be physically possible to make an Apple computer out of vacuum tubes or electrical relays that can run modern software? Yes. Will anyone bother to actually do so? No, the idea is ridiculous. John K Clark From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 17 15:53:54 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:53:54 +0200 Subject: The Amazing Cellular Repair device was Re: [extropy-chat] FuturesPast In-Reply-To: <133601c5cfa9$74769bc0$8998e03c@homepc> References: <133601c5cfa9$74769bc0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051017155354.GP2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:51:55PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > Compare with http://moleculardevices.org/howbig.htm > > > Yep, I do like the tech used in illustrating the relationships here. > > I remember you posting this before but also with some extras > that you'd added yourself. I think they showed gears or pumps > from Nanosystems. Yes, that's the page. The renderings are from VMD, with the nano parts and virus capsid imported (it was not kind on the system, I almost gave up). I freely admit to stealing the flash from somewhere. > > I'm not sure what your point is trashing a single picture, done > > by an artist (these usually don't have scientific training). > > My point is that the schematic is obviously wrong in terms of > scale because it can't possibly be the same device at both the > nano and micron scale. Obviously. > I don't know if an artist produced the diagrams. They look to me > like the sort of hand drawn schematic that an engineer type > might quickly sketch out. The only names associated are those > of Merkle and Drexler. It's a cryonics brochure, right? I would take it with a huge grain of salt. Most of cryonics is cargo cult, with a few very notable exceptions. > A lot of people would not have good intuitive understandings > of the relative scales of biological structures such as red blood > cells and synapses because these things exist at scales that > are way below their normal sensory radar. That's why I've put up that page. It gives one a nice intiutive sense of scale, to estimate how much functionality is can fit within a given volume. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From emerson at singinst.org Mon Oct 17 16:18:21 2005 From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:18:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed Message-ID: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> Ray sent this earlier, a possible Action Item for anyone with interest: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/17/opinion/17kurzweiljoy.html?hp This hasn't been Slashdotted or Boinged yet. ~~ Tyler Emerson | Executive Director | The Singularity Institute Box 50182 | Palo Alto, CA 94303 | T-F: 866.667.2524 emerson at singinst.org?| http://www.singinst.org ________________________________________ From: Ray Kurzweil [mailto:ray at kurzweiltech.com] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 4:56 AM To: Tyler Emerson Subject: FW: Google Alert - Kurzweil "Singularity is Near" ________________________________________ From: Google Alerts [mailto:googlealerts-noreply at google.com] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 4:15 AM To: ray at kurzweiltech.com Subject: Google Alert - Kurzweil "Singularity is Near" Google Alert for: Kurzweil "Singularity is Near" Recipe for Destruction http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/17/opinion/17kurzweiljoy.html?hp New York Times (subscription) - United States ... Ray Kurzweil, an inventor, is the author of "The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology." Bill Joy, founder and former chief scientist of Sun ... ________________________________________ ?This as it happens Google Alert is brought to you by Google. Remove this alert. Create another alert. Manage your alerts. From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 17 16:55:48 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:55:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Amazing Cellular Repair device In-Reply-To: <20051017155354.GP2249@leitl.org> References: <133601c5cfa9$74769bc0$8998e03c@homepc> <20051017155354.GP2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051017115433.01ddb088@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Dunno if this has any bearing, might: =============== Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/4342204.stm Published: 2005/10/16 23:16:25 GMT New tissue 'grown within minutes' UK scientists say they can cut the time it takes to grow new tissue from days to minutes. The lengthy process can be accelerated by simply removing the water present in the starting material, the University College London team discovered. Following such shrinkage by a factor of at least 100, tissues could be created in 35 minutes. This speed may one day allow doctors to make tissue implants at the bedside, Advanced Functional Materials reports. Currently, scientists make tissues to be used for operations such as skin grafts by building a scaffold of cells that grow in the lab. However, it can take between one and 12 weeks to grow enough of the required tissue for the surgery. Professor Robert Brown and colleagues investigated whether they could cut this time down. They experimented on making a tissue called collagen, which acts as a structural support for skin, bones and tendons. Sucking out the water using a technique called plastic compression meant they could make the collagen in just over half an hour. The tissue was not only made much faster than that made in the conventional tissue engineering way, it also appeared to be stronger, more like real collagen. Professor Brown said: "Our method offers a simple and controllable means of quickly engineering tissue structures. "The next stage is to test whether this method could help repair injured tissues. "Ultimately, the goal is to design a rapid, inexpensive, automatic process for creating strong tissues which could supply hospital surgical units with a tool kit of spare parts for reconstructive surgery. "The speed and control it offers means that our method could one day be used to produce implant tissue at the bedside or in the operating theatre." Professor Tim Hardingham, from the UK Centre for Tissue Engineering, said: "The method has great potential for further development in clinical applications of tissue repair where immediate mechanical strength is required. "Its success in these applications will depend on how it is survives in the body and how it is remodelled by natural body processes. "It also needs to be known whether it can act as a template that is replaced by normal functional tissue. The present work provides a good experimental basis for these further studies." From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 22:40:56 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:40:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Excerpt from Kurzweil article: AFTER a decade of painstaking research, federal and university scientists have reconstructed the 1918 influenza virus that killed 50 million people worldwide. Like the flu viruses now raising alarm bells in Asia, the 1918 virus was a bird flu that jumped directly to humans, the scientists reported. To shed light on how the virus evolved, the United States Department of Health and Human Services published the full genome of the 1918 influenza virus on the Internet in the GenBank database. This is extremely foolish. The genome is essentially the design of a weapon of mass destruction. No responsible scientist would advocate publishing precise designs for an atomic bomb, and in two ways revealing the sequence for the flu virus is even more dangerous. ---------------------------- Sigh. Of all people to scare-monger, I would have thought Kurzweil would know better. I guess times, they are a changin'. His article is to some degree ridiculous. There is a flu epidemic every year. It would be far easier and cheaper for some terrorist to simply get a sample of one of sick friends snot and culture the virus, make a few simple modifications that I will not discuss on a public list (there might be terrorists reading this), and amplify it up then it would be to build a flu virus from scratch. Why would anybody reinvent the wheel when there are tons of wheels available every cold and flu season? Any chicken farm or bachelor's refrigerator is a veritable cornucopeia of biological agents. Small modifications (that I won't discuss) can be made to the ubiquitous E. coli to turn it into a perfect biological weapon. The same with streptococcus, salmonella, and tons of other common enviromental organisms. I look back on my happy youth where the only fear mongering done was the implication that Soviet ICBMs would be headed our way at any second. Back then knowledge was free and there was no such thing as "bad" knowledge or knowledge that get you stripped of your civil rights. As a sophomore in high school, I gave a presentation at a science fair on "how to build a nuclear weapon" based on publically accessable books that I borrowed from a public library. Everybody thought my presentation was cute and I got an A. Today if I were to do something like that, I would probably end up at Gitmo like Pedillo. Quite frankly, I don't like it. When the government stops trusting it's citizens, it stops being trustworthy. Those that do the scaremongering are essentially giving the government an excuse strip us of yet more freedoms. Thus they are the propagandists and apologists for a government that has lost sight of its part in the social contract. Banning certain forms of knowledge is a slippery slope toward totalitarianism. Now that the juggernaut is rolling, I fear it will not stop until the rank and file citizenry have been completely pacified like the Eloi in Wells' "The Time Machine". Reduced to mere livestock in the "consumer farm" that is the modern economy, where corporations wake up at the crack of dawn to milk us of our hard earned cash. Whilst those privelaged murderers and thugs that run the government will remain their old ruthless warmongering selves, performing unspeakable evil in the guise of protecting us. I for one don't see it as a fair trade. I for one would take my chances against some islamic nut job on an airplane armed with pepper spray and a pair of scissors any day over having the government spy on me, tell me that there are some things that I am not allowed to know, and practically undressing me everytime I want to catch a flight. Very little of what the government has done since 9-11 has made me feel safer. Instead, almost everything it has done has made me more afraid of IT than I ever was of terrorists. And I can't help but remembering a quote from Laberius regarding Caesar, "Necesse est multos timeat quem multi timent" - "He need fear many, whom many fear". The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 23:11:55 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:11:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/17/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > Sigh. Of all people to scare-monger, I would have > thought Kurzweil would know better. I guess times, > they are a changin'. His article is to some degree > ridiculous. There is a flu epidemic every year. It > would be far easier and cheaper for some terrorist to > simply get a sample of one of sick friends snot and > culture the virus, make a few simple modifications > that I will not discuss on a public list (there might > be terrorists reading this), and amplify it up then it > would be to build a flu virus from scratch. > > My favourite would be to splice in genes to make psilocybin, or maybe borrow a few from ergot for an LSD-like effect. It would be quite a trip. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From outlawpoet at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 23:21:32 2005 From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:21:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3ad827f30510171621ne8af3e1rd115d4c26bd0d496@mail.gmail.com> On 10/17/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > Sigh. Of all people to scare-monger, I would have > thought Kurzweil would know better. Sadly, it seems that Kurzweil has been sliding into populist and defensible messages since his peak, with the Age of Intelligent Machines. Teaming up with Bill Joy is just an extension of this, I think. He needs a future he can sell, and have it be popular, because he believes that people need to accept it, in order for it to happen. Part of this is giving the impression that partial relinquishment is possible, to paint a controllable view of the future. As understandable as this is, it's still a horrible idea, and completely insane precedent, without any attention paid to all the implicit authority needed to control research. I have a rant on this, for a non-technical audience, on my blog, linked below. -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com From brian at posthuman.com Mon Oct 17 23:36:20 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:36:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <3ad827f30510171621ne8af3e1rd115d4c26bd0d496@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <3ad827f30510171621ne8af3e1rd115d4c26bd0d496@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43543574.5080001@posthuman.com> There's some misreading of the intent here. Kurzweil is simply using the latest bird flu news and other flu news to push into the national consciousness the idea that we need better anti-virus (literally) tech. I don't see anyone here bitching about having access to antivirus software. You _would_ be bitching if you didn't have any. Actually you might not be able to bitch because your computer would be taken over. That's what this is about - he's not pro-relinquishment, but rather wants acceleration of defensive tech. It's basic risks management. Trying to throw into the mix all kinds of government ranting is missing the point completely. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Oct 17 23:44:17 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:44:17 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative toCryowasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice References: <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com><021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc><005501c5d26d$7d7699c0$b8f04d0c@MyComputer><047101c5d2aa$95087580$8998e03c@homepc><001f01c5d2d8$f2224bf0$cdee4d0c@MyComputer><056401c5d2ff$11eb64a0$8998e03c@homepc> <002601c5d32b$be0c51a0$e0f04d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <064a01c5d374$b0636c20$8998e03c@homepc> John K Clark wrote: > "Brett Paatsch" > >> tRNAs just give us something like amino acid beads >> on a string they don't create (ie. construct) 3 dimensional >> functional proteins. > > Because a unique amino acid sequence in a unique environment produces a > unique 3 dimensional structure your objection eludes me. Well, Eugen got it, so I know my objection was made clear enough to someone. >> not just proteins, but dna > > DNA is child's play to make compared with proteins. > >> and lipids and sugars > > Ditto, except even easier to make. > >> and mitochondria > > Mostly RNA and like all nucleic acids very easy to make compared with > proteins. Easy for biology working in water yes. Not easy for mechanosystems or Drexlerian nanotechnology >> I was using flesh as shorthand for the biological brain made up of >> proteins and lipids etc > > I understand that, what I don't understand is why you think anyone would > even bother making such a thing when they had a better technology that was > a > billion times faster and used a billion times less recourse. I don't think anyone will bother. I think in the future 'everyone' will be smart enough to see that cryonics was a pipedream born of a particular level of understanding of science and engineering much as embalming Egyptian pharohs with the hope of getting them back to life was a pipedream, much as you and I, I imagine, see religious resurrection as a pipedream. > Would it be > physically possible to make an Apple computer out of vacuum tubes or > electrical relays that can run modern software? Yes. No. Because vaccum tubes are physically bigger. You'd need so many of them that noone familiar with a normal Apple computer would be able to look at the construct and kid themselves that that thing was actually an Apple computer like the sort they are familiar with. > Will anyone bother to > actually do so? No, the idea is ridiculous. So we agree that aiming to reconstruct a biological person in flesh is ridiculous. You agree with me that its 'uploading or nothing' ? Brett Paatsch From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 00:00:57 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:00:57 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <3ad827f30510171621ne8af3e1rd115d4c26bd0d496@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <3ad827f30510171621ne8af3e1rd115d4c26bd0d496@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/18/05, justin corwin wrote: > > On 10/17/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Sigh. Of all people to scare-monger, I would have > > thought Kurzweil would know better. > > Sadly, it seems that Kurzweil has been sliding into populist and > defensible messages since his peak, with the Age of Intelligent > Machines. > > While we remain in staunch support of our unpopulist and indefensible messages? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Oct 18 00:03:42 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:03:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative toCryowasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice In-Reply-To: <064a01c5d374$b0636c20$8998e03c@homepc> References: <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com> <021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc> <005501c5d26d$7d7699c0$b8f04d0c@MyComputer> <047101c5d2aa$95087580$8998e03c@homepc> <001f01c5d2d8$f2224bf0$cdee4d0c@MyComputer> <056401c5d2ff$11eb64a0$8998e03c@homepc> <002601c5d32b$be0c51a0$e0f04d0c@MyComputer> <064a01c5d374$b0636c20$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051017190024.01d10098@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:44 AM 10/18/2005 +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote to John K Clark: >You agree with me that its 'uploading or nothing' ? Given the history of this list, and John's long-established endorsement of this view for at least a decade (I quoted him in THE SPIKE to this effect), I think it would be more appropriate and modest of you to say in this instance "I agree with you"... :) Damien Broderick From outlawpoet at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 00:05:08 2005 From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:05:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <43543574.5080001@posthuman.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <3ad827f30510171621ne8af3e1rd115d4c26bd0d496@mail.gmail.com> <43543574.5080001@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <3ad827f30510171705v6c0eafc0l3cddfe14cb8496c1@mail.gmail.com> On 10/17/05, Brian Atkins wrote: > There's some misreading of the intent here. > > Kurzweil is simply using the latest bird flu news and other flu news to push > into the national consciousness the idea that we need better anti-virus > (literally) tech. >From the article: "We urgently need international agreements by scientific organizations to limit such publications and an international dialogue on the best approach to preventing recipes for weapons of mass destruction from falling into the wrong hands. Part of that discussion should concern the appropriate role of governments, scientists and their scientific societies, and industry." also: "The precise genome could potentially be shared with scientists with suitable security assurances." Any reading of this, other than scientific controls and relinquishment of certain research is pollyanna ish in the extreme. He's proposing international controls on publication backed up by government force, and security clearances(administered by whom?). He proposes: "We also need a new Manhattan Project to develop specific defenses against new biological viral threats, natural or human made. There are promising new technologies, like RNA interference, that could be harnessed. We need to put more stones on the defensive side of the scale." Which is fine, so far as it goes, but doesn't speak much as to the other content of this letter. This certainly isn't being taken as a proposal for anti-virus tech in the media. People are reading this as advocating controls on 'releasing' such data, and in some cases, agreeing vociferously( http://kowalski.redstate.org/story/2005/10/17/131413/47 , for example) I don't think that I'm missing any points. -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Oct 18 00:27:50 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:27:50 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative toCryowasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice References: <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com><021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc><005501c5d26d$7d7699c0$b8f04d0c@MyComputer><047101c5d2aa$95087580$8998e03c@homepc><001f01c5d2d8$f2224bf0$cdee4d0c@MyComputer><056401c5d2ff$11eb64a0$8998e03c@homepc><002601c5d32b$be0c51a0$e0f04d0c@MyComputer><064a01c5d374$b0636c20$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20051017190024.01d10098@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <067d01c5d37a$c5777ba0$8998e03c@homepc> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 09:44 AM 10/18/2005 +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote to John K Clark: > >>You agree with me that its 'uploading or nothing' ? > > Given the history of this list, and John's long-established endorsement of > this view for at least a decade (I quoted him in THE SPIKE to this > effect), I think it would be more appropriate and modest of you to say in > this instance "I agree with you"... :) Fair enough ;-) I'm not concerned with priority just with identifying whether John and I agree on the summation that its 'uploading or nothing'. At one point in the thread John did seem to want to argue that it would not be impossible to create/recreate a *particular* flesh brain with Drexlerian nanotech, that it would just be an absurd thing to try to do, not an impossible one. Brett Paatsch From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 00:28:21 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:28:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> On 10/17/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Quite frankly, I don't like it. When the government > stops trusting it's citizens, it stops being > trustworthy. Those that do the scaremongering are > essentially giving the government an excuse strip us > of yet more freedoms. Thus they are the propagandists > and apologists for a government that has lost sight of > its part in the social contract. Banning certain forms > of knowledge is a slippery slope toward > totalitarianism. There's truth in that. Now how do we avoid encouraging governments to ban certain forms of knowledge? One way is to discourage the sort of irresponsible behavior that makes people start thinking a ban is needed; publishing the 1918 flu genome would qualify as grossly irresponsible on that basis alone, quite apart from its potential use as a weapon. (Yes there is some value there in not making such things public: remember the principle of defense in depth.) I think the best way to handle this would be for the scientific community to start proving they can be trusted with this sort of information, that we don't need a legally imposed ban. But the call for a Manhattan Project to create defenses against viral diseases is a damn good idea. Unlike its namesake, it would save lives every year even in the complete absence of any human enemies. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Tue Oct 18 00:53:54 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:53:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <3ad827f30510171621ne8af3e1rd115d4c26bd0d496@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <3ad827f30510171621ne8af3e1rd115d4c26bd0d496@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <435447A2.1010205@pobox.com> This sounds a lot like an argument Leo Szilard once had with Enrico Fermi over whether to publish the true neutron cross section of purified graphite. Szilard, who had invented the idea of the fission chain reaction, said that purified graphite might be useful in creating a chain reaction someday, and that they shouldn't publish. Szilard was one *damned* foresightful fellow. Today everyone knows that nuclear weapons are a real problem; back then it was, literally, science fiction. Nobody had proved a chain reaction was possible at this point. Graphite doesn't explode. Fermi exploded. Fermi felt that a chain reaction was only a distant possibility, and Szilard's suggestion went against everything Fermi stood for: the international community of scientists, the ideal of openness. Szilard and Rabi together voted not to publish, and Fermi felt obliged to go along with the majority. As a direct result, the German A-bomb project did not realize that graphite was an effective neutron moderator, and went with the less efficient alternative of heavy water. This is one of the major reasons that Germany's A-bomb project, which got started before the Allies, did not achieve a chain reaction before the end of the war. It's not like this kind of situation is historically unprecedented, for all that only historians know the precedents. I have to agree with Kurzweil and Joy. Publishing the genome of the 1918 Spanish flu in open-access databases seems, to me, stupid. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From brian at posthuman.com Tue Oct 18 01:06:22 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:06:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <3ad827f30510171705v6c0eafc0l3cddfe14cb8496c1@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <3ad827f30510171621ne8af3e1rd115d4c26bd0d496@mail.gmail.com> <43543574.5080001@posthuman.com> <3ad827f30510171705v6c0eafc0l3cddfe14cb8496c1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43544A8E.8090101@posthuman.com> The situation is very comparable to software antivirus. In an ideal world, Kurzweil wants sophisticated defensive anti-biowarfare/bioterror tech, and little to no government interference. The problem is, we aren't there yet with the technology. Hence the two pronged "figure out best way to slow the info getting into the wrong hands, while at the same time developing better defensive tech". Isn't this essentially the same as what goes on in software vulnerabilities today? Aside from "black hat" research, all other software security researchers generally keep their research unpublished until the vulnerabilities have been figured out and patched. The problem is that as Kurzweil notes, the bio researchers are not sticking to this procedure. Instead they are publishing proven "exploits" as soon as they find them. Hence the call to revise procedures among other things. Now whether the government is forced to barge in will in part be based on whether these researchers can develop significantly better disclosure protocols voluntarily. If they deign not to, then you can't blame the rest of us for forcing them to eventually. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 01:08:54 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:08:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative toCryowasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice In-Reply-To: <067d01c5d37a$c5777ba0$8998e03c@homepc> References: <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com> <021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc> <005501c5d26d$7d7699c0$b8f04d0c@MyComputer> <047101c5d2aa$95087580$8998e03c@homepc> <001f01c5d2d8$f2224bf0$cdee4d0c@MyComputer> <056401c5d2ff$11eb64a0$8998e03c@homepc> <002601c5d32b$be0c51a0$e0f04d0c@MyComputer> <064a01c5d374$b0636c20$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.1.2.0.20051017190024.01d10098@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <067d01c5d37a$c5777ba0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: On 10/18/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > Damien Broderick wrote: > > > At 09:44 AM 10/18/2005 +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote to John K Clark: > > > >>You agree with me that its 'uploading or nothing' ? > > > > Given the history of this list, and John's long-established endorsement > of > > this view for at least a decade (I quoted him in THE SPIKE to this > > effect), I think it would be more appropriate and modest of you to say > in > > this instance "I agree with you"... :) > > Fair enough ;-) > > I'm not concerned with priority just with identifying whether John and > I agree on the summation that its 'uploading or nothing'. > > At one point in the thread John did seem to want to argue that it > would not be impossible to create/recreate a *particular* flesh > brain with Drexlerian nanotech, that it would just be an absurd thing > to try to do, not an impossible one. > > I'll settle for a cure for ageing, to be going on with. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From outlawpoet at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 01:10:11 2005 From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:10:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <435447A2.1010205@pobox.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <3ad827f30510171621ne8af3e1rd115d4c26bd0d496@mail.gmail.com> <435447A2.1010205@pobox.com> Message-ID: <3ad827f30510171810w1ef74df4ga3a5e29312e58bae@mail.gmail.com> On 10/17/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > I have to agree with Kurzweil and Joy. Publishing the genome of the > 1918 Spanish flu in open-access databases seems, to me, stupid. It may not have been the best idea. It's not clear to me what threat it realistically poses. But that's not really the point under contention. The point is that Kurzweil didn't say 'you should have decided not to publish the genome', he and Bill Joy proposed an institutional solution, where the scientists would not have had the choice. There is a very large difference between saying that drinking bleach is a stupid idea, and saying it should be illegal. -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com From fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue Oct 18 01:15:13 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:15:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Bottle washers and button sorters (Heinlein on scientists) Message-ID: <43544CA1.4060608@mindspring.com> The science-fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein once wrote, <> ("The Notebooks of Lazarus Long," _Time Enough for Love_, 1973). It was, I seem to recall, Heinlein's retort to a remark made in the 1960's by British science historian Derek DeSolla Price, that "Nine tenths of all the scientists who have ever lived are living now." Heinlein's comment has long rather intrigued me. What do you yourselves think of it? Do you agree or disagree--and why? Just what exactly do you think Heinlein meant by the remark? Any comments? Peace, T. Peter -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 01:21:43 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:21:43 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <3ad827f30510171810w1ef74df4ga3a5e29312e58bae@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <3ad827f30510171621ne8af3e1rd115d4c26bd0d496@mail.gmail.com> <435447A2.1010205@pobox.com> <3ad827f30510171810w1ef74df4ga3a5e29312e58bae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510171821o53b582fdje9388b5820a926a5@mail.gmail.com> On 10/18/05, justin corwin wrote: > > But that's not really the point under contention. The point is that > Kurzweil didn't say 'you should have decided not to publish the > genome', he and Bill Joy proposed an institutional solution, where the > scientists would not have had the choice. If you read the exact words, they didn't propose a legal ban, not yet. What they proposed is that this sort of thing be stopped one way or the other. And my point is that it would be much better if the way it gets stopped is that scientists agree to behave responsibly, rather than get to the point where the world feels (with reason) that there's no alternative to a legal ban. There is a very large difference between saying that drinking bleach > is a stupid idea, and saying it should be illegal. Bad analogy. Drinking bleach will only kill the drinker. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 01:43:07 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <435447A2.1010205@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20051018014307.97599.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > Szilard and Rabi together voted not to publish, and > Fermi felt obliged > to go along with the majority. As a direct result, > the German A-bomb > project did not realize that graphite was an > effective neutron > moderator, and went with the less efficient > alternative of heavy water. > This is one of the major reasons that Germany's > A-bomb project, which > got started before the Allies, did not achieve a > chain reaction before > the end of the war. > > It's not like this kind of situation is historically > unprecedented, for > all that only historians know the precedents. > > I have to agree with Kurzweil and Joy. Publishing > the genome of the > 1918 Spanish flu in open-access databases seems, to > me, stupid. There is a glaring difference between the two situations, Eleizer. In one case you are talking about publishing a potential component for a new high-tech weapon that had never before existed. Like publishing the blue prints for the detonator of a photon torpedo or something. In the other, you are talking about publishing the genome of a flu strain that has been around for almost 100 years. It is as if there is an uproar over somebody publishing the blue prints of a civil war era gattling gun. It's not even as bad as publishing the polio genome since, at least, the polio virus no longer exists in nature. Yeah, influenza COULD be used as a bio-weapon but it would make a lousy one. You need at least a level 3 biocontainment lab even to work with it, it doesn't live very long outside of a host, and there are no easy ways of infecting your enemy with it without also infecting your own population. Even with suicidal mujadeen hosts, you would have to keep them in an airtight container until you got them to the enemy. Meanwhile the optimal window for transmitting the virus is only about 48-72 hours. If it was really that useful as a biological weapon, WE would have have weaponized it by now. Terrorists probably would not have even considered it at all if there were not op/eds in the NY Times about using it as a bioweapon. That's the problem with scare-mongers is that they insist on performing some of the hardest parts of terrorism for the terrorists. Namely figuring out what scares the populace you are trying to terrorize. About the only saving grace about all this nonsense is that if the media were to be believed, they would have to conclude that Americans are AFRAID of EVERYTHING which has got make it tough for the terrorists to decide on a specific course of action. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From megao at sasktel.net Tue Oct 18 02:09:21 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:09:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - just another "box". In-Reply-To: <20051018014307.97599.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051018014307.97599.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43545951.3090705@sasktel.net> Humans are an embarassment to themselves. The sequestering and filtering of knowledge is the very process that might derail the acceleration towards a singularity. This is much like the cold war where knowledge was held secret by each side from the other and a world of spies worked up a good business dealing in information. In the end all the secrets could not be hidden. Technology was the looser as knowledge was sequestered in a highly regulated market rather than a free market for a decade or 2. Since biology could well be one of the highest levels of computation, how is one to know which pieces of knowledge should be forbidden to know. Who is not to say that the same biology that is a part of biological Weapons of Mass Destruction might not also be the basis for some dramatic new life-extension technology like using viral nano-materials to re-write living DNA like a laser writes a CD. I find it silly that we should consider ourselves so wise as to know what is and is not useful knowledge. When in fact one or more AI are created, perhaps our legacy will be that they will hide their technology from us because they see us as unfit to know the"dangerous knowlege" they possess, and simply tell us what they feel we need to know to do spontaneously whatever the AI feels we should be doing. Oh I supppose some weird holy luddite with wacks of cash and a death wish for 50 virgins in an afterlife might also have a PHD in biomolecular engineering, a world class R&D program and a vision to kill all 6 billion with a killer plague...but reallllly? However history shows that what is expected is not so much to be feared as some new paradigm that no one ever expected to be dangerous. Who'd have expected planes flown into buildings in 1998 ... we were all waiting for a suitcase nuke. Who foresaw AIDS in 1982? I'd more be expecting a terrorist to work on an innocuous vector with a prion creation capacity.... So that one day after several years of careful spread , an innocuous yogurt culture might lay waste to every yogurt eater in the civilized world and our wierd holy man might dance around his campfire secure in the knowledge that no one in his little impoverished country ever partook in such a thing, and that like an AIDS scenario the disease would have spread into billions of hosts long before anyone ever suspected it to be harmful. I simply think transparency to be safer in the long run than secrecy. In a nudist colony there is now where to hide an automatic rifle. In a traditional convent, any nun can pack a 45. I live in a field where the same cannabis that much feared drug is one of the same class of chemistry as the latest HU210 which perhaps can regenerate damaged brains. Maybe I'm not taking this seriously, because like in a horror flick the boogeyman can be literally anywhere. From transcend at extropica.com Tue Oct 18 04:11:48 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:11:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <000001c5d39a$0f855db0$25251b18@eschaton> If the goal of the letter was not to raise fears, but to raise awareness, they dropped the ball. Kurzweil and Joy offer no explanation of the Manhattan Project idea outside of a relatively brief conclusion. Who would run such an endeavor? The American federal government? A corporate entity? An independent scientific organization? Funded by whom? Without some attempt to answer such questions, the authors fail to create the foundation for a public dialog on the issue. I don't necessarily agree with what I envision as a Viral Manhattan Project, but how do I know what I envision is what the authors mean? They failed to utilize the ability to easily cross-reference media. Before sending the letter to the NYT, they could have prepared a site with a detailed explanation of the anti-viral problem and a set of potential solutions. The site could provide a list of institutions working on the problem. A single web link in the letter, with introduction and simple explanation, would have provided intelligent readers the ability to further pursue the question at hand. It's the modern way of saying "write this address for the free pamphlet." From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Oct 18 04:17:21 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:17:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <43543574.5080001@posthuman.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <3ad827f30510171621ne8af3e1rd115d4c26bd0d496@mail.gmail.com> <43543574.5080001@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <10CCB0C0-AFC9-4860-80FC-0F1405F1BA3D@mac.com> On Oct 17, 2005, at 4:36 PM, Brian Atkins wrote: > There's some misreading of the intent here. > > Kurzweil is simply using the latest bird flu news and other flu > news to push into the national consciousness the idea that we need > better anti-virus (literally) tech. Not quite. He listed the genome of the flu virus being public as tragic. So this would be limits on information. This is one of the most problematic forms of attempted control. > That's what this is about - he's not pro-relinquishment, but rather > wants acceleration of defensive tech. > > It's basic risks management. Trying to throw into the mix all kinds > of government ranting is missing the point completely. I have no idea what this is about. Maybe the order of posts is hiding something. - s From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Oct 18 04:28:57 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:28:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> On Oct 17, 2005, at 5:28 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 10/17/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > Quite frankly, I don't like it. When the government > stops trusting it's citizens, it stops being > trustworthy. Those that do the scaremongering are > essentially giving the government an excuse strip us > of yet more freedoms. Thus they are the propagandists > and apologists for a government that has lost sight of > its part in the social contract. Banning certain forms > of knowledge is a slippery slope toward > totalitarianism. > > There's truth in that. Now how do we avoid encouraging governments > to ban certain forms of knowledge? One way is to discourage the > sort of irresponsible behavior that makes people start thinking a > ban is needed; publishing the 1918 flu genome would qualify as > grossly irresponsible on that basis alone, quite apart from its > potential use as a weapon. Not really. With advancing tech the genome of all kinds of nasty things will be pretty easy to get. For potentially deadly bugs it could be argued that publishing the genome potentially increases the speed of anti-viral work. Having the genome of a cousin of the current scary bird flu plus some folks around who have antibodies to it is potentially useful. The published genome also makes it less likely that any government or terrorist group would attempt to sneak a weapon based on it into the field in the midst of the avian flu scare. > (Yes there is some value there in not making such things public: > remember the principle of defense in depth.) I think the best way > to handle this would be for the scientific community to start > proving they can be trusted with this sort of information, that we > don't need a legally imposed ban. There is no way in general to prove any such thing to every paranoia level. Decide if you want an open society or not and engineer to make that work the best you can. > - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Oct 18 04:33:57 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:33:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <43544A8E.8090101@posthuman.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <3ad827f30510171621ne8af3e1rd115d4c26bd0d496@mail.gmail.com> <43543574.5080001@posthuman.com> <3ad827f30510171705v6c0eafc0l3cddfe14cb8496c1@mail.gmail.com> <43544A8E.8090101@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <62A0624D-5218-4B30-A7D1-14DE7F7E35C4@mac.com> On Oct 17, 2005, at 6:06 PM, Brian Atkins wrote: > The situation is very comparable to software antivirus. > > In an ideal world, Kurzweil wants sophisticated defensive anti- > biowarfare/bioterror tech, and little to no government > interference. The problem is, we aren't there yet with the technology. > > Hence the two pronged "figure out best way to slow the info getting > into the wrong hands, while at the same time developing better > defensive tech". > > Isn't this essentially the same as what goes on in software > vulnerabilities today? Aside from "black hat" research, all other > software security researchers generally keep their research > unpublished until the vulnerabilities have been figured out and > patched. Keeping them unpublished on closed source increases the amount of damage before there is a "fix" and makes it difficult to verify the fix. The closed source also makes proactive efforts unlikely. So software is a poor example. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 05:53:51 2005 From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (=?us-ascii?Q?Henrik_Ohrstrom?=) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:53:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Bottle washers and button sorters(Heinlein on scientists) In-Reply-To: <43544CA1.4060608@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Well, unless you can afford to pay ludicrous parts of your research grant to dishwashers, someone has to do the dishes....... Heinlein was rather elitistic and as all good writers and thinkers provocative. I think that well preformed buttonsorting and bottle cleaning necessary to scientific process, many interesting insights have come when someone realized that the "clean" ATP he was feeding his proteins really contained high levels of GTP i.e the discovery of G-protein activation of cellular functions. If some professional dishwasher had done the cleanup then that discovery could very well have been delayed. Although really it was a "procleaner" a gradstudent who got the insight and the professor got the nobelprize. As usual. /henrik > The science-fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein once wrote, < of "scientists" are bottle washers and button sorters>> ("The Notebooks > of Lazarus Long," _Time Enough for Love_, 1973). It was, I seem to > recall, Heinlein's retort to a remark made in the 1960's by British > science historian Derek DeSolla Price, that "Nine tenths of all the > scientists who have ever lived are living now." From eugen at leitl.org Tue Oct 18 06:55:16 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:55:16 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <43543574.5080001@posthuman.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <3ad827f30510171621ne8af3e1rd115d4c26bd0d496@mail.gmail.com> <43543574.5080001@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20051018065516.GX2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 06:36:20PM -0500, Brian Atkins wrote: > There's some misreading of the intent here. > > Kurzweil is simply using the latest bird flu news and other flu news to > push into the national consciousness the idea that we need better > anti-virus (literally) tech. No, he's trying to ban publishing of virus patterns. That this will hamper development of antivirus tools never even enters his mind. Medical R&D can't be based on a need to know publishing model. > I don't see anyone here bitching about having access to antivirus software. > You _would_ be bitching if you didn't have any. Actually you might not be > able to bitch because your computer would be taken over. I don't have any antivirus software. I don't expect any of my systems to be taken over any time soon. > That's what this is about - he's not pro-relinquishment, but rather wants > acceleration of defensive tech. > > It's basic risks management. Trying to throw into the mix all kinds of > government ranting is missing the point completely. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Oct 18 07:04:26 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:04:26 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051018070426.GZ2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 01:28:21AM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > There's truth in that. Now how do we avoid encouraging governments to ban > certain forms of knowledge? One way is to discourage the sort of > irresponsible behavior that makes people start thinking a ban is needed; > publishing the 1918 flu genome would qualify as grossly irresponsible on > that basis alone, quite apart from its potential use as a weapon. (Yes there > is some value there in not making such things public: remember the principle > of defense in depth.) I think the best way to handle this would be for the > scientific community to start proving they can be trusted with this sort of > information, that we don't need a legally imposed ban. You're on the best way to end science R&D as we know it. > But the call for a Manhattan Project to create defenses against viral > diseases is a damn good idea. Unlike its namesake, it would save lives every > year even in the complete absence of any human enemies. If it's lives you're after, and you want maximal return on your investment, then you could start here: http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Population/Disease.asp Of course, these are not Westerner lives, and hence almost worthless. You can't pull a profit helping poor people. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Tue Oct 18 10:54:42 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:54:42 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 25, Issue 35 References: <200510180704.j9I74le03116@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <000e01c5d3d2$5de29350$0201a8c0@JPAcer> > The Avantguardian said Quite frankly, I don't like it. When the government >stops trusting it's citizens, it stops being >trustworthy. Those that do the scaremongering are >essentially giving the government an excuse strip us >of yet more freedoms. Thus they are the propagandists >and apologists for a government that has lost sight of >its part in the social contract. Banning certain forms >of knowledge is a slippery slope toward >totalitarianism. Amen to that! I couldn't agree agree more with these sentiments. We should stop being afraid. Lightning, measles, driving a car, surviving the hormonal upsets of puberty, owning a bicycle, smoking and influenza are all bigger dangers than terrorism... Frank Herbert's 'Litany against fear" is installed as an extension in my Firefox browser to remind me that (in his words): "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear... And when it is gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear is gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." Jack Parkinson From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Oct 18 12:47:05 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:47:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimesOp-Ed References: <20051018014307.97599.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004501c5d3e2$0bb6dbd0$0100a8c0@kevin> Publishing the genome isn't even like publishing blueprints of the Gatling gun. It is more like a parts lilst for a Gatling gun. The genome itself does not tell the how to build the virus or how to turn it into a weapon. It doesn;t describe the processes necessary to capture and modify the virus. This is nothing like blueprints of atomic bombs. Filtering this knowledge is more like preventing atomic weapons from falling into the wrong hands by not making the periodic table available to the public. ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Avantguardian" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 8:43 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimesOp-Ed > > > --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" > wrote: > > > Szilard and Rabi together voted not to publish, and > > Fermi felt obliged > > to go along with the majority. As a direct result, > > the German A-bomb > > project did not realize that graphite was an > > effective neutron > > moderator, and went with the less efficient > > alternative of heavy water. > > This is one of the major reasons that Germany's > > A-bomb project, which > > got started before the Allies, did not achieve a > > chain reaction before > > the end of the war. > > > > It's not like this kind of situation is historically > > unprecedented, for > > all that only historians know the precedents. > > > > I have to agree with Kurzweil and Joy. Publishing > > the genome of the > > 1918 Spanish flu in open-access databases seems, to > > me, stupid. > > There is a glaring difference between the two > situations, Eleizer. In one case you are talking about > publishing a potential component for a new high-tech > weapon that had never before existed. Like publishing > the blue prints for the detonator of a photon torpedo > or something. In the other, you are talking about > publishing the genome of a flu strain that has been > around for almost 100 years. It is as if there is an > uproar over somebody publishing the blue prints of a > civil war era gattling gun. It's not even as bad as > publishing the polio genome since, at least, the polio > virus no longer exists in nature. > > Yeah, influenza COULD be used as a bio-weapon but it > would make a lousy one. You need at least a level 3 > biocontainment lab even to work with it, it doesn't > live very long outside of a host, and there are no > easy ways of infecting your enemy with it without also > infecting your own population. Even with suicidal > mujadeen hosts, you would have to keep them in an > airtight container until you got them to the enemy. > Meanwhile the optimal window for transmitting the > virus is only about 48-72 hours. If it was really that > useful as a biological weapon, WE would have have > weaponized it by now. > > Terrorists probably would not have even considered it > at all if there were not op/eds in the NY Times about > using it as a bioweapon. That's the problem with > scare-mongers is that they insist on performing some > of the hardest parts of terrorism for the terrorists. > Namely figuring out what scares the populace you are > trying to terrorize. About the only saving grace about > all this nonsense is that if the media were to be > believed, they would have to conclude that Americans > are AFRAID of EVERYTHING which has got make it tough > for the terrorists to decide on a specific course of > action. > > > > The Avantguardian > is > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen > > "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Music Unlimited > Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. > http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 13:47:55 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:47:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> On 10/18/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Not really. With advancing tech the genome of all kinds of nasty things > will be pretty easy to get. For potentially deadly bugs it could be argued > that publishing the genome potentially increases the speed of anti-viral > work. I'm not proposing that it be buried in a secret government warehouse and never see the light of day, just that some sort of control be exercised over who gets hold of it. Look, biochemistry isn't software, we're not going to see a cure for influenza created by a 15 year old in his bedroom. Biotech research is cheap only compared to nuclear and aerospace; it's still the province of organizations, not individuals. All the original authors needed to do to avoid this kerfuffle was to say, we'll make it available but only to people affiliated with an academic or corporate research outfit. That's no barrier to antiviral work. There's a bigger point here, and I'm not really the one to make it; I'm a guy who sits in a basement and writes code, charisma, tact, charm and salesmanship are, as I've remarked before, very definitely not my strong points, so you're getting these things preached at you (plural, not just Samantha) by someone who doesn't possess them himself, which probably goes some way to explaining my lack of success thus far; but someone has to try. Most of us here are, or at least try to be, rationalists, right? We try to deal with the world the way it is in reality, not the way we imagine it to be in our fantasies. If someone comes up with a design for a car that runs on water we don't believe it, no matter how nice it would be if it were true. Political reality can be just as important as physical reality in determining whether our wishes come true. It's not much good someone inventing a Santa Claus nanofactory or a cure for death if you can't actually get them because they're against the law. Do you agree that we should apply rationality rather than fantasy to this, just as to other aspects of reality? As I've said, I think calling humans "monkeys" indicates an immature attitude and publishing the genomes of deadly diseases on the Internet is irresponsible behavior, but leave that aside and let's suppose the ideal were a world where people were free to say and do anything they felt like with no repercussions. Do you acknowledge that we do not, in fact, live in such a world? That the public will not, in fact, indefinitely tolerate this sort of thing, no matter how much you wish they would? Given the choice between voluntary agreement by scientists to behave in what the public considers a responsible manner (even if you don't), versus bringing in the thud and blunder of legal regulation, which would you prefer? Finally, I notice that in Patricia Manney, this list has someone who, unlike me, _is_ charming and tactful, and is willing and able to come up with positive suggestions for things like less offensive terminology. If you won't listen to me then for the sake of everything you hold dear, please listen to her. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 14:08:54 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:08:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510180708sc19cfa9y9943fc862893ae45@mail.gmail.com> On 10/18/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > > Finally, I notice that in Patricia Manney, this list has someone who, > unlike me, _is_ charming and tactful, and is willing and able to come up > with positive suggestions for things like less offensive terminology. If you > won't listen to me then for the sake of everything you hold dear, please > listen to her. Small correction: I notice Patricia's post was on wta-talk, not extropy-chat (to which I'm currently posting). If you don't subscribe to wta-talk, I'd strongly recommend digging up that post, at least. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue Oct 18 14:32:07 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:32:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Alternative toCryowasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice References: <200510151619.j9FGJde25214@tick.javien.com><021401c5d1dc$5e61b880$8998e03c@homepc><005501c5d26d$7d7699c0$b8f04d0c@MyComputer><047101c5d2aa$95087580$8998e03c@homepc><001f01c5d2d8$f2224bf0$cdee4d0c@MyComputer><056401c5d2ff$11eb64a0$8998e03c@homepc><002601c5d32b$be0c51a0$e0f04d0c@MyComputer> <064a01c5d374$b0636c20$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <002701c5d3f0$c21ed720$4cf14d0c@MyComputer> "Brett Paatsch" > I don't think anyone will bother. Could be, the only possibility is that some Jupiter brain will do it just for laughs, it will after all either be absolutely imposable or very cheap and easy to do with no middle ground. > cryonics was a pipedream Could be, but given a choice between no hope and slim hope I'll pick slim hope. Me: >> Would it be physically possible to make an Apple computer >> out of vacuum tubes or electrical relays that can run >> modern software? Yes. > No. Baloney. > Because vaccum tubes are physically bigger. Software has no idea how physically large the components it is running on are; and as long as the timing is right it doesn't care how fast they are operating at either, only the people waiting for an output care about that. > At one point in the thread John did seem to want to argue that it > would not be impossible to create/recreate a *particular* flesh > brain with Drexlerian nanotech At one point? I argue it still. > So we agree that aiming to reconstruct a biological person > in flesh is ridiculous. Yes. > You agree with me that its 'uploading or nothing' ? Yes. John K Clark From brian at posthuman.com Tue Oct 18 18:15:06 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:15:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <20051018065516.GX2249@leitl.org> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <3ad827f30510171621ne8af3e1rd115d4c26bd0d496@mail.gmail.com> <43543574.5080001@posthuman.com> <20051018065516.GX2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <43553BAA.3020808@posthuman.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: >>I don't see anyone here bitching about having access to antivirus software. >>You _would_ be bitching if you didn't have any. Actually you might not be >>able to bitch because your computer would be taken over. > > > I don't have any antivirus software. I don't expect any of my systems > to be taken over any time soon. > But you do receive kernel updates and patched applications - provided to you after the developers have had time to deal with the vulnerability in private/closed lists usually. I don't think you would be as pleased if all software security researchers immediately published a full paper and sample exploit on all the things they find, and then got around later to publishing a patch, oh, maybe a few weeks or months later. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From brian at posthuman.com Tue Oct 18 18:26:36 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:26:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> Russell Wallace wrote: > > I'm not proposing that it be buried in a secret government warehouse and > never see the light of day, just that some sort of control be exercised > over who gets hold of it. Look, biochemistry isn't software, we're not > going to see a cure for influenza created by a 15 year old in his > bedroom. And yet, in the 1960s computers were expensive enough and limited to organizations so that a 15 year old couldn't do anything with them. Recall that Kurzweil is coming from an expected milieu where he assumes biotech gear will continue to drop in price and increase in performance. Think not of 15 year olds today, but in 2015. 2020. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 18:36:43 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 19:36:43 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510181136n3fb3a7ap6a446b12d50c84b3@mail.gmail.com> On 10/18/05, Brian Atkins wrote: > > And yet, in the 1960s computers were expensive enough and limited to > organizations so that a 15 year old couldn't do anything with them. > > Recall that Kurzweil is coming from an expected milieu where he assumes > biotech > gear will continue to drop in price and increase in performance. > > Think not of 15 year olds today, but in 2015. 2020. >From a technical point of view, perhaps that'll happen, but there's a big difference: Private ownership and use of microcomputers was (and is) legal. Private ownership and use of biotech gear looks unlikely to be. Now, positive steps to take to get it legalized, I'll leave to those whose competence in the relevant fields (marketing and politics) is greater than mine, but I wish people in the various techno-optimist communities would stop going out of their way to actively harm our prospects. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Oct 18 18:46:06 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:46:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <8A74BC28-146B-4613-86B6-D4C48C47F5F4@mac.com> On Oct 18, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Brian Atkins wrote: > Russell Wallace wrote: > >> I'm not proposing that it be buried in a secret government >> warehouse and never see the light of day, just that some sort of >> control be exercised over who gets hold of it. Look, biochemistry >> isn't software, we're not going to see a cure for influenza >> created by a 15 year old in his bedroom. >> > > And yet, in the 1960s computers were expensive enough and limited > to organizations so that a 15 year old couldn't do anything with them. > > Recall that Kurzweil is coming from an expected milieu where he > assumes biotech gear will continue to drop in price and increase in > performance. > > Think not of 15 year olds today, but in 2015. 2020. > -- I doubt very seriously that we are worried about a mere flu in 2015. Making laws limiting freedom today based on hypothetical capabilities a decade hence arbitrarily mixed with what is dangerous today is *very* problematic. Methinks you are engaged in apologetics. - samantha From megao at sasktel.net Tue Oct 18 19:03:05 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:03:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A new black market in Information? In-Reply-To: <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <435546E9.5040500@sasktel.net> Brian Atkins wrote: > Russell Wallace wrote: > >> >> I'm not proposing that it be buried in a secret government warehouse >> and never see the light of day, just that some sort of control be >> exercised over who gets hold of it. Look, biochemistry isn't >> software, we're not going to see a cure for influenza created by a 15 >> year old in his bedroom. > > > And yet, in the 1960s computers were expensive enough and limited to > organizations so that a 15 year old couldn't do anything with them. > > Recall that Kurzweil is coming from an expected milieu where he > assumes biotech gear will continue to drop in price and increase in > performance. > > Think not of 15 year olds today, but in 2015. 2020. The 15 year old with nootropically, nutrigenomically, epigenetically enhanced cognition, seamlessly wired into the net/grid and able to interact in virtual clusters with other like-minded persons. Is not simple tracking of data use and content enough. Anyone with the capacity to over-ride the access issue will get the information anyway, like all other illegal things there will be new black market created, in "forbidden knowledge". Like many other things the locks are only good against honest people. From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 20:15:33 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:15:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510181136n3fb3a7ap6a446b12d50c84b3@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> <8d71341e0510181136n3fb3a7ap6a446b12d50c84b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/18/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 10/18/05, Brian Atkins wrote: > > > > And yet, in the 1960s computers were expensive enough and limited to > > organizations so that a 15 year old couldn't do anything with them. > > > > Recall that Kurzweil is coming from an expected milieu where he assumes > > biotech > > gear will continue to drop in price and increase in performance. > > > > Think not of 15 year olds today, but in 2015. 2020. > > > >From a technical point of view, perhaps that'll happen, but there's a big > difference: Private ownership and use of microcomputers was (and is) legal. > Private ownership and use of biotech gear looks unlikely to be. > > Every hospital will have a sequencer and synthesiser in the not too distant future. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 21:28:38 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510171821o53b582fdje9388b5820a926a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051018212838.80750.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > And my point is that it would be much better if the > way it gets stopped is > that scientists agree to behave responsibly, rather > than get to the point > where the world feels (with reason) that there's no > alternative to a legal > ban. But Russell, those scientists DID behave responsibly. They weighed the risk and found it to be vanishingly small just like I did after the fact. That some trendy spin doctors, who have a cursory understanding of biology, try to convince the public that it was irresponsible to publish the flu genome, does not make it so. I work with viruses as well (HIV) and believe me, we are a responsible bunch. Sure there are bad apples amongst scientists, but there are bad apples in any group. We do a fairly good job of policing our own. You HAVE to trust someone or nothing will get done. Why not us? If scientists, especially scientists with military and martial arts backgrounds, are dangerous because of what they know, does it not make more sense to trust that their moral compass is at least as accurate as that of the politicians that you entrust with the lives of your children? Do you not think that it would be wiser for the system to make sure that scientists were happy rather than "well-controlled" and subjugated? Do you think putting MORE restrictions on scientists will make them LESS likely to use their knowledge to attempt to overthrow a system whose corruption is more obvious to them than to the average citizen? It has been my experience, Hollywood stereotypes aside, that scientists are some of the most conscientious people around. Because they are so smart, they see hidden injustices and subtle breaches of ethics of which most people are blissfully unaware. They already have SO MUCH bureacracy to deal with, do you really think the world would be safer if they had more? In so far as smart people tend to be amongst the most empathic of individulas, to a good first approximation, anyone who can UNDERSTAND the genome of a virus, deserves to know it. Anybody who ought not know it, will only see a bunch of meaningless A's T's C's and G's. If you wanted to compare the viral genome to a computer virus, one would have to allow for the fact that a biotech "blackhat" would have to first build the computer to run the "malicious code" that Kurzweil is trying to scare you with. To date there are no parallels to "script-kiddies" in biotech that have merely to "cut and paste" malicious genetic code to cause damage. Furthermore the bird-flu is mostly media hype. If you don't believe me, then believe the markets. The Bush administration is trying to force Aventis-Pasteur and other vaccine manufacturers to create a vaccine for it and they are stubbornly refusing because they don't see any profit in it. If big pharm sees no profit in the cure, I wouldn't worry about the disease, nor the genome of the virus that causes it. But then again, I wouldn't roll around in chicken coops, either. ;) The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 21:59:10 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:59:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <20051018212838.80750.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0510171821o53b582fdje9388b5820a926a5@mail.gmail.com> <20051018212838.80750.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510181459y5b3e9f5ck61bfb0aad0a863ff@mail.gmail.com> On 10/18/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Do you think putting MORE restrictions on scientists > will make them LESS likely to use their knowledge to > attempt to overthrow a system whose corruption is more > obvious to them than to the average citizen? Did you read the 80% of my post where I explained at length that one of the reasons I'm troubling to say all this is precisely that I think the world would be safer if we could _avoid_ a situation where the public decides it needs yet more government regulation to forcibly prevent scientists doing dangerous things? - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joel.pitt at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 22:28:25 2005 From: joel.pitt at gmail.com (Joel Peter William Pitt) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:28:25 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510181459y5b3e9f5ck61bfb0aad0a863ff@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0510171821o53b582fdje9388b5820a926a5@mail.gmail.com> <20051018212838.80750.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510181459y5b3e9f5ck61bfb0aad0a863ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/19/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 10/18/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > Do you think putting MORE restrictions on scientists > > will make them LESS likely to use their knowledge to > > attempt to overthrow a system whose corruption is more > > obvious to them than to the average citizen? > > > Did you read the 80% of my post where I explained at length that one of > the reasons I'm troubling to say all this is precisely that I think the > world would be safer if we could _avoid_ a situation where the public > decides it needs yet more government regulation to forcibly prevent > scientists doing dangerous things? > The majority of the public is controlled by the media. What we need is for the media to be more responsible instead of scaremongering the public by making such a big deal about the public release of a viral genome. Of course, scaremongering gets viewers/readers, so media responsibility isn't gonna happen. Joel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Tue Oct 18 23:20:52 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:20:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <8A74BC28-146B-4613-86B6-D4C48C47F5F4@mac.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> <8A74BC28-146B-4613-86B6-D4C48C47F5F4@mac.com> Message-ID: <43558354.1050108@posthuman.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > I doubt very seriously that we are worried about a mere flu in 2015. He isn't. He's worried about something much worse. Which again is why he's making the two-pronged noises. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From megao at sasktel.net Tue Oct 18 23:26:38 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:26:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: <43558354.1050108@posthuman.com> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> <8A74BC28-146B-4613-86B6-D4C48C47F5F4@mac.com> <43558354.1050108@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> Brian Atkins wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> >> I doubt very seriously that we are worried about a mere flu in 2015. > > > He isn't. He's worried about something much worse. Which again is why > he's making the two-pronged noises. Then the Manhatten Project if there is to one should be to connect the minds of all humans so that the underlying causes of sociopathic violence evaporate. It does not matter if it is biowarfare on persons or material destruction of future marvels such as a space elevator in large it roots back to social unrest. Restrictive laws, denial of access to knowledge, oppressive bureaucracies and repressive economic systems all contribute at one time or another to social unrest. Weird holy men are a miniscule group and hardly up to personally terrorizing the world. The Mayor of Vancouver BC said a few days ago that it is the causes of drug use, not the hunting down of providers of illegal things that should be the focus. The media pointed out via story content that it was a radical view that was not ready for public airing. The 300 plus billion spent in Iraq and Afganistan it has been pointed out could have been evenly and carefully distributed to end some of the root causes of unrest. But there is no money in giving things to people who will not generate a pay-back for a generation or so.... or is there...... less resources required for global security ( wind it down instead of up) To compete with the money machine of military action and universal security measures the the alternatives must create measureable paybacks. If we want the singularity to be of any value the fabric of society must change. From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 00:42:55 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:42:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> <8A74BC28-146B-4613-86B6-D4C48C47F5F4@mac.com> <43558354.1050108@posthuman.com> <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> Message-ID: On 10/19/05, Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: > > Brian Atkins wrote: > > > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > >> > >> I doubt very seriously that we are worried about a mere flu in 2015. > > > > > > He isn't. He's worried about something much worse. Which again is why > > he's making the two-pronged noises. > > Then the Manhatten Project if there is to one should be to connect the > minds of all humans so that the > underlying causes of sociopathic violence evaporate. > > There's that unspoken liberal assumption again - that if we truly understand the other person's POV then we will all get along fine. In my experience the opposite is just as likely - that the more we know of someone the more we dislike them. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Oct 19 00:50:25 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:50:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510181459y5b3e9f5ck61bfb0aad0a863ff@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0510171821o53b582fdje9388b5820a926a5@mail.gmail.com> <20051018212838.80750.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510181459y5b3e9f5ck61bfb0aad0a863ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <26256FFB-0EC4-4A29-9BFB-C6416A990FCF@mac.com> The trouble is that you are very short on the how this can be accomplished. Clearly scientists cannot banish everyone's worry and convince everyone of what is and is not of concern or sufficiently controlled. Clearly the majority are easily swayed by fear mongers and power-lusters. So without strong anti-politicalization of research and scientific knowledge by those of us with some measure of understanding the forces of paranoia and other darkness are likely to prevail. - samantha On Oct 18, 2005, at 2:59 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 10/18/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > Do you think putting MORE restrictions on scientists > will make them LESS likely to use their knowledge to > attempt to overthrow a system whose corruption is more > obvious to them than to the average citizen? > > Did you read the 80% of my post where I explained at length that > one of the reasons I'm troubling to say all this is precisely that > I think the world would be safer if we could _avoid_ a situation > where the public decides it needs yet more government regulation to > forcibly prevent scientists doing dangerous things? > > - Russell > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 01:00:48 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 02:00:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Accelerando - John Baez on the novel Message-ID: *http://tinyurl.com/8skpg Dirk * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joel.pitt at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 01:01:25 2005 From: joel.pitt at gmail.com (Joel Peter William Pitt) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:01:25 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> <8A74BC28-146B-4613-86B6-D4C48C47F5F4@mac.com> <43558354.1050108@posthuman.com> <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> Message-ID: On 10/19/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > Then the Manhatten Project if there is to one should be to connect the > > minds of all humans so that the > > underlying causes of sociopathic violence evaporate. > > > > > There's that unspoken liberal assumption again - that if we truly > understand the other person's POV then we will all get along fine. > In my experience the opposite is just as likely - that the more we know of > someone the more we dislike them. > No no, its not that. It is that if you are connected to everyone else - then harming some one else is really harming yourself. So unless you are a masochist you are more likely to try and find a solution that doesn't involve violence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 01:08:07 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 02:08:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> <8A74BC28-146B-4613-86B6-D4C48C47F5F4@mac.com> <43558354.1050108@posthuman.com> <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> Message-ID: On 10/19/05, Joel Peter William Pitt wrote: > > > > On 10/19/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > Then the Manhatten Project if there is to one should be to connect the > > > minds of all humans so that the > > > underlying causes of sociopathic violence evaporate. > > > > > > > > There's that unspoken liberal assumption again - that if we truly > > understand the other person's POV then we will all get along fine. > > In my experience the opposite is just as likely - that the more we know > > of someone the more we dislike them. > > > > No no, its not that. It is that if you are connected to everyone else - > then harming some one else is really harming yourself. So unless you are a > masochist you are more likely to try and find a solution that doesn't > involve violence. > If I had a cancerous toe and no anaesthetic I'd still chop it off. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joel.pitt at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 01:16:24 2005 From: joel.pitt at gmail.com (Joel Peter William Pitt) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:16:24 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> <8A74BC28-146B-4613-86B6-D4C48C47F5F4@mac.com> <43558354.1050108@posthuman.com> <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> Message-ID: On 10/19/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 10/19/05, Joel Peter William Pitt wrote: > > > > No no, its not that. It is that if you are connected to everyone else - > > then harming some one else is really harming yourself. So unless you are a > > masochist you are more likely to try and find a solution that doesn't > > involve violence. > > > > If I had a cancerous toe and no anaesthetic I'd still chop it off. > Ah well. I was hoping *most* people would investigate alternatives before embarking on violence. Why not investigate the current state of cancer treatment? Since we have mind to mind linkages I'm guessing effective treament for toe cancer wouldn't be too far fetched. Although humans as they are do like a quick fix rather than the optimal solution. -Joel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 01:24:03 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 02:24:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> <8A74BC28-146B-4613-86B6-D4C48C47F5F4@mac.com> <43558354.1050108@posthuman.com> <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510181824q1a197be4y820e4097639c46e2@mail.gmail.com> On 10/19/05, Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: > > Then the Manhatten Project if there is to one should be to connect the > minds of all humans so that the > underlying causes of sociopathic violence evaporate. Be careful what you wish for. Wishes sometimes come true. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 01:30:44 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 02:30:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <26256FFB-0EC4-4A29-9BFB-C6416A990FCF@mac.com> References: <8d71341e0510171821o53b582fdje9388b5820a926a5@mail.gmail.com> <20051018212838.80750.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510181459y5b3e9f5ck61bfb0aad0a863ff@mail.gmail.com> <26256FFB-0EC4-4A29-9BFB-C6416A990FCF@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510181830l1a743516vcf55076e33f7ae37@mail.gmail.com> On 10/19/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > The trouble is that you are very short on the how this can be > accomplished. I did say, did I not, that an antisocial and uncharismatic guy who sits in a basement writing code is not the person to draw up marketing plans? :) I'm rather long, however, on how to at least stop actively damaging the chances of this being accomplished. And that's what this boils down to: if you (plural) can't help, at least stop doing harm. This is where we really need Eliezer Yudkowsky to write one of his posts that summarize the matter with clarity that nobody else could accomplish with a thousand times as many words. I'm no Eliezer, but I'll try: Your (plural) instincts are telling you, someone is saying things that might be in support of a position you oppose, so come up with heartfelt arguments as to why this is wrong. They're telling you that because that was the right survival strategy for your genes in a hunter-gatherer tribe of 200 people where being a great-grandparent meant getting to the top of the pecking order. In modern times, they're a deadly liability. If you're a rationalist, please try to see through this and turn off the switch long enough to realize that arguments about why it's okay to publish this or that _don't matter_. Then ask someone who knows about marketing and politics (not me, please, I'd rather bow out of this discussion at this stage anyway) the best way to move forward. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 01:31:19 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 02:31:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> <8A74BC28-146B-4613-86B6-D4C48C47F5F4@mac.com> <43558354.1050108@posthuman.com> <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> Message-ID: On 10/19/05, Joel Peter William Pitt wrote: > > On 10/19/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > > On 10/19/05, Joel Peter William Pitt < joel.pitt at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > No no, its not that. It is that if you are connected to everyone else > > > - then harming some one else is really harming yourself. So unless you are a > > > masochist you are more likely to try and find a solution that doesn't > > > involve violence. > > > > > > > If I had a cancerous toe and no anaesthetic I'd still chop it off. > > > > Ah well. I was hoping *most* people would investigate alternatives before > embarking on violence. Why not investigate the current state of cancer > treatment? Since we have mind to mind linkages I'm guessing effective > treament for toe cancer wouldn't be too far fetched. > > Although humans as they are do like a quick fix rather than the optimal > solution. > > To continue the metaphor, the quicker the fix with cancer the better. As for mind-mind links, I think I'll stick to my tribe. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 01:32:10 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:32:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Security Report: Sharp decline in number of wars, deaths from war, genocide Message-ID: There's a little press about the recently-published Human Security Report, produced by the Human Security Centre at the University of British Columbia. The report is available here: http://www.humansecurityreport.info/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=63 A few news/opinion pieces about it: http://csmonitor.com/2005/1018/p08s02-comv.html http://csmonitor.com/2005/1018/p01s01-wogi.html?s=u2 http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2005/10/18/global-wars051018.html A few highlights from the report: * The number of armed conflicts around the world has declined by more than 40% since the early 1990s * The average number of deaths per conflict fell 98% between 1950 and 2002 (from 38,000 deaths to 600 deaths) * The number of genocides and politicides fell by 80% between 1988 and 2001 * There were 25 ongoing armed secessionist conflicts in 2004, the lowest number since 1976. * International terrorism is the only form of political violence which has increased, although for the time being it kills only a tiny number of people compared to wars. It's an interesting read, and almost counter-intuitive in the context of mainstream media. There's also some pretty interesting graphs. -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joel.pitt at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 01:47:54 2005 From: joel.pitt at gmail.com (Joel Peter William Pitt) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:47:54 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> <8A74BC28-146B-4613-86B6-D4C48C47F5F4@mac.com> <43558354.1050108@posthuman.com> <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> Message-ID: >On 10/19/05, Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: >> Then the Manhatten Project if there is to one should be to connect the >> minds of all humans so that the >> underlying causes of sociopathic violence evaporate. > >Be careful what you wish for. Wishes sometimes come true. > >- Russell Cryptic one liners are not all they are cracked up to be. On 10/19/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > No no, its not that. It is that if you are connected to everyone else - then harming some one else is really harming yourself. So unless you are a masochist you are more likely to try and find a solution that doesn't involve violence. > > > If I had a cancerous toe and no anaesthetic I'd still chop it off. > > Ah well. I was hoping *most* people would investigate alternatives before embarking on violence. Why not investigate the current state of cancer treatment? Since we have mind to mind linkages I'm guessing effective treament for toe cancer wouldn't be too far fetched. > > > > Although humans as they are do like a quick fix rather than the optimal solution. > > To continue the metaphor, the quicker the fix with cancer the better. > As for mind-mind links, I think I'll stick to my tribe. > So you are saying you are partial to mutilating yourself when there are alternatives? Violence, or chopping of a cancerous toe is the easy option that takes no serious thought. Again, humans are lazy and that is why we do as we do. By the way, I'm not a overzealous pacifist. I just think that too often people dimiss something as too hard or difficult and so isn't worth doing. -Joel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Oct 19 01:50:25 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:50:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510181830l1a743516vcf55076e33f7ae37@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0510171821o53b582fdje9388b5820a926a5@mail.gmail.com> <20051018212838.80750.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510181459y5b3e9f5ck61bfb0aad0a863ff@mail.gmail.com> <26256FFB-0EC4-4A29-9BFB-C6416A990FCF@mac.com> <8d71341e0510181830l1a743516vcf55076e33f7ae37@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 18, 2005, at 6:30 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 10/19/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > The trouble is that you are very short on the how this can be > accomplished. > > I did say, did I not, that an antisocial and uncharismatic guy who > sits in a basement writing code is not the person to draw up > marketing plans? :) > Ah. Good point. :-) > I'm rather long, however, on how to at least stop actively damaging > the chances of this being accomplished. And that's what this boils > down to: if you (plural) can't help, at least stop doing harm. > But exactly what is and is not harm? Who decides? Who has your trust? > This is where we really need Eliezer Yudkowsky to write one of his > posts that summarize the matter with clarity that nobody else could > accomplish with a thousand times as many words. I'm no Eliezer, but > I'll try: > > Your (plural) instincts are telling you, someone is saying things > that might be in support of a position you oppose, so come up with > heartfelt arguments as to why this is wrong. They're telling you > that because that was the right survival strategy for your genes in > a hunter-gatherer tribe of 200 people where being a great- > grandparent meant getting to the top of the pecking order. In > modern times, they're a deadly liability. If you're a rationalist, > please try to see through this and turn off the switch long enough > to realize that arguments about why it's okay to publish this or > that _don't matter_. Then ask someone who knows about marketing and > politics (not me, please, I'd rather bow out of this discussion at > this stage anyway) the best way to move forward. Academic freedom does matter. Self-policing generally to mollify others who largely don't understand the problem space and have many unfounded or overblown fears and opinions is suicidal. No, I do not think I am simply engaging in some kind of evolved pecking order game when I bring up the point. Thanks awfully for the bananas though. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Wed Oct 19 01:55:37 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:55:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> <8A74BC28-146B-4613-86B6-D4C48C47F5F4@mac.com> <43558354.1050108@posthuman.com> <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <4355A799.4000302@goldenfuture.net> Dirk Bruere wrote: > To continue the metaphor, the quicker the fix with cancer the better. > As for mind-mind links, I think I'll stick to my tribe. Might as well go back to knapping flint. At least your ideas of optimal social organization will be on a par with the level of technology in which they were born... Joseph From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 02:01:32 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:01:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: <4355A799.4000302@goldenfuture.net> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <8A74BC28-146B-4613-86B6-D4C48C47F5F4@mac.com> <43558354.1050108@posthuman.com> <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> <4355A799.4000302@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On 10/19/05, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > To continue the metaphor, the quicker the fix with cancer the better. > > As for mind-mind links, I think I'll stick to my tribe. > > > > Might as well go back to knapping flint. At least your ideas of optimal > social organization will be on a par with the level of technology in > which they were born... > > Fine - you mindlink with a whole load of Moslem and Xian fundies, plus a few Leon Kass' and you think something good will come out of the mix because your oh-so-rational Transhumanist meme will triumph? You're the one living in a fantasy land if you believe that. The only thing mass indicriminate mind-mind link will achieve is stupidity and self delusion on a scale as yet unseen. And as soon as you discriminate you are into tribalism. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joel.pitt at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 02:07:16 2005 From: joel.pitt at gmail.com (Joel Peter William Pitt) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:07:16 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <43558354.1050108@posthuman.com> <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> <4355A799.4000302@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On 10/19/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > Fine - you mindlink with a whole load of Moslem and Xian fundies, plus a > few Leon Kass' and you think something good will come out of the mix because > your oh-so-rational Transhumanist meme will triumph? You're the one living > in a fantasy land if you believe that. Hey, we *are* transhumanists. Most people think we are living in a fantasy land :P The only thing mass indicriminate mind-mind link will achieve is stupidity > and self delusion on a scale as yet unseen. > I'm curious why? Is this just a hunch or do you have some psychological reasoning behind this? -Joel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 02:11:10 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:11:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Security Report: Sharp decline in number of wars, deaths from war, genocide In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/19/05, Neil H. wrote: > > There's a little press about the recently-published Human Security Report, > produced by the Human Security Centre at the University of British Columbia. > The report is available here: > > > http://www.humansecurityreport.info/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=63 > > A few news/opinion pieces about it: > http://csmonitor.com/2005/1018/p08s02-comv.html > http://csmonitor.com/2005/1018/p01s01-wogi.html?s=u2 > > http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2005/10/18/global-wars051018.html > > A few highlights from the report: > * The number of armed conflicts around the world has declined by more than > 40% since the early 1990s > * The average number of deaths per conflict fell 98% between 1950 and 2002 > (from 38,000 deaths to 600 deaths) > * The number of genocides and politicides fell by 80% between 1988 and > 2001 > * There were 25 ongoing armed secessionist conflicts in 2004, the lowest > number since 1976. > * International terrorism is the only form of political violence which has > increased, although for the time being it kills only a tiny number of people > compared to wars. > > It's an interesting read, and almost counter-intuitive in the context of > mainstream media. There's also some pretty interesting graphs. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20centry.htm Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Wed Oct 19 02:11:18 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:11:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: <4355A799.4000302@goldenfuture.net> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> <8A74BC28-146B-4613-86B6-D4C48C47F5F4@mac.com> <43558354.1050108@posthuman.com> <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> <4355A799.4000302@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <4355AB46.8030900@goldenfuture.net> Apologies... In re-reading this, I could have absolutely phrased it better: "Why embrace a concept of social organization which was born at a time when flint-knapping was the pinnacle of technology?" would be much less confrontational, I think. I humbly replace the former with the latter. Joseph Joseph Bloch wrote: > Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> To continue the metaphor, the quicker the fix with cancer the better. >> As for mind-mind links, I think I'll stick to my tribe. > > > > > Might as well go back to knapping flint. At least your ideas of > optimal social organization will be on a par with the level of > technology in which they were born... > > Joseph > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 02:14:07 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:14:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> <4355A799.4000302@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On 10/19/05, Joel Peter William Pitt wrote: > > On 10/19/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > Fine - you mindlink with a whole load of Moslem and Xian fundies, plus a > > few Leon Kass' and you think something good will come out of the mix because > > your oh-so-rational Transhumanist meme will triumph? You're the one living > > in a fantasy land if you believe that. > > > Hey, we *are* transhumanists. Most people think we are living in a fantasy > land :P > > The only thing mass indicriminate mind-mind link will achieve is stupidity > > and self delusion on a scale as yet unseen. > > > > I'm curious why? > Is this just a hunch or do you have some psychological reasoning behind > this? > Why do you think that one genius linking with ten morons will result in anything better than eleven slightly less dumb morons acting in concert? Why should rationality win if it's a minority sport? You think better decisions can be made by 100m people all voting on an issue? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Wed Oct 19 02:16:38 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:16:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <8A74BC28-146B-4613-86B6-D4C48C47F5F4@mac.com> <43558354.1050108@posthuman.com> <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> <4355A799.4000302@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <4355AC86.1060506@goldenfuture.net> Okay. I hereby found the "non-irrational tribe". Color me discriminatory. ;-) Joseph Dirk Bruere wrote: > And as soon as you discriminate you are into tribalism. From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Wed Oct 19 02:23:23 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:23:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> <4355A799.4000302@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <4355AE1B.9090909@goldenfuture.net> Tut, tut, Dirk! Keep this up and folks will think you're anti-Democratic. And we all know Democratic decision-making is required for Transhumanism. Don't we? Joseph Dirk Bruere wrote: > > Why do you think that one genius linking with ten morons will result > in anything better than eleven slightly less dumb morons acting in > concert? Why should rationality win if it's a minority sport? > > You think better decisions can be made by 100m people all voting on an > issue? > > Dirk > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From joel.pitt at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 02:26:57 2005 From: joel.pitt at gmail.com (Joel Peter William Pitt) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:26:57 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <4355A799.4000302@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On 10/19/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > On 10/19/05, Joel Peter William Pitt wrote: > > > > On 10/19/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > > The only thing mass indicriminate mind-mind link will achieve is > > > stupidity and self delusion on a scale as yet unseen. > > > > > > > I'm curious why? > > Is this just a hunch or do you have some psychological reasoning behind > > this? > > > > Why do you think that one genius linking with ten morons will result in > anything better than eleven slightly less dumb morons acting in concert? Why > should rationality win if it's a minority sport? > > You think better decisions can be made by 100m people all voting on an > issue? > No - but this isn't about voting, and it isn't about shared brain power or anything like that. This is about an empathic link between individuals, which will allow people to more deeply understand another persons views. If these views are dangerous or harmful to society we can understand why they feel that way. Then concentrate on the underlying causes when trying to persuade them why their views are harmful and hopefully convince them, in a non violent and mutually beneficial manner, of what is right. Of course it works the other way too. Maybe we hadn't quite taken account of something that only came to light after an empathically backed argument with another person. It enhances learning and understanding. -Joel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 19 03:42:47 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:42:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Security Report: Sharp decline in number ofwars, deaths from war, genocide In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510190342.j9J3gle29972@tick.javien.com> There's a little press about the recently-published Human Security Report, produced by the Human Security Centre at the University of British Columbia. The report is available here: http://www.humansecurityreport.info/index.php?option=content &task=view&id=28&Itemid=63 ... It's an interesting read, and almost counter-intuitive in the context of mainstream media. There's also some pretty interesting graphs. -- Neil Excellent! The mainstream media will have an ever harder time convincing us how terrible the world is becoming. But even the most casual observer must have noticed that really big wars began to decline as soon as nuclear weapons were operational. If China and Taiwan somehow avoid armed conflict, we will know the magnitude of the transformation humanity has accomplished. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Wed Oct 19 04:04:26 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:04:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <20051017224056.29016.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510171728u1b89dbd4ya677521a5f00435d@mail.gmail.com> <00799BDA-D952-4983-AE2D-A28FE80EC882@mac.com> <8d71341e0510180647n7737cdb6ga3d5bd32c6bd690d@mail.gmail.com> <43553E5C.5030608@posthuman.com> <8A74BC28-146B-4613-86B6-D4C48C47F5F4@mac.com> <43558354.1050108@posthuman.com> <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <4355C5CA.3040001@sasktel.net> Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 10/19/05, Lifespan Pharma Inc. > wrote: > > > > > Then the Manhatten Project if there is to one should be to connect the > minds of all humans so that the > underlying causes of sociopathic violence evaporate. > > > There's that unspoken liberal assumption again - that if we truly > understand the other person's POV then we will all get along fine. > In my experience the opposite is just as likely - that the more we > know of someone the more we dislike them. > > Dirk > What I was getting at was that that is a situation we are already in and in the end must find ways to deal with that do not require mass murder to relieve. Human nature however founded has some nasty features that have to be worked around or every so often a nut case will come along and wipe out a big whack of us or our physical achievements with the WMD of the day. No one wants the "soma" method. Sex , drugs and rock and roll worked for some in the the 60's...ha ha. Maybe sports and gaming and other highly competitive pastimes are a good way out. Extreme Connectivity makes more chance to work aggression/psycho-social incompatilities out one on one regularly over time rather than with a single destructive bang. This is going to be a toughie to solve. It has survived since the earliest beginnings of our species. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Oct 19 05:46:05 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:46:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Security Report: Sharp decline in number of wars, deaths from war, genocide In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051019054605.GA30935@ofb.net> On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 06:32:10PM -0700, Neil H. wrote: > [1]http://www.humansecurityreport.info/index.php?option=content&task=v > iew&id=28&Itemid=63 > A few news/opinion pieces about it: > [2]http://csmonitor.com/2005/1018/p08s02-comv.html > [3]http://csmonitor.com/2005/1018/p01s01-wogi.html?s=u2 > [4]http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2005/10/18/global-wa > rs051018.html > A few highlights from the report: > * The number of armed conflicts around the world has declined by more > than 40% since the early 1990s > * The average number of deaths per conflict fell 98% between 1950 and > 2002 (from 38,000 deaths to 600 deaths) I note that 1950 was the beginning of the Korean War. Bit of a high point. I'd guess that 1913 was not a particularly violent year. And a unipolar world might be conducive to peace, at least between non-poles. So, good news, but hardly immune to change even in the not too far future. Probably the biggest assurance would be that the US and China are both nuclear. > * The number of genocides and politicides fell by 80% between 1988 and > 2001 I guess I should read it, but is that number of general events or number of people killed in genocides? And, why those dates? > * There were 25 ongoing armed secessionist conflicts in 2004, the > lowest number since 1976. Why those, different, dates? Four different time ranges are given. This smells of cherry-picking. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Oct 19 06:06:59 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:06:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Security Report: Sharp decline in number of wars, deaths from war, genocide In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051019060659.GA3468@ofb.net> > * The number of armed conflicts around the world has declined by more > than 40% since the early 1990s The number of conflicts is 30, about the same as 1976, and higher than almost any year before that going back to 1948. The current trend is declining but still a high medium. Graph stops at 2002. Most of the conflicts are intrastate, not interstate. The number of "international crises" looks quite low -- but stops at 2000. > * The average number of deaths per conflict fell 98% between 1950 and > 2002 (from 38,000 deaths to 600 deaths) This is quite low now, but not much lower than in 1956. Though as they point out there are more people now. Death/population for 1990-1997 is comparable to 1950-1959, both being low ends of a hill. > * The number of genocides and politicides fell by 80% between 1988 and > 2001 Ah, this was events, not deaths. No one was systematically counting deaths, they say. They note that in Rwanda 1000 were killed in the war, but 800,000 in the genocide. -xx- Damien X-) From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 06:12:26 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Greenspan on Peak Oil Message-ID: <20051019061226.44631.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> The following was forwarded to me from my friend James: Today's massive >4% decline in the share price of energy stocks followed this very interesting Greenspan speech in Japan. Apparently a huge block of XOM caused the drop. - James http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20051017/default.htm ------Excerpt------------ "We will begin the transition to the next major sources of energy, perhaps before midcentury, as production from conventional oil reservoirs, according to central-tendency scenarios of the U.S. Department of Energy, is projected to peak. In fact, the development and application of new sources of energy, especially nonconventional sources of oil, is already in train." Apparently peak oil for real. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From transcend at extropica.com Wed Oct 19 06:26:12 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:26:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pretranshumanist Message-ID: <000501c5d476$00a5ea30$24ec4542@eschaton> I figure I would make a post to introduce myself. I don't know if that is standard behavior on this list, but since its standard behavior in most social groups I'll fire away. My name is Brandon Reinhart. I am 27 years old, I live in Austin, Texas and I design and engineer massively multiplayer computer games and world simulations. I am currently employed by a startup company working on a new project, but prior to that I worked at Sony Online Entertainment. I am a secular humanist and critical atheist. I consider myself to be "pre-transhumanist." The values, ethics, and goals of transhumanism reflect my own views, but I do not consider myself a master of the material or its component arguments. I'm learning and I'm making use of the resources provided by many members of this list to do so. In my early life I was exposed to viral fundamentalist Christianity and as a result I've developed a cautious mental immune system. (Reference USENET archives with my name for a few posts I made while infected.) I'm working through several documents and arguments a night, spending time thinking about the points of view and how it relates to my own understanding of technology and the direction of human progress. I held several transhumanist beliefs before I became aware of the term, such as a belief that death is the result of preventable halting states. I have never been satisfied with the agenda of either American political party and so I am in the process of building my own complete socio-political philosophical view. I had no idea what extropy was until I read "Iron Sunrise" by Charles Stross -- a book I bought because I liked the title. I didn't realize people had a name for technology heavy views like mine. Researching extropy led me to research humanism, transhumanism, etc. It helped give me a vocabulary I could use to identify my values and further develop them. Tools I can use to get inside my own head. Kick ass! I am hesitant to accept the historical exponential view of evolution. This is one of the things sitting in my meme filter awaiting development. The predictions of a technological singularity that might occur within my lifetime is not something I currently accept, because I cannot accept it without further research and thought. I have a blog at www.extropica.com that I worked on briefly earlier this year and have picked up again. At the moment it doesn't have a goal or focus. It is largely regurgitation of concepts I've read, because writing an idea helps me contemplate and understand the idea. Eventually, I would like that page to become a more directed sounding board for my views (as I become more able to articulate them). I'm playing around with building a personal concept map in Visio: http://www.extropica.com/images/transcend/concept_map_v1.jpg Non-Normative UML Core beliefs are represented by classes. Belief values are represented as class members. Dashed arrows indicate correlations of the type "reasonably leads to." In other words "rationalism reasonably leads to humanism." "Humanism reasonably leads to altruism." The atheism arrow is backwards. "Reasonably leads to" relationships aren't qualifications for a given belief, but are more like a road map of how my own development works. Humanism, for example, creates the context and logic for me to be altruistic. That isn't to say that altruism depends on humanism. I need to do a lot more work on this, but this is kind of how I think. I like to make graphs of concepts and write out or visualize my ideas to try and internalize them. Now if only I could get an integrated agent to help me do that! Brandon Reinhart -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 19 06:37:25 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:37:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pretranshumanist In-Reply-To: <000501c5d476$00a5ea30$24ec4542@eschaton> Message-ID: <200510190637.j9J6bNe21518@tick.javien.com> Welcome Brandon. spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brandon Reinhart Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:26 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [extropy-chat] Pretranshumanist I figure I would make a post to introduce myself. I don't know if that is standard behavior on this list, but since its standard behavior in most social groups I'll fire away. My name is Brandon Reinhart. I am 27 years old, I live in Austin, Texas and I design and engineer massively multiplayer computer games and world simulations... Brandon Reinhart -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alito at organicrobot.com Wed Oct 19 06:38:39 2005 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:38:39 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Script kiddies are not that bad (was Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed) In-Reply-To: <20051018212838.80750.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051018212838.80750.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1129703919.29475.57.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 14:28 -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > Kurzweil is trying to scare you with. To date there > are no parallels to "script-kiddies" in biotech that > have merely to "cut and paste" malicious genetic code > to cause damage. Even script-kiddies themselves don't seem to desire to cause real damage. Most try to be as harmless as possible and tend to cause damage only by side-effect (bugs) or by the propagation itself (DoS). Note that the internet has been widely popular for at least a decade now, and I'm yet to hear of the following viri (in order of increasing difficulty and damage) (I haven't followed this closely for about a decade either, so please do inform me if they have appeared): 1) Virus that spreads for a week, then writes over every sector of the hard drive. This one's trivial to make and devastating in terms of data loss for the unbackedup masses. 2) Same as 1) but add an inbetween step of screwing around with video-sync rate until the monitor gives up the ghost (prolly more doable a decade ago than now) 3) Same as 2) but after overwriting everything, send a series of ATA commands that convert the HD into a brick. (http://lwn.net/2000/0727/kernel.php3) (btw, all of the above i mean for the windows platform, the link is to a linux forum only because that's where i heard of the idea) 2 and 3 are obviously more relevant to 3rd worlders where the hardware cost is an important factor, and are probably not available to the script kiddies in term of ability. 1 certainly is. So which one is it, are people extremely unlikely to be evil (less than 1 in the shitload of virus writers that have surfaced over the last decade), are script kiddies extremely unskilled (this one still doesn't explain a toned down version of 1 which just formats the hd), or have I just not heard of these famous viri? From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 07:21:10 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:21:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Script kiddies are not that bad (was Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed) In-Reply-To: <1129703919.29475.57.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <20051019072110.90536.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > So which one is it, are people extremely unlikely to > be evil (less than > 1 in the shitload of virus writers that have > surfaced over the last > decade), are script kiddies extremely unskilled > (this one still doesn't > explain a toned down version of 1 which just formats > the hd), or have I > just not heard of these famous viri? I think it's that even for impressionable youngsters that want to fancy themselves outlaws, its far more romantic to be Robin Hood than Hitler. I just hope no Al Quaeda black hats hang out on your UNIX site. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 09:35:07 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:35:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0510171821o53b582fdje9388b5820a926a5@mail.gmail.com> <20051018212838.80750.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510181459y5b3e9f5ck61bfb0aad0a863ff@mail.gmail.com> <26256FFB-0EC4-4A29-9BFB-C6416A990FCF@mac.com> <8d71341e0510181830l1a743516vcf55076e33f7ae37@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510190235j3f54b5b4g3b5c25df304d14d9@mail.gmail.com> On 10/19/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > But exactly what is and is not harm? Who decides? Who has your trust? I don't think it's a question of trust, but of how to accomplish goals, given that we pretty much agree on what those goals are; neither of us want to see biotechnology used as a weapon, but we also don't want to see its use for peaceful purposes restricted. Academic freedom does matter. Self-policing generally to mollify others who > largely don't understand the problem space and have many unfounded or > overblown fears and opinions is suicidal. > Okay, that actually addresses the core of the issue. I don't think either of us is going to convince the other on that one, so I'll refrain from arguing it further, but it's clear where we disagree now. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 10:29:40 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:29:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Script kiddies are not that bad (was Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed) In-Reply-To: <20051019072110.90536.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> References: <1129703919.29475.57.camel@alito.homeip.net> <20051019072110.90536.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/19/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > --- Alejandro Dubrovsky > wrote: > > So which one is it, are people extremely unlikely to > > be evil (less than > > 1 in the shitload of virus writers that have > > surfaced over the last > > decade), are script kiddies extremely unskilled > > (this one still doesn't > > explain a toned down version of 1 which just formats > > the hd), or have I > > just not heard of these famous viri? > > I think it's that even for impressionable youngsters > that want to fancy themselves outlaws, its far more > romantic to be Robin Hood than Hitler. I just hope no > Al Quaeda black hats hang out on your UNIX site. > > The problem these days is organised crime, not script kiddies. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 19 10:31:15 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:31:15 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510190235j3f54b5b4g3b5c25df304d14d9@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0510171821o53b582fdje9388b5820a926a5@mail.gmail.com> <20051018212838.80750.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510181459y5b3e9f5ck61bfb0aad0a863ff@mail.gmail.com> <26256FFB-0EC4-4A29-9BFB-C6416A990FCF@mac.com> <8d71341e0510181830l1a743516vcf55076e33f7ae37@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0510190235j3f54b5b4g3b5c25df304d14d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051019103115.GC2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:35:07AM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > I don't think it's a question of trust, but of how to accomplish goals, > given that we pretty much agree on what those goals are; neither of us want > to see biotechnology used as a weapon, but we also don't want to see its use > for peaceful purposes restricted. You can't have your cake, and eat it, too. > Okay, that actually addresses the core of the issue. I don't think either of > us is going to convince the other on that one, so I'll refrain from arguing > it further, but it's clear where we disagree now. I genuinely hope your view is in the minoriy. If we're to survive the coming nano/bio convergence, we need all the heads and the hands we can get. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 10:37:15 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:37:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <4355A799.4000302@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On 10/19/05, Joel Peter William Pitt wrote: > > > On 10/19/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > On 10/19/05, Joel Peter William Pitt wrote: > > > > > > On 10/19/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > > > > The only thing mass indicriminate mind-mind link will achieve is > > > > stupidity and self delusion on a scale as yet unseen. > > > > > > > > > > I'm curious why? > > > Is this just a hunch or do you have some psychological reasoning > > > behind this? > > > > > > > Why do you think that one genius linking with ten morons will result in > > anything better than eleven slightly less dumb morons acting in concert? Why > > should rationality win if it's a minority sport? > > > > You think better decisions can be made by 100m people all voting on an > > issue? > > > > No - but this isn't about voting, and it isn't about shared brain power or > anything like that. This is about an empathic link between individuals, > which will allow people to more deeply understand another persons views. If > these views are dangerous or harmful to society we can understand why they > feel that way. Then concentrate on the underlying causes when trying to > persuade them why their views are harmful and hopefully convince them, in a > non violent and mutually beneficial manner, of what is right. I think that as far as empathic links go love of Jesus and revulsion at your proposals to overturn the 'natural order' will trump anything most Transhumanists can muster. Esp given relative numbers. Of course it works the other way too. Maybe we hadn't quite taken account of > something that only came to light after an empathically backed argument with > another person. It enhances learning and understanding. Well, yes - you'll understand on a deep and overpowering emotional level how repugnant your views concerning atheism/agnosticism, evolution, scientific rationalism and Transhumanism really are. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Wed Oct 19 12:59:38 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:59:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Times article: "Technology and Us" Message-ID: I just skimmed the first few paragraphs, but this looks to be a worthwhile read. Amara http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1118376,00.html The Road Ahead We assembled some of the smartest people we know to identify the trends that are most likely to affect our future. What we got was a fascinating discussion about religion, technology and politics and why no one's golf scores seem to be getting any better. Posted Sunday, Oct. 16, 2005 TECHNOLOGY AND US TIME: WHAT INNOVATION WILL MOST ALTER HOW WE LIVE IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS? TIM O'REILLY, publisher and technology advocate: Collective intelligence. Think of how Wikipedia works, how Amazon harnesses user annotation on its site, the way photo-sharing sites like Flickr are bleeding out into other applications. I think we're at the first stages of something that will be profoundly different from anything we have seen before, in terms of the ability of connected computers to deliver results. We're entering an era in which software learns from its users and all of the users are connected. DON'T WE ALSO RUN THE RISK OF HARNESSING OUR COLLECTIVE IDIOCY? EVERYONE WHO HAS BEEN ON THE WEB KNOWS THAT THE RATIO OF SIGNAL TO NOISE IS NOT ALWAYS OPTIMAL. O'REILLY: Right, but remember what Google did. They basically said, let's look at what all the millions of individual users are linking to, and let's use that information to get the good stuff to float to the top. That turned out to be a very powerful idea, the ramifications of which we're exploring in other areas, such as with tagging on Flickr or blogs. People are finding more ways to have the wisdom of crowds filter that signal-to-noise. MARK DERY, author and cultural critic: I find the fetishization of the wisdom of crowds fascinating. It has a whiff of '90s cyberhype about it. I'm fascinated by the way in which it contrasts with individual subjectivity. A lot of technologies, such as Flickr, blogging, the iPod, seem to turn the psyche inside out, to extrude the private self into the public sphere. You have people walking down the street listening to iPods, seemingly oblivious to the world, singing. More and more, we're alone in public. [see the link for the rest of the long article] -- *********************************************************************** 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/ *********************************************************************** "There's only one thing more beautiful than a beautiful dream, and that's a beautiful reality." --Ashleigh Brilliant From amara at amara.com Wed Oct 19 13:27:20 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:27:20 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] BBC "Material World" and other science programs (was: We need a sharper image...) Message-ID: Russell Rukin : >That said anyone in the UK >http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/tickets_materialworld.shtml these >debates will be broadcast LIVE on BBC radio 4, six debates in all >*Nanotechnology, **Medicinal Plants, **Bioethics and Gene Therapy, >**Near-Earth Objects, **Food security and **The Politics of Water. >*Tickets need to ordered in advance.** You don't need to be in the UK to listen though, only an Internet connection with audio software/hardware capability. This looks like like a great series. And while you are looking at the BBC web site, take a look at these programs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/ The science programs are a goldmine! Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Oct 19 13:28:01 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (M.B. Baumeister) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] New Study: Predictors of Human Longevity Message-ID: <53840.69.18.90.201.1129728481.squirrel@main.nc.us> Forwarded from another list - may be of interest here, links below: Regards, MB ====================================================================== Date: Tues 18 Oct 2005 19:54 From: "Leonid Gavrilov" Greetings, Today the Society of Actuaries has published online a new 81-page report summarizing the results of a new two-year study of the predictors of human longevity: http://www.soa.org/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=12024105&g11n http://www.soa.org/ccm/content/areas-of-practice/life-insurance/research/search-for-predictors-of-exceptional-human-longevity-/ http://www.soa.org/ccm/content/areas-of-practice/life-insurance/research/search-for-predictors-of-exceptional-human-longevity-/?printerFriendly=1 A discussion of this report has been opened at: http://longevity.scienceboard.net/index.php?p=39 You are welcome to post your comments and suggestions at: http://longevity.scienceboard.net/index.php?p=39#postcomment Kind regards, -- Leonid Gavrilov, PhD http://longevity-science.org/ ================================================================== From megao at sasktel.net Wed Oct 19 13:18:02 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:18:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Times article: "Technology and Us" Message-ID: <4356478A.3000305@sasktel.net> I read the article and it seems that global connectivity is happening country by country. The trick will be to add every country regardless of language to the collective voices. The newest language translation and voice conversion to text loaded into laptop mobile devices might just do it. That "$130 laptop computer project" might become the "weapon of mass instruction". Then you can have a group of unilingual mandarin chinese, sunni muslim, kurdish afgan, swedish, german, japanese , brazilian and canadian people conversing with each other freely in their own language each hearing everything mostly verbatim of what the others have to say. Yes, it will expose the conflict and other baggage built up over the last 3000 years , but in doing so it may bring resolution that could never have happened without this close connectivity contact. Rather than bombing those guys its a wireless net and social grid we should be investing in to secure a safer future for us and a more rich and rewarding future for them. The next USA president should be more a global communicator rather than a patriarchal authoritarian. We tried the stick, now lets do the carrot. MFJ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [extropy-chat] Times article: "Technology and Us" Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:59:38 +0200 From: Amara Graps Reply-To: ExI chat list To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org, wta-talk at transhumanism.org I just skimmed the first few paragraphs, but this looks to be a worthwhile read. Amara http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1118376,00.html The Road Ahead We assembled some of the smartest people we know to identify the trends that are most likely to affect our future. What we got was a fascinating discussion about religion, technology and politics and why no one's golf scores seem to be getting any better. Posted Sunday, Oct. 16, 2005 TECHNOLOGY AND US TIME: WHAT INNOVATION WILL MOST ALTER HOW WE LIVE IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS? TIM O'REILLY, publisher and technology advocate: Collective intelligence. Think of how Wikipedia works, how Amazon harnesses user annotation on its site, the way photo-sharing sites like Flickr are bleeding out into other applications. I think we're at the first stages of something that will be profoundly different from anything we have seen before, in terms of the ability of connected computers to deliver results. We're entering an era in which software learns from its users and all of the users are connected. DON'T WE ALSO RUN THE RISK OF HARNESSING OUR COLLECTIVE IDIOCY? EVERYONE WHO HAS BEEN ON THE WEB KNOWS THAT THE RATIO OF SIGNAL TO NOISE IS NOT ALWAYS OPTIMAL. O'REILLY: Right, but remember what Google did. They basically said, let's look at what all the millions of individual users are linking to, and let's use that information to get the good stuff to float to the top. That turned out to be a very powerful idea, the ramifications of which we're exploring in other areas, such as with tagging on Flickr or blogs. People are finding more ways to have the wisdom of crowds filter that signal-to-noise. MARK DERY, author and cultural critic: I find the fetishization of the wisdom of crowds fascinating. It has a whiff of '90s cyberhype about it. I'm fascinated by the way in which it contrasts with individual subjectivity. A lot of technologies, such as Flickr, blogging, the iPod, seem to turn the psyche inside out, to extrude the private self into the public sphere. You have people walking down the street listening to iPods, seemingly oblivious to the world, singing. More and more, we're alone in public. [see the link for the rest of the long article] -- *********************************************************************** 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/ *********************************************************************** "There's only one thing more beautiful than a beautiful dream, and that's a beautiful reality." --Ashleigh Brilliant _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/05 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Wed Oct 19 15:13:22 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:13:22 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] I would have preferred hotel mints ... Message-ID: When I returned to Italy from my September/October travels (Oahu/Kauai/Molokai/San Francisco/pointsbetween), I found a few "calling cards" in my luggage from the various agencies who search US travelers' luggage. I would have thought that seeing one calling card by one agency would stop another agent from searching one's luggage, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps it's a competition between TSAs for who can find the contraband first.. Do you think that there is a prize? -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "Nothing is more terrible than to see ignorance in action." ---Johann Wolfgang von Goethe From emerson at singinst.org Wed Oct 19 15:16:29 2005 From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:16:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Jamais Cascio's Critique [Was RE: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed] Message-ID: <200510191516.j9JFGUe31442@tick.javien.com> Jamais Cascio of WorldChanging.com has written one of the better online critiques of "Recipe for Destruction" seen to date: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003648.html ~~ Tyler Emerson | Executive Director | The Singularity Institute Box 50182 | Palo Alto, CA 94303 | T-F: 866.667.2524 emerson at singinst.org | http://www.singinst.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Tyler Emerson [mailto:emerson at singinst.org] > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 9:18 AM > To: 'sl4 at sl4.org'; 'wta-talk at transhumanism.org'; 'extropy- > chat at lists.extropy.org'; 'volunteers at singinst.org' > Subject: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed > > Ray sent this earlier, a possible Action Item for anyone with interest: > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/17/opinion/17kurzweiljoy.html?hp > > This hasn't been Slashdotted or Boinged yet. > > ~~ > Tyler Emerson | Executive Director | The Singularity Institute > Box 50182 | Palo Alto, CA 94303 | T-F: 866.667.2524 > emerson at singinst.org?| http://www.singinst.org > > ________________________________________ > From: Ray Kurzweil [mailto:ray at kurzweiltech.com] > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 4:56 AM > To: Tyler Emerson > Subject: FW: Google Alert - Kurzweil "Singularity is Near" > > ________________________________________ > From: Google Alerts [mailto:googlealerts-noreply at google.com] > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 4:15 AM > To: ray at kurzweiltech.com > Subject: Google Alert - Kurzweil "Singularity is Near" > Google Alert for: Kurzweil "Singularity is Near" > Recipe for Destruction > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/17/opinion/17kurzweiljoy.html?hp > New York Times (subscription) - United States > ... Ray Kurzweil, an inventor, is the author of "The Singularity is Near: > When Humans Transcend Biology." Bill Joy, founder and former chief > scientist of Sun ... > ________________________________________ > ?This as it happens Google Alert is brought to you by Google. > Remove this alert. > Create another alert. > Manage your alerts. From jay.dugger at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 15:36:58 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:36:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I would have preferred hotel mints ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5366105b0510190836s182eebcbha0b3a401501b1ac5@mail.gmail.com> On 10/19/05, Amara Graps wrote: > When I returned to Italy from my September/October travels > (Oahu/Kauai/Molokai/San Francisco/pointsbetween), I found a few > "calling cards" in my luggage from the various agencies who > search US travelers' luggage. I would have thought that seeing > one calling card by one agency would stop another agent from searching > one's luggage, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps > it's a competition between TSAs for who can find the contraband > first.. Do you think that there is a prize? > No. The cards indicate that someone already picked through your belongings and "lost" all the good stuff. :) Seriously--I travel a lot, and while I can't prove theft, I clearly remember having more tools than I do now. I used to keep a copy of the Fourth Amendment in my luggage, right on top, too. It only made me feel better. -- Jay Dugger http://www.redcross.org Please donate if you can. From sentience at pobox.com Wed Oct 19 16:58:05 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:58:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Jamais Cascio's Critique [Was RE: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed] In-Reply-To: <200510191516.j9JFGUe31442@tick.javien.com> References: <200510191516.j9JFGUe31442@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <43567B1D.9080704@pobox.com> Tyler Emerson wrote: > Jamais Cascio of WorldChanging.com has written one of the better online > critiques of "Recipe for Destruction" seen to date: > > http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003648.html Okay, I'm persuaded. I had no idea that the published gene sequences were that useful - I thought it was just sheer principle on the journal's part. (The researchers, according to Kurzweil and Joy, did not want to publish the gene sequence to open-access databases, but were forced by the journal to do so on pain of their paper being refused publication - not that I regard this as a very impressive threat, but maybe things are different in academia.) And there are other deadly gene sequences out there already, such as, if I recall correctly, smallpox; so publication of H1N1 would only pose a small incremental risk. I am not comfortable with the overall situation. Perhaps someone should monitor the protein synthesis / peptide sequencing machines that could actually reconstruct the flu, in addition to a Manhattan Project for technologies that promise rapid cures for new viruses, Kurzweil's bet being on RNA interference (and it seems like a good one). Actually, brief Googling says that smallpox is a huge virus, not readily subject to artificial synthesis (like the short virus polio, which was artificially synthesized by one group of highly trained researchers), and I'm not sure if other short viruses such as Ebola are publicly sequenced. The argument that we have existing immunity to H1N1 strikes me as weak, but I am not an immunologist. Taking this into account, I'm tentatively persuaded to Cascio's point, but I'm not very persuaded. I reiterate that the end of scientific openness is not the end of the world. I used to think that way, until I read Rhodes's "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" and Lanouette's "Genius in the Shadows", and learned that this had happened before, and that scientific secrecy had been successfully argued and successfully implemented in an iffy-seeming early case, and that the results were, if not utopian, then probably better than unrestricted openness would have led to. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Wed Oct 19 17:01:47 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:01:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] I would have preferred hotel mints ... In-Reply-To: <5366105b0510190836s182eebcbha0b3a401501b1ac5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I think the rule is that if something in your luggage is small enough to fit in a pocket and worth more than $50 it will be stolen by the baggage searchers/handlers. I keep inventories and always end up short when I check bags. BAL >From: Jay Dugger >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] I would have preferred hotel mints ... >Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:36:58 +0100 > >On 10/19/05, Amara Graps wrote: > > When I returned to Italy from my September/October travels > > (Oahu/Kauai/Molokai/San Francisco/pointsbetween), I found a few > > "calling cards" in my luggage from the various agencies who > > search US travelers' luggage. I would have thought that seeing > > one calling card by one agency would stop another agent from searching > > one's luggage, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps > > it's a competition between TSAs for who can find the contraband > > first.. Do you think that there is a prize? > > > >No. The cards indicate that someone already picked through your >belongings and "lost" all the good stuff. :) > >Seriously--I travel a lot, and while I can't prove theft, I clearly >remember having more tools than I do now. I used to keep a copy of the >Fourth Amendment in my luggage, right on top, too. It only made me >feel better. > >-- >Jay Dugger >http://www.redcross.org >Please donate if you can. >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Oct 19 17:10:21 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:10:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Not just another nanotech conference Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051019120648.029f4d78@pop-server.austin.rr.com> I am forwarding this message from the Foresight Nanotech Institute. This looks like one of the best conferences around! Please attend if you can, Natasha >Curious about how nanotechnology will impact your life, profession and >future? Our conference is designed to give an overview of this new >technology across multiple disciplines, in a way that is accessible to new and >veteran nanotechnology trackers alike. > >Over 90 panelists and speakers will gather to discuss nanotechnology >research, commercial applications, environmental issues and policy concerns >at the 13th Foresight Conference Advancing Beneficial Nanotechnology: >Focusing on the Cutting Edge, on October 22-27, 2005 at the San Francisco >Airport Marriott. > >To see the agenda, speakers, and topics for this conference: >http://www.foresight.org/conference2005/program.html > >You can register online or by fax: >http://foresight.org/conference2005/registration.html Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Oct 19 17:16:28 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:16:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pretranshumanist In-Reply-To: <000501c5d476$00a5ea30$24ec4542@eschaton> References: <000501c5d476$00a5ea30$24ec4542@eschaton> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051019121528.02ec5a58@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 01:26 AM 10/19/2005, Brandon wrote: >I figure I would make a post to introduce myself. I don't know if that is >standard behavior on this list, but since its standard behavior in most >social groups I'll fire away. > >My name is Brandon Reinhart. I am 27 years old, I live in Austin, Texas >and I design and engineer massively multiplayer computer games and world >simulations. I am currently employed by a startup company working on a new >project, but prior to that I worked at Sony Online Entertainment. Welcome Bandon! It's good to see another person living in Austin on the list. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 19 18:59:11 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:59:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I would have preferred hotel mints ... In-Reply-To: References: <5366105b0510190836s182eebcbha0b3a401501b1ac5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051019135107.01d6bda0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:01 PM 10/19/2005 -0400, Brian Lee wrote: >I think the rule is that if something in your luggage is small enough to >fit in a pocket and worth more than $50 it will be stolen by the baggage >searchers/handlers. > >I keep inventories and always end up short when I check bags. It might be amusing to attach a transponder to each pocketable expensive item (I seem to recall a small gadget one could attach to key chains that would chirp if you lost the keys and activated it with a whistle or handclap or whatever), and ping them once you were through security. Of course, you might not find it so amusing as you sit in jail for the next 10 years. Damien Broderick From sentience at pobox.com Wed Oct 19 19:33:47 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:33:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mitchell Howe's Critique [Was RE: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed] In-Reply-To: <43567B1D.9080704@pobox.com> References: <200510191516.j9JFGUe31442@tick.javien.com> <43567B1D.9080704@pobox.com> Message-ID: <43569F9B.4080506@pobox.com> http://mitchellhowe.blogspot.com/ "So let me make a case not for high security or no security, but for low security. It is said by those who understand physical security that most locks serve only to keep honest people honest. People who would never think of breaking and entering can be tempted by valuable goods left out in the open. Low-security locks and their kin also serve as buffers against rash decision-making, and to keep hazards away from those untrained to handle them." This is probably closest to my own intuitive ideal: The data should be available to researchers but it should take a little paperwork to get ahold of it. Unfortunately, this may be totally unrealistic. Three can keep a secret if two are dead. If thousands of people know the sequence, it *will* hit the Internet sooner or later. A mixture of Low Security on the DNA sequences and on the Gene Printers might suffice to do the job - DNA printers only print signed files keyed to that printer, raise alarms if a forbidden sequence is entered, etc. And the DNA sequence takes an hour's work on Google to get ahold of; it's not a moment's thought. And even with the DNA sequence, you can't just print it, unless you can get that particular DNA sequence signed for your particular lab's DNA printer. We can't keep out determined, well-funded foes. But it is a serious matter if an individual employee gone postal can wipe out a significant fraction of the human species with one day's work. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 19 19:36:08 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:36:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I would have preferred hotel mints ... In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051019135107.01d6bda0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200510191936.j9JJaWe31436@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] I would have preferred hotel mints ... > > At 01:01 PM 10/19/2005 -0400, Brian Lee wrote: > > >I think the rule is that if something in your luggage is small enough to > >fit in a pocket and worth more than $50 it will be stolen by the baggage > >searchers/handlers. > > > >I keep inventories and always end up short when I check bags. > > It might be amusing to attach a transponder to each pocketable expensive > item ... > > Damien Broderick The RFID might be the end of this kind of theft. I could imagine the baggage check boss passing around an item for her guys to examine. No one finds *any* indication that there is a tracking device on it or in it. They pass it thru a detector, which shouts in a Donald Trump/Mr. Spacely voice "Yourrre firrred!" You could RFID-audit your bags when you check them, then redo upon pickup, then immediately alert the head baggage checker and the airline that something is missing, along with a description. You know people would purposely RFID tag something expensive just to nail a thief. RFID has its advantages. spike From astapp at amazeent.com Wed Oct 19 20:22:31 2005 From: astapp at amazeent.com (Acy James Stapp) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:22:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pretranshumanist Message-ID: <437623CE9CFE7E409243C5E427BA8C81CFBF@AMAZEMAIL.amazeent.com> Welcome Brandon. I was at SOE but left before you started, still in Austin though. I think you'll find the group here an interesting and (mostly) pleasant bunch :) -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brandon Reinhart Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 1:26 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [extropy-chat] Pretranshumanist I figure I would make a post to introduce myself. I don't know if that is standard behavior on this list, but since its standard behavior in most social groups I'll fire away. My name is Brandon Reinhart. I am 27 years old, I live in Austin, Texas and I design and engineer massively multiplayer computer games and world simulations. I am currently employed by a startup company working on a new project, but prior to that I worked at Sony Online Entertainment. I am a secular humanist and critical atheist. I consider myself to be "pre-transhumanist." The values, ethics, and goals of transhumanism reflect my own views, but I do not consider myself a master of the material or its component arguments. I'm learning and I'm making use of the resources provided by many members of this list to do so. In my early life I was exposed to viral fundamentalist Christianity and as a result I've developed a cautious mental immune system. (Reference USENET archives with my name for a few posts I made while infected.) I'm working through several documents and arguments a night, spending time thinking about the points of view and how it relates to my own understanding of technology and the direction of human progress. I held several transhumanist beliefs before I became aware of the term, such as a belief that death is the result of preventable halting states. I have never been satisfied with the agenda of either American political party and so I am in the process of building my own complete socio-political philosophical view. I had no idea what extropy was until I read "Iron Sunrise" by Charles Stross -- a book I bought because I liked the title. I didn't realize people had a name for technology heavy views like mine. Researching extropy led me to research humanism, transhumanism, etc. It helped give me a vocabulary I could use to identify my values and further develop them. Tools I can use to get inside my own head. Kick ass! I am hesitant to accept the historical exponential view of evolution. This is one of the things sitting in my meme filter awaiting development. The predictions of a technological singularity that might occur within my lifetime is not something I currently accept, because I cannot accept it without further research and thought. I have a blog at www.extropica.com that I worked on briefly earlier this year and have picked up again. At the moment it doesn't have a goal or focus. It is largely regurgitation of concepts I've read, because writing an idea helps me contemplate and understand the idea. Eventually, I would like that page to become a more directed sounding board for my views (as I become more able to articulate them). I'm playing around with building a personal concept map in Visio: http://www.extropica.com/images/transcend/concept_map_v1.jpg Non-Normative UML Core beliefs are represented by classes. Belief values are represented as class members. Dashed arrows indicate correlations of the type "reasonably leads to." In other words "rationalism reasonably leads to humanism." "Humanism reasonably leads to altruism." The atheism arrow is backwards. "Reasonably leads to" relationships aren't qualifications for a given belief, but are more like a road map of how my own development works. Humanism, for example, creates the context and logic for me to be altruistic. That isn't to say that altruism depends on humanism. I need to do a lot more work on this, but this is kind of how I think. I like to make graphs of concepts and write out or visualize my ideas to try and internalize them. Now if only I could get an integrated agent to help me do that! Brandon Reinhart -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 20:38:17 2005 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:38:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for disinformation was Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed] Message-ID: <7641ddc60510191338j6a8ee1b2n9f477b86e8fc5041@mail.gmail.com> I think that any measures aimed at stopping information cold in its tracks are counterproductive - neither effective, nor harmless to the innocent. There is a different approach, however - massive disinformation. Imagine hundreds of internet sites offering thousands of recipes for wiping out humanity. Smallpox, flu, botulinum, anthrax - all out there, all detailed and scientific-sounding - and all of them fake. Since the effort needed to verify the truth or falsity of such information is significant (you actually need to make the virus and try to kill a few pople to tell), the situation is much different from other forms of P2P information spread, where the quality of information (e.g. music) can be easily verified, and thus extended trust networks can form spontaneously. Only trusted persons would be told which sequences are true - and if a trusted person lets the real sequence out, no random internet-connected psycho would be able to use it. The only way for the information to become dangerous would be if a trusted person turned rogue, and was directly involved in terrorist misuse of information. And the only way to become a trusted person would be to gain the trust of a trusted person, e.g. by working in his lab for a few years - both decentralized and probably more efficient than FBI background checks. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Oct 19 20:39:36 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:39:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for Destruction In-Reply-To: <4355AE1B.9090909@goldenfuture.net> References: <200510171618.j9HGIAe10540@tick.javien.com> <435584AE.3030506@sasktel.net> <4355A799.4000302@goldenfuture.net> <4355AE1B.9090909@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On Oct 18, 2005, at 7:23 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Tut, tut, Dirk! > > Keep this up and folks will think you're anti-Democratic. And we > all know Democratic decision-making is required for Transhumanism. > > Don't we? Nope. Keeping the freedom to self-evolve and create needed technologies regardless of the opinions of the majority is required. - samantha > > Joseph > > Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >> >> Why do you think that one genius linking with ten morons will >> result in anything better than eleven slightly less dumb morons >> acting in concert? Why should rationality win if it's a minority >> sport? >> >> You think better decisions can be made by 100m people all voting >> on an issue? >> >> Dirk >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 outlawpoet at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 20:58:46 2005 From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:58:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recipe for disinformation was Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed] In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60510191338j6a8ee1b2n9f477b86e8fc5041@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60510191338j6a8ee1b2n9f477b86e8fc5041@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3ad827f30510191358j10b1570eic13e3617045c6a58@mail.gmail.com> On 10/19/05, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > There is a different approach, however - massive disinformation. This reminds me of a fictional Group that Vinge includes in his recent stories, The Friends of Privacy. This (offscreen) group is kind of like an offshoot of the cypherpunks, who use legitimate and illegitimate access and abilities to inject lies into every public database, which means that public records become increasingly unreliable the older they are(and the higher probability of compromise by FOP). This creates kind of an increasing protective haze into the past, where everyone has a kind of historical privacy gained by no one really knowing what records are true or false. This offends my sensibilities as an idealist, but it's certainly not inconcievable that if a culture of high-karma forum and database folk(mixed with hackers) got it into their heads to spend any amount of time minorly obfuscating, it would be influential out of proportion to the number of records that were actually modified. It would require a subculture, but they have been created with less merit or stimulus. -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com From extropy at unreasonable.com Wed Oct 19 21:10:28 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:10:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] I would have preferred hotel mints ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051019165628.07363298@unreasonable.com> Amara wrote: >When I returned to Italy from my September/October travels >(Oahu/Kauai/Molokai/San Francisco/pointsbetween), I found a few >"calling cards" in my luggage from the various agencies who >search US travelers' luggage. I would have thought that seeing >one calling card by one agency would stop another agent from searching >one's luggage, but that doesn't seem to be the case. For a hopeful interpretation of your experience -- If your surmise were true, you could smuggle stuff by putting one of those calling cards in your luggage on your next trip. That the luggage is re-searched could mean that the agents are competent. Hey, it could happen. -- David. From extropy at unreasonable.com Thu Oct 20 02:01:59 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:01:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Jamais Cascio's Critique [Was RE: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed] In-Reply-To: References: <200510191516.j9JFGUe31442@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051019213118.07443d60@unreasonable.com> entropy at farviolet.com wrote: >Few people alive today where alive in 1918. Nor was the flu far >reaching enough to wipe out everyone who was genetically susceptable >to it. Plenty of susceptable people lived to pass on there genes by >avoiding exposure. Any protection of this sort is minimal at best. I heard a woman on C-SPAN a year or two ago. I forget who she's with. CDC, I think; maybe Ft. Detrick. She's spent her career researching the 1918 pandemic. In looking at people who were alive in 1918, she found that *everyone* she tested, including residents of the most remote parts of the planet, had antibodies for the 1918 flu. As far as she could tell, nowhere was safe. (I haven't been able to locate her work yet. She's not mentioned on c-span.org, although she appeared in-studio, and google hasn't helped. I'm going to keep looking, since the question's pretty important.) -- David Lubkin. From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 04:12:21 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:42:21 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Script kiddies are not that bad (was Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed) In-Reply-To: References: <1129703919.29475.57.camel@alito.homeip.net> <20051019072110.90536.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0510192112n3aa57b87q@mail.gmail.com> On 19/10/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 10/19/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > > > --- Alejandro Dubrovsky > > wrote: > > > So which one is it, are people extremely unlikely to > > > be evil (less than > > > 1 in the shitload of virus writers that have > > > surfaced over the last > > > decade), are script kiddies extremely unskilled > > > (this one still doesn't > > > explain a toned down version of 1 which just formats > > > the hd), or have I > > > just not heard of these famous viri? > > > > I think it's that even for impressionable youngsters > > that want to fancy themselves outlaws, its far more > > romantic to be Robin Hood than Hitler. I just hope no > > Al Quaeda black hats hang out on your UNIX site. > > > > > > The problem these days is organised crime, not script kiddies. > > Dirk > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > Yes, and those people have no incentive to break your machine. Stealing your private information, and taking over your machine for use as an open relay or maybe DDOS node is much more likely. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 12:38:40 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:38:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Script kiddies are not that bad (was Re: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed) In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0510192112n3aa57b87q@mail.gmail.com> References: <1129703919.29475.57.camel@alito.homeip.net> <20051019072110.90536.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0510192112n3aa57b87q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/20/05, Emlyn wrote: > > On 19/10/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > > On 10/19/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- Alejandro Dubrovsky > > > wrote: > > > > So which one is it, are people extremely unlikely to > > > > be evil (less than > > > > 1 in the shitload of virus writers that have > > > > surfaced over the last > > > > decade), are script kiddies extremely unskilled > > > > (this one still doesn't > > > > explain a toned down version of 1 which just formats > > > > the hd), or have I > > > > just not heard of these famous viri? > > > > > > I think it's that even for impressionable youngsters > > > that want to fancy themselves outlaws, its far more > > > romantic to be Robin Hood than Hitler. I just hope no > > > Al Quaeda black hats hang out on your UNIX site. > > > > > > > > > > The problem these days is organised crime, not script kiddies. > > > Yes, and those people have no incentive to break your machine. > Stealing your private information, and taking over your machine for > use as an open relay or maybe DDOS node is much more likely. Whatever makes money or satisfies their ideological bent. The point being, malicious s/w does exist and if there was money in it or OBL could use it to kill a few million people that's how it will be used. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Thu Oct 20 14:50:07 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:50:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] archeologist VS restorative alternatives Message-ID: <4357AE9F.6000109@sasktel.net> Sort of sad that these guys don't get the idea to leave the body frozen and store it for future technology to re-activate; after all the guy is already dead and if the radiant heat did not decompose him what is left might be a worthy challenge to regenerative technology yet to come. The red tape to get this done would be enormous , but if I were the frozen corpsicle I'd want to have the benefit of the technology over being ID'd and turned over to family to be given a proper decompositional burial. Some of the lost Antarctic explorers would also be good candidates, if they can stay untouched/unfound until the crypt keepers become more technologically motivated. Body Found Believed to Be WWII Airman By JULIANA BARBASSA FRESNO, Calif. (AP) - Two climbers on a Sierra Nevada glacier discovered an ice-encased body believed to be that of an airman whose plane crashed in 1942. The man was wearing a World War II-era Army-issued parachute when his frozen head, shoulder and arm were spotted Sunday on 13,710-foot Mount Mendel in Kings Canyon National Park, park spokeswoman Alex Picavet said. Park rangers and specialists camped on the remote mountainside in freezing weather for an excavation expected to take several days. The body was 80 percent encased in ice, Picavet said Wednesday. ``We're not going to go fast,'' she said. ``We want to preserve him as much as possible. He's pretty intact.'' The excavation crew included an expert from the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, a military unit that identifies and recovers personnel who have been missing for decades. Park officials believe the serviceman may have been part of the crew of an AT-7 navigational training plane that crashed on Nov. 18, 1942. The wreckage and four bodies were found in 1947 by a climber. Some 88,000 Americans are missing in action from past wars, military officers said. Most of them - 78,000 - are from World War II. The Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command works on hundreds of cases a year, averaging two identifications a week, said spokeswoman Rumi Nielson-Green. Finding bodies preserved in a glacier is unusual but not unheard of, command officials said. Two years ago, the unit recovered the body of a Cold War-era officer who died in Greenland. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Oct 20 16:24:23 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:24:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] archeologist VS restorative alternatives In-Reply-To: <4357AE9F.6000109@sasktel.net> References: <4357AE9F.6000109@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020111601.02ecaf68@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 09:50 AM 10/20/2005, MFJ wrote: >Sort of sad that these guys don't get the idea to leave the body frozen >and store it for future technology to >re-activate; after all the guy is already dead and if the radiant heat did >not decompose him what is left >might be a worthy challenge to regenerative technology yet to come. Especially with the military aggressively learning applications of new technologies. The lengths they go to save/protect lives shows that cryonics simply is not on the radar screen. But even if it were, it would not be exposed. From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Oct 20 16:47:30 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:47:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI Website - Your Comments Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Extropes, Transhumanists, futurists and all other list members - What do you think about the content, look and feel of Extropy Institute's website located at http://www.extropy.org We launched the new site two months ago and so far, so good. But I would like to hear from you, as your opinions and insights are valuable to us. Please send your thoughts directly to me at natasha at extropy.org Once I receive a dozen comments, I will post them to the list for further review and commentary. Thanks for working with us to realize Extropy's future. We will be making more and more changes before the end of the year and I want to make sure that the Board is fully addressing your needs, concerns, and your vision for the future. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 20 18:08:59 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:08:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI Website - Your Comments In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com > References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051020130613.01c6c4d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 11:47 AM 10/20/2005 -0500, N wrote: >Extropes, Transhumanists, futurists and all other list members - >What do you think about the content, look and feel of Extropy Institute's >website located at http://www.extropy.org The very first thing we see on the banner is: The original Transhumanis Is that meant to be "Transhumanists"? "Transhumans"? "Transhumani"? From pharos at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 18:13:39 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:13:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI Website - Your Comments In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051020130613.01c6c4d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051020130613.01c6c4d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/20/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 11:47 AM 10/20/2005 -0500, N wrote: > > >Extropes, Transhumanists, futurists and all other list members - > >What do you think about the content, look and feel of Extropy Institute's > >website located at http://www.extropy.org > > The very first thing we see on the banner is: > > The original > Transhumanis > > Is that meant to be "Transhumanists"? "Transhumans"? "Transhumani"? Transhumanism It's OK in my Firefox with Adblock. BillK From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Thu Oct 20 18:32:10 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:32:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI Website - Your Comments In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051020130613.01c6c4d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051020130613.01c6c4d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4357E2AA.5080302@goldenfuture.net> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 11:47 AM 10/20/2005 -0500, N wrote: > >> Extropes, Transhumanists, futurists and all other list members - >> What do you think about the content, look and feel of Extropy >> Institute's website located at http://www.extropy.org > > > The very first thing we see on the banner is: > > The original > Transhumanis > > Is that meant to be "Transhumanists"? "Transhumans"? "Transhumani"? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > Shows up as "The original Transhumanism" fine on my browser (Firefox 1.0.6 on a screen set to 1400x1050). As far as the design itself goes, I like it. It's crisp, very professional looking. I like the emphasis on the three main projects right on the front page. Joseph From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Oct 20 17:53:20 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:53:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures Podcast Series Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020114949.02c5f888@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Future Thinkers, I am hosting a new podcast http://www.natasha.cc/futures.htm This podcast is originating out of the University of Houston's Future Studies program http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,69087,00.html I am looking for talented, original, ground-breaking, fun-filled ideas about the future to air on the net. I value your organizations and your own ideas and would like to open the virtual mic to those of you who have something to say and need another venue to say it. Send your topic suggestion to me: Name _____________________ Organization or Affiliation _______________ SuggestedTopic _____________________ I hope to hear from you - Natasha http://www.natasha.cc/futures.htm Cultural Strategist - Designer If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Oct 20 19:06:25 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:06:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain In-Reply-To: <200510190342.j9J3gle29972@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200510201906.j9KJ6Le21057@tick.javien.com> You have a bag containing three coins: a double headed, a double tailed and an ordinary coin. You reach into the bag without looking, take one out and place it on the table. You see a head facing up. What is the probability that the other side is a tail? At first you think: simple, the probability that you chose the ordinary coin is one of three, so its simply 1/3. But on the other hand, when you looked at the coin, you learned that you did not choose the double tail; that one you know is still in the bag. So you chose either the double head or the ordinary coin, equal probability of each, so its fifty-fifty even bet that the other side is a tail. But you already know that the probability of picking the ordinary coin is 1/3, and looking at the coin did not magically change that, right? Perhaps you came up with a different answer than either 1/3 or 1/2. Think on this puzzle, post your answer and your reasoning, then stand by for part 2, which is really the punchline. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 20 19:20:24 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:20:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI Website - Your Comments In-Reply-To: <4357E2AA.5080302@goldenfuture.net> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051020130613.01c6c4d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4357E2AA.5080302@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051020141856.01ce5518@pop-server.satx.rr.com> >>> http://www.extropy.org >> >>The very first thing we see on the banner is: >> >> The original >> Transhumanis > >Shows up as "The original Transhumanism" fine on my browser (Firefox 1.0.6 >on a screen set to 1400x1050). Ah. Interesting. The hazards of being half blind and needing a big font. Thanks for clarifying! Damien Broderick From astapp at amazeent.com Thu Oct 20 19:56:37 2005 From: astapp at amazeent.com (Acy James Stapp) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:56:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain Message-ID: <437623CE9CFE7E409243C5E427BA8C81D00F@AMAZEMAIL.amazeent.com> 1/6, since there is only one side of the six sides that has a tail opposite. Coin Side HH H* HH H* HT H* HT T TT T TT T Clearly the coin you picked is one of the two starred coins. Out of the three Options provided, only one has a tail opposite. Acy -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 2:06 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain You have a bag containing three coins: a double headed, a double tailed and an ordinary coin. You reach into the bag without looking, take one out and place it on the table. You see a head facing up. What is the probability that the other side is a tail? At first you think: simple, the probability that you chose the ordinary coin is one of three, so its simply 1/3. But on the other hand, when you looked at the coin, you learned that you did not choose the double tail; that one you know is still in the bag. So you chose either the double head or the ordinary coin, equal probability of each, so its fifty-fifty even bet that the other side is a tail. But you already know that the probability of picking the ordinary coin is 1/3, and looking at the coin did not magically change that, right? Perhaps you came up with a different answer than either 1/3 or 1/2. Think on this puzzle, post your answer and your reasoning, then stand by for part 2, which is really the punchline. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Oct 20 20:01:07 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:01:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 2: the bayesian angle In-Reply-To: <200510201906.j9KJ6Le21057@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200510202001.j9KK16e27621@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain > > You have a bag containing three coins: a double headed, > a double tailed and an ordinary coin. You reach into > the bag without looking, take one out and place it on > the table. You see a head facing up. > > What is the probability that the other side is a tail?... > > spike Suppose you are taking a class in Bayesian reasoning. Your professor decides your grade based on competition with the other students: a third of the class will get an A, a third gets a B, a third a C. Your grade is based on a take-home multiple choice test, ten questions like the coins example above, four possible responses to each. The trick is this: instead of adding up the number of correct responses in the normal (boring) way, on this test you will assign a probability or confidence level to each possible response. Then your score will be determined by taking the *product* of your assigned probability to each correct answer. For instance, if the three coins example above had the following choices: a) 1/2 b) 1/3 c) 0 d) something other than these You immediately know that choice c) is wrong (clearly there is some possibility of a tail) so that answer gets p(c)=0. You are pretty sure the answer is b) 1/3, but you could be wrong; there is an admittedly suspect line of reasoning that leads to choice (a). So you assign the probabilities p(b)=0.7 and p(a)=0.3, so p(d)=0. Now you recognize that if you are wrong and somehow choice (d) is correct, then you get 0 for that question, so your overall score on the test is a mighty goose egg, since your final score is the product of your assigned probabilities on each correct answer. It wouldn't cost your final score much to give choice (d) some kind of epsilon, say .001 just as insurance against the zonk, right? The class is graded as a competition with the other students, and you know the self-confident hot-ass Bayesian theorist will assign p=1 to each of her responses. If she is right on all, she scores an impressive 1, bur if she misses even one, she gets a goose egg. The timid probability non-grokker always-loses-at-poker guy will not even read the test, but rather assigns p=.25 to everything, then answers randomly, for a score of (.25)^10 or about 1e-6. A monkey could do that well, but he might beat the Baysian grokmeister if she goofs even one. Otherwise probably last. Several students might get all the answers right, but their scores would still differ: the cocksure Bayes-babe wins if she in that group, since she bet it all. Have you any suggestions for an overall strategy on such a test? Is there some systematic way for expressing your epsilon probabilities? You don't want to lose to the monkey, that would be embarrassing. Eliezer, how now? spike From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Thu Oct 20 20:05:12 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:05:12 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain In-Reply-To: <437623CE9CFE7E409243C5E427BA8C81D00F@AMAZEMAIL.amazeent.com> References: <437623CE9CFE7E409243C5E427BA8C81D00F@AMAZEMAIL.amazeent.com> Message-ID: It's 1/3, because in the table the last three options must be excluded altogether (you don't see a tail). Of the remaining three, only one has a tail on the other side. Alfio On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Acy James Stapp wrote: > 1/6, since there is only one side of the six sides that has a tail > opposite. > > Coin Side > HH H* > HH H* > HT H* > HT T > TT T > TT T > > Clearly the coin you picked is one of the two starred coins. Out of the > three > Options provided, only one has a tail opposite. > > Acy > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 2:06 PM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain > > > You have a bag containing three coins: a double headed, > a double tailed and an ordinary coin. You reach into > the bag without looking, take one out and place it on > the table. You see a head facing up. > > What is the probability that the other side is a tail? > > At first you think: simple, the probability that you chose > the ordinary coin is one of three, so its simply 1/3. But > on the other hand, when you looked at the coin, you learned > that you did not choose the double tail; that one you know > is still in the bag. So you chose either the double head > or the ordinary coin, equal probability of each, so its > fifty-fifty even bet that the other side is a tail. > > But you already know that the probability of picking the ordinary coin > is 1/3, and looking at the coin did not magically change that, right? > Perhaps you came up with a different answer than either 1/3 or 1/2. > > Think on this puzzle, post your answer and your reasoning, > then stand by for part 2, which is really the punchline. > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 nanogirl at halcyon.com Thu Oct 20 20:17:17 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:17:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI Website - Your Comments References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <007801c5d5b3$4bfc5ee0$0400a8c0@Nano> I love it. I like the color scheme and the navigation, it has a very nice look. Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org ; exi-la at lists.extropy.org Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 9:47 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI Website - Your Comments Extropes, Transhumanists, futurists and all other list members - What do you think about the content, look and feel of Extropy Institute's website located at http://www.extropy.org We launched the new site two months ago and so far, so good. But I would like to hear from you, as your opinions and insights are valuable to us. Please send your thoughts directly to me at natasha at extropy.org Once I receive a dozen comments, I will post them to the list for further review and commentary. Thanks for working with us to realize Extropy's future. We will be making more and more changes before the end of the year and I want to make sure that the Board is fully addressing your needs, concerns, and your vision for the future. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Thu Oct 20 20:58:15 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:58:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 2: the bayesian angle In-Reply-To: <200510202001.j9KK16e27621@tick.javien.com> References: <200510202001.j9KK16e27621@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <435804E7.7030903@pobox.com> spike wrote: > > Several students might get all the answers right, > but their scores would still differ: the cocksure > Bayes-babe wins if she in that group, since she > bet it all. > > Have you any suggestions for an overall strategy > on such a test? Is there some systematic way for > expressing your epsilon probabilities? You don't > want to lose to the monkey, that would be > embarrassing. Eliezer, how now? Heh, nice try. Probabilities exist in the mind, not in reality. There is no such thing as the probability of a probability. You can assign probabilities over long-run frequencies, probabilities over mixes of Everett branches, probabilities over background physical parameters that you can only approximate as producing 'random' frequencies, and - closest to what you had in mind - the probability of a fixed computation producing an output. For example, you could take a fixed program whose outputs are intended to represent Bayesian computations of probability, and ask after your subjective probability that the computation returns the string "1/2" or "1/3". But in the problem as you pose it, it is meaningless to ask whether the coin's other side 'really' has a probability of tails of 1/3, or a probability of tails of 1/2. The other side is either really tails, or really heads. You can ask about the probability that the professor thinks the probability is 1/3. Suppose you have a probability of epsilon that the professor thinks the answer is 1/2; or that an ideal computation calculating Bayesian probabilities from the information given in some standardized format would return the output "1/2". This doesn't mean your probability that the coin is tails is more than 1/3. You could attach an equal and balancing epsilon to the probability that an ideal computation returns the answer "1/6". Thus the amount you bet on the actual coin's actual other side being actually tails is still 1/3. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Thu Oct 20 20:59:55 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:59:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 2: the bayesian angle In-Reply-To: <200510202001.j9KK16e27621@tick.javien.com> References: <200510202001.j9KK16e27621@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4358054B.8050105@pobox.com> spike wrote: > > For instance, if the three coins example above had > the following choices: > > a) 1/2 > b) 1/3 > c) 0 > d) something other than these > > You immediately know that choice c) is wrong (clearly > there is some possibility of a tail) so that answer > gets p(c)=0. PS: You might want to think about that logic a bit more carefully. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 21:05:58 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:05:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 2: the bayesian angle In-Reply-To: <200510202001.j9KK16e27621@tick.javien.com> References: <200510201906.j9KJ6Le21057@tick.javien.com> <200510202001.j9KK16e27621@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510201405g61b20bfapb9bc50d592f72c94@mail.gmail.com> On 10/20/05, spike wrote: > > Have you any suggestions for an overall strategy > on such a test? Is there some systematic way for > expressing your epsilon probabilities? You don't > want to lose to the monkey, that would be > embarrassing. Eliezer, how now? This is analogous to one of those blind auctions, where you want to do better than the other contestants, and have to guess what strategy they'll use. I'm not in the mood for crunching numbers right now since I've spent all day crunching program code (so while I think the coin answer is 1/3, I'll let someone else plug the numbers into Bayes' formula to check if I'm right) but... One element of strategy for this is to go a little higher than natural break points. Don't bid $100, bid $101. Or if you think other people are wise to that trick, bid $102... it depends on who you're competing against. (Also on your utility function - is it more important to try and come first, or avoid the risk of coming last?) It also depends on how good you think the other guys are. If they're all hotshot Bayesians with IQs of 160 and no social life so they'll be spending all evening triple checking their answers, you'd better go for broke and take your chances. If you're up against a class of monkeys, you can afford to give yourself more margin. I'd probably run this as an evolutionary simulation if I wanted some more definite answers. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Thu Oct 20 21:04:15 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:04:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 2: the bayesian angle In-Reply-To: <200510202001.j9KK16e27621@tick.javien.com> References: <200510202001.j9KK16e27621@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4358064F.8050805@pobox.com> spike wrote: > > Suppose you are taking a class in Bayesian reasoning. > > Your professor decides your grade based on competition > with the other students: a third of the class will get > an A, a third gets a B, a third a C. PPS: This aspect renders the entire problem one of game theory, not probability theory. Your optimum strategy depends on the strategy pursued by other players. What you write down *depends* on the probability you assign to the professor thinking each of the given answers is correct, but it does not *equal* the probability you assign to the professor thinking that answer is correct. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 21:18:54 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:18:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 2: the bayesian angle In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510201405g61b20bfapb9bc50d592f72c94@mail.gmail.com> References: <200510201906.j9KJ6Le21057@tick.javien.com> <200510202001.j9KK16e27621@tick.javien.com> <8d71341e0510201405g61b20bfapb9bc50d592f72c94@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510201418l1029224h320f70818be08683@mail.gmail.com> On 10/20/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > > I'd probably run this as an evolutionary simulation if I wanted some more > definite answers. Actually I'll go further and recommend it as an interesting sample problem if anyone's looking to practise their skill in that area, or is intending to teach or write a how-to document about it, or knows anyone else who is; it packs a lot of subtlety into a small space. I'd definitely snag it if I was teaching Intro to AI or something like that. Nicely coined, Spike! (No pun intended :)) - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Oct 20 22:15:00 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:15:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI Website - Your Comments In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051020130613.01c6c4d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051020130613.01c6c4d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020171335.030120d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 01:08 PM 10/20/2005, you wrote: >At 11:47 AM 10/20/2005 -0500, N wrote: > >>Extropes, Transhumanists, futurists and all other list members - >>What do you think about the content, look and feel of Extropy Institute's >>website located at http://www.extropy.org > >The very first thing we see on the banner is: > > The original > Transhumanis > >Is that meant to be "Transhumanists"? "Transhumans"? "Transhumani"? It says "transhumanism". Maybe youur browser is not picking up the full word. Try again. Thanks, Natasha >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From joel.pitt at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 01:45:12 2005 From: joel.pitt at gmail.com (Joel Peter William Pitt) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:45:12 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI Website - Your Comments In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020171335.030120d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051020130613.01c6c4d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051020171335.030120d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: Don't know if it is just me but it doesn't feel the intuitive to me. Things are not quite in the right place, the title page is too busy - I think having news, projects and about Extropy Inst. all on the one page is too much. Projects should be on their own page, or only link the the names of the projects to fuller descriptions. I'm also not a fan of the double sidebar. Also the events page have the events on the timeline going from most recent to the past. Which feels weird, but maybe I'm just used to timelines going from past to future, left to right. Sorry to be so critical, but I do think ease of use is important for getting new people interested. -Joel On 10/21/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > At 01:08 PM 10/20/2005, you wrote: > >At 11:47 AM 10/20/2005 -0500, N wrote: > > > >>Extropes, Transhumanists, futurists and all other list members - > >>What do you think about the content, look and feel of Extropy > Institute's > >>website located at http://www.extropy.org > > > >The very first thing we see on the banner is: > > > > The original > > Transhumanis > > > >Is that meant to be "Transhumanists"? "Transhumans"? "Transhumani"? > > It says "transhumanism". Maybe youur browser is not picking up the full > word. Try again. > > Thanks, > Natasha > > >_______________________________________________ > >extropy-chat mailing list > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bradbury at aeiveos.com Fri Oct 21 02:51:28 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:51:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rice nanocar Message-ID: Its not a fine motion controller, but it would still appear to be a pretty significant chemical synthesis accomplishment which produces something which really begins to fit with the ideas behind "molecular nanotechnology". Scientists build world's first single-molecule car http://www.physorg.com/news7438.html This is really going to start to deflate those who claim "it can't be done"! It will be nice to find out exactly how many people were involved and for how long as that will give us parameters to estimate the people/cost requirements for more complex efforts using this approach. Robert From transcend at extropica.com Fri Oct 21 04:58:33 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:58:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI Website - Your Comments In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <002301c5d5fc$16c87d00$24ec4542@eschaton> I had to randomly guess how to sub to this list based on experience with majordomo in the past. Under "Resources -> Global -> Extropy-Chat" there is no link to "how to subscribe." I like the layout of the rest. Bring back the magazine. We need a magazine. Maybe a webzine (collection of writings from bloggers, etc?). Brandon -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 11:48 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org; exi-la at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI Website - Your Comments Extropes, Transhumanists, futurists and all other list members - What do you think about the content, look and feel of Extropy Institute's website located at http://www.extropy.org We launched the new site two months ago and so far, so good. But I would like to hear from you, as your opinions and insights are valuable to us. Please send your thoughts directly to me at natasha at extropy.org Once I receive a dozen comments, I will post them to the list for further review and commentary. Thanks for working with us to realize Extropy's future. We will be making more and more changes before the end of the year and I want to make sure that the Board is fully addressing your needs, concerns, and your vision for the future. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transcend at extropica.com Fri Oct 21 05:17:27 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:17:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain In-Reply-To: <200510201906.j9KJ6Le21057@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <000001c5d5fe$ba47e310$24ec4542@eschaton> > What is the probability that the other side is a tail? This sounds like a problem for Bayes Theorem. p(A|X) = p(X|A) * p(A) / ( p(X|A)*p(A) + p(X|~A)*p(~A) ) Coins: H/H, T/T, H/T A - The bottom is a tail. X - The top is a head. p(A|X) = The probability that the bottom of the coin is a tail, when the top is a head. p(A) - Prior probability (likelihood with no new information) that the bottom of any coin drawn will be a tail: 50% (there are 6 sides total, 3 heads, 3 tails). P(~A) - Prior probability that the bottom of any coin drawn will be a head: 50%. p(X|A) - 33% of coins with a bottom tail will have a top head. p(X|~A) - 33% of coins with a bottom not a tail will have a top head. P(A|X) = 33% * 50% / ( 33%*50% + 33%*50% ) = 0.165 / ( 0.165 + 0.165 ) = 0.165 / 0.33 = 0.5 The likelihood that the coin drawn has a tail on the other side is 50%. In fact, the information we are given (that we see a head) doesn't help us at all. It is completely irrelevant information (as far as probability is concerned). Brandon -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 2:06 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain You have a bag containing three coins: a double headed, a double tailed and an ordinary coin. You reach into the bag without looking, take one out and place it on the table. You see a head facing up. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 05:57:59 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:27:59 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rice nanocar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <710b78fc0510202257i4c9c36b7o@mail.gmail.com> That's the coolest thing I've seen all day, thanks Robert. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * On 21/10/05, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > > Its not a fine motion controller, but it would still appear > to be a pretty significant chemical synthesis accomplishment > which produces something which really begins to fit with the > ideas behind "molecular nanotechnology". > > Scientists build world's first single-molecule car > http://www.physorg.com/news7438.html > > This is really going to start to deflate those who > claim "it can't be done"! It will be nice to find > out exactly how many people were involved and for how > long as that will give us parameters to estimate the > people/cost requirements for more complex efforts using > this approach. > > Robert > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From marc.geddes at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 06:26:08 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:26:08 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain Message-ID: <7a5e56060510202326w55999a70ra69cbb74796a831f@mail.gmail.com> Wow, you guys are way too clever in the ways of Bayesian probability theory for me! ;) I shall none the less post a couple of very simple problems, which, I'm sure, with your august and vastly superior knowledge of Bayes, you'll all have no problem in answering. Marc's problem set: Using the correct Bayesian extension's for mathematical reasoning, please tell me the likelihood probabilities for each of these pieces of evidence that the Riemann hypotheses is true: (1) Hardy's 1914 result that all infinitely many zeros lie on the critical line. (2) The RH implies the PNT, which is known to be true. (3) "Denjoy's probabilistic interpretation"?that is, the coin-tossing argument (4) Another 1914 theorem by Landau and Harald Bohr, stating that most zeros?all but an infinitesimal proportion?are very close to the critical line. (5) The algebraic results of Artin, Weil, and Deligne Now, combining the probabilities for 1-5, please tell me the correct Bayesian probability that the Riemann hypotheses is true. Thanks! Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.geddes at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 06:21:06 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:21:06 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain Message-ID: <7a5e56060510202321i6f66f411ida5bdc94294bf65f@mail.gmail.com> Wow, you guys are way too clever in the ways of Bayesian probablity theory for me! ;) I shall none the less post a couple of very simple problems, which, I'm sure, with your august and vastly superior knowledge of Bayes, you'll all have no problem in answering. Marc's problem set: Using the correct Bayesian extension's for mathematical reasoning, please tell me the likelihood probabilities for each of these pieces of evidence that the Riemann hypotheses is true: (1) Hardy's 1914 result that all infinitely many zeros lie on the critical line. (2) The RH implies the PNT, which is known to be true. (3) "Denjoy's probabilistic interpretation"?that is, the coin-tossing argument (4) Another 1914 theorem by Landau and Harald Bohr, stating that most zeros?all but an infinitesimal proportion?are very close to the critical line. (5) The algebraic results of Artin, Weil, and Deligne Now, combining the probabilities for 1-5, please tell me the correct Bayesian probability that the Riemann hypotheses is true. Thanks! Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.geddes at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 07:46:13 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:46:13 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] New paper by David Chalmer's definitively squashing materialism Message-ID: <7a5e56060510210046l404e54t4e1dc30832a72de0@mail.gmail.com> Yeah! (Marc gives the up-yours sign to SL4) "This paper is intended to be the definitive version of the two-dimensional argument, being maximally explicit about details and replying to many of the objections that have been raised in the literature in the last ten years or so." http://consc.net/papers/2dargument.html The paper inspired a song with music to accompany it: *Two Sides Now* ** Folds of lobes beneath the hair reuptake serotonin there? C fibers firing everywhere? I've thought of brains that way. But I conceive them making puns, and sobbing, singing, having fun? with nothing mental getting done? it's just a brain's array. I've thought of brains from two sides now with mind inside a zombie's brow? but that's delusion I forestall? a zombie cannot think?at all! Incorrigible inner spiel, the irrefutable raw feel, conflation of ideal with real? I've thought of minds that way. But how a thermostat could know how high a heating bill should go, a little stupid so-and-so with widest content, eh? I've thought of minds from two sides now the *a priori* tells me how to strongarm Armstrong's view to fall? it cannot speak for minds?at all. "Possible" comes in two brands, one gives us paws (instead of hands!), the other Kripke understands? I see the world that way. So I conclude I have two sides? my one can kiss, one fantasize? which no zombie could cognize (though zombies still could date!). I see the world from two sides now, that brains exist I must allow, but mind's inclusion in them calls for double-aspect view?of all! http://www.manitowoc.uwc.edu/staff/awhite/phisong.htm#2sides -- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From outlawpoet at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 10:43:51 2005 From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 03:43:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] New paper by David Chalmer's definitively squashing materialism In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060510210046l404e54t4e1dc30832a72de0@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060510210046l404e54t4e1dc30832a72de0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3ad827f30510210343q5ae08b7m2be65265a8ca7d4d@mail.gmail.com> On 10/21/05, Marc Geddes wrote: > Yeah! (Marc gives the up-yours sign to SL4) > > "This paper is intended to be the definitive version of the two-dimensional > argument, being maximally explicit about details and replying to many of the > objections that have been raised in the literature in the last ten years or > so." Er, you are aware that this isn't the SL4 list, right? I understand that you seem to have been driven out of there, but I'm rather at a loss why you would crow to the Extropy list about scoring points against some unidentified portion of the SL4 list. Now, in terms of quashing materialism. You are aware that he's just using modal logic here to support rather old arguments, right? Because you're well versed in the rich and bizarre history of analytic philosophy. The primary argument in this paper is a version of the Lob Theorem, expressed as Modal logic, if x is concievable, then x is possible. He cleverly constructs the argument such that this extension proves that materialism is false. However, this argument contains no descriminatory power, because you can easily construct the identical argument to prove that dualism is false, by inverting some of the terms. It would remain just as true, and just as pointless. It's no more special than the teleological arguments for the existence of god by neccesary qualities. Again, Chalmers depends on semantic logic to prove a quality which is a prerequisite of the argument he's making. if P&~Q is so, in a world without phenomenological phenomena, his arguments work exactly the same as they would in a world with phenomenlogical phenomena. They don't actually descriminate, which is why he ends up having muck around with the idea that ~Q can't be a positive truth, but rather a negative possibility, to prevent the argument from being symmetrical. He gives no reasons for this, aside from some quibbling about a conscious being's ability to concieve positively of zombies. Unfortunately this kind of wide-eyed 'proofs' are very common in philosophy. The mere act of 'saying' a string of logical statements does not cause any selection or change in the world. It's only when those statements are grounded, and the logical rules used correspond to grounded mechanics, that they are useful. This is of course a materialist argument, but it has the attraction of historical success, whereas logical consistency only has internal confirmation. -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Fri Oct 21 14:25:04 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:25:04 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] OT - gmail Message-ID: Please excuse the offtopic and the blatant request :-) Does anyone has a gmail invite available? I decided to dump the other webmails I'm using, and since it has POP3 it would be a good choice. Alfio From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 14:33:48 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:33:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] OT - gmail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/21/05, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > > Please excuse the offtopic and the blatant request :-) > > Does anyone has a gmail invite available? I decided to dump the other > webmails I'm using, and since it has POP3 it would be a good choice. > Done! BillK From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Fri Oct 21 14:36:05 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:36:05 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] OT - gmail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ok, I got three or four invitations in less than 2 minutes. I picked one at random - thanks! Alfio On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > > Please excuse the offtopic and the blatant request :-) > > Does anyone has a gmail invite available? I decided to dump the other webmails > I'm using, and since it has POP3 it would be a good choice. > > Alfio > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From jonkc at att.net Fri Oct 21 15:10:52 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:10:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain. References: <200510202001.j9KK16e27621@tick.javien.com> <435804E7.7030903@pobox.com> Message-ID: <056901c5d651$c7f93420$e7f14d0c@MyComputer> "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" > Probabilities exist in the mind, not in reality. Before the quantum revolution we could say that with great confidence, now I'd say the probability is it's probably untrue that probabilities exist in the mind, not in reality. Probably. I think. > There is no such thing as the probability of a probability. But there does exist the square root of a probability, it's the quantum wave function; And being a square root means it can and does have negative terms in it and even imaginary terms, and that means the quantum wave function is not a scalar like simple probability but a vector with an intensity and a direction, and that means you can not just add up 2 independent probabilities to figure the probability that both will happen the way we usually do, and that means two very different wave functions can yield the same probabilities, and that means we can't do things the way common sense would dictate. And that's why the quantum world is so weird. John K Clark From xyz at iq.org Fri Oct 21 17:09:20 2005 From: xyz at iq.org (Julian Assange) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:09:20 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain. In-Reply-To: <056901c5d651$c7f93420$e7f14d0c@MyComputer> References: <200510202001.j9KK16e27621@tick.javien.com> <435804E7.7030903@pobox.com> <056901c5d651$c7f93420$e7f14d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <1129914560.1399.245718621@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:10:52 -0400, "John K Clark" said: > "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" > > > Probabilities exist in the mind, not in reality. > > Before the quantum revolution we could say that with great confidence, > now I'd say the probability is it's probably untrue that probabilities > exist > in the mind, not in reality. Probably. I think. I don't think probabilities exist `in reality', but rather probabilies reflect our lack of knowledge and reality puts constraints on our ability to acquire knowledge. You might argue that the difference is philosophical and it is, but looking at it this way requires one less assumption so seems more useful. From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Oct 21 17:40:17 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:40:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Article: Computer designed software better than human designed Message-ID: <00be01c5d666$806702d0$0100a8c0@kevin> Looks like computers are already starting to design better software than we can. :-) http://www.physorg.com/news6207.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Oct 21 17:46:18 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:46:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Why so little real interest in Intelligent Homes? Message-ID: <4359296A.2060604@mindspring.com> >INTELLIGENT homes where curtains can be drawn at the push of a button, >ovens switched on by phone and the housework done by robotic vacuum >cleaners are not that far off in the future, research claimed today. Quite a few of the ideas put forth in the smart home concept are just asinine, you have to wonder what these people are huffing. Take the above-mentioned remote-control oven. Please. This is often imagined as an oven you can control over the net. OK, even if we pretend that the security issues have magically gone away, we're left with one question: why would ANYone want such a thing? The people who talk about such things with wide-eyed wonder seem to assume that people are gonna throw dinner in the smart oven before they leave for work in the morning, and then ping the oven in the afternoon to turn it on so a nice hot dinner is waiting when they get home. On the surface, this sounds really keen. But how many things are there you can have for dinner that would survive such an experience? Lotsa things would go bad sitting out all day, other recipes would be dramatically altered by sitting around so long before cooking. And how many non-morons out there are REALLY comfortable with the notion of having their oven roaring away with nobody in the house to watch it? I'm currently working on a development tool for DLNA, the new gee-whiz standard that's gonna make all the electronics in your house live in harmony and communicate seamlessly. It's bullshit, of course. Different interpretations of the "standard" by different manufacturers--and even by different divisions within a single company---will ensure that getting any two random devices to even acknowledge each other's existence, let alone communicate, will be every bit as easy as writing a custom device driver and getting it to work on a modified Linux installation running on a home-built bitslice PDA (and let's not even MENTION what increasingly-greedy and fascist DRM is gonna do to this pie-in-the-sky). But hey, as long as they keep paying me.... Dave Palmer -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From xyz at iq.org Fri Oct 21 18:02:37 2005 From: xyz at iq.org (Julian Assange) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 04:02:37 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Perfect recall. In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051010081715.03009440@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20051010004350.62820.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45666ee68224772010e1de70b19c064c@HarveyNewstrom.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051009225042.02e5f598@mail.gmu.edu> <7c9c10704c9607c14286c40a321bc2db@HarveyNewstrom.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051010072228.02e65a68@mail.gmu.edu> <097701c5cd93$1ee1ac80$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20051010081715.03009440@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <1129917757.7570.245722353@webmail.messagingengine.com> Storage costs are now such that I can record all my audio input, some visual input (say one frame a minute) heart rate and acceleration for the predictable future. Can anyone suggest a likeweight wearable computing device I can use as a recording backbone? It should be able to survive for 24 hours without batteries. One can imagine future versions of such devices will lead to detemporalized experience and an industry based around the acquisition, indexing and sharing of such sense stores and consultants who specialise in selective overwrites prior to sense store trading ceremonies at weddings, engagements and supreme court appointments. From scerir at libero.it Fri Oct 21 18:10:20 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:10:20 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain. References: <200510202001.j9KK16e27621@tick.javien.com><435804E7.7030903@pobox.com> <056901c5d651$c7f93420$e7f14d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <00a201c5d66a$b334b320$03c31b97@administxl09yj> From: "Julian Assange" > I don't think probabilities exist 'in reality', > but rather probabilities reflect our lack of knowledge > and reality puts constraints on our ability > to acquire knowledge. A probability statement (in general) referes to future events. Sometimes I like to think that probability is the (necessarily subjective) expectation value of some relative frequency, or, in different words, that probability is the predicted relative frequency. If the above is true, there must be some 'process' by which a (subjective) prediction (or a subjective expectation value) becomes actual, becomes the relative frequency. When this 'process' is seen as a property of a physical system (better: a property of a quantum system plus its context), it becomes a 'propensity' (in Popper's terms), or a 'potentiality' (in Heisenberg). Notice that when we write something like |cat dead>, or |spin up>, very often we should not mean anything 'real', anything 'ontic', since the measurement is still to be performed, and since (in many cases, but not always) our assumption that the result of the measurement of a certain operator A depends on the state of the specific quantum object we are measuring, and nothing else, is flawed ('contextuality' problem). s. From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 21 18:19:21 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:19:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051021131826.01d4f6e0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Is there any reason to trust such survey? Dunno. Anyway: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005480422,00.html 10-20-05 We Believe In Aliens By PETE BELL Sun Online Science fiction staples like time travel and human teleportation will be possible in the future... At least that's what a large proportion of the British public think, according to a new survey. It found a third believed time travel - as seen on Dr Who - would be possible in the future. More than a quarter thought black holes could one day form the gateway to another universe. A fifth believed Star Trek-style teleportation might become a reality. And an amazing 12 per cent believed in the possibility that we were living in a Matrix-type parallel world situated alongside another. [!] The survey, commissioned by UKTV Gold also discovered the following beliefs: - Some 19 per cent believed scientists would one day be able to bring back bodies to life after freezing them in liquid nitrogen - Almost two-thirds were convinced humans have the capacity for ESP (Extra Sensory Perception) or a sixth sense enabling them to see into the future - A quarter believed in aliens - 40 per cent thought tales of alien abduction held some truth - 34 per cent thought the Government has hidden information about extraterrestrial activity, scientific developments or UFO sightings UKTV Gold's channel editor Red Johnson said: "Before we scoff too much, we must remember the 'factoids', the science fiction myths, which have come true. "It would be difficult now to imagine a world without the all- pervasive internet, yet the concept of cyberspace was first suggested in William Gibson?s 1984 novel Neuromancer. "So it could be that in a few years we could all be like Dr Who travelling through time." The survey was carried out for the launch of Doctor Who week on UKTV Gold starting on October 23. From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Oct 21 18:21:08 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Perfect recall. In-Reply-To: <1129917757.7570.245722353@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <20051021182108.57090.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> Three problems with that system - one possibly easy to fix, the second harder but more of an inconvenience than a problem, and the third a bit of a stumper but possibly acceptable while we're waiting for direct neural interfaces to become available: 1. Playback mechanism. Audio and visual playback have been done. Acceleration (including different accelerations for different parts of the body) can kind of be played back via haptics, but that's currently at a fairly primitive level compared to audio/video. (And that's assuming differences between different people will not present a problem. Hieght/build differences seem easy to get around, but e.g. erotic content - which, if you check the history of other recording media, is likely to finance a great deal of this system - might be difficult to translate from male recorder to female playback or vice versa.) Heart rate is most often sensed internally, where most people would not want playback hardware inserted (and where it would be costly to do for those who are okay with it). 2. Playback time. Playing these memories back, so they can be transmitted into someone else's memories, takes as much time as the original did to experience. Perhaps the memories can be edited into just the highlights to partially alleviate this, but certain experiences really do require long sessions to properly experience. (A rested person will have a hard time relating to an out-of-breath marathon runner crossing the finish line, at least without consciously applying filters to the experience.) 3. Playback intent. We are in all kinds of mental states throughout the day, but someone playing a memory back is probably intent on playing that memory back. Would this not create a fundamentally different qualia of experience than what the original recorder experienced? --- Julian Assange wrote: > Storage costs are now such that I can record all my audio input, some > visual input (say one frame a minute) heart rate and acceleration for > the predictable future. > > Can anyone suggest a likeweight wearable computing device I can use > as a > recording backbone? It should be able to survive for 24 hours without > batteries. > > One can imagine future versions of such devices will lead to > detemporalized experience and an industry based around the > acquisition, > indexing and sharing of such sense stores and consultants who > specialise > in selective overwrites prior to sense store trading ceremonies at > weddings, engagements and supreme court appointments. From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Oct 21 18:31:47 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] archeologist VS restorative alternatives In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020111601.02ecaf68@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051021183147.48132.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Especially with the military aggressively learning applications of > new > technologies. The lengths they go to save/protect lives shows that > cryonics simply is not on the radar screen. Their idea is to get soldiers back into service for *today's* wars, not a war many decades from now. Besides, even if cryo were on the radar screen, why not try to keep the soldier alive and save cryo for the absolute last ditch effort? (Short of measures that destroy the body beyond possibility of effective cryo - but such measures tend to kill the user anyway. There don't tend to be many if any "good chance of cryo or poor chance of staying alive" tradeoffs in the situations they face.) From eugen at leitl.org Fri Oct 21 18:52:21 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:52:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Perfect recall. In-Reply-To: <1129917757.7570.245722353@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20051010004350.62820.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45666ee68224772010e1de70b19c064c@HarveyNewstrom.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051009225042.02e5f598@mail.gmu.edu> <7c9c10704c9607c14286c40a321bc2db@HarveyNewstrom.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051010072228.02e65a68@mail.gmu.edu> <097701c5cd93$1ee1ac80$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20051010081715.03009440@mail.gmu.edu> <1129917757.7570.245722353@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <20051021185221.GV2249@leitl.org> On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 04:02:37AM +1000, Julian Assange wrote: > > Storage costs are now such that I can record all my audio input, some > visual input (say one frame a minute) heart rate and acceleration for > the predictable future. Not portable storage costs, though. You'll have to sync periodically. > Can anyone suggest a likeweight wearable computing device I can use as a > recording backbone? It should be able to survive for 24 hours without > batteries. What is your understanding of lightweight? You just specified a whopping 24 hours of untethered operation, and enough performance to store compressed picture (but at just one frame/minute? and which resolution?). FWIW, I don't think you can comfortably carry around more than 8-12 h worth of notebook-grade performance (with head-up display; considerably less with notebook display on -- keyword is clamshell mode). If you're looking for a commercial device, prepare to spend more than 5 k$. You can assemble your own for a lot less, using vendors like http://www.tekgear.ca/ On the other hand, PDAs now come with Bluetooth, WiFi and built-in cameras and GPS (you probably do better with a Bluetooth GPS velcroed to your shoulder, or your hat), and could be easily operated for 24 hours with a belt-worn battery pack. But, no head-up nor HMD, and no easy way to interface a video camera headset. > One can imagine future versions of such devices will lead to > detemporalized experience and an industry based around the acquisition, > indexing and sharing of such sense stores and consultants who specialise > in selective overwrites prior to sense store trading ceremonies at > weddings, engagements and supreme court appointments. Some of us have been waiting for this since the VR craze, and since Private Eye was hot new hardware. Impatience has long given way to detached amusement. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Oct 21 19:02:15 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:02:15 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] archeologist VS restorative alternatives In-Reply-To: <20051021183147.48132.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020111601.02ecaf68@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20051021183147.48132.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051021190215.GW2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 11:31:47AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Their idea is to get soldiers back into service for *today's* wars, not > a war many decades from now. Besides, even if cryo were on the radar Actually, the U.S. military is very actively looking into inducing hypothermia in the field, as well as aggressive hemorrhage management with blood substitutes (for obvious reasons: the public can't stomach too many boys in body bags). There is thus considerable overlap in interest between critical care in the field and the first stage of cryonics: namely stabilizing the patient. > screen, why not try to keep the soldier alive and save cryo for the > absolute last ditch effort? (Short of measures that destroy the body > beyond possibility of effective cryo - but such measures tend to kill Cryopreservation is only legal if you're pronounced dead first. > the user anyway. There don't tend to be many if any "good chance of > cryo or poor chance of staying alive" tradeoffs in the situations they > face.) -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From James.Rayburn at chw.edu Fri Oct 21 19:04:33 2005 From: James.Rayburn at chw.edu (Rayburn, James) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:04:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain Message-ID: I generally like to read these threads, not interject. However, I couldn't hold back. T/T and T/H are non-possibilities. The only possibilities are H/H, H/H, and H/T. p(X|~A)=66% Re-crunch you get 33%, Which is the answer I've seen in previous incarnations of the question. Once taken to 10,000 trials with the three coins. Their outcome was 33%. I like it here. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Brandon Reinhart [mailto:transcend at extropica.com] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:17 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain > What is the probability that the other side is a tail? This sounds like a problem for Bayes Theorem. p(A|X) = p(X|A) * p(A) / ( p(X|A)*p(A) + p(X|~A)*p(~A) ) Coins: H/H, T/T, H/T A - The bottom is a tail. X - The top is a head. p(A|X) = The probability that the bottom of the coin is a tail, when the top is a head. p(A) - Prior probability (likelihood with no new information) that the bottom of any coin drawn will be a tail: 50% (there are 6 sides total, 3 heads, 3 tails). P(~A) - Prior probability that the bottom of any coin drawn will be a head: 50%. p(X|A) - 33% of coins with a bottom tail will have a top head. p(X|~A) - 33% of coins with a bottom not a tail will have a top head. P(A|X) = 33% * 50% / ( 33%*50% + 33%*50% ) = 0.165 / ( 0.165 + 0.165 ) = 0.165 / 0.33 = 0.5 The likelihood that the coin drawn has a tail on the other side is 50%. In fact, the information we are given (that we see a head) doesn't help us at all. It is completely irrelevant information (as far as probability is concerned). Brandon -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 2:06 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain You have a bag containing three coins: a double headed, a double tailed and an ordinary coin. You reach into the bag without looking, take one out and place it on the table. You see a head facing up. _______________________________________________ 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 sentience at pobox.com Fri Oct 21 19:27:43 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:27:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain In-Reply-To: <000001c5d5fe$ba47e310$24ec4542@eschaton> References: <000001c5d5fe$ba47e310$24ec4542@eschaton> Message-ID: <4359412F.1030206@pobox.com> Brandon Reinhart wrote: >>What is the probability that the other side is a tail? > > This sounds like a problem for Bayes Theorem. Yup. > The likelihood that the coin drawn has a tail on the other side is 50%. In > fact, the information we are given (that we see a head) doesn't help us at > all. It is completely irrelevant information (as far as probability is > concerned). Sorry, no. If a double-headed coin is drawn, it is twice as likely to make us see a head as an ordinary coin. That affects the prior odds. You may want to read this: http://yudkowsky.net/bayes/bayes.html -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From megao at sasktel.net Fri Oct 21 19:30:49 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:30:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] archeologist VS restorative alternatives In-Reply-To: <20051021190215.GW2249@leitl.org> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020111601.02ecaf68@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20051021183147.48132.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <20051021190215.GW2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <435941E9.9020707@sasktel.net> Eugen Leitl wrote: > <>On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 11:31:47AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > <>screen, why not try to keep the soldier alive and save cryo for the > absolute last ditch effort? (Short of measures that destroy the body > beyond possibility of effective cryo - but such measures tend to kill > > >Cryopreservation is only legal if you're pronounced dead first. > > Could you not have a living will that instead of "do not resuscitate" it clearly gives the instructions of what to do when the point is reached that requires certain interventions. The Jehovah's Whitnesses get away with denying blood. So why not set conditions under which you deny traditional support and insist upon preservation for stasis support. You could be prepared while still alive to instruct the carrying out of your own "Extended Living Will" as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From astapp at amazeent.com Fri Oct 21 20:47:58 2005 From: astapp at amazeent.com (Acy James Stapp) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:47:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is Message-ID: <437623CE9CFE7E409243C5E427BA8C81D0C6@AMAZEMAIL.amazeent.com> The key point in politics, which was touched on by BillK and Guu1i0, is *power*. Politics is about power and dominance over others. But it's not about the raw exercise of power, it's about the increase of power. Acy -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jack Parkinson Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 8:21 PM > > On 10/14/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > > > Jeff Allbright wrote: > > > > I suggested that we think of politics as "social decision-making > > > applied to groups, expecially with respect to methods of influence within > > > those processes." > > > I'm getting stuck with phrase "social decision-making". I'm > > > wondering if it is an oxymoron. I posted this before - I still think the best definition of politics is: The relationships between groups! At any level - from office factions to negotiations between superpowers. Politics is only incidentally social decision making. it is wholly about interacting communities. Jack Parkinson From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Oct 21 22:40:26 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:40:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 3: the test In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510212240.j9LMehe13330@tick.javien.com> Jim wrote: > I generally like to read these threads, not interject. However, I couldn't > hold back... Once taken to 10,000 trials with the three > coins. Their outcome was 33%. > I like it here. Jim I like it here too, welcome Jim. I could have stated the scenario without the probabilities that trip some here. It could be stated a betting game: suppose you are a casino guy. What payoff could you offer that the other coin face is a tail? You could offer a 3 to 1 payoff and still break even. You would get a lot of customers, since a lot of people believe the breakeven payoff is 2 to 1. So offer 2.5 to 1 and make a lotta money in the long run. You know that it is our sacred duty as capitalists to make a ton of money. But I am surprised I am getting so many comments on the probability game and so few on the second part, which is actually the interesting idea: make a multiple-choice test where you assign a confidence level to each choice, then derive your score as the product of the confidence level on each correct answer. You could have a short ten-question multiple choice test, give it to 1000 people and most would get a different score. Isn't that cool? Let's try it. Post me your favorite IQ test question, along with the answer in a multiple choice format. I'll put together a test, post it here, let people work it as described in the three-coins-part-2 thread, then see how well it works in separating the geniuses from the rest of us. I need questions that cannot be easily googled. Here's another interesting twist: the test answers *might* be wrong. The proles could send me a wrong answer, and if I don't catch it, well... too bad. So be careful about assigning a zero probability to anything, for if it is the one I had decided is the right answer, the monkey will beat you, since he will score 1E-6 by random guessing. You are assigning a confidence level in the test answers that I, as head grand poobah head prole, decide is the right one. There is no appeal process, sorry. Remember this is just a game, an experiment. If I receive ten good IQ-test questions, I will post the test here and calculate the scores of those who submit their answers. Post test questions offline to spike66 at comcast.net. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Oct 21 22:40:26 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:40:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Why so little real interest inIntelligent Homes? In-Reply-To: <4359296A.2060604@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <200510212240.j9LMeje13355@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Terry W. Colvin > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 10:46 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Why so little real interest > inIntelligent Homes? > > >INTELLIGENT homes where curtains can be drawn at the push of a button, > > >ovens switched on by phone and the housework done by robotic vacuum > >cleaners are not that far off in the future, research claimed today. > > Quite a few of the ideas put forth in the smart home concept are just > asinine, you have to wonder what these people are huffing. > > Take the above-mentioned remote-control oven. Please. This is often > imagined as an oven you can control over the net. OK, even if we pretend > that the security issues have magically gone away, we're left with one > question: why would ANYone want such a thing?... > > Dave Palmer I don't see why not. You put in a frozen dinner, the kind that takes a long time to cook. The oven would have a cooling circuit in addition to gas heat, so it would keep the dinner frozen while you are away, which could be days or weeks, and you might return in the middle of the night. I know a lot of people who have work schedules like this. The technology to do something like this is already here however: for a price you can set up a cooling oven with a telephone operated control, security codes and adequate fire protection. It isn't a consumer level product yet, but the people I know who travel a lot have enough money to set up such a custom oven. This one might eventually catch on with a small segment of the population. Remote vacuum cleaners are already here; Fry's electronics peddles them. They don't work very well, but they come out in the day and wander around on the carpet or floor. They can't empty themselves. Power curtains are old news, they were available years ago. Jetson's-style video phones? I use one at work sometimes, we have had them for at least 20 years. Not a lot of advantage over the traditional audio only. Think of these things as a modern version of sculptures and paintings. Art is unnecessary and expensive, but it always sells to people with money to blow. That which is often described as the home of the future is actually the current home for people who have a lot of money to dump into unnecessary luxuries. Calling it future tech is equivalent to predicting that the proletariat will be prosperous in the future, which fits my vision perfectly. spike From megao at sasktel.net Fri Oct 21 22:23:39 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:23:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051021131826.01d4f6e0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051021131826.01d4f6e0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <43596A6B.4070802@sasktel.net> The qualifying question at the start of the survey may have been: "Do you watch Dr.Who?" Damien Broderick wrote: > Is there any reason to trust such survey? Dunno. Anyway: > > http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005480422,00.html > > > 10-20-05 > We Believe In Aliens > By PETE BELL > Sun Online > > The survey was carried out for the launch of Doctor Who week on > UKTV Gold starting on October 23. > From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Oct 21 23:28:18 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:28:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 3: the test In-Reply-To: <200510212240.j9LMehe13330@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200510212328.j9LNSCe17752@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ... > > Here's another interesting twist: the test answers > *might* be wrong. The proles could send me a > wrong answer, and if I don't catch it, well... too > bad. ... Remember this is just a game, an experiment. spike Another idea occurred to me. I could include a question that has no perfectly right answer, but rather one to which confidence levels must be assigned. For instance: Assign confidence levels to these scenarios a) OJ did it and Fuhrman planted the glove b) OJ did it and Fuhrman did not plant the glove c) OJ did not do it and Fuhrman planted the glove d) All other possible scenarios You can see that no one can know the right answer, not even OJ or Fuhrman. OJ cannot be 100% certain that Fuhrman was the glove planter, Fuhrman cannot be 100% certain that OJ was the Nicole slayer. The only theoretical person who could be 100% certain is one who both slew Mrs Simpson and planted the glove, and OJ is on his trail I can assure you. The game then would be to see how a contestant would distribute the confidence levels. The head-prole test maker must assign probability levels to each possible answer, then multiply the responses probability distribution by the pre-decided distribution, then normalize the score to 1. We want a perfect score on this kind of test to be 1. But for the first go-around, let us have only unambiguous questions, like the three-coins example. Someone posted me offlist a line of reasoning that had not occurred to me: "For the three coins, The odds of pulling out one of the three coins and putting down a Head is fifty percent. Since HH, HT, TT include three heads and three tails to proceed with. Since we know only two of the coins has a head on it, the odds of flipping it over and having tails is fifty percent. Then we multiply the two percentages and come to a conclusion at twenty-five percent. The answer to the probability of pulling a coin to reveal heads then tails is twenty-five percent." So now we know there exist lines of reasoning that lead to answers of 1/2 and 1/3 and 1/4. So how would you distribute probabilities of an answer? spike From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 23:34:22 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:34:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 3: the test In-Reply-To: <200510212328.j9LNSCe17752@tick.javien.com> References: <200510212240.j9LMehe13330@tick.javien.com> <200510212328.j9LNSCe17752@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 10/22/05, spike wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > ... > > > > Here's another interesting twist: the test answers > > *might* be wrong. The proles could send me a > > wrong answer, and if I don't catch it, well... too > > bad. ... Remember this is just a game, an experiment. spike > > > Another idea occurred to me. I could include a > question that has no perfectly right answer, but > rather one to which confidence levels must be > assigned. For instance: > > Assign confidence levels to these scenarios > > a) OJ did it and Fuhrman planted the glove > b) OJ did it and Fuhrman did not plant the glove > c) OJ did not do it and Fuhrman planted the glove > d) All other possible scenarios > > You can see that no one can know the right answer, > not even OJ or Fuhrman. OJ cannot be 100% certain > that Fuhrman was the glove planter, Fuhrman cannot > be 100% certain that OJ was the Nicole slayer. > The only theoretical person who could be 100% > certain is one who both slew Mrs Simpson > and planted the glove, and OJ is on his trail > I can assure you. Given that Furman took the fifth when asked if he planted the glove, I'd say he planted the glove. Or is it routine, when US police are asked in court whether they planted evidence, to say "I do not wish to answer that on the grounds I may incriminate myself"? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HerbM at learnquick.com Fri Oct 21 23:43:43 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:43:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is In-Reply-To: <437623CE9CFE7E409243C5E427BA8C81D0C6@AMAZEMAIL.amazeent.com> Message-ID: Acy James Stapp > > The key point in politics, which was touched on by BillK and > Guu1i0, is *power*. Politics is about power and dominance > over others. But it's not about the raw exercise of power, > it's about the increase of power. > That may (or may not) be what political practice among [some group of] politicians concerns mostly in modern life, but politics is also about freedom from the power of others. And so in that sense, politics is about the decrease in the power of others (e.g., the monarch vs. democracy, opposition party vs. party "in power", organizing common defense by either police or armies) to affect us. Glass half full, or half empty? Technically, the glass has some amount of fluid in it. -- Herb Martin From HerbM at learnquick.com Fri Oct 21 23:49:02 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:49:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 3: the test In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dirk Bruere > Given that Furman took the fifth when asked if he planted the glove, I'd say he planted the glove. > Or is it routine, when US police are asked in court whether they planted evidence, to say "I do not wish to answer that on the grounds I may incriminate myself"? No, it is not routine, but there are other plausible reasons for Furman taking the 5th (e.g., he had already technically committed perjury and answering further would expose that futher to the jury OR deepen his perjury etc.). But, juries are regularly instructed that when there are two plausible explanations for any fact or set of facts they must favor the defendent. The JURY is required by law (and instructions of the judge) to favor the defendent when such multiple, plausible explanations exist. And then there is Kato...who was never eliminated as another suspect for either/both acts. -- Herb Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 22 00:23:46 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:23:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 3: the test In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510220023.j9M0Nse22821@tick.javien.com> On 10/22/05, spike wrote: ... Assign confidence levels to these scenarios a) OJ did it and Fuhrman planted the glove b) OJ did it and Fuhrman did not plant the glove c) OJ did not do it and Fuhrman planted the glove d) All other possible scenarios Given that Furman took the fifth when asked if he planted the glove, I'd say he planted the glove. Or is it routine, when US police are asked in court whether they planted evidence, to say "I do not wish to answer that on the grounds I may incriminate myself"? Dirk As I recall, Fuhrman took the fifth when asked if he had ever manufactured evidence, not when asked specifically about the glove. Still, if you think Fuhrman did it, you still must distribute confidence between choices a) and c) above. But this thread is not about OJ, it is about an idea for making a test with only a few questions that will separate the contestants. In the traditional method, any 10 question test with 1000 participants will yield many equivalent results. I saw this with the recent Google campaign. You may recall that Google was hoping to hire a number of new employees. They had a billboard in Mountain View which had only the words {first ten digit prime in consecutive digits of e}.com I saw the billboard on the way to work, set up a macro and had the answer within minutes. Went to that site, which had another more difficult question, which led to another site, which had 20 IQ test questions. It was a cool game, but with 20 questions, you will get a bunch of people with results in each of the 20 possible scores. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From xyz at iq.org Sat Oct 22 00:40:42 2005 From: xyz at iq.org (Julian Assange) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:40:42 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1129941642.12191.245744121@webmail.messagingengine.com> You are all wrong. In our black bag, we have HH TT HT We have drawn one of these coins at random. We are then informed that one FACE of one of these coins is a head. 2/3 of the head faces are in HH, 1/3 in HT. Now we flip our coin. If our coin was HH the flip will reveal heads with certainty. If our coin was HT the flip will reveal T with certainty. Hence there is a 2/3 chance that the otherside of the coin will display heads. Bayes is no substitute for understanding. On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:04:33 -0700, "Rayburn, James" said: > I generally like to read these threads, not interject. However, I > couldn't > hold back. > T/T and T/H are non-possibilities. The only possibilities are H/H, H/H, > and > H/T. p(X|~A)=66% > Re-crunch you get 33%, Which is the answer I've seen in previous > incarnations of the question. Once taken to 10,000 trials with the three > coins. Their outcome was 33%. > I like it here. > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brandon Reinhart [mailto:transcend at extropica.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:17 PM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain > > > > What is the probability that the other side is a tail? > > This sounds like a problem for Bayes Theorem. > > p(A|X) = p(X|A) * p(A) / ( p(X|A)*p(A) + p(X|~A)*p(~A) ) > > Coins: H/H, T/T, H/T > > A - The bottom is a tail. > X - The top is a head. > > p(A|X) = The probability that the bottom of the coin is a tail, when the > top > is a head. > > p(A) - Prior probability (likelihood with no new information) that the > bottom of any coin drawn will be a tail: 50% (there are 6 sides total, 3 > heads, 3 tails). > > P(~A) - Prior probability that the bottom of any coin drawn will be a > head: > 50%. > > p(X|A) - 33% of coins with a bottom tail will have a top head. > > p(X|~A) - 33% of coins with a bottom not a tail will have a top head. > > P(A|X) = 33% * 50% / ( 33%*50% + 33%*50% ) = 0.165 / ( 0.165 + 0.165 ) = > 0.165 / 0.33 = 0.5 > > The likelihood that the coin drawn has a tail on the other side is 50%. > In > fact, the information we are given (that we see a head) doesn't help us > at > all. It is completely irrelevant information (as far as probability is > concerned). > > Brandon > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 2:06 PM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain > > You have a bag containing three coins: a double headed, > a double tailed and an ordinary coin. You reach into > the bag without looking, take one out and place it on > the table. You see a head facing up. > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Oct 22 00:45:40 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:45:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas In-Reply-To: <43596A6B.4070802@sasktel.net> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051021131826.01d4f6e0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <43596A6B.4070802@sasktel.net> Message-ID: From my perspective I am much more happy that they believe in aliens, time-travel, even ESP than I am with the far larger percentage in the US who apparently believe in virgin birth, Satan, the reality of heaven and hell, that evolution is bunk and that the earth is less than 10,000 years old! - samantha On Oct 21, 2005, at 3:23 PM, Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: > The qualifying question at the start of the survey may have been: > "Do you watch Dr.Who?" > > Damien Broderick wrote: > > >> Is there any reason to trust such survey? Dunno. Anyway: >> >> http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/ >> 0,,2-2005480422,00.html >> >> 10-20-05 >> We Believe In Aliens >> By PETE BELL >> Sun Online >> >> The survey was carried out for the launch of Doctor Who week on >> UKTV Gold starting on October 23. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From xyz at iq.org Sat Oct 22 00:46:45 2005 From: xyz at iq.org (Julian Assange) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:46:45 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain In-Reply-To: <1129941642.12191.245744121@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1129941642.12191.245744121@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <1129942005.12491.245745081@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Bayes is no substitute for understanding. Heh. Nor is reading the original question which talks about the probability of drawing tails (not heads)! From xyz at iq.org Sat Oct 22 00:59:11 2005 From: xyz at iq.org (Julian Assange) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:59:11 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Perfect recall. In-Reply-To: <20051021185221.GV2249@leitl.org> References: <20051010004350.62820.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45666ee68224772010e1de70b19c064c@HarveyNewstrom.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051009225042.02e5f598@mail.gmu.edu> <7c9c10704c9607c14286c40a321bc2db@HarveyNewstrom.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051010072228.02e65a68@mail.gmu.edu> <097701c5cd93$1ee1ac80$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20051010081715.03009440@mail.gmu.edu> <1129917757.7570.245722353@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20051021185221.GV2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1129942751.13283.245745190@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Not portable storage costs, though. You'll have to sync periodically. Yes. > What is your understanding of lightweight? You just specified a whopping > 24 hours of untethered operation, and enough performance to store > compressed > picture (but at just one frame/minute? and which resolution?). > > FWIW, I don't think you can comfortably carry around more than 8-12 h > worth of notebook-grade performance (with head-up display; considerably > less with notebook display on -- keyword is clamshell mode). There is no need for a display. The device is intended for acquisition only. I was thinking along the lines of a low power PDA + usb. I hadn't considered GPS, but that's an interesting addition if it can be made low power. It would be nice if the camera was fairly descrete. Perhaps a hat is enough concealment. Such a device would permit an unparalled degree of self-objectivity. From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 22 01:17:39 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:17:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain In-Reply-To: <1129941642.12191.245744121@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <200510220118.j9M1IXe28282@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Julian Assange > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain > > You are all wrong. > ... > > Hence there is a 2/3 chance that the otherside of the coin will display > heads. The original question asked the chances of the other side being tails. Others have answered 1/3, which is equivalent to your 2/3 chance of a head. I agree with you however, its 1/3 chance of a tail. A digital sim or even a physical experiment will verify this. Recall that we have seen arguments that lead to 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4. The game is not necessarily to find the subjective *right* answer, but rather to take into account that the head prole test maker might be wrong and give one of the other answers. It is kinda like the newlywed game: you try to give not necessarily the correct answer but rather to guess what your bride will say.* Now of course you know from all these years that I am brilliant, modest, etc, but that I have been wroong on occasion, so you are to distribute confidence across the choices taking that into consideration. So if the choices are a)1/2, b)1/3, c)1/4 and d) none of these, would you put all your chips on choice b? You know of course that I as head prole could mistakenly decide a) is the right answer, in which case you would get a goose egg on the whole test and be beaten by the monkey who gets a 1E-6 score. You know that if you put just 1% on each of the wrong answers, it costs you only a negligible 3% of your total score. But your competitors may follow the same reasoning, and take a chance by putting only 0.1% on each of the wrong answers, thereby beating you by 2.7 percent. So how do you distribute your confidence? Does the nature of the game matter? If you know your competitors are smart and motivated, does that change your strategy? spike *My wife and I played the newlywed game at a social gathering. When asked how many drains were in our home, we both responded "The correct answer is 14, but I predict (s)he will say 12 because (s)he will forget about the washing machine and the dish washer." The audience loved it. We were the only couple that matched on that question. {8^D From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 22 01:23:44 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:23:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510220123.j9M1Nce28915@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 5:46 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas > > From my perspective I am much more happy that they believe in > aliens, time-travel, even ESP than I am with the far larger > percentage in the US who apparently believe in virgin birth, Satan, > the reality of heaven and hell, that evolution is bunk and that the > earth is less than 10,000 years old! > > - samantha Hey I believe in virgin birth, it happens often I would guess. A woman can get in-vitro fertilization without ever having experienced copulation. There are aliens all around us, I can assure you, legal and otherwise. And I can take you to Hawaii and show you some earth that is less than 10,000 years old. The pollsters need to take care how they ask the question, for I always answer what they ask, not what I think they meant. spike From sentience at pobox.com Sat Oct 22 02:53:06 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:53:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 3: the test In-Reply-To: <200510212328.j9LNSCe17752@tick.javien.com> References: <200510212328.j9LNSCe17752@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4359A992.2030805@pobox.com> spike wrote: > > The game then would be to see how a contestant > would distribute the confidence levels. The > head-prole test maker must assign probability > levels to each possible answer, then multiply > the responses probability distribution by the > pre-decided distribution, then normalize the > score to 1. We want a perfect score on this > kind of test to be 1. No no no. You multiply the logarithm of the response's probability by the pre-decided distribution. You *must* do it that way for reasons explained in http://yudkowsky.net/bayes/technical.html. Otherwise you're just doing weird things with no mathematical interpretation, like adding up the temperature of all the stars in the sky. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sat Oct 22 02:54:22 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:54:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] archeologist VS restorative alternatives In-Reply-To: <435941E9.9020707@sasktel.net> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020111601.02ecaf68@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20051021183147.48132.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <20051021190215.GW2249@leitl.org> <435941E9.9020707@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <4359A9DE.9060105@goldenfuture.net> It's an excellent question, and one I've been asking myself now that my own suspension is set up. How to enact a living will that will be the most cryonics-friendly? I mean, if there's a reasonable chance of my being revived, I'd like to take it, but if keeping me on a feeding tube is going to degrade my brain tissue (a la Terri Schiavo), then pop me in the freezer post haste, before more damage is done. Unfortunately, I think that "pack my body in ice and replace my blood with cryoprotectant fluid while I'm still alive" would qualify as, well, euthenasia (if I am understanding your suggestion properly). I find it fascinating that one of the first innovations cited in the excellent cryonics-oriented novel "The First Immortal" is that the right to die is acknowledged, and seen as a necessary step to mass acceptance of cryonics as a practice. Great book, btw; well worth the read. Joseph Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: > Eugen Leitl wrote: > >> <>On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 11:31:47AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> <>screen, why not try to keep the soldier alive and save cryo for the >> absolute last ditch effort? (Short of measures that destroy the body >> beyond possibility of effective cryo - but such measures tend to kill >> >> >>Cryopreservation is only legal if you're pronounced dead first. >> >> > > Could you not have a living will that instead of "do not resuscitate" > it clearly gives the instructions > of what to do when the point is reached that requires certain > interventions. > > The Jehovah's Whitnesses get away with denying blood. > > So why not set conditions under which you deny traditional support and > insist upon preservation for stasis support. > You could be prepared while still alive to instruct the carrying out > of your own "Extended Living Will" as well. > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From marc.geddes at gmail.com Sat Oct 22 06:53:32 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 19:53:32 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] New paper by David Chalmer's definitively squashing materialism In-Reply-To: <3ad827f30510210343q5ae08b7m2be65265a8ca7d4d@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060510210046l404e54t4e1dc30832a72de0@mail.gmail.com> <3ad827f30510210343q5ae08b7m2be65265a8ca7d4d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060510212353w4bd74a21x90e6ec693c5cad48@mail.gmail.com> On 10/21/05, justin corwin wrote: > > > Er, you are aware that this isn't the SL4 list, right? I understand > that you seem to have been driven out of there, but I'm rather at a > loss why you would crow to the Extropy list about scoring points > against some unidentified portion of the SL4 list. They called me nasty names. Now I'm bringing out the BIG GUNS boy :D It's obvious to me that no one on SL4 has any real intuitive grasp of morality or mathematics. If you did, you'd have realised right from the start that there was no objective referent for morality external to a mind - that morality was inseperable from mind (i.e there's an invariant in-built from the start). I said as much years ago on the wta-talk list and also using a 'Hologram' analogy on SL4 several years back to illustrate the fact that there had to be a 'moral invariant' built-in to a mind from the start. It should also be equally obvious that whilst this may disprove objective morality in the pure sense, it doesn't disprove *Universal Morality* It should be obvious that the metaphysics of reality involves a dual-aspect monism - with 'number' as one aspect and 'qualia' as the other aspect. It should be clear that mathematics is the 'dual' of mental states and every mathematical aspect to a mind has to have a corresponding mental aspect. The 'dual' of recursive self-improvement (which is a mathematical concept) IS Friendliness (the corresponding mental concept). So Unfriendly AI's can't recursively self-improvement. Only Friendly's can. The problem of Friendliness is entirely equivalent to the problem of enabling of enabling recursive self-improvemnt. There may be a danger from unfriendly AI's of a limited kind, but not of the recursively self-improving kind. The fact that you guys can't see this obvious fact tells me you ain't fit to implement Singularity. Now, in terms of quashing materialism. You are aware that he's just > using modal logic here to support rather old arguments, right? Because > you're well versed in the rich and bizarre history of analytic > philosophy. > > The primary argument in this paper is a version of the Lob Theorem, > expressed as Modal logic, if x is concievable, then x is possible. He > cleverly constructs the argument such that this extension proves that > materialism is false. > > However, this argument contains no descriminatory power, because you > can easily construct the identical argument to prove that dualism is > false, by inverting some of the terms. It would remain just as true, > and just as pointless. > > It's no more special than the teleological arguments for the existence > of god by neccesary qualities. > > Again, Chalmers depends on semantic logic to prove a quality which is > a prerequisite of the argument he's making. if P&~Q is so, in a world > without phenomenological phenomena, his arguments work exactly the > same as they would in a world with phenomenlogical phenomena. They > don't actually descriminate, which is why he ends up having muck > around with the idea that ~Q can't be a positive truth, but rather a > negative possibility, to prevent the argument from being symmetrical. > He gives no reasons for this, aside from some quibbling about a > conscious being's ability to concieve positively of zombies. > > Unfortunately this kind of wide-eyed 'proofs' are very common in > philosophy. The mere act of 'saying' a string of logical statements > does not cause any selection or change in the world. It's only when > those statements are grounded, and the logical rules used correspond > to grounded mechanics, that they are useful. This is of course a > materialist argument, but it has the attraction of historical success, > whereas logical consistency only has internal confirmation. > > > -- > Justin Corwin > outlawpoet at hell.com > http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com > http://www.adaptiveai.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Gee, did you work that lecture out for yourself or did you go running to the SL4 chat room and have Eli explain it to you so you could regurgitate it back here? ;) The point of the argument is that mental concepts are not logically implied by physical concepts. Inverting the terms would still disprove materialism, since it would still show that there is no complete logical implication from physical concepts to physical concepts and visa versa. That's clear in the section where he uses a modified version of the 'Knowledge argument': (1) Mary is in a position to know all facts deducible from the narrowly physical facts. (2) Mary is not in a position to know all the phenomenal facts. (3) If a phenomenal fact is not deducible from the narrowly physical facts, it is not necessitated by the narrowly physical facts. *___________* (4) Not all phenomenal facts are necessitated by the narrowly physical facts. Besides which, there are actually stronger arguments aginst materialism than Chalmer's one. For instance there are simple arguments from mathematical platonism like this one I recently posted on wta-talk and elsewhere: --- The following are *proven* mathematical facts: *There are uncomputable numbers (Godel, Turing) *There are transfinite numbers (Cantor) *There are infinitesimal numbers (Robinson, Conway) Now the materialist either has to deny that these results really are valid mathematical facts (which is hard to do) or the materialist has to show that these mathematical facts are really just categorizations of empirical facts. But the latter position is not very plausible either, because the latest physics theories (string theory and the holographic principle) imply that uncomputables, transfinites and infinitesimals cannot be directly physically realized (the evidence suggests that all *physical* things are computable, finite and space cannot be divided up with infinite precision). So here's the mathematical argument against materialism: Premise 1: Uncomputables, transfinite and infintesimal numbers mathematically exist Premise 2: The classes of numbers in Premise 1 cannot be completely reduced to physical entities, since current physics theories imply that all physical things are finite and computable Premise 3: If there exist entities which cannot even in principle be completely reduced to physical things, then there exist entities which are not material Conclusion: Materialism is false! Uncomputable numbers, infinitesimals and transfinite numbers are solid mathematical results, and the physics theories suggesting that all physical things are computable and finite are quite solid too. So there exist mathematical entities (uncomputables, infinitesimals and transfinite numbers) which may *supervene on* the physical world, but are not completely reducible to physical entities. Therefore materialism is false! Either the materialist has to challenge the validity of these mathematical results (for instance by appealing to some constructivist school of mathematics that doesn't allow the existence of inifinite entities) or the materialist has to challenge current mainstream physics (somewhat more plausible but still hard since support for the holographic principle and string theory is now growing and all empirical data exists that physical things are computable and finite). -- It seems an obvious move for the materialist simply to deny there needs to be a direct one-to-one match between mathematical entities and physical things. But my point really should been that for certain classes of numbers (transfinites and infinitesimals for instance) there doesn't *any* way to perfectly match these mathematical entities to empirical facts. For instance if the materialist accepts that all physical things are finite and computable (as all the empirical evidence seems to imply) then *any* kind of relationship between physical things (no matter how indirect) can only result in finite abstractions. But transfinites and infinitesimals are referring to *infinite* entities. Since these entities do not appear to be completely reducible to any empirical facts, doesn't this suggest that they have an existence that transcends the physical world and therefore that materialism is false? Transfinites and infinitesimals are not just logical abstractions (tricks of language) they're fundamental to the deep structure of mathematics. They are actual *entities*. If materialism is correct, there should be *some* way (direct or indirect) to match them to categories of empirical facts. So to what categories of empirical facts are the transfinites and infinitesimals referring? Since any part of physical reality is finite, it seems that *any* mental categorizations of empirical physical reality you could come up (no matter how indirect) could only be finite as well. But transfinites seem to transcend *all* possible categorizations of empirical facts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Sat Oct 22 09:35:44 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:35:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051021131826.01d4f6e0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051021131826.01d4f6e0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520510220235q5d5cba1ds5993e1805131b5b6@mail.gmail.com> I think the survey can be trusted in the sense that they did not fake the results, but not in terms of the statistical quality of the population sample. I think the fact that the survey was advertised mainly to those who watch Dr. Who explains the results. G. On 10/21/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > Is there any reason to trust such survey? Dunno. Anyway: > > http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005480422,00.html > > 10-20-05 > > > We Believe In Aliens > > By PETE BELL > Sun Online > > Science fiction staples like time travel and human teleportation > will be possible in the future... From marc.geddes at gmail.com Sat Oct 22 10:36:26 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:36:26 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] What is mathematics REALLY? Message-ID: <7a5e56060510220336y19ae2dddxf9b16cc8ce329cc@mail.gmail.com> What actually *are* numbers? Here's a very interesting quote from a leading mathematician posted on his web-site: "As far as I am aware, no *general* explanation has been put forward as to why this should be happening - *i.e.* why elaborate concepts, structures and phenomena developed and studied by physicists, such as thermodynamic partition functions, quantum harmonic oscillators, spontaneous symmetry breaking, 1/*f* noise, Hagedorn catastrophes, pion-nucleon scattering, The Fokker-Planck equation, the Wiener-Khintchine duality relation, *etc.*should all be somehow relevant to the purest of pure mathematical structures - *the sequence of prime numbers*. However, some months *before* I became aware of any of the various material compiled in the above-mentioned archive, an image emerged out of my dream-consciousness, and turned into one of the strangest ideas ever to have entered my mind: *In some previously unexplored context, the familiar 'shape' of the sequence of prime numbers is the result of a kind of dynamic or evolutionary process." * ** *http://www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~mwatkins/isoc/briefintro.htm* ** ** How on earth could the sequence of prime numbers be 'the result of a kind of dynamic' you may ask. Here's a possible clue: "...For years, physicists discontented with the paltry three dimensions of space that our senses offer us have been merrily adding extra ones to their equations. First there were four, then there were nine. The best bet today appears to be ten dimensions of space, with seven of them curled up so tightly that we can't see them. Time, on the other hand, has been largely left alone by the theorists. One time dimension is all you need, they say. Add any more and all hell will break loose. But in the past couple of years all that has changed. One daring physicist-Cumrun Vafa from Harvard-has discovered that an extra time dimension could solve more problems than it creates." http://pvanhove.home.cern.ch/pvanhove/PopularScience/NewScientist/hypertime.html ** -- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Oct 22 12:59:58 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 13:59:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] What is mathematics REALLY? In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060510220336y19ae2dddxf9b16cc8ce329cc@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060510220336y19ae2dddxf9b16cc8ce329cc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/22/05, Marc Geddes wrote: > > What actually *are* numbers? Here's a very interesting quote from a > leading mathematician posted on his web-site: > "As far as I am aware, no *general* explanation has been put forward as > to why this should be happening - *i.e.* why elaborate concepts, > structures and phenomena developed and studied by physicists, such as > thermodynamic partition functions, quantum harmonic oscillators, spontaneous > symmetry breaking, 1/ *f* noise, Hagedorn catastrophes, pion-nucleon > scattering, The Fokker-Planck equation, the Wiener-Khintchine duality > relation, *etc.* should all be somehow relevant to the purest of pure > mathematical structures - *the sequence of prime numbers*. > > However, some months *before* I became aware of any of the various > material compiled in the above-mentioned archive, an image emerged out of my > dream-consciousness, and turned into one of the strangest ideas ever to have > entered my mind: > > *In some previously unexplored context, the familiar 'shape' of the > sequence of prime numbers is the result of a kind of dynamic or evolutionary > process. "* > ** > *http://www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~mwatkins/isoc/briefintro.htm > * > http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html How on earth could the sequence of prime numbers be 'the result of a kind of > dynamic' you may ask. Here's a possible clue: > "...For years, physicists discontented with the paltry three dimensions > of space that our senses offer us have been merrily adding extra ones to > their equations. First there were four, then there were nine. The best bet > today appears to be ten dimensions of space, with seven of them curled up so > tightly that we can't see them. > > Time, on the other hand, has been largely left alone by the theorists. One > time dimension is all you need, they say. Add any more and all hell will > break loose. But in the past couple of years all that has changed. One > daring physicist-Cumrun Vafa from Harvard-has discovered that an extra time > dimension could solve more problems than it creates." > > http://pvanhove.home.cern.ch/pvanhove/PopularScience/NewScientist/hypertime.html > Psi Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sat Oct 22 16:01:37 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:01:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain. References: <200510202001.j9KK16e27621@tick.javien.com><435804E7.7030903@pobox.com><056901c5d651$c7f93420$e7f14d0c@MyComputer> <1129914560.1399.245718621@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <001701c5d721$eebfd890$caf14d0c@MyComputer> "Julian Assange" > I don't think probabilities exist `in reality', but rather probabilies > reflect our lack of knowledge That is of course the common sense idea of probability, but apparently Nature does not agree with human intuition. Experiments have proven time after time that Bell's Inequality is violated and it is very difficult to interpret those results any way other than that some effects have no cause. John K Clark From sentience at pobox.com Sat Oct 22 16:20:06 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 09:20:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain. In-Reply-To: <001701c5d721$eebfd890$caf14d0c@MyComputer> References: <200510202001.j9KK16e27621@tick.javien.com><435804E7.7030903@pobox.com><056901c5d651$c7f93420$e7f14d0c@MyComputer> <1129914560.1399.245718621@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001701c5d721$eebfd890$caf14d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <435A66B6.4030900@pobox.com> John K Clark wrote: > "Julian Assange" > >> I don't think probabilities exist `in reality', but rather probabilies >> reflect our lack of knowledge > > That is of course the common sense idea of probability, but apparently > Nature does not agree with human intuition. Experiments have proven time > after time that Bell's Inequality is violated and it is very difficult > to interpret those results any way other than that some effects have no > cause. Many-worlds is strictly simpler than the Copenhagen interpretation, linear, unitary, time-reversible, deterministic, probability-mass-conserving, and doesn't explain Bell's Inequality by saying that some events have no cause - it's just a question of which cloud of probability mass you, the observer, happen to be part of. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Oct 22 16:32:17 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:32:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain. In-Reply-To: <435A66B6.4030900@pobox.com> References: <200510202001.j9KK16e27621@tick.javien.com> <435804E7.7030903@pobox.com> <056901c5d651$c7f93420$e7f14d0c@MyComputer> <1129914560.1399.245718621@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001701c5d721$eebfd890$caf14d0c@MyComputer> <435A66B6.4030900@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 10/22/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > John K Clark wrote: > > "Julian Assange" > > > >> I don't think probabilities exist `in reality', but rather probabilies > >> reflect our lack of knowledge > > > > That is of course the common sense idea of probability, but apparently > > Nature does not agree with human intuition. Experiments have proven time > > after time that Bell's Inequality is violated and it is very difficult > > to interpret those results any way other than that some effects have no > > cause. > > Many-worlds is strictly simpler than the Copenhagen interpretation, > linear, unitary, time-reversible, deterministic, > probability-mass-conserving, and doesn't explain Bell's Inequality by > saying that some events have no cause - it's just a question of which > cloud of probability mass you, the observer, happen to be part of. > > I rather like the Many Minds Interpretation http://www.qubit.org/people/david/Articles/CommentOnLockwood.html Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Oct 22 17:28:31 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:28:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Genetic Engineering Paranoia (And Baseball!) Message-ID: <435A76BF.5000609@mindspring.com> Beware of genetic 'enhancements' By Osagie Obasogie Recently, Jose Canseco and I were guests on a talk show to discuss gene doping, the genetic equivalent to anabolic steroids - a way to "juice up" to gain a competitive edge. It is possible that in the next few years athletes will be able to enhance their performance by altering their genetic make-ups. Canseco argued that gene doping "is definitely the next big step in evolution." Genetic enhancement, he said, "goes way beyond sports. Imagine an army of a million individuals who can out-think, out-use the environment in the sense of less food, more reaction time, better vision, better physical reaction . . . (T)he human race . . . is going to evolve and no one's gonna stop it." It's easy to dismiss this as the ramblings of a B-list star struggling to keep himself in the limelight. Indeed, when Canseco released his now infamous "Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big," this was most people's response. Yet we have been forced to swallow the bitter truthfulness of Canseco's pill. In the few months since "Juiced" was published, we've seen Congress threaten to rescind Major League Baseball's anti-trust exemption, a finger-waving Rafael Palmeiro told not to return to his team because he was becoming too embarrassing, and a belittled Big Mac, Mark McGwire, forced to essentially plead the Fifth. Is Canseco correct? Is a society of genetically engineered super humans on the horizon? If we don't take action soon, it very well might be. What's particularly disturbing is a sense of inevitability articulated by Canseco and other advocates of this technology - including distinguished scholars who embrace it as an unqualified good. This temptation of eugenics - using genetic and reproductive technologies to create a superior master race - is not new. Engineering humanity is hardly the inevitable next stage in evolution, but may be the unfortunate next step of an unregulated biotech industry. Genetic science may offer remarkable therapies for those who are sick, injured and suffering. But we can and should draw lines regarding acceptable and unacceptable uses. We the people, not scientists intoxicated with hubris nor stockholders unaccountable to the public, have the right and responsibility to determine our common future. If we want to improve the human condition, let's make sure that all our children have food to eat and juice to drink - just not the kind that Canseco is pushing. Osagie K. Obasogie, a Mt. Healthy native who attended Summit Country Day High School, is a project director for the Center for Genetics and Society in California. He is a graduate of Yale and Columbia Law School. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051021/EDIT02/510210355 -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From benboc at lineone.net Sat Oct 22 19:25:54 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:25:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: ExI Website - Your Comments In-Reply-To: <200510210722.j9L7MPe09238@tick.javien.com> References: <200510210722.j9L7MPe09238@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <435A9242.1020701@lineone.net> Yes, nice site. I only have one observation, the font styles seem a bit messed up, with the size changing randomly, e.g.: email list, and members' projects in  working toward designing our future.  The outcomes are located on our resources page.
It's a bit irritating to read when the text keeps jumping about like that. I'd suggest using a style sheet instead of letting microsoft office do a hatchet job on your formatting. ben From hal at finney.org Sat Oct 22 21:22:04 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:22:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Perfect recall. Message-ID: <20051022212204.4F94357EF9@finney.org> Julian Assange writes: > Storage costs are now such that I can record all my audio input, some > visual input (say one frame a minute) heart rate and acceleration for > the predictable future. > > Can anyone suggest a likeweight wearable computing device I can use as a > recording backbone? It should be able to survive for 24 hours without > batteries. We had some discussion about such devices in March, although of course technology moves so fast that there may be much better ones now. http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-March/014256.html http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-March/014282.html http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-March/014318.html Some quotes from Robin Hanson, who has experimented with such a device: > Many MP3 players come with a voice recording capability, and these usually > hold much more for a comparable price than specialized voice recorders. > > I've been using a MPIO FY200: http://www.mpio.de/site_eng/fp_FY200_02.html > but then switched to an Olympus DS2200: > http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_product_lobbypage.asp?l=1&p=25&bc=11&product=1081&fl=4 > Not sure it is really better though, and thinking of switching back. > MPIO is very compact, records more bits/sec, but is not robust and has > terrible instructions and support. The Olympus lasts twice as long before > replacing batteries, and has a stereo mike, but that busted after a few > months. Hal Finney From hal at finney.org Sat Oct 22 21:38:27 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 3: the test Message-ID: <20051022213827.93D7B57EF9@finney.org> I looked a bit at the mathematics of a slightly different form of the puzzle and got a (possibly) surprising result. Suppose as Spike suggests we have a multiple choice test where rather than choosing one answer we can put a "weight" number by each answer, such that the weights for the various possible answers to a question must add to 1. Then suppose that the score is found by multiplying together the weights for all of the right answers. For example, suppose you came to a question with two answers and you were 80% sure that A was right, with B having a 20% chance of being right. You could take a chance and put all your weight on A and none on B, for an answer of (1.0, 0.0). Or you could perhaps split your weighting by the probability: (0.8, 0.2). Or you could go for an even split so that your score would be independent of the true answer: (0.5, 0.5). Spike's problem was complicated by the desire to beat other students, but let's simplify if by asking how to maximize your expected score. I didn't do a full analysis, but I tried various special cases and the result was the same. The best strategy is always to put 100% of your weight on the answer that you think has the highest probability. Splitting your weight factors can only lower your expected score. The one exception is if there are two or more of the best answers that have equal probability. In that case it doesn't matter how you split up your weights among those answers, in terms of expected score. For example, consider a 10 question test each of which has two answers. And suppose for each question you can make a good guess and are 80% sure that one of the possible answers is right, with the other having a 20% chance. If you do (1.0, 0.0) for each question, giving 100% of your weight to the better answer, your expected score is .8^10 or 0.107. Suppose instead you did a (0.8, 0.2) split. Then on average you'd get 8 of the 10 right and 2 wrong, so your score would be .8^8 * .2^2 or 0.0067, reducing your score by a factor of 16! So you pay a very high penalty to split up your scores even to a modest degree. The advantage of splitting is that you reduce the variance of the result. By guessing 100% weight on each question, you have a 10.7% chance of getting a score of 1 and an 89.3% chance of getting a score of 0. Splitting the weights 80/20 you are guaranteed not to get a 0, and you'll probably get within a couple of orders of magnitude of your .0067 expectataion. Hal From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 22 23:02:27 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:02:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 3: the test In-Reply-To: <20051022213827.93D7B57EF9@finney.org> Message-ID: <200510222302.j9MN2Oe13612@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 3: the test > > I looked a bit at the mathematics of a slightly different form of the > puzzle and got a (possibly) surprising result... > ... > > For example, consider a 10 question test each of which has two answers. > And suppose for each question you can make a good guess and are 80% > sure that one of the possible answers is right, with the other having > a 20% chance. If you do (1.0, 0.0) for each question, giving 100% of > your weight to the better answer, your expected score is .8^10 or 0.107. > Suppose instead you did a (0.8, 0.2) split. Then on average you'd get > 8 of the 10 right and 2 wrong, so your score would be .8^8 * .2^2 or > 0.0067, reducing your score by a factor of 16! So you pay a very high > penalty to split up your scores even to a modest degree... Hal Oh dear, Hal my good man, I do disagree waaaay much. Since the game requires taking the product of the scores, if you estimate each answer to 80% confidence, then put *all* your chips on that choice, you would miss at least one of question (1-.8^10) or ~89% of the time. You would get a fat zippo most of the time. The remaining 11% of the games you would get a perfect 1 score. But one can almost hear in the background that oo-oo-oo sound that monkeys make when they get excited, because they know that they will beat you 8 of 9 times, which is unacceptable, wretched random beasts that they are. While I agree that your *average* score would go down slightly if you assigned a .99 weight to your favorite choice with .01 on the other, at least then you would defeat the illiterate monkeys 37% of the time. On those ~11% of the times when you were right on all, your score would be about .904, still very impressive. Regarding your expectation calc, I am not sure offhand why it disagrees with my sim, but that sim suggests an expectation of about .02 instead of .0067 with the 80-20 split. So splitting 80-20 costs you a factor of about 5 instead of 16, but at least you beat the monkeys about 87% of the time. I guess we must decide then exactly what we are trying to optimize. My criterion is arbitrary I admit: we will not accept losing to monkeys. If we look at it as a competition with other students, we do not wish to be tied for dead last 89% of the time, even if we tie for first the rest of the time. I will need some game theorists to help me here. Perhaps if there is some payoff matrix, we could derive the optimal strategy. I don't think it is all-or-nothing in this case. I have seen where the payoff matrix can affect optimal strategy in poker. Far from being a meaningless exercise, this question has a direct and critically important real world application in the space business. With satellites, we often have a situation where you have a number of subsystems that must all work perfectly, otherwise the mission is lost. We often make significant engineering sacrifices in order to increase the reliability of a subsystem, depending on the consequences of a single point failure. From hibbert at mydruthers.com Sat Oct 22 23:28:24 2005 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:28:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 3: the test In-Reply-To: <20051022213827.93D7B57EF9@finney.org> References: <20051022213827.93D7B57EF9@finney.org> Message-ID: <435ACB18.6070504@mydruthers.com> Hal wrote: > I looked a bit at the mathematics of a slightly different form of the > puzzle and got a (possibly) surprising result. Economists (and I don't know who else) are quite interested in eliciting people's best estimates. It turns out that if you use what's called a log-based scoring rule, the respondents' best strategy is to give their best likelihood estimate. The way spike formed his scoring rule leads to the results Hal talked about. From one of Robin's papers (http://hanson.gmu.edu/combobet.pdf): s[i] = a[i] + b log(r[i] The logarithmic rule is the only rule that can be used both to reward an agent and to evaluate his performance according to standard statistical likelihood methods. Scoring rules have long been used in weather forecasting, economic forecasting, student test scoring, economics experiments, risk analysis, and the engineering of intelligent computer systems. The resulting scores on individual test items are added together, rather than being multiplied to get a total score. Robin has another paper "Logarithmic Market Scoring Rules for Modular Combinatorial Information Aggregation" that talks about other ways of using the Logarithmic rule. I expect Robin will weigh in shortly to correct me. Chris -- C. J. Cherryh, "Invader", on why we visit very old buildings: "A sense of age, of profound truths. Respect for something hands made, that's stood through storms and wars and time. It persuades us that things we do may last and matter." Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Oct 23 02:02:12 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 19:02:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 3: the test In-Reply-To: <435ACB18.6070504@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <200510230202.j9N22De31137@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Chris Hibbert > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 4:28 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 3: the test > > Hal wrote: > > I looked a bit at the mathematics of a slightly different form of the > > puzzle and got a (possibly) surprising result. > > Economists (and I don't know who else) are quite interested in eliciting > people's best estimates. It turns out that if you use what's called a > log-based scoring rule, the respondents' best strategy is to give their > best likelihood estimate... Chris Hibbert Ja I realized over dinner that we overlooked the obvious. We are so accustomed to adding scores on tests that it isn't intuitive to use logs when multiplying scores. Earlier today I wrote: >I guess we must decide then exactly what we are trying to optimize... If we maximize the log of our score, then all the irrelevant criteria involving other students, monkeys, payoff matrices, all disappear. It becomes clear why one would avoid assigning zero probability anywhere, since the log of zero is negative infinity. Adding anything to negative infinity gives negative infinity, so one's average is forever stuck at negative infinity. A perfect score would be zero (the log of 1), but to accomplish this perfect zero, one must risk a negative infinity, which will forever wreck one's average. spike From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Oct 23 08:35:23 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 01:35:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI Website - Your Comments In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051023083523.GA2644@ofb.net> Not being one who went to past websites frequently, I think it'd be easier to comment well if old layouts were available for comparison. That said, it looks very... corporate. Or think tanky. "Professional" but not in a way I'd find likely to be interesting. The fonts and logos, and map, probably the color scheme, and the prominent ABC logo, I think those all work together. If the goal was to look more mainstream I think you succeeded quite well, but I think I preferred an older version with the outward spiral of arrows. I have a dim sense that I didn't like the most recent website that much, instead preferring something a few generations back, but it's impossible to be sure going only by my memory. Something that said "wacky ideas here!" rather than "whitepapers here, and tax-deductible donations accepted". "Extro Extro Read All About It" works against all that though, and is a cheerful breath of irreverence. Content-wise... it's late and I'm tired, but it seems like a 'professional' site in being heavy on PR stuff -- press releases, announcement of conferences -- and low on interesting material to browse, especially beyond the Proactionary Principle and the Transhumanist FAQ. "Why am I at this website?" is the key question which I don't find well answered, especially quickly. Sorry to be so critical, but those are my quick reactions -- probably not completely irrelevant, given that people will often glance at and stay with or leave a site quickly. By way of contrast, I think the website for a local LARP is decently. Visually catchy, and quick to provide information. Information probably not of any general interest but that's good to establish too. Of course, I actually know stuff about the game, so that's a bias. http://www.taleofwinter.com/ More relevantly, www.singinst.org seems more both a bit catchier and much more direct: "What is the Singularity?" vs. "ExI is an ideas exchange." followed by sentences which don't obviously distinguish ExI from the Rand Institute. Or see the Orion's Arm page. -xx- Damien X-) From gregburch at gregburch.net Sun Oct 23 12:30:03 2005 From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 07:30:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <20051023083523.GA2644@ofb.net> Message-ID: Over the last few years I've come to the conclusion (like very many people) that nuclear power generation is generally undervalued as a source of electricity generation. Opponents to nuclear power point to issues at almost every step of the process from the mining of uranium ore through storage and disposal of spent fuel and other waste. Based on the evidence of how many reactors are in operation or have been constructed (in the U.S. at least) over the last 30 years, nuke proponents have done a poor job of responding to those concerns. >From a technical standpoint, it seems to me that no alternative to nuclear power generation comes close to the value that nuke plants can offer in the face of the many societal problems created by fossil fuel energy sources. But nuke advocates have to have good answers to overcome the huge hit that nukes have taken in public perception since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. I'm sure that reactor design and operating procedures have been and can be developed to adequately address the kinds of problems that gave rise to those two incidents. But it seems to me that two issues remain as legitimate problems and therefore major stumbling blocks to more widespread use of nuclear power. These issues are weapons proliferation and waste storage. Both seem to call for structures of social control about which liberty lovers and skeptics about government power and efficiency should have deep misgivings. So I'm interested in the thoughts of those here on the List about these two issues. What kinds of social and technical mechanisms present the best balance between harvesting the obvious benefits of nuclear power on the one hand and avoiding the problems of inefficient and overly-intrusive social controls on the other? Greg Burch http://www.gregburch.net From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Oct 23 13:08:04 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:08:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: References: <20051023083523.GA2644@ofb.net> Message-ID: On 10/23/05, Greg Burch wrote: > > Over the last few years I've come to the conclusion (like very many > people) that nuclear power generation is generally undervalued as a source > of electricity generation. Opponents to nuclear power point to issues at > almost every step of the process from the mining of uranium ore through > storage and disposal of spent fuel and other waste. Based on the evidence of > how many reactors are in operation or have been constructed (in the U.S. > at least) over the last 30 years, nuke proponents have done a poor job of > responding to those concerns. > > >From a technical standpoint, it seems to me that no alternative to > nuclear power generation comes close to the value that nuke plants can offer > in the face of the many societal problems created by fossil fuel energy > sources. But nuke advocates have to have good answers to overcome the huge > hit that nukes have taken in public perception since Three Mile Island and > Chernobyl. I'm sure that reactor design and operating procedures have been > and can be developed to adequately address the kinds of problems that gave > rise to those two incidents. > > But it seems to me that two issues remain as legitimate problems and > therefore major stumbling blocks to more widespread use of nuclear power. > These issues are weapons proliferation and waste storage. Both seem to call > for structures of social control about which liberty lovers and skeptics > about government power and efficiency should have deep misgivings. So I'm > interested in the thoughts of those here on the List about these two issues. > What kinds of social and technical mechanisms present the best balance > between harvesting the obvious benefits of nuclear power on the one hand and > avoiding the problems of inefficient and overly-intrusive social controls on > the other? > > If an efficient energy storage method could be developed eg electricty to methanol with >80% efficiency, then totally renewable becomes feasible. Even so, an electricity to hydrogen scheme coupled with a gas distribution grid may be sufficient. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 23 14:29:51 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:29:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Damien ExI Website - Your Comments In-Reply-To: <20051023083523.GA2644@ofb.net> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20051023083523.GA2644@ofb.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051023092333.02e15d98@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 03:35 AM 10/23/2005, Damien wrote: >Not being one who went to past websites frequently, I think it'd be easier to >comment well if old layouts were available for comparison. > >That said, it looks very... corporate. Or think tanky. "Professional" but >not in a way I'd find likely to be interesting. The fonts and logos, and map, >probably the color scheme, and the prominent ABC logo, I think those all work >together. If the goal was to look more mainstream I think you succeeded quite >well, but I think I preferred an older version with the outward spiral of >arrows. The Board wants to emphasize the "think-tank." So, I'm glad that this came across. The color scheme was selected for viewing desirability, and I'm also glad that you picked up on this. And the goal is to look more professional. The outward spiral looked to cultist, and that something we do not want to associate with. >I have a dim sense that I didn't like the most recent website that much, >instead preferring something a few generations back, but it's impossible to be >sure going only by my memory. Something that said "wacky ideas here!" rather >than "whitepapers here, and tax-deductible donations accepted". I like the sense of fun with something like "Mind-Spining" ideas here. >"Extro Extro Read All About It" works against all that though, and is a >cheerful breath of irreverence. Yes, this is why I put it in - to balance out the serious with the fun. >Content-wise... it's late and I'm tired, but it seems like a 'professional' >site in being heavy on PR stuff -- press releases, announcement of conferences >-- and low on interesting material to browse, especially beyond the >Proactionary Principle and the Transhumanist FAQ. "Why am I at this website?" >is the key question which I don't find well answered, especially quickly. Good points. We need to add the resources section with the articles and essays. I'll make sure this gets done next week. Thanks for lighting a fire under me. >Sorry to be so critical, but those are my quick reactions -- probably not >completely irrelevant, given that people will often glance at and stay with or >leave a site quickly. Constructive criticism is the signage on the road to success. Without it, we would not be able to improve. >More relevantly, www.singinst.org seems more both a bit catchier and much more >direct: "What is the Singularity?" vs. "ExI is an ideas exchange." followed by >sentences which don't obviously distinguish ExI from the Rand Institute. >Or see the Orion's Arm page. Yes, I think this is a smartly designed site. Thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 23 14:33:10 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:33:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ben - ExI Website - Your Comments In-Reply-To: <435A9242.1020701@lineone.net> References: <200510210722.j9L7MPe09238@tick.javien.com> <435A9242.1020701@lineone.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051023093027.02e1fe68@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 02:25 PM 10/22/2005, Ben wrote: >Yes, nice site. I only have one observation, the font styles seem a bit >messed up, with the size changing randomly, e.g.: ... >It's a bit irritating to read when the text keeps jumping about like that. I looked carefully at the font and tried to clean it up. I'll keep working on this. Thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gregburch at gregburch.net Sun Oct 23 14:38:36 2005 From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:38:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes, but your comment begs the question of from whence comes the electricity. This is the issue I have with what I think of as "California-style" energy and transportation reform schemes. Such ideas just seem to be a way to ship the problem elsewhere. California mandates low-emmission and emission-free vehicles, but makes no provision for generation of the electricity that ultimately must power the creation of the low-emission or emission-free energy sources (e.g. hydrogen or the grid electricty to charge batteries). As a practical matter, this just means that California is shipping their pollution to the places where the electricty is being generated by others. If you track the actual ergs of energy, a pure-electric vehicle in Los Angeles today is being powered in large part by coal-fired power plants in places like the Four Corners area, which now have increased pollution from the burning of fossil fuels, amplified by the loss in efficiency of generating the power so far away and shipping it over transmission lines. To me, the "hydrogen economy" is just hot air until we face the real issue, which is pursuing technologies that generate electricity with an acceptable balance of safety, cost and environmental impact. But for the two issues I've identified in my original post, TODAY nothing seems to come close to fission nuclear reactors on this multi-axis gris. GB -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Dirk Bruere Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 8:08 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em On 10/23/05, Greg Burch wrote: Over the last few years I've come to the conclusion (like very many people) that nuclear power generation is generally undervalued as a source of electricity generation. Opponents to nuclear power point to issues at almost every step of the process from the mining of uranium ore through storage and disposal of spent fuel and other waste. Based on the evidence of how many reactors are in operation or have been constructed (in the U.S. at least) over the last 30 years, nuke proponents have done a poor job of responding to those concerns. >From a technical standpoint, it seems to me that no alternative to nuclear power generation comes close to the value that nuke plants can offer in the face of the many societal problems created by fossil fuel energy sources. But nuke advocates have to have good answers to overcome the huge hit that nukes have taken in public perception since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. I'm sure that reactor design and operating procedures have been and can be developed to adequately address the kinds of problems that gave rise to those two incidents. But it seems to me that two issues remain as legitimate problems and therefore major stumbling blocks to more widespread use of nuclear power. These issues are weapons proliferation and waste storage. Both seem to call for structures of social control about which liberty lovers and skeptics about government power and efficiency should have deep misgivings. So I'm interested in the thoughts of those here on the List about these two issues. What kinds of social and technical mechanisms present the best balance between harvesting the obvious benefits of nuclear power on the one hand and avoiding the problems of inefficient and overly-intrusive social controls on the other? If an efficient energy storage method could be developed eg electricty to methanol with >80% efficiency, then totally renewable becomes feasible. Even so, an electricity to hydrogen scheme coupled with a gas distribution grid may be sufficient. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 23 14:36:37 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:36:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Brandon - ExI Website - Your Comments In-Reply-To: <002301c5d5fc$16c87d00$24ec4542@eschaton> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <002301c5d5fc$16c87d00$24ec4542@eschaton> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051023093344.02e18358@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 11:58 PM 10/20/2005, Brandon wrote: >I had to randomly guess how to sub to this list based on experience with >majordomo in the past. Under "Resources -> Global -> Extropy-Chat" there >is no link to "how to subscribe." Okay, I'll review this and fix. > I like the layout of the rest. Thank you. > Bring back the magazine. We need a magazine. Maybe a webzine (collection > of writings from bloggers, etc?). I'd love to bring back the glossy magazine, but publishing it wore us out. Dealing with distributors is a full time job, unfortunately. But we did have the glory of seeing "Extropy - The Journal of Transhumanist Though" at magazine stands amongst Wired and other future-oriented publications. This was a highlight! Does anyone want to work to rebirth the magazine to a webzine? Thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 23 14:40:24 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:40:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Joel - ExI Website - Your Comments In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051020130613.01c6c4d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051020171335.030120d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051023093707.02e08d08@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 08:45 PM 10/20/2005, Joel wrote: >Things are not quite in the right place, the title page is too busy - I >think having news, projects and about Extropy Inst. all on the one page is >too much. Projects should be on their own page, or only link the the names >of the projects to fuller descriptions. I'm also not a fan of the double >sidebar. Each project should have its own page, yes I agree. I'm not sure that they should not be mentioned on the home page. Thanks. >Also the events page have the events on the timeline going from most >recent to the past. Which feels weird, but maybe I'm just used to >timelines going from past to future, left to right. Most recent is most often first, working its way back in time. Otherwise, people have to scroll down to see what has just happened. >Sorry to be so critical, but I do think ease of use is important for >getting new people interested. Not at all! Thank you for your comments. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 23 14:42:11 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:42:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gina - ExI Website - Your Comments In-Reply-To: <007801c5d5b3$4bfc5ee0$0400a8c0@Nano> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <007801c5d5b3$4bfc5ee0$0400a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051023094102.02e05320@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 03:17 PM 10/20/2005, Gine wrote: >I love it. I like the color scheme and the navigation, it has a very nice >look. Thanks Gina. Your creativity and design is welcome. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 23 14:44:25 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:44:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Damien/Joseph - ExI Website - Your Comments In-Reply-To: <4357E2AA.5080302@goldenfuture.net> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051020130613.01c6c4d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4357E2AA.5080302@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051023094310.02e181e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 01:32 PM 10/20/2005, Joseph wrote: >Damien Broderick wrote: > >>At 11:47 AM 10/20/2005 -0500, N wrote: >> >>>Extropes, Transhumanists, futurists and all other list members - >>>What do you think about the content, look and feel of Extropy >>>Institute's website located at http://www.extropy.org >> >> >>The very first thing we see on the banner is: >> >> The original >> Transhumanis >> >>Is that meant to be "Transhumanists"? "Transhumans"? "Transhumani"? I hope this reads correctly now. >Shows up as "The original Transhumanism" fine on my browser (Firefox 1.0.6 >on a screen set to 1400x1050). > >As far as the design itself goes, I like it. It's crisp, very professional >looking. I like the emphasis on the three main projects right on the front >page. Thanks for your comments Joseph. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sun Oct 23 15:24:10 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:24:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] nano cars and trucks Message-ID: <001e01c5d7e5$d1b48b00$0100a8c0@kevin> Interesting article. http://www.physorg.com/news7438.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bradbury at aeiveos.com Sun Oct 23 15:22:17 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 08:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Dirk Bruere wrote: > If an efficient energy storage method could be developed eg electricty to > methanol with >80% efficiency, then totally renewable becomes feasible. Even > so, an electricity to hydrogen scheme coupled with a gas distribution grid > may be sufficient. I very much doubt you are going to be able to produce methanol from anything with 80% efficiency. The obvious reaction would be something like methane (natural gas) and water (CH4 + H2O --> CH3OH + H2). However methanol is a rather nasty molecule to work with which is why ethanol is used as a fuel source currently (Ford is actually pushing the fact that many of its vehicles will currently run on gas or ethanol). Someone would have to sit down and do the thermodynamics to see how much energy would be required to drive the above reaction. It may simply be that we don't have catalysts or enzymes that can drive this reaction. There are *real* problems with an electricity to hydrogen scheme (which can obviously be done through the electrolysis of water). The problem is that hydrogen embrittles metal [1,2]. The entire current natural gas pipeline system could probably *not* carry hydrogen without significant safety risks and would have to be rebuilt/duplicated with pipes designed to carry hydrogen. The last number I saw for that, and I think it was a significant underestimate, was $100 billion. The correct solution is solar ponds which produce methane (natural gas). That uses the existing natural gas pipeline system and avoids the metal embrittlement problem that hydrogen entails. Methane is *not* bad so long as it is produced in a sustainable fashion. That requires that one take the carbon out of the atmoshere (as CO2) and not out of underground stores of natural gas (or methane derived from coal). There is nothing wrong with burning methane so long as it is being done in a sustainable fashion (i.e. any carbon you release back into the atmosphere came from the atmosphere in the first place). It would take some large fraction (~20% I think) of the land currently used for cattle grazing (note I did not say farming) in the 7 SW U.S. states converted into solar ponds (containing bacteria engineered to use sunlight to produce methane) and you would have the energy equivalent of all U.S. oil consumption (domestic production + imported). The construction of solar ponds is very much a low-tech activity that could be done in a widely distributed fashion. The income derived from methane producing solar ponds is also significantly higher (probably by orders of magnitude) than that derived from cattle grazing. The interesting thing is that all of the genes required for methane producing photosynthetic bacteria are currently sitting in public databases (though some clever engineering is required to put them together properly... :-)). Robert 1. http://www.secat.net/docs/projects/Materials_Solutions_for_Hydrogen_Delivery_in_Pipelines.pdf 2. http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/wkshp_pipeline.html From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Oct 23 16:09:25 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:09:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051023160925.GA25139@ofb.net> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 09:38:36AM -0500, Greg Burch wrote: > > Yes, but your comment begs the question of from whence comes the > electricity. This is the issue I have with what I think of as No, Dirk said "then totally renewable becomes feasible"; I infer he meant solar/wind/tides/whatnot becomes useful for baseline power. Alternatively, accept less than 80% efficiency and just suck in more power. 10 billion people solar-powered at 50 kW/capita (input energy, not out of the wall) is feasible, I think. My model had been 20 kW toward electricity and the rest to make synthetic hydrocarbons from CO2 (at 11% efficiency, a bit higher than plants, *cough*) but if one assumes 10% overall that gives 5 kW of usable power, which is still First World (at least in good climates) level, though not US level. As for nukes, yeah. Some of the answers are out there but people don't listen well. Chernobyl can't happen in Western reactors, the design is all wrong. TMI reportedly didn't actually release much; you're doing good when your worst disaster didn't actually do anything. Waste takes a lot less volume and lasts less if you don't bury the U-238 and actinide products along with the fission fragments. I've heard some enviros are looking at nukes more, in the face of probable coal use. I don't have any clever solutions to what seems an essentially social control problem. -xx- Damien X-) From neptune at superlink.net Sun Oct 23 16:16:29 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:16:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em References: Message-ID: <02d401c5d7ed$207840e0$2e893cd1@pavilion> Regardless of all the benefits touted about nuclear power, in the current context it remains extremely expensive and is usually subsidized. One might argue that the expense is because of all the regulatory and political hurdles, but many of them apply to other forms of energy production as well. (And subsidies abound in many of them too, making it hard to tell which is the more efficient.) I'm still waiting for a good economic study to see if nuclear power would, on a free market, be worth it -- against other existing forms of energy production. Which is not to say I'm against it. Just allow a free market in energy production and if nuclear plants pop up all over... Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From bradbury at aeiveos.com Sun Oct 23 16:27:07 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:27:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Greg Burch wrote: > These issues are weapons proliferation and waste storage. Both > seem to call for structures of social control about which liberty lovers > and skeptics about government power and efficiency should have deep > misgivings. Greg, there may be a problem with "waste storage" currently but there isn't in the long term. Nuclear transmutation is a very well defined science. Just as all of the radioisotopes currently used in science and medicine can be manufactured it is possible to take radioactive isotopes and transmute (or breed) them into non-radioactive isotopes. There are however mass/cost issues associated with the process however. All current "waste" consists of a small fraction of radioactive isotopes and a large fraction of non-radioactive isotopes. Ideal (less expensive) transmutation strategies require relatively "pure" streams of specific radioactive isotopes so they can be subjected to specific transmutation strategies. One could, in theory, use the same methods (centrifugation) that are used for uranium enrichment to separate out the specific radioactive isotopes but a relatively complex (and presumably expensive) infrastructure would need to be built. One would also have the electricity cost of running such facilities. Now, this entire problem shifts significantly once one has nanotechnology. Nanomedicine Volume 1 discusses several methods for sorting materials based on atomic weight -- from "single proton (neutron) massometers" to nanocentrifuges with capabilities significantly greater than macroscale centrifuges. Since these could be constructed in highly parallel systems and would be very efficient the costs for separating the radioactive from the non-radioactive elements/compounds would be relatively inexpensive. You feed the radioactive materials into reactors or accelerators and transmute them into non-radioactive materials. Voila -- no "waste". I look at the Yucca Mountain debaate as being rather stupid because sometime in about 30-50 years I think they are going to start taking the waste out of the storage facility and start transmuting it into non-radioactive materials. It is worth noting that LANL has an active research effort involving nuclear waste disposal via transmutation as do several groups in Europe and Russia. The work is not however very high profile or funded very well because of the separation cost/methods problem. Regarding the proliferation problem, obviously the best solution is to avoid transporting the materials as much as possible. Presumably one would like to concentrate the uranium and dispose of waste materials "on-site". You can't easily do that now but you could do it with nanotechnology. Alternatively you want high density specialized sites for these activities, presumably away from major population centers, perhaps somewhat like the petrochemical plants on the Gulf. I have heard people discuss the idea of electricity transmission in buried pipelines using superconducting cables cooled using LH2. It is an interesting idea as one reduces electrical transmission losses significantly while providing a hydrogen delivery system. It would however take a significant amount of time and investment to construct such a system. Ideally one would like a nanorobot based pipeline construction system which is fed the raw materials and digs the pipeline path and manufactures the electric cable/LH2 carrier pipeline in situ without ever having to dig up the ground. This has the advantage of being able to place the pipelines deep enough that they would not represent a threat to anyone on the surface. If you can make the transport of the products (electricity, H2, CH4) cheap enough and safe enough then one can secure the production and and waste disposal to a very high level at specific facilities and avoid any significant impact on society in general that you may be worried about. There are also safety issues. But I believe work on alternative designs, such as the Pebble Bed Reactor [1] may be addressing these. The Chinese may end up being the first to seriously move in this direction [2]. Of course some of my suggestions require robust nanotechnology, but with the announcement of the Rice nanocar [see 3] that just became something one can more legitimately incorporate into discussions of long term planning. Robert 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor 2. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china_pr.html 3. Light-driven motorized nanocar built at Rice: step toward molecular manufacturing http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2057 (Has some additional links not in previous posts to ExIChat including the precise chemical synthesis steps in the Nano Letters article.) From bradbury at aeiveos.com Sun Oct 23 16:36:46 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:36:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <20051023160925.GA25139@ofb.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Damien Sullivan wrote: > My model had been 20 kW toward electricity and > the rest to make synthetic hydrocarbons from CO2 (at 11% efficiency, a bit > higher than plants, *cough*) but if one assumes 10% overall that gives 5 kW of > usable power, which is still First World (at least in good climates) level, > though not US level. I'd like to see how you are getting CO2 to synthetic hydrocarbons at 11% efficiency! Just for general education -- plants generally are harvesting solar energy at 1-2%. Sugar cane under ideal conditions (Brazil presumably) can push 3-4%. A photobioreactor which has light sources surrounding a vessel containing photosynthetic bacteria/algae can push 8%. Anything higher than that is going to require significant bioengineering IMO (the good news is that we are very close to having cheap methods to tackle this in a robust way). > Waste takes a lot less volume and lasts > less if you don't bury the U-238 and actinide products along with the fission > fragments. As I said in a previous message -- just transmute the radioactive materials into non-radioactive materials. One might also want to consider breeder reactors so one can produce more fuel over time. This works well if one has closed-facilities where the material never leaves the facility. Robert From bradbury at aeiveos.com Sun Oct 23 16:52:38 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <02d401c5d7ed$207840e0$2e893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Technotranscendence wrote: > Which is not to say I'm against it. Just allow a free > market in energy production and if nuclear plants pop up all over... This may be a classic example where the "free market" may not be the right solution. Ideally one would like to mine the uranium, concentrate it into fuel, use it to generate electricity, breed any future fuel sources and transmute any radioactive "waste" materials into non-radioactive materials all at the same site. I.e. one only has non-dangerous materials going in and non-dangerous materials + energy coming out of such facilities. Due to the different specializations in free market societies however (the mining companies are not the reactor builders are not the waste disposal companies) it is difficult to envision this without strong government incentives (or regulations) to promote the development of such energy production centers. Also, it is worth noting as an aside, that once robust MNT becomes available, the problems currently being dealt with in Iran at this time (countries that want to enrich their own uranium) become much more widespread. One does not require large centralized facilities with specialized centrifuges for uranium enrichment. It would be moderately easy for terrorist organizations to design, manufacture and distribute small nanotech based enrichment facilities (think along the lines of home shop tools). The only way out of this that I can see is massive education and economic "uplifting" efforts that would go hand-in-hand with nanotechnology development that would make terrorism as a whole a rather undesirable course to follow. This is where Greg's concerns about government "intrusiveness" into private lives becomes a concern. Detecting small home-based enrichment facilities would probably be a non-trivial problem. (It can be trivial if you allow nanorobot detection systems to run around searching for them -- but then you get into the intrusiveness problem.) Robert From jonkc at att.net Sun Oct 23 17:04:47 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:04:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em References: Message-ID: <015001c5d7f4$03088810$15ef4d0c@MyComputer> "Greg Burch" > two issues remain as legitimate problems and therefore major stumbling > blocks to more widespread use of nuclear power. These issues are weapons > proliferation Weapons proliferation is indeed a very serious problem and all reactors make Plutonium, but I'm not sure expanding the use of power reactors would make things much worse. Already about 260 tons of weapon-grade Plutonium have been produced since 1945, enough for 85,000 bombs; and that's not counting 950 tons of commercial-grade Plutonium that you can also make nuclear bombs out of with a little more effort. > and waste storage. That is a political problem not a technological problem. The Yucca mountain long term storage facility is designed so that for 10,000 years a person living 11 miles from it will receive no more 15 millirems a year, a chest X ray gives you about 10. Recently in a decision so stupid it takes your breath away a court ruled that 10,000 years was not good enough because from 10,000 to one million years the amount is likely to increase to 350 millirems. A better example of the idiocy of planning too far ahead I've never seen. John K Clark From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Oct 23 17:22:56 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:22:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: References: <20051023160925.GA25139@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20051023172253.GA10730@ofb.net> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 09:36:46AM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > My model had been 20 kW toward electricity and the rest to make synthetic > > hydrocarbons from CO2 (at 11% efficiency, a bit higher than plants, > > *cough*) but if one assumes 10% overall that gives 5 kW of usable power, > I'd like to see how you are getting CO2 to synthetic hydrocarbons at 11% > efficiency! Just for general education -- plants generally are harvesting With vigorous handwaving! I'd assumed electricity generation at 33% efficiency, and then electricity to liquid fuel at 33% efficiency, on the grounds of converting energy forms often being about 30%. I did know 8% was the highest I'd ever heard for photosynthesis, but for my original purpose (seeing if 10 billion people could be sustained at US levels) I hoped it was close enough and maybe some less fuel could be used. Or maybe being able to liquefy air would make CO2 extraction more efficient? I also don't know if we even have industrial tech for CO2->fuel, and am struck that no one ever talks about it even as a research possibility. It's oil from coal, or hydrogen from water, never oil from air. > solar energy at 1-2%. Sugar cane under ideal conditions (Brazil presumably) > can push 3-4%. A photobioreactor which has light sources surrounding a > vessel containing photosynthetic bacteria/algae can push 8%. Anything "Clearly plants are really inefficient and we can do better!" But I suspect the limiting factor is the low concentration of CO2; dealing with a 300 ppm input can't be pretty. But unavoidable, if we're using carbon as an energy store and burning it. No wonder hydrogen looks attractive. Realistically I'd guess we'd be hard put to even approach plants at what they're doing. What's the efficiency for solar ponds with bacterial methanogenesis? Are there ways of turning the methane into liquid fuel, and at what rates? > > Waste takes a lot less volume and lasts less if you don't bury the U-238 > > and actinide products along with the fission fragments. > > As I said in a previous message -- just transmute the radioactive materials Sounds good; I don't know if it's something we can count on. Alternately, just the fission products don't take up much volume, and supposedly they dim out in 500 to 1000 years, with plutonium being the main "hundreds of thousands of years!" culprit, but also being fuel we shouldn't be burying. > into non-radioactive materials. One might also want to consider breeder > reactors so one can produce more fuel over time. This works well if one At global scales there's no 'might' about it. -xx- Damien X-) From xyz at iq.org Sun Oct 23 17:48:58 2005 From: xyz at iq.org (Julian Assange) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 03:48:58 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1130089738.27040.245812894@webmail.messagingengine.com> The recent increase in oil prices have made the nuclear option even less efficient. Construction and decomissioning are extremely expensive. Insurance is unobtainable so all reactors require state subsidy to over- ride legal liability. Ore extraction, concentration and shipment is oil intensive and the reactor super structure is likewise made from mining related products. Ionizing radiation causes structural defects to any metal it interacts with, hence most reactor components have a limited life and must be routined checked, replaced or decomissioned. Natural distribution and proliferation concerns limit supply to a few major players and shifting political arrangements mean cost-effective priced supply can not be guaranteed for many countries. Nuclear qualified employees are highly paid. Further, there just isn't that much yellow cake to be had. Efficiencies of scale (say 20x the number of reactors) will soon meet deficiencies of supply and although proliferation and security concerns are mostly hype, they are not all hype and they only go away with expensive engineering, personel and government subsidised monitors. If you re-cost coal fired power-stations to include the 3rd party effects of Co2, sulfer-dioxide, fly ash, radioactive isotope release etc then nuclear starts to look better, but there isn't the political will to do much of this. On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 07:30:03 -0500, "Greg Burch" said: > Over the last few years I've come to the conclusion (like very many > people) that nuclear power generation is generally undervalued as a > source of electricity generation. Opponents to nuclear power point to > issues at almost every step of the process from the mining of uranium > ore through storage and disposal of spent fuel and other waste. Based > on the evidence of how many reactors are in operation or have been > constructed (in the U.S. at least) over the last 30 years, nuke > proponents have done a poor job of responding to those concerns. > > >From a technical standpoint, it seems to me that no alternative to > >nuclear power generation comes close to the value that nuke plants > >can offer in the face of the many societal problems created by fossil > >fuel energy sources. But nuke advocates have to have good answers to > >overcome the huge hit that nukes have taken in public perception > >since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. I'm sure that reactor design > >and operating procedures have been and can be developed to adequately > >address the kinds of problems that gave rise to those two incidents. > > But it seems to me that two issues remain as legitimate problems and > therefore major stumbling blocks to more widespread use of nuclear > power. These issues are weapons proliferation and waste storage. Both > seem to call for structures of social control about which liberty > lovers and skeptics about government power and efficiency should have > deep misgivings. So I'm interested in the thoughts of those here on > the List about these two issues. What kinds of social and technical > mechanisms present the best balance between harvesting the obvious > benefits of nuclear power on the one hand and avoiding the problems of > inefficient and overly-intrusive social controls on the other? > > Greg Burch http://www.gregburch.net > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From bradbury at aeiveos.com Sun Oct 23 18:25:40 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:25:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <20051023172253.GA10730@ofb.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Damien Sullivan wrote: > With vigorous handwaving! Thought so... :-) > Or maybe being able to liquefy air would make CO2 > extraction more efficient? I don't think CO2 extraction is the problem. > "Clearly plants are really inefficient and we can do better!" But I suspect > the limiting factor is the low concentration of CO2; dealing with a 300 ppm > input can't be pretty. I think that may only be a small part of the problem. For land plants like corn and vegetables, the problem is lack of complete coverage (sunlight on soil doesn't help much). Sugarcane and wheat are better in this respect. Part of the problem is incomplete absorption of the solar energy. Plants should *not* be green. They should be black. Obviously they are losing the energy in the green photons (which is significant). Ultimately the problem is that the standard photosynthetic harvesting apparatus is not using the full energy of each photon. Its delivering red photon energy and blue photon energy to the photosynthetic reaction center in the same quantities (the rest presumably is radiated as heat). One needs solar energy harvesting apparatus structured like multi-layer solar cells or the water column in the ocean -- where the energy harvesting material (photosynthetic antenna, etc.) are designed to pick up photons with very precise energy and utilize it fully. So uppermost layers would harvest red photons, then lower down one harvests green photons, then at the bottom one harvests the blue photons. You can do this type of a structure in solar ponds. It is very difficult to do it in the thin leaves of plants. If you study the light absorption frequencies of various photoplankton you will discover they are very precisely tuned for the light energy which reaches the water depth they inhabit. Land plants are not so clever. > But unavoidable, if we're using carbon as an energy > store and burning it. No wonder hydrogen looks attractive. Realistically I'd > guess we'd be hard put to even approach plants at what they're doing. Phytoplankton are *not* that complicated. One doesn't need everything a land plant needs because one can always drain and "reseed" the pond. > What's the efficiency for solar ponds with bacterial methanogenesis? Are > there ways of turning the methane into liquid fuel, and at what rates? It isn't clear at this time because some tricks are involved getting the enzymes that perform methanogenesis to operate in phytoplankton. I think I know how to do it but I'll not discuss it in public. As pointed out above -- the real problem is tuning the photosynthetic reaction centers to make the most efficient use of the photon energy. Enzymatic chemical conversions are generally quite efficient and there are companies now that make a business out of making the enzymes more efficient at the processes. Of course, if you are concerned with the CO2 concentrations one can always feed the solar ponds the output of the coal based power plants. With regard to liquid fuels. Converting methane to propane or octane is fairly straight forward. Its the inverse process that is currently done at petrochemical plants where one is generally converting heavier hydrocarbons into lighter hydrocarbons. So in theory with some slight infrastructure retooling one should have the capabilities one needs. Robert From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Oct 23 19:13:07 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:13:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: References: <20051023172253.GA10730@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20051023191307.GA5665@ofb.net> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 11:25:40AM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > > "Clearly plants are really inefficient and we can do better!" But I > > suspect the limiting factor is the low concentration of CO2; dealing with > > a 300 ppm input can't be pretty. > > I think that may only be a small part of the problem. For land plants > like corn and vegetables, the problem is lack of complete coverage > (sunlight on soil doesn't help much). Sugarcane and wheat are better > in this respect. Part of the problem is incomplete absorption of the solar > energy. Plants should *not* be green. They should be black. Obviously A while back I read _Why Big Fierce Animals Are Rare_ by Paul Colinvaux, an ecologist. IIRC he said something like most plants get 8% in their growth phase under optimal conditions. They're all using the same chloroplasts, after all. Algae are just always in the growth phase. More to the point, he said plants' energy efficiency in dim light is often much higher, such as 20%. This could be "evolved assuming shade" but could also be a sign that energy isn't the limiting factor. And here's a question: to make a plant growing at high noon grow faster, do you increase the intensity of light, or increase its CO2 concentration? And what are the thermodynamics of getting CO2 from 300 ppm to 100,000 ppm or whatever the C concentration in biomass would be? > they are losing the energy in the green photons (which is significant). OTOH, we might expect on evolutionary grounds that if most photosynthesizers aren't using all the photons then there isn't much gain for them to do so. > Ultimately the problem is that the standard photosynthetic harvesting > apparatus is not using the full energy of each photon. Its delivering Which is why a solar heat engine can produce electricity better than a photovoltaic, at least in direct light. > If you study the light absorption frequencies of various photoplankton > you will discover they are very precisely tuned for the light energy > which reaches the water depth they inhabit. Land plants are not so clever. Any references to read more in? -xx- Damien X-) From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 23 19:21:02 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:21:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <20051023172253.GA10730@ofb.net> References: <20051023160925.GA25139@ofb.net> <20051023172253.GA10730@ofb.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051023141409.01e15bb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 10:22 AM 10/23/2005 -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: >I also don't know if we even have industrial tech >for CO2->fuel, and am struck that no one ever talks about it even as a >research possibility. It's oil from coal, or hydrogen from water, never oil >from air. New biotechnology will grow liquid fuel for the poor, according to Freeman Dyson, seeding the tropics with plants that convert sunlight into the machineries of appropriate technology. In THE SPIKE (2201), I cited this: <`How can a godforsaken Mexican village become a source of wealth?' Freeman Dyson asks. Sunlight, he notes, is not restricted to the rich countries - quite the reverse. Genetic engineering of new kinds of crops will make solar energy available even to the poor. `An energy crop could be a permanent forest of trees that convert sunlight to liquid fuel and deliver the fuel directly through their roots to a network of underground pipelines.' (Freeman J. Dyson, The Sun, the Genome, & the Internet (1999), p. 69). > Not sure of the details, but this sounds like oil from air and sunlight to me. [The subject line of this thread is weirdly dysfunctional and unpleasant, BTW, Greg, rather as if we were discussing ways to encourage people to love each other better under the heading `Rape 'em'.] Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 23 19:32:02 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:32:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em - oops In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051023141409.01e15bb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20051023160925.GA25139@ofb.net> <20051023172253.GA10730@ofb.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20051023141409.01e15bb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051023143103.01cf05e0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> > >In THE SPIKE (2201), I cited this: That's the Post-Singularity edition. Oddly, the same passage was in the 2001 release. :) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Oct 23 19:34:47 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:34:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051023141409.01e15bb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20051023160925.GA25139@ofb.net> <20051023172253.GA10730@ofb.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20051023141409.01e15bb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051023193440.GA14483@ofb.net> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 02:21:02PM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > >I also don't know if we even have industrial tech > >for CO2->fuel, and am struck that no one ever talks about it even as a > >research possibility. It's oil from coal, or hydrogen from water, never > New biotechnology will grow liquid fuel for the poor, according to Freeman Okay not no one, and people do talk about biodiesel... but I said industrial tech. You know, suck CO2 out of the air, crack it, crack water, mix to taste. I went googling for [phytoplankton photosynthetic efficiency] and didn't find useful numbers easily, but did find Bradbury's own page: http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Papers/PhotosyntheticEfficiency.html "On the basis of these limitations [visible light, and quantum stuff related to working with carbon atoms], the theoretical maximum efficiency of solar energy conversion is approximately 11% [hey, my estimate!]. In practice, however, the magnitude of photosynthetic efficiency observed in the field, is further decreased by factors such as poor absorption of sunlight due to its reflection, respiration requirements of photosynthesis [looks like CO2] and the need for optimal solar radiation levels. The net result being an overall photosynthetic efficiency of between 3 and 6% of total solar radiation. } " Colinvaux also noted that the fractal nature of bushes and trees is consistent with the plant needing respiratory area more than light area, and with working well in diffuse light. If light were the sole concern a flat sheet of green might work better than all those buried leaves. -xx- Damien X-) From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Sun Oct 23 19:44:11 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:44:11 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > > There are *real* problems with an electricity to hydrogen scheme (which > can obviously be done through the electrolysis of water). The problem > is that hydrogen embrittles metal [1,2]. The entire current natural > gas pipeline system could probably *not* carry hydrogen without significant > safety risks and would have to be rebuilt/duplicated with pipes designed > to carry hydrogen. The last number I saw for that, and I think it was > a significant underestimate, was $100 billion. That's cheap. Less than half the cost of the Iraq war so far. So if the US wanted it could convert to hydrogen tomorrow, at least from a cost perspective. Alfio From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Oct 23 19:50:49 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:50:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] give 'em boundless wealth in the form of nuclear power In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051023141409.01e15bb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200510231951.j9NJpHe21987@tick.javien.com> > > At 10:22 AM 10/23/2005 -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > >I also don't know if we even have industrial tech > >for CO2->fuel, and am struck that no one ever talks about it even as a > >research possibility. It's oil from coal, or hydrogen from water, never > oil from air. CO2 is a ground state compound, energy-wise. It requires energy to break it into anything from which energy can be extracted. > [The subject line of this thread is weirdly dysfunctional and unpleasant, > BTW, Greg, rather as if we were discussing ways to encourage people to > love > each other better under the heading `Rape 'em'.] > > Damien Broderick Note new subject line. spike From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Oct 23 19:54:01 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:54:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] give 'em boundless wealth in the form of nuclear power In-Reply-To: <200510231951.j9NJpHe21987@tick.javien.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051023141409.01e15bb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200510231951.j9NJpHe21987@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051023195401.GA19107@ofb.net> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 12:50:49PM -0700, spike wrote: > > At 10:22 AM 10/23/2005 -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > > > >I also don't know if we even have industrial tech > > >for CO2->fuel, and am struck that no one ever talks about it even as a > > >research possibility. It's oil from coal, or hydrogen from water, never > > oil from air. > > CO2 is a ground state compound, energy-wise. It requires > energy to break it into anything from which energy can > be extracted. Yeah so? So is H2O and people are always talking about the "cryogenic liquid or bulky ultralight gas that goes through metal" economy. -xx- Damien X-) From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Oct 23 19:53:54 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:53:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510231954.j9NJsre22419@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alfio Puglisi > Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 12:44 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > > > > > There are *real* problems with an electricity to hydrogen scheme (which > > can obviously be done through the electrolysis of water)... was $100 billion. > > That's cheap. Less than half the cost of the Iraq war so far. So if the US > wanted it could convert to hydrogen tomorrow, at least from a cost > perspective. > > Alfio Convert to hydrogen? I must keep reminding even my engineer friends that hydrogen is a form of energy transmission, not a source. It doesn't explain where the energy comes from. Solar? If so, why do we need hydrogen in the loop? spike From eugen at leitl.org Sun Oct 23 20:02:57 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:02:57 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051023200257.GB2249@leitl.org> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 09:44:11PM +0200, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > > > > >There are *real* problems with an electricity to hydrogen scheme (which > >can obviously be done through the electrolysis of water). The problem > >is that hydrogen embrittles metal [1,2]. The entire current natural This is an issue only for refitting existing pipelines http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_48_sofronis.pdf http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_52_adams.pdf it is not obvious it's an issue but for high-temperature/high-pressure regime, and in selected materials. Hydrogen pipelines have been operated by chemical industry for decades and large distances. It's a safe technology fundamentally. Domestic and vehicular use is new-installation, and largely composite materials with no risk of embrittlement. Production by electrolysis and consumption by fuel cell are all local. > >gas pipeline system could probably *not* carry hydrogen without significant > >safety risks and would have to be rebuilt/duplicated with pipes designed > >to carry hydrogen. The last number I saw for that, and I think it was > >a significant underestimate, was $100 billion. > > That's cheap. Less than half the cost of the Iraq war so far. So if the US > wanted it could convert to hydrogen tomorrow, at least from a cost > perspective. Building things takes longer than blowing up things, but I agree in principle. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Sun Oct 23 20:04:11 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:04:11 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <200510231954.j9NJsre22419@tick.javien.com> References: <200510231954.j9NJsre22419@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, spike wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alfio Puglisi >> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 12:44 PM >> To: ExI chat list >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em >> >> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: >> >>> >>> There are *real* problems with an electricity to hydrogen scheme (which >>> can obviously be done through the electrolysis of water)... was $100 > billion. >> >> That's cheap. Less than half the cost of the Iraq war so far. So if the US >> wanted it could convert to hydrogen tomorrow, at least from a cost >> perspective. >> >> Alfio > > > Convert to hydrogen? I must keep reminding even > my engineer friends that hydrogen is a form of > energy transmission, not a source. It doesn't > explain where the energy comes from. Solar? If > so, why do we need hydrogen in the loop? You're correct. But I believe Robert was quoting a figure for the conversion of the distribution network - from natural gas, oil or whatever to hydrogen, and my point was mainly aimed at putting the figure in perspective. $100 billion for the entire US is not as huge as it sounds. Alfio From HerbM at learnquick.com Sun Oct 23 20:04:26 2005 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:04:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Japan: The Future is Now -- on the Science Channel In-Reply-To: <20051023083523.GA2644@ofb.net> Message-ID: Probably many of you know about (some of) the shows on the Science channel but I only just discovered this one: Japan: The Future is Now Excellent show, much about robotics, AI, and general technology improvements. Today: Near 400 Kph all electric auto. 'Consumer ' version does 0-100 4 seconds Talking robot that understands both gestures (head nods/shakes) and tone of voice. Asimo walking robot Bullet trains Improvements in autos to reduce pedestrian injuries Generally show, very interesting, excellent. Channel 193 on my US DISH Satellite but of course this will vary by location/vendor. -- Herb Martin From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Oct 23 20:05:10 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:05:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] more ice in greenland = more green in iceland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510232006.j9NK60e23956@tick.javien.com> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/21/greenland.icecap.reut/index.html I hadn't heard of this as a possibility, but imagine this scenario: in a few hundred years, global warming causes warmer air, which is able to hold more moisture with the result being more rain and snowfall, a warmer, wetter planet, longer growing seasons everywhere with receding glaciers, advancing rain forest replacing receding deserts with thicker ice on Greenland and Antarctica, resulting in a lowering sea level. Would that be cool or what? spike From eugen at leitl.org Sun Oct 23 20:23:23 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:23:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <200510231954.j9NJsre22419@tick.javien.com> References: <200510231954.j9NJsre22419@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051023202323.GC2249@leitl.org> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 12:53:54PM -0700, spike wrote: > Convert to hydrogen? I must keep reminding even > my engineer friends that hydrogen is a form of > energy transmission, not a source. It doesn't Fossil energy is only a transmission form of a natural source of energy: stellar fusion. Ditto nuclear energy: there were no fissibles but for supernova nucleosynthesis. Given low storage efficiency of fossil light captured a comparison with with available flux onto even this small ball of dirt fossil doesn't look too well (do the math). What makes solar energy expensive is the antennas. Make them cheap enough, and solar energy becomes literally too cheap to meter. > explain where the energy comes from. Solar? If > so, why do we need hydrogen in the loop? Because the sun doesn't shine at night, so you need a buffer. Electricity doesn't travel very well, so a hydrogen pipeline is a low-loss way of transporting energy. Electrosynthesis is an option http://electrochem.cwru.edu/ed/encycl/art-o01-org-ind.htm , but hydrogen is also a very large scale industrial chemical. It doesn't have to be hydrogen, CO2 can be electrochemically reduced to methanol with 40% efficiency (80 C, 68 bar CO2 pressure): http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7308x1305.pdf but water is ubiquitous, and hydrogen/oxygen can be readily stored in pressurized form for nonmobile applications. See lots more under http://www.google.com/search?q=hydrogen+economy&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Oct 23 20:28:23 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:28:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] more ice in greenland = more green in iceland In-Reply-To: <200510232006.j9NK60e23956@tick.javien.com> References: <200510232006.j9NK60e23956@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051023202823.GD2249@leitl.org> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 01:05:10PM -0700, spike wrote: > I hadn't heard of this as a possibility, but > imagine this scenario: in a few hundred years, global In a few hundred years I'd be very surprised to see primate bauplan people still frolicking around. > warming causes warmer air, which is able to hold more > moisture with the result being more rain and snowfall, > a warmer, wetter planet, longer growing seasons everywhere > with receding glaciers, advancing rain forest replacing > receding deserts with thicker ice on Greenland and > Antarctica, resulting in a lowering sea level. > > Would that be cool or what? http://www.google.com/search?hs=qQ6&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=famine+global+warming&btnG=Search ...would be perhaps not so cool, and could become a reality a lot quicker than a few hundred years. One of Jared Diamond's cited causes of collapse is a climate change. We are not yet sufficiently decoupled from the global ecology to make food from thin air. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Oct 23 20:41:22 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:41:22 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] give 'em boundless wealth in the form of nuclear power In-Reply-To: <20051023195401.GA19107@ofb.net> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051023141409.01e15bb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200510231951.j9NJpHe21987@tick.javien.com> <20051023195401.GA19107@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20051023204122.GF2249@leitl.org> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 12:54:01PM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > CO2 is a ground state compound, energy-wise. It requires > > energy to break it into anything from which energy can > > be extracted. > > Yeah so? So is H2O and people are always talking about the "cryogenic liquid > or bulky ultralight gas that goes through metal" economy. The very large difference between carbon dioxide and dihydrogen oxide is that water is readily available, and carbon dioxide has to be enrichened from 0.03% atmospheric content. Fighting against entropy with primitive means is going to cost you a pretty penny in energy and hardware which you won't be getting back at the end of the cycle. No industrial process uses direct CO2 fixation. It's completely idiotic. Much easier is to rely on plant fixation as biomass, but water is already literally everywhere (given how far a few liters of water can take you, even in the driest desert), and electrolysis/fuel cell cycle a simple process. Mars missions might use CO2 from the atmosphere for resources, because it's enrichened and because pumping is much simpler than mining, so an otherwise insane process might make sense there. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Oct 23 20:46:42 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:46:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] give 'em boundless wealth in the form of nuclear power In-Reply-To: <20051023204122.GF2249@leitl.org> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051023141409.01e15bb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200510231951.j9NJpHe21987@tick.javien.com> <20051023195401.GA19107@ofb.net> <20051023204122.GF2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20051023204642.GA29538@ofb.net> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 10:41:22PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > The very large difference between carbon dioxide and dihydrogen oxide > is that water is readily available, and carbon dioxide has to > be enrichened from 0.03% atmospheric content. Fighting against > entropy with primitive means is going to cost you a pretty penny That's what I figured. OTOH, hydrocarbons are a proven energy storage and transfer mechanism, with lots of infrastructure; being able to make them (or alcohols) for transportation may still make sense. > idiotic. Much easier is to rely on plant fixation as biomass, but See, that's an answer: plants are much better at it than we are. Though the 40% CO2->methanol process didn't sound bad. -xx- Damien X-) From eugen at leitl.org Sun Oct 23 21:01:39 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:01:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <20051023191307.GA5665@ofb.net> References: <20051023172253.GA10730@ofb.net> <20051023191307.GA5665@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20051023210139.GH2249@leitl.org> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 12:13:07PM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > A while back I read _Why Big Fierce Animals Are Rare_ by Paul Colinvaux, an > ecologist. IIRC he said something like most plants get 8% in their growth > phase under optimal conditions. They're all using the same chloroplasts, No, actually they aren't: http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e24/24b.htm E.g. Miscanthus is a C4 perennial grass. > after all. Algae are just always in the growth phase. Problem with algae is that they don't grow on the field, and produce dry biomass. I can't emphasize enough this simple fact. > More to the point, he said plants' energy efficiency in dim light is often > much higher, such as 20%. This could be "evolved assuming shade" but could I don't see why everyone is hypnotised by efficiency. It's just a yet another factor in the total life cycle computation. A dirt cheap 3% efficient polymer photovoltaics film can be much cheaper than fossil fuel sources, something you can't expect from a 35% efficient InGaP/GaAs/Ge. > also be a sign that energy isn't the limiting factor. And here's a question: > to make a plant growing at high noon grow faster, do you increase the > intensity of light, or increase its CO2 concentration? Mu. I would not want a plant in the cycle in the first place. > And what are the thermodynamics of getting CO2 from 300 ppm to 100,000 ppm or > whatever the C concentration in biomass would be? Plants are nanotechnology, so it works for them. Unfortunately, trees have no power sockets in them, nor do they grow on demand whatever you just ordered online. > > they are losing the energy in the green photons (which is significant). > > OTOH, we might expect on evolutionary grounds that if most photosynthesizers > aren't using all the photons then there isn't much gain for them to do so. On evolutionary grounds, we can expect that critters are caught in a local minimum. Can you imagine an evolutionary process resulting in nonprotic photochemistry? Why are plants not velvet black in the first place? > > Ultimately the problem is that the standard photosynthetic harvesting > > apparatus is not using the full energy of each photon. Its delivering > > Which is why a solar heat engine can produce electricity better than a > photovoltaic, at least in direct light. Uh, I'd like to see your Stirling beat 35% efficient (theoretical plateau around 55%) solar cell. If you cheat using mirrors, you need to include production, maintenance, cleaning and tracking. Then the Carnot efficiency doesn't look so good. In comparison, rectenna arrays in solar spectrum range can be quantitatively efficient http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33263.pdf leaving any Carnot process based device smoking in the dust. > > If you study the light absorption frequencies of various photoplankton > > you will discover they are very precisely tuned for the light energy > > which reaches the water depth they inhabit. Land plants are not so clever. > > Any references to read more in? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Oct 23 21:09:27 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:09:27 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] give 'em boundless wealth in the form of nuclear power In-Reply-To: <20051023204642.GA29538@ofb.net> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051023141409.01e15bb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200510231951.j9NJpHe21987@tick.javien.com> <20051023195401.GA19107@ofb.net> <20051023204122.GF2249@leitl.org> <20051023204642.GA29538@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20051023210927.GI2249@leitl.org> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 01:46:42PM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > That's what I figured. OTOH, hydrocarbons are a proven energy storage and Absolutely. If there was a methanol spigot in every tree we'd have it made. Unfortunately, it's a long, dirty cycle from agriculture to the power socket in the wall. > transfer mechanism, with lots of infrastructure; being able to make them (or Actually the infrastructure need adaptation in most cases: even if your engine is specced for biodieses the air conditioning unit probably isn't, and will break down quite soon (I know, I was also surprised when I learned this). > alcohols) for transportation may still make sense. If we're going to a photovoltaics power grid (small produces/consumers, weakly locally coupled) then long-distance transport ceases. Gases are actually quite easy to transport, and domestic natural gas lines would have no issues with going hydrogen (or feeding the methane reformer in the cellar in the first approximation). > > idiotic. Much easier is to rely on plant fixation as biomass, but > > See, that's an answer: plants are much better at it than we are. But plants don't plow, sow, fertilize, harvest, transport and process themselves. That's the huge, hairy, buzzing fly in the ointment. Soil nonsustainability and water table pollution are nasty issues already. > Though the 40% CO2->methanol process didn't sound bad. Superficially, yes. But it starts with pure, compressed CO2. This is something one would do on Mars. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From transcend at extropica.com Sun Oct 23 22:31:00 2005 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:31:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008501c5d821$72273660$c6e24542@eschaton> Yes, realized my error after sending it. :P Brandon -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rayburn, James Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 2:05 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain I generally like to read these threads, not interject. However, I couldn't hold back. T/T and T/H are non-possibilities. The only possibilities are H/H, H/H, and H/T. p(X|~A)=66% Re-crunch you get 33%, Which is the answer I've seen in previous incarnations of the question. Once taken to 10,000 trials with the three coins. Their outcome was 33%. I like it here. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Brandon Reinhart [mailto:transcend at extropica.com] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:17 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain > What is the probability that the other side is a tail? This sounds like a problem for Bayes Theorem. p(A|X) = p(X|A) * p(A) / ( p(X|A)*p(A) + p(X|~A)*p(~A) ) Coins: H/H, T/T, H/T A - The bottom is a tail. X - The top is a head. p(A|X) = The probability that the bottom of the coin is a tail, when the top is a head. p(A) - Prior probability (likelihood with no new information) that the bottom of any coin drawn will be a tail: 50% (there are 6 sides total, 3 heads, 3 tails). P(~A) - Prior probability that the bottom of any coin drawn will be a head: 50%. p(X|A) - 33% of coins with a bottom tail will have a top head. p(X|~A) - 33% of coins with a bottom not a tail will have a top head. P(A|X) = 33% * 50% / ( 33%*50% + 33%*50% ) = 0.165 / ( 0.165 + 0.165 ) = 0.165 / 0.33 = 0.5 The likelihood that the coin drawn has a tail on the other side is 50%. In fact, the information we are given (that we see a head) doesn't help us at all. It is completely irrelevant information (as far as probability is concerned). Brandon -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 2:06 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain You have a bag containing three coins: a double headed, a double tailed and an ordinary coin. You reach into the bag without looking, take one out and place it on the table. You see a head facing up. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From gregburch at gregburch.net Sun Oct 23 22:44:56 2005 From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:44:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] give 'em boundless wealth in the form of nuclearpower In-Reply-To: <200510231951.j9NJpHe21987@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: spike > > [The subject line of this thread is weirdly dysfunctional and > unpleasant, > > BTW, Greg, rather as if we were discussing ways to encourage people to > > love > > each other better under the heading `Rape 'em'.] > > > > Damien Broderick > > Note new subject line. > > spike Aww, c'mon, spike, where's your sense of humor?!?! Robert's back and talking about nice, peaceful stuff like converting huge swaths of the American West to concrete bacteria ponds and all's right with world but, oh, ok .... From gregburch at gregburch.net Sun Oct 23 22:55:10 2005 From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:55:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <20051023200257.GB2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: I can second this. Having done tort work (i.e. legalese for "things that go "boom!") in the hydrocarbon energy industry for 18 years, I've encountered hydrogen embrittlement accidents every few years -- most recently within the last couple of months. As 'gene points out, it's just a matter of using the right materials. There are spiderwebs of hydrogen pipeline in all the refineries down here on the Gulf. Something Bad happens only when someone doesn't use the right kind of material to handle it. But it does require a consciousness of the proper materials regime and a long-distance hydrogen pipeline system *would* be a Big Deal, as others have pointed out. > -----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, October 23, 2005 3:03 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em > > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 09:44:11PM +0200, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > > > > > > > >There are *real* problems with an electricity to hydrogen scheme (which > > >can obviously be done through the electrolysis of water). The problem > > >is that hydrogen embrittles metal [1,2]. The entire current natural > > This is an issue only for refitting existing pipelines > http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_48_sofronis.pdf > http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/pdp_52_adams.pdf > it is not obvious it's an issue but for high-temperature/high-pressure > regime, and in selected materials. > > Hydrogen pipelines have been operated by chemical industry for decades > and large distances. It's a safe technology fundamentally. > > Domestic and vehicular use is new-installation, and largely composite > materials with no risk of embrittlement. Production by electrolysis > and consumption by fuel cell are all local. > > > >gas pipeline system could probably *not* carry hydrogen > without significant > > >safety risks and would have to be rebuilt/duplicated with > pipes designed > > >to carry hydrogen. The last number I saw for that, and I think it was > > >a significant underestimate, was $100 billion. > > > > That's cheap. Less than half the cost of the Iraq war so far. > So if the US > > wanted it could convert to hydrogen tomorrow, at least from a cost > > perspective. > > Building things takes longer than blowing up things, but I agree > in principle. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun Oct 23 23:03:21 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 19:03:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051023141409.01e15bb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20051023160925.GA25139@ofb.net> <20051023172253.GA10730@ofb.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20051023141409.01e15bb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051023185223.0725cd00@unreasonable.com> Damien Broderick wrote: >[The subject line of this thread is weirdly >dysfunctional and unpleasant, BTW, Greg, rather >as if we were discussing ways to encourage >people to love each other better under the heading `Rape 'em'.] Long ago, I was project leader at an international clearinghouse for information on non-formal education. We had a grant from CDC to build a database on the subject. During QA, I stumbled into a DB entry that had us perplexed. The entry was for an article entitled "Increasing Rape Yield." Eventually, we figured out that what was meant was -- rape : a European herb (Brassica napus) of the mustard family grown as a forage crop for sheep and hogs and for its seeds which yield rapeseed oil and are a bird food -- compare CANOLA Also spelled rap?. -- David. From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Oct 23 23:12:19 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:12:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <20051023210139.GH2249@leitl.org> References: <20051023172253.GA10730@ofb.net> <20051023191307.GA5665@ofb.net> <20051023210139.GH2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20051023231219.GA28155@ofb.net> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 11:01:39PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > I don't see why everyone is hypnotised by efficiency. It's just a yet Because for the whole human population we're talking about coating much of the planet with power collectors and while there may not be a huge difference between .1 and 1% there's a big one between 10% and 100%. Or 30% and 300% of the planet... > > And what are the thermodynamics of getting CO2 from 300 ppm to 100,000 ppm > > or whatever the C concentration in biomass would be? > > Plants are nanotechnology, so it works for them. Unfortunately, trees have > no power sockets in them, nor do they grow on demand whatever you just Uh, hybrid system, Eugene. Hydrocarbons were for transportation purposes. Things which need power sockets would be fed directly from the photovolatic grid, ideally, except of course that needs buffers of some sort for when the sun don't shine. > minimum. Can you imagine an evolutionary process resulting in nonprotic > photochemistry? Why are plants not velvet black in the first place? Perhaps they're already using all the energy they can limited by other factors and they don't want to cook? > > Which is why a solar heat engine can produce electricity better than a > > photovoltaic, at least in direct light. > > Uh, I'd like to see your Stirling beat 35% efficient (theoretical > plateau around 55%) solar cell. I'd heard 50% for heat engines and 30% for PV. If it's the other way around, fine. -xx- Damien X-) From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Oct 23 23:19:08 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:19:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] give 'em boundless wealth in the form ofnuclearpower In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510232319.j9NNJNe14859@tick.javien.com> > Aww, c'mon, spike, where's your sense of humor?!?! Robert's back and > talking about nice, peaceful stuff like converting huge swaths of the > American West to concrete bacteria ponds and all's right with world but, > oh, ok .... But Greg, Im sure we will love having huge swaths of the American west converted to scum pits. There isn't much there now except huge grassy wastelands, upon which the buffalo rack up roaming charges. Regarding Robert talking about nice peaceful stuff, I have always suspected him of being a magnanimous peacenik. That whole superhawk thing is just a macho act. {8^D When it comes to generating power, we are going to have to choose our poison, there's just no way around it. The greens hate everything for good reason: every known energy source causes some undesirable consequences. It may turn out that oil burning will someday be fondly remembered for how clean it was. Greg its great to see you back here pal, we missed you big time. {8-] spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Greg Burch > Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 3:45 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] give 'em boundless wealth in the form > ofnuclearpower > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: spike > > > [The subject line of this thread is weirdly dysfunctional and > > unpleasant, > > > BTW, Greg, rather as if we were discussing ways to encourage people to > > > love > > > each other better under the heading `Rape 'em'.] > > > > > > Damien Broderick > > > > Note new subject line. > > > > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Oct 23 23:20:50 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:20:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <20051023160925.GA25139@ofb.net> References: <20051023160925.GA25139@ofb.net> Message-ID: On 10/23/05, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 09:38:36AM -0500, Greg Burch wrote: > > > > Yes, but your comment begs the question of from whence comes the > > electricity. This is the issue I have with what I think of as > > No, Dirk said "then totally renewable becomes feasible"; I infer he meant > solar/wind/tides/whatnot becomes useful for baseline power. > > Alternatively, accept less than 80% efficiency and just suck in more > power. > 10 billion people solar-powered at 50 kW/capita (input energy, not out of > the > wall) is feasible, I think. My model had been 20 kW toward electricity and > the rest to make synthetic hydrocarbons from CO2 (at 11% efficiency, a bit > higher than plants, *cough*) but if one assumes 10% overall that gives 5 > kW of > usable power, which is still First World (at least in good climates) > level, > though not US level. > > Depends on what that 5kW encompasses. I (my house) use less than 5kW/hr per day of electricity. However, you have to factor in transport energy and energy required to produce food and material goods. Not sure how that adds up. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Oct 23 23:27:09 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:27:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051023185223.0725cd00@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200510232327.j9NNRLe15766@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin >... During QA, I stumbled into a DB entry that had us perplexed. > The entry was for an article entitled "Increasing Rape Yield." > > Eventually, we figured out that what was meant was -- > > rape : a European herb (Brassica napus) of the > mustard family grown as a forage crop for sheep > and hogs... Also spelled rap?. -- David. I noticed some of the farm papers are taking to calling it oilseed. I am thinking of planting some of it in Oregon to experiment with biodiesel production. My evil twin has suggested planting a few acres of ordinary oilseed and put up a sign "genetically modified experimental oilseed" then on the other side of the creek put the real genetically modified oilseed with a sign "ordinary oilseed". Think that would work? spike From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Oct 23 23:37:25 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:37:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <200510232327.j9NNRLe15766@tick.javien.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051023185223.0725cd00@unreasonable.com> <200510232327.j9NNRLe15766@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 10/24/05, spike wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin > > > >... During QA, I stumbled into a DB entry that had us perplexed. > > The entry was for an article entitled "Increasing Rape Yield." > > > > Eventually, we figured out that what was meant was -- > > > > rape : a European herb (Brassica napus) of the > > mustard family grown as a forage crop for sheep > > and hogs... Also spelled rap?. -- David. > > > I noticed some of the farm papers are taking to > calling it oilseed. I am thinking of planting > some of it in Oregon to experiment with biodiesel > production. > > My evil twin has suggested planting a few acres > of ordinary oilseed and put up a sign "genetically > modified experimental oilseed" then on the other > side of the creek put the real genetically > modified oilseed with a sign "ordinary oilseed". > > Think that would work? > > And the politically correct are OK about converting farmland from food to fuel production in an increasingly hungry world? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Mon Oct 24 00:03:27 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:03:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: References: <20051023160925.GA25139@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20051024000327.GA7180@ofb.net> On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 12:20:50AM +0100, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > Depends on what that 5kW encompasses. > I (my house) use less than 5kW/hr per day of electricity. > However, you have to factor in transport energy and energy required to > produce food and material goods. > Not sure how that adds up. Nationmaster.com gives energy use per capita; I presume it is total. It gives 10 kW for Americans; Italy uses more than a third of that, 18th on the list. I suspect a lot of the lower figures is denser living and nicer climates, but hey, look at the hands. Normally I assume 10 kW in these botecs because I'd like everyone to live as well as Americans and also it's a nice round number. -xx- Damien X-) From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 00:32:20 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 01:32:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <20051024000327.GA7180@ofb.net> References: <20051023160925.GA25139@ofb.net> <20051024000327.GA7180@ofb.net> Message-ID: On 10/24/05, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 12:20:50AM +0100, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > Depends on what that 5kW encompasses. > > I (my house) use less than 5kW/hr per day of electricity. > > However, you have to factor in transport energy and energy required to > > produce food and material goods. > > Not sure how that adds up. > > Nationmaster.com gives energy use per capita; I > presume it is total. It gives > 10 kW for Americans; Italy uses more than a third of that, 18th on the > list. > I suspect a lot of the lower figures is denser living and nicer climates, > but > hey, look at the hands. Normally I assume 10 kW in these botecs because > I'd > like everyone to live as well as Americans and also it's a nice round > number. > > Well, if we convert to solar and assume a daily average of 250W m/sqm over 24hrs with a conversion efficiency of 20% the average American requires 200 sqm of desert to maintain their lifestyle ie a patch of desert of about one third of an acre. It's not much. How many people could the Sahara keep in luxury? Given that it's about 9m sq km let's assume we only use about 10% or 1m sq km. That gives us 10^12 sqm, or enough energy to support 5,000,000,000 at US energy standards - roughly the Earth's population. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Mon Oct 24 00:46:46 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 19:46:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051023185223.0725cd00@unreasonable.com> <200510232327.j9NNRLe15766@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <435C2EF6.5030503@sasktel.net> Oilseeds are grown to allow diversity in crop rotations as agriculture becomes more intensive. From an economic sense food is a cheap by-product of non-viable economics coaxed along by economic carrots from societies farm Cash-Back programs. Valuable non-food things must be the product of agriculture or food production which otherwise is more of a public service than a highly profitable business. Horses for riding and show and racing have value the horse meat is a by-product. Grapes for wine and herbal medicine VS fibre for industrial use. ETC. So grain crops and food crops must be part of plants that produce extractable or milleable by-products to justify the food production part. ei. the phytochemicals in the canola/rape plant foliage must be worth enough as food and industrial ingredients to justify the majority of the resource petrochemical inputs to be used to simply produce more petrochemical inputs. Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > And the politically correct are OK about converting farmland from food > to fuel production in an increasingly hungry world? > > Dirk > From neptune at superlink.net Mon Oct 24 01:47:50 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:47:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em References: Message-ID: <005b01c5d83c$f1da9a80$d0893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, October 23, 2005 12:52 PM Robert J. Bradbury bradbury at aeiveos.com wrote: >> Which is not to say I'm against it. Just >> allow a free market in energy production >> and if nuclear plants pop up all over... > > This may be a classic example where the > "free market" may not be the right solution. > Ideally one would like to mine the uranium, > concentrate it into fuel, use it to generate > electricity, breed any future fuel sources > and transmute any radioactive "waste" > materials into non-radioactive materials > all at the same site. > > I.e. one only has non-dangerous materials > going in and non-dangerous materials + > energy coming out of such facilities. Due > to the different specializations in free market > societies however (the mining companies are > not the reactor builders are not the waste > disposal companies) it is difficult to envision > this without strong government incentives (or > regulations) to promote the development of > such energy production centers. I'm sure you don't mean to say it's merely a lack of imagination. :) I find it easy to envision either different firms (or individuals) cooperating together via a market to achieve this or for one firm to bundle these operations together. Unlike you, I don't see a need for heavy regulation. Anyhow, if such regulation is going to be part of the process -- for whatever reason, but most likely because some influential people want it regulated and want government incentives (most like people in the energy industry, who can use the regulations to lower competition and the incentives are, well, a pure rent, no?) -- then when figuring out the costs of nuclear power, one must figure this in. In general, this drives up the cost, don't you think? > Also, it is worth noting as an aside, that once > robust MNT becomes available, the problems > currently being dealt with in Iran at this time > (countries that want to enrich their own uranium) > become much more widespread. Well, that might be a "blessing" according to: http://lemennicier.bwm-mediasoft.com/col_docs/doc_55_fr.pdf > One does not require large centralized facilities > with specialized centrifuges for uranium > enrichment. It would be moderately easy for > terrorist organizations to design, manufacture > and distribute small nanotech based enrichment > facilities (think along the lines of home shop tools). > The only way out of this that I can see is massive > education and economic "uplifting" efforts that > would go hand-in-hand with nanotechnology > development that would make terrorism as a > whole a rather undesirable course to follow. This > is where Greg's concerns about government > "intrusiveness" into private lives becomes a > concern. Detecting small home-based enrichment > facilities would probably be a non-trivial problem. > (It can be trivial if you allow nanorobot detection > systems to run around searching for them -- but then > you get into the intrusiveness problem.) I think a better strategy is dispersal. Sticking to one planet and hoping that a government with that intrusive capability with both succeed in prohibiting nuclear (and MNT) weapons and yet not become a threat to humanity itself seems like a recipe for failure to me. The government could fail, in which case the costs are very high -- loss of freedom plus having nuclear mayhem -- or it could "succeed," in which cases the cost might be the total loss of freedom until someone can overthrow it. I'd also be more afraid of the equivalent of a 14-year-old hacker with the weapons technology. Terrorism might be easier to stop than some teen that just wants to destroy a city or a biosphere for kicks. Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ "History is a selective recreation of the events of the past, according to a historian's premises regarding what is important and his judgment concerning the nature of causality in human action. This selectivity is a most important aspect of history, and it is this alone which prevents history from becoming a random chronicling of events. And since this selectivity is necessary to history, the only remaining question is whether or not such judgments will be made explicitly or implicitly, with full knowledge of what one considers to be important and why, or without such awareness. Selection presupposes a means, method, or principle of selection. The historian's view of the nature of causality in human action also is determined by a principle of selection." -- Roy Childs From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Oct 24 02:55:34 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 19:55:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <435C2EF6.5030503@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <200510240255.j9O2tqe12155@tick.javien.com> > Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > And the politically correct are OK about converting farmland from food > > to fuel production in an increasingly hungry world? > > > > Dirk Increasingly hungry? We have an ever-increasing problem in the west with producing way too much food. Prices for most food crops are terrible. Sure there are hungry places on this planet, but producing more here cannot help that. It is not economically viable to ship it there. If the politically correct have a solution that will help the hungry and still pay the farmers, I am all ears. > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lifespan Pharma Inc. > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em > > ... the phytochemicals in the canola/rape plant foliage must be worth > enough as food and industrial ingredients > to justify the majority of the resource petrochemical inputs to be > used to simply produce more petrochemical inputs. I have a notion that we will develop agriculture techniques that use far less energy than current practices. We will find ways to cultivate crops without the energy intensive and costly procedure of disking soil for instance. Canola and winter rye are appealing in that they are nitrogen fixers, which allow me to reduce investment in certain fertilizers for the next crop. I am keeping an eye on oil-bearing crops, for I know that legislatures often do wacky knee-jerk reactions to oil shortages, such as offering absurdly large subsidies to producers of ethanol and biodiesel. My libertarian side is offended by this, but my righteous indignation is easily overpowered by my righteous capitalist desire to collect these funds. spike From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 03:13:11 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 20:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] UNESCO's General Conference adopts Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051024031311.5958.qmail@web32804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } This is of interest to transhumanists around the world... UNESCO?s General Conference adopts Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights UNESCO, October 20, 2005 Press release: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=30274&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html Universal Draft Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (June 2005) Full text (PDF, 49kB) [ENG] [FRA] [ARA] [CHI] [ESP] [RUS] Towards a declaration on universal norms on bioethics ? .UNESCO?s General Conference, gathered in Paris for its 33rd session, today adopted the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. The text, adopted by acclamation, ?addresses ethical issues related to medicine, life sciences and associated technologies as applied to human beings, taking into account their social, legal and environmental dimensions.? The Declaration meets a genuine and growing need for international ethical standards in this area. This need is due to the proliferation of practices that go beyond national borders, often without a regulatory framework: biomedical research projects and experiments carried out simultaneously in different countries; importing and exporting of embryos, stem cells, organs, tissue and cells; and the international transfer of tissue and DNA samples and genetic data. The text adopted today provides a coherent framework of principles and procedures that can guide Member States in the development of national policies, legislation and codes of ethics. Wherever such an ethical framework is lacking, the Declaration will incite and assist in filling the gap. While it is still up to States to create legal texts and instruments appropriate to their cultures and tradition, the general framework proposed by the Declaration can help ?globalize? ethics in the face of the increasingly globalized sciences. The first principle established by the Declaration is the respect of human dignity and human rights, with an emphasis on the following two points: ?The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.? and ?If the application of the principles of this Declaration is to be limited, it should be by law, including laws in the interests of public safety, for the investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, for the protection of public health or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Any such law needs to be consistent with international human rights law.? Several other principles are set forth. Some are already well-established ? informed consent, respect for privacy and confidentiality, non-discrimination and non-stigmatization ? but the notion of social responsibility is new. It stresses that progress in science and technology should promote the well-being of individuals and of humanity, notably by improving access to quality health care and essential medicines as well as to adequate nutrition and water. The principle of sharing benefits is also affirmed (different forms of sharing are proposed), as is the safeguarding of the environment, the biosphere and biodiversity. The Declaration also covers the application of these principles, calling for ?professionalism, honesty, integrity and transparency in decision-making? as well as the creation of independent, multidisciplinary and pluralist ethics committees. Referring to transnational practices, it specifies: ?When research is undertaken or otherwise pursued in one or more States - the host State(s) - and funded by a source in another State, such research should be the object of an appropriate level of ethical review in the host State(s) and the State in which the funder is located.? The Declaration was developed over two years: the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) devoted one year to formulating a draft, in consultation with Member States and specialized organizations, and it took another year of governmental experts? meetings to develop the definitive version. The Declaration is the third standard-setting text on bioethics to be developed and adopted by UNESCO. The first, the 1997 Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, was adopted by the United Nations? General Assembly in 1998. It was followed by the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data in 2003 that sets ethical standards for collecting, processing, storing and using human genetic data contained in biological samples (blood, tissue, saliva, sperm, etc.). UNESCO aims to make these texts as effective as possible. Three programmes will promote them: the Global Ethics Observatory (a collection of data bases on bioethics experts and institutions, ethical committees, legal and regulatory texts, etc.), currently being established; a programme to assist bioethical committees, which primarily publishes practical guidelines; and an ethics education programme to list available educational opportunities and reinforce capacities in Member States. ..? La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 24 03:50:11 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 20:50:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <015001c5d7f4$03088810$15ef4d0c@MyComputer> References: <015001c5d7f4$03088810$15ef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <291AA8C2-0A02-46E5-9ED1-316627B512A9@mac.com> On Oct 23, 2005, at 10:04 AM, John K Clark wrote: > "Greg Burch" > > >> two issues remain as legitimate problems and therefore major >> stumbling >> blocks to more widespread use of nuclear power. These issues are >> weapons >> proliferation >> > > Weapons proliferation is indeed a very serious problem and all > reactors make > Plutonium, but I'm not sure expanding the use of power reactors > would make > things much worse. I don't see how that is true in any meaningful way after reading this. Please show me how a pebble bed reactor always makes plutonium or is even well suited for such use. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 03:09:28 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 20:09:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] SAO PAULO: Transhumanist meeting next Friday October 28, 10:00 am In-Reply-To: <016901c5c85a$5fb47140$7868fea9@rosa> Message-ID: <20051024030928.94886.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friends, I am looking forward to seeing you soon in Sao Paulo next Friday, and then again on Saturday for a brunch... Transhumanistically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? Rosa Alegria wrote: ENCONTRO COM O FUTURO O NEF (N?cleo de Estudos do Futuro) o CECREI (Centro Cardeal Arns de Estudos Interdiscplinares) e a WTA (World Transhumanism Association) convidam voc? para o pr?ximo Encontro com o Futuro a ser realizado dia 28 de outubro das 10 ?s 12:30 horas na PUC-SP Religi?o, Ci?ncia eo Futuro da Humanidade A busca pela imortalidade tem sido o problema existencial mais importante da humanidade desde que esta se tornou consciente de sua pr?pria mortalidade. Humanos, ao contr?rio de outros animais, t?m sido conscientes da vida e da norte desde a pre-hist?ria. Os homin?deos se utilizavam de id?ias religiosas como sua pr?pria forma de encarar a mortalidade f?sica e a imortalidade espiritual. Para lidar com o problema da morte, religi?es organizadas criaram os conceitos de ressurrei??o e reincarna??o, mas agora outras explica??es e solu??es emergem no esteio da ci?ncia moderna. Veja conhecer essas novas vis?es nesse instigante encontro. Convidado internacional Jose Cordeiro Futurista, Diretor da Associa??o Mundial de Transhumanismo e Diretor do Instituto de Extropia Participa??o especial Eduardo Cruz, Presidente do CECREI - Centro Cardeal Arns de Estudos InterdisciplinaresArnoldo de Hoyos, Presidente do NEF - N?cleo de Estudos do Futuro 28 de outubro na PUC-SP das 10 ?s 12:30 horas Inscri??es gratuitas Rua Ministro de Godoi 969 - PerdizesInscreva-se pelo telefone com Rosa Rizzi (11)6604-8650 ou pelo e-mail rosarizzi2004 at yahoo.com.br Realiza??o Apoio La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 46394 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 3268 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 7231 bytes Desc: not available URL: From megao at sasktel.net Mon Oct 24 03:51:53 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:51:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <200510240255.j9O2tqe12155@tick.javien.com> References: <200510240255.j9O2tqe12155@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <435C5A59.5060607@sasktel.net> spike wrote: >>Dirk Bruere wrote: >> >> >>>And the politically correct are OK about converting farmland from food >>>to fuel production in an increasingly hungry world? >>> >>>Dirk >>> >>> > >Increasingly hungry? We have an ever-increasing problem >in the west with producing way too much food. Prices >for most food crops are terrible. Sure there >are hungry places on this planet, but producing more >here cannot help that. It is not economically viable >to ship it there. If the politically correct have a >solution that will help the hungry and still pay the >farmers, I am all ears. > > > We have the food quantity down pretty well, it is now the pharma phytochemicals that can augment healthspan that need to be pushed even if it reduces the bulk of the food material production mechanisms. In some ways we will be transforming crops into "santa claus" machines able to produce many different products on demand. Let the bulk base materials be grown for the least distance to transport the major volumes but let the minor phytochemicals be grown where the logistics are the worst for bulk volume production economics. > > >>bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lifespan Pharma Inc. >>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em >> >>... the phytochemicals in the canola/rape plant foliage must be worth >>enough as food and industrial ingredients >>to justify the majority of the resource petrochemical inputs to be >>used to simply produce more petrochemical inputs. >> >> > >I have a notion that we will develop agriculture >techniques that use far less energy than current >practices. We will find ways to cultivate crops >without the energy intensive and costly procedure >of disking soil for instance. Canola and winter >rye are appealing in that they are nitrogen fixers, >which allow me to reduce investment in certain >fertilizers for the next crop. > > > Canola and winter rye are nitogen users, especially canola. It's the legumes peas, chickeas, soybeans that can get closer to taking care of themselves. But you're otherwise right. Perennial wheat with a good bit of gene tweaking could not only perform like its annual sibling but also be the source of phytochemicals if specially bred lines were stimulated epigenetically prior to a growth season. Biopharmmag.com had the budgets for biotech crop pharming about 2 years ago and its past set and mark and ready for GO. >I am keeping an eye on oil-bearing crops, for I >know that legislatures often do wacky knee-jerk >reactions to oil shortages, such as offering absurdly >large subsidies to producers of ethanol and >biodiesel. My libertarian side is offended by this, >but my righteous indignation is easily overpowered >by my righteous capitalist desire to collect these >funds. > >t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paul_illich at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 07:03:41 2005 From: paul_illich at yahoo.com (paul illich) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:03:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <200510240033.j9O0XGe24378@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051024070341.68201.qmail@web52703.mail.yahoo.com> Eugen wrote: > One of Jared Diamond's cited causes of collapse is > a climate change. We are not yet sufficiently decoupled > from the global ecology to make food from thin air. So whilst one chunk of mankind scurries off that way to learn how we can live in closer harmony with our natural environment (at the same time using the increased scientific understanding required to tame nature as well), another lot runs off the other way seeking to 'decouple' our fate from the global ecology. Self-sufficient O'Neils and other types of biosphere in space might help, but short of leaving the planet surely such 'decoupling' is a disaster? Either it makes us so independent of the biosphere that we casually destroy it cos you know who cares anyway (I do not believe this variety of decoupling can come about in the first place without us getting definitively off-planet), or we continue to damage and make wild (through oversimplification and industry imposed feedback synergies) tyhe environment we have just as we are now - undecoupled, just pretending we are actually not dependent on the global ecology. And why is being part of the global ecology such a bad thing anyhow? As we learn more and more of how it works, we can live in closer harmony to its broad needs whilst protecting ourselves, so long as such 'protection' includes birth control etc... Whereas, decoupling denies us many of the survival tools we might need if we hit a diversity bottleneck, which, decoupled from a larger biosphere, we surely would? Paul __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From paul_illich at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 07:13:08 2005 From: paul_illich at yahoo.com (paul illich) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:13:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <200510240033.j9O0XGe24378@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051024071309.69198.qmail@web52710.mail.yahoo.com> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Technotranscendence wrote: > Which is not to say I'm against it. Just allow a free > market in energy production and if nuclear plants pop up all over... I wuold caution, though, that such a 'free market' would prove nothing about price unless it incorporated externalities by default (this goes for all other energy production, too, if we want to understand real costs and long-term environmental viability, which is surely necessary). In the past, actors in the 'free market' have been singularly incapable of self-imposed honesty on 'cost', and regulatory bodies have hasd to be set up to try and force their hand (with mixed success). But, oops, this is then no longer a free 'free market', but instead one that is fettered by ethical constriants. Now Adam Smith would approve of this, and it is surely better than acting unfettered by environmental constraints (where 'environmental' includes human ecology as well as the usual hippy notions regarding birds and bees). An ethical framework of 'categorical imperatives', say, within which markets are allowed to be free - his may make costings objective and true: perhaps then all power provision might find itself on a level playfield where we can see which to take seriously... IF we can address the R&D spending part of the costing as well, for nuclear has had a lot of cash chucked at it for little return, whereas solar, tidal, and wind have had a whole lot less R&D spent on them and thus may seem 'less promising' (unless such costs are part of externalities). Paul __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 24 07:26:23 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:26:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <20051023231219.GA28155@ofb.net> References: <20051023172253.GA10730@ofb.net> <20051023191307.GA5665@ofb.net> <20051023210139.GH2249@leitl.org> <20051023231219.GA28155@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20051024072623.GJ2249@leitl.org> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 04:12:19PM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 11:01:39PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > I don't see why everyone is hypnotised by efficiency. It's just a yet > > Because for the whole human population we're talking about coating much of the > planet with power collectors and while there may not be a huge difference > between .1 and 1% there's a big one between 10% and 100%. Or 30% and 300% of > the planet... http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_cell_light.html says it's about 6 kWh/m^2/month insolation, for U.S. June. At 5% efficiency, a 60x60 m would be about enough for the average 2005 household http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_new-eng.html (notice that's *one third* of that in Germany at 333 kWh/month, so 30x30 m should have been enough -- something is running quite wrong on your side of the pond). 12% of Germany land area is covered with artificial structures, that's about 42843 km^2. At 5% efficiency that's 257058000000 kWh, or enough energy for 771251125 people. As there are only 82.5 Mpeople, it would be enough to use 1.2%, one tenth of the entire covered area. At 5%, which is current efficiency for anorganic and hybrid organic solar cells. --> The planet needs not to be paved more than it is already, a fraction of area covered converted will already do. > > > And what are the thermodynamics of getting CO2 from 300 ppm to 100,000 ppm > > > or whatever the C concentration in biomass would be? > > > > Plants are nanotechnology, so it works for them. Unfortunately, trees have > > no power sockets in them, nor do they grow on demand whatever you just > > Uh, hybrid system, Eugene. Hydrocarbons were for transportation purposes. My point was that plants don't directly produce hydrocarbon fuels. > Things which need power sockets would be fed directly from the photovolatic > grid, ideally, except of course that needs buffers of some sort for when the > sun don't shine. Electrolysis/fuel cell and pressurized storage would be about ideal here. > > minimum. Can you imagine an evolutionary process resulting in nonprotic > > photochemistry? Why are plants not velvet black in the first place? > > Perhaps they're already using all the energy they can limited by other factors > and they don't want to cook? Can you imagine an evolutionary process resulting in a plant that can operate at 130 C, normal pressure? > > > Which is why a solar heat engine can produce electricity better than a > > > photovoltaic, at least in direct light. > > > > Uh, I'd like to see your Stirling beat 35% efficient (theoretical > > plateau around 55%) solar cell. > > I'd heard 50% for heat engines and 30% for PV. If it's the other way around, > fine. http://www.visionengineer.com/env/fc_efficiency.shtml Solar-heated medium for Stirling is cold, so your efficiency is low. Adding mirrors and tracking makes the problem actually worse. Won't work with diffuse daylight, either. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 24 08:30:43 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:30:43 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <20051024070341.68201.qmail@web52703.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200510240033.j9O0XGe24378@tick.javien.com> <20051024070341.68201.qmail@web52703.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051024083043.GL2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 12:03:41AM -0700, paul illich wrote: > So whilst one chunk of mankind scurries off that way to > learn how we can live in closer harmony with our natural The harmony part has always been a myth. The damage has always been limited only by low population density. Good stewardship has always been anecdotal, and mostly limited by the leverage at culture's disposal. Arguably only control of matter at molecular scale will allow our ecological footprint to dwindle to nigh zero, and be it by moving away from planetary surfaces. > environment (at the same time using the increased > scientific understanding required to tame nature as > well), another lot runs off the other way seeking to > 'decouple' our fate from the global ecology. Both are one goal. You have to be able to control climate in order to be safe from its natural excursions. If you want to tread softly, agriculture is not the way. > Self-sufficient O'Neils and other types of biosphere in > space might help, but short of leaving the planet surely Closed-loop ecosystems are a low-technology approach to sustainability as above so below. A better approach would be put recycling on a much smaller footprint, or, even better, to recast the human primate into solid state, with some 10-100 W energetic footprint and deep space as native habitat. > such 'decoupling' is a disaster? Either it makes us so > independent of the biosphere that we casually destroy > it cos you know who cares anyway (I do not believe this > variety of decoupling can come about in the first place > without us getting definitively off-planet), or we At least energetically self-sustainability for households is not that far away. Reducing material flow and decentralising means of production are farther off. > continue to damage and make wild (through oversimplification > and industry imposed feedback synergies) tyhe environment > we have just as we are now - undecoupled, just pretending > we are actually not dependent on the global ecology. The difference is that we think we're decoupled now, but we aren't. > And why is being part of the global ecology such a bad > thing anyhow? As we learn more and more of how it works, Because, occasionally, it kills you. > we can live in closer harmony to its broad needs whilst > protecting ourselves, so long as such 'protection' includes > birth control etc... Whereas, decoupling denies us many > of the survival tools we might need if we hit a diversity > bottleneck, which, decoupled from a larger biosphere, we > surely would? We already have hit a diversity bottleneck only some 100 individuals wide not very far back in our history. It's only gotten better since, and with postbiology we can hopefully do much, much better. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 10:50:10 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:50:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] UNESCO's General Conference adopts Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights In-Reply-To: <20051024031311.5958.qmail@web32804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051024031311.5958.qmail@web32804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/24/05, Jose Cordeiro wrote: > > This is of interest to transhumanists around the world... > > UNESCO's General Conference adopts Universal Declaration on Bioethics and > Human Rights > > * * > > *UNESCO, October 20, 2005* > > Press release: > http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=30274&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html > > - Universal Draft Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights(June 2005) > Full text (PDF, 49kB) [ENG] > [FRA] > [ARA] > [CHI] > [ESP] > [RUS] > > - Towards a declaration on universal norms on bioethics > > Fortunately a load of toothless BS that will not stop anyone doing anything. The real danger lies with Bush and his Fundies, but they are relatively isolated internationally. And we can always count on China not to go along with anything too restrictive of radical biotech. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 11:04:42 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:04:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Perfect recall. In-Reply-To: <20051022212204.4F94357EF9@finney.org> References: <20051022212204.4F94357EF9@finney.org> Message-ID: <5366105b0510240404x3aea9f2cy442fdd87097bd781@mail.gmail.com> On 10/22/05, "Hal Finney" wrote: > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-March/014256.html > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-March/014282.html > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-March/014318.html > We also discussed wearable camera etiquette in April 2004: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2004-April/005527.html I did buy a wearable camera, the DejaView CamWear. Some future time I'll blog about it, but it ended up having two big drawbacks. First, it uses a weird codec for video encoding. I've not had good results converting its output to some more useful format. Second, it's too obvious and inconveniently sized for actual wear. (I also ended up working at a lot of secure sites in the last eighteen months, but that doesn't affect the wearable camera.) In short, it ended up hanging inside my car to document any accident. Inobvious and useful. -- Jay Dugger http://www.redcross.org Please donate if you can. From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Mon Oct 24 13:45:46 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:45:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Poll: Will You Live Longer And Better? Message-ID: <435CE58A.6020709@goldenfuture.net> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PollVault/story?id=1232993 "Despite wide-ranging concerns about getting older, most Americans want to live longer than the current average. But not too much longer. "If it were up to them, Americans on average would like to live to be 87 years old ? nine years older than current life expectancy. But there's a limit: Just a quarter volunteer that they'd like to live to 100 or older. And even if medical breakthroughs made living to 120 possible, most would say no thanks." Lots of tables in the original article, so I won't repeat it all here. Interesting, if disheartening, stuff, especially the gender-differences in the responses. The big pay-off from a >H point of view: "Asked how long they'd like to live, 7 percent in this poll say "forever."" Joseph From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Oct 24 14:49:47 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:49:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SAO PAULO: Transhumanist meeting next Friday October 28, 10:00 am In-Reply-To: <20051024030928.94886.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <016901c5c85a$5fb47140$7868fea9@rosa> <20051024030928.94886.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051024094922.02f9ac08@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Hi Jose, Is there a reason ExI's logo is not in your announcement? Best wishes, Natasha At 10:09 PM 10/23/2005, you wrote: >Dear friends, > > I am looking forward to seeing you soon in Sao Paulo next Friday, > and then again on Saturday for a brunch... > > Transhumanistically yours, > > La vie est belle! > > Yos? > >Rosa Alegria wrote: >ENCONTRO COM O FUTURO >>O NEF (N?cleo de Estudos do Futuro) o CECREI (Centro Cardeal Arns de >>Estudos Interdiscplinares) e a WTA (World Transhumanism Association) >>convidam voc? para o pr?ximo Encontro com o Futuro a ser realizado dia 28 >>de outubro das 10 ?s 12:30 horas na PUC-SP >> >>Religi?o, Ci?ncia e >>o Futuro da Humanidade >> >> A busca pela imortalidade tem sido o problema existencial mais >> importante da humanidade desde que esta se tornou consciente de sua >> pr?pria mortalidade. Humanos, ao contr?rio de outros animais, t?m sido >> conscientes da vida e da norte desde a pre-hist?ria. Os homin?deos se >> utilizavam de id?ias religiosas como sua pr?pria forma de encarar a >> mortalidade f?sica e a imortalidade espiritual. Para lidar com o >> problema da morte, religi?es organizadas criaram os conceitos de >> ressurrei??o e reincarna??o, mas agora outras explica??es e solu??es >> emergem no esteio da ci?ncia moderna. Veja conhecer essas novas >> vis?es nesse instigante encontro. >> >> >>Convidado internacional >>Jose Cordeiro >>Futurista, Diretor da Associa??o Mundial de Transhumanismo e Diretor do >>Instituto de Extropia >> >>Participa??o especial >> >>Eduardo Cruz, Presidente do CECREI - Centro Cardeal Arns de Estudos >>Interdisciplinares >>Arnoldo de Hoyos, Presidente do NEF - N?cleo de Estudos do Futuro >> >> >>28 de outubro na PUC-SP >>das 10 ?s 12:30 horas >>Inscri??es gratuitas >> >> Rua Ministro de Godoi 969 - Perdizes >>Inscreva-se pelo telefone com Rosa Rizzi (11)6604-8650 >>ou pelo e-mail rosarizzi2004 at yahoo.com.br >> >> >>Realiza??o Apoio >>[] >>[] >>[] > > > >La vie est belle! > >Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) > >Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse > > >_______________________________________________ >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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 707a403f.gif Type: image/gif Size: 46394 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 707a403f.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3268 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 707a404e.gif Type: image/gif Size: 7231 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 16:44:11 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] IBM: Global Innovation Outlook in Brazil Message-ID: <20051024164411.60204.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friends, I will be in Sao Paulo for two weeks following an invitation by IBM to participate in their Global Innovation Outlook (www.ibm.com/gio). This is a fascinating effort by IBM and I would love to have ideas from you. Close to 100 international experts are gathering to express their views about innovation and the future. You can contact me privately at jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com or call me in Sao Paulo at (011)5051-0765. On Saturday morning, October 29, I am organizing a brunch for old and new friends: > Richard's Restaurant (antigo Poderoso). Tel: (011)5051-3025 > Avenida Rep?blica do Libano (frente da H?lio Pellegrino) > S?bado 29 de outubro, 10:00am (brunch R$ 14-16/pessoa) Looking forward to seeing you in Brazil, futuristically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Mon Oct 24 17:44:27 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:44:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] three coins in a fountain, part 3: the test In-Reply-To: <20051022213827.93D7B57EF9@finney.org> References: <20051022213827.93D7B57EF9@finney.org> Message-ID: <435D1D7B.2080902@pobox.com> Hal Finney wrote: > > I didn't do a full analysis, but I tried various special cases and > the result was the same. The best strategy is always to put 100% of > your weight on the answer that you think has the highest probability. > Splitting your weight factors can only lower your expected score. Congratulations, Hal, you've just reinvented (by way of noticing its absence) the strictly proper scoring rule. If you square the error of the probability assigned to the correct answer, as most statisticians would have you do, then your expectation of the resulting sum of errors has its minimum when you bet at exactly your anticipated probabilities. However, as I point out in http://yudkowsky.net/bayes/technical.html - it turned out not to be an original observation - there are very strong reasons to take the logarithm of the probability assigned to the correct answer. Your expectation of the sum of these logarithms has its maximum when you bet at exactly your anticipated probabilities, so this is also a strictly proper scoring rule. The squared-error rule then becomes a special case which applies to Gaussian distributions. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From astapp at amazeent.com Mon Oct 24 17:42:48 2005 From: astapp at amazeent.com (Acy James Stapp) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:42:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em Message-ID: <437623CE9CFE7E409243C5E427BA8C81D137@AMAZEMAIL.amazeent.com> Most plants are CO2 limited. http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/2004-January/000546.html -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Sullivan Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 2:13 PM On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 11:25:40AM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote: > > "Clearly plants are really inefficient and we can do better!" But I > > suspect the limiting factor is the low concentration of CO2; dealing > > with a 300 ppm input can't be pretty. > > I think that may only be a small part of the problem. For land plants > like corn and vegetables, the problem is lack of complete coverage > (sunlight on soil doesn't help much). Sugarcane and wheat are better > in this respect. Part of the problem is incomplete absorption of the > solar energy. Plants should *not* be green. They should be black. > Obviously A while back I read _Why Big Fierce Animals Are Rare_ by Paul Colinvaux, an ecologist. IIRC he said something like most plants get 8% in their growth phase under optimal conditions. They're all using the same chloroplasts, after all. Algae are just always in the growth phase. More to the point, he said plants' energy efficiency in dim light is often much higher, such as 20%. This could be "evolved assuming shade" but could also be a sign that energy isn't the limiting factor. And here's a question: to make a plant growing at high noon grow faster, do you increase the intensity of light, or increase its CO2 concentration? From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Mon Oct 24 17:43:11 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:43:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <20051024072623.GJ2249@leitl.org> References: <20051023172253.GA10730@ofb.net> <20051023191307.GA5665@ofb.net> <20051023210139.GH2249@leitl.org> <20051023231219.GA28155@ofb.net> <20051024072623.GJ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20051024174310.GA25030@ofb.net> On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 09:26:23AM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_cell_light.html says it's about 6 kWh/m^2/month > insolation, for U.S. June. At 5% efficiency, a 60x60 m would be about enough for > the average 2005 household http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_new-eng.html Notice that's *household electricity*. I've been budgeting for total energy use. > > > > And what are the thermodynamics of getting CO2 from 300 ppm to 100,000 > > > > ppm or whatever the C concentration in biomass would be? > My point was that plants don't directly produce hydrocarbon fuels. Eh, what are we arguing about? My original was industrial production of hydrocarbons. Or other liquid fuels which we can distribute and use with existing infrastructure. > > > photochemistry? Why are plants not velvet black in the first place? > > > > Perhaps they're already using all the energy they can limited by other > > factors and they don't want to cook? > > Can you imagine an evolutionary process resulting in a plant that can operate > at 130 C, normal pressure? I thought I was good at following your thought-contortions but I'm lost now. Overheating can be a problem for animals, burn one for plants. You asked why they aren't black; I suggested there's no need for them to be. Are you saying black plants would reach 130 C in sunlight? > > > > Which is why a solar heat engine can produce electricity better than a > > > > photovoltaic, at least in direct light. > > > > > > Uh, I'd like to see your Stirling beat 35% efficient (theoretical I never said Stirling, just generic heat engine. I was thinking more of whatever they're using in California with all those mirrors focused on a tower. -xx- Damien X-) From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Oct 24 18:28:42 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:28:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen cars - Making Hydrogen on the road Message-ID: <002201c5d8c8$c36fa5a0$0100a8c0@kevin> Who needs to worry about the storage costs and other problems of hydrogen cars when you can make it right there while you drive? http://www.physorg.com/news7499.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 24 18:29:57 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:29:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Poll: Will You Live Longer And Better? In-Reply-To: <435CE58A.6020709@goldenfuture.net> References: <435CE58A.6020709@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <92FACB97-EBF7-4C3A-A688-15A6B746F3D5@mac.com> Since living longer in better health than say at 50 years old was not on the table I don't see this as particularly disturbing. - samantha On Oct 24, 2005, at 6:45 AM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PollVault/story?id=1232993 > > "Despite wide-ranging concerns about getting older, most Americans > want to live longer than the current average. But not too much longer. > > "If it were up to them, Americans on average would like to live to > be 87 years old ? nine years older than current life expectancy. > But there's a limit: Just a quarter volunteer that they'd like to > live to 100 or older. And even if medical breakthroughs made living > to 120 possible, most would say no thanks." > > Lots of tables in the original article, so I won't repeat it all > here. Interesting, if disheartening, stuff, especially the gender- > differences in the responses. > > The big pay-off from a >H point of view: "Asked how long they'd > like to live, 7 percent in this poll say "forever."" > > Joseph > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 24 18:31:51 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:31:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas In-Reply-To: <200510220123.j9M1Nce28915@tick.javien.com> References: <200510220123.j9M1Nce28915@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <8CBD1017-BDB6-44AB-A52A-55216D146E13@mac.com> Most people are not like you. They answer what they really believe. It is a large problem not to be swept away with a few witty remarks. - samantha On Oct 21, 2005, at 6:23 PM, spike wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins >> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 5:46 PM >> To: ExI chat list >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas >> >> From my perspective I am much more happy that they believe in >> aliens, time-travel, even ESP than I am with the far larger >> percentage in the US who apparently believe in virgin birth, Satan, >> the reality of heaven and hell, that evolution is bunk and that the >> earth is less than 10,000 years old! >> >> - samantha >> > > > Hey I believe in virgin birth, it happens often I > would guess. A woman can get in-vitro fertilization > without ever having experienced copulation. There > are aliens all around us, I can assure you, legal > and otherwise. And I can take you to Hawaii and > show you some earth that is less than 10,000 years > old. > > The pollsters need to take care how they ask the > question, for I always answer what they ask, > not what I think they meant. > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Oct 24 20:08:38 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen cars - Making Hydrogen on the road In-Reply-To: <002201c5d8c8$c36fa5a0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20051024200838.26278.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > Who needs to worry about the storage costs and other problems of > hydrogen cars when you can make it right there while you drive? > > http://www.physorg.com/news7499.html It's not a complete solution - there is still fuel, in the form of metals which must be recycled after oxidizing (read: infrastructure of its own). And then there's the little question of where the heat (energy) for the process comes from... From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Oct 24 20:13:51 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <20051024174310.GA25030@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20051024201351.23287.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Sullivan wrote: [re: solar power] > I was thinking more > of > whatever they're using in California with all those mirrors focused > on a > tower. The name, ironically enough, is "solar power tower". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower From amara at amara.com Mon Oct 24 20:51:11 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:51:11 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Guinness' Evolution Ad Message-ID: Wow! Check out Guinness' evolution ad : http://www.bestadsontv.com/ad_details.php?id=634 "The rhythm of life..." is a catchy tune, even. I would watch TV if more people in the TV business were as smart as the people who made this ad. Amara From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Oct 24 21:11:56 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Solar math (was: Nuke 'em) In-Reply-To: <20051024072623.GJ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> Math errors detected. --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_cell_light.html says it's about 6 > kWh/m^2/month > insolation, for U.S. June. At 5% efficiency, a 60x60 m would be about > enough for > the average 2005 household > http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_new-eng.html >From your figures: 6 kWh/(m^2*month) * 60m * 60m * 0.05 = 1080 kWh/month Of course, that's for US June; yearly average and northern latitudes (much of the US is south of Germany - far west, but also a bit south) would lead to a much lower yield. But let's overlook that for now. >From the EIA page: > In 2001, the 5.4 million New England households consumed 39 billion > kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity (3.9 * 10^10)/(5.4 * 10^6) =~ 7222 kWh/year =~ 602 kWh/month > (notice that's *one third* of that in Germany at 333 kWh/month, so > 30x30 m should > have been enough -- something is running quite wrong on your side of > the pond). (60*60)/(30*30) = 1/4, not 1/3 That which is running quite wrong over here can be traced in part to the two main occupants of the White House, and their extreme reluctance (until recently) to pursue energy efficiency and conservation as part of national energy policy. That's only one factor, though, and digressing in any case. > 12% of Germany land area is covered with artificial structures, > that's about > 42843 km^2. At 5% efficiency that's 257058000000 kWh, or enough > energy for > 771251125 people. As there are only 82.5 Mpeople, it would be enough > to use > 1.2%, one tenth of the entire covered area. 6 kWh/(m^2*month) * 42843km^2 * (10^6 m^2/km^2) * 0.05 = 12852900000 kWh/month. Using the (unsourced, but plausible) German number: (12852900000 kWh/month)/(333 kWh/(month*household)) =~ 38597297 households (8.25 * 10^7)people/38597297 households =~ 2 people/household, which is about right. So your figures appear to support covering all artificial structures - the full 12% of the land that's already covered - with solar panels, but not merely 1/10th of the structures. And, again, that's not correcting for the difference in insolation between US June and Germany year-round...although perhaps improvements from the current 5% efficiency could eventually make up for that difference: http://www.solarserver.de/lexikon/lexikons-e.html says the average annual insolation in Germany varies between 950 and 1100 kWh/m^2 depending on the region, so 30% efficient panels (advanced, but not apparently physically impossible), plus power storage to smooth out the differences in insolation over the year, might do the trick. From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 22:06:58 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:06:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Poll: Will You Live Longer And Better? In-Reply-To: <435CE58A.6020709@goldenfuture.net> References: <435CE58A.6020709@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On 10/24/05, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PollVault/story?id=1232993 > > "Despite wide-ranging concerns about getting older, most Americans want > to live longer than the current average. But not too much longer. > > "If it were up to them, Americans on average would like to live to be 87 > years old ? nine years older than current life expectancy. But there's a > limit: Just a quarter volunteer that they'd like to live to 100 or > older. And even if medical breakthroughs made living to 120 possible, > most would say no thanks." > > Lots of tables in the original article, so I won't repeat it all here. > Interesting, if disheartening, stuff, especially the gender-differences > in the responses. > > The big pay-off from a >H point of view: "Asked how long they'd like to > live, 7 percent in this poll say "forever."" > > I wonder how many would have said yes to living to 200+ with the health and vitality of a 30yr old. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Mon Oct 24 23:58:46 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:58:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <20051024072623.GJ2249@leitl.org> References: <20051023172253.GA10730@ofb.net> <20051023191307.GA5665@ofb.net> <20051023210139.GH2249@leitl.org> <20051023231219.GA28155@ofb.net> <20051024072623.GJ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051024193852.070697a0@unreasonable.com> Eugen wrote: >--> The planet needs not to be paved more than it is already, a fraction >of area covered converted will already do. During the peak of interest in maglev, I recall someone had the idea of running personal rapid transit over the existing asphalt network, since it already goes most everywhere and the rights-of-way have been settled. It would be powered (in part) by replacing the asphalt with solar collectors. There was also the thought that if the collectors were sturdy enough, existing vehicular traffic could co-exist on the network, making a gradual transition possible. Of course there are lots of variations one might now consider. For example, powering the electrical portion of a hybrid vehicle from a solar-collecting road. Why did the concept disappear? Is it that solar collectors got better but not enough better? The conversion cost was too high? There was also the more recent notion of laying fiber optic lines in highway medians, which was forgotten when fiber optic business tanked. Between now and MNT or another [insert miracle], like Mr. Fusion, what would be the best new use for the road infrastructure? -- David. From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Oct 25 00:28:00 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:28:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051024193852.070697a0@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20051025002800.89740.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- David Lubkin wrote: > During the peak of interest in maglev, I recall someone had the idea > of running personal rapid transit over the existing asphalt network, > since it already goes most everywhere and the rights-of-way have been > settled. It would be powered (in part) by replacing the asphalt with > solar collectors. There was also the thought that if the collectors > were sturdy enough, existing vehicular traffic could co-exist on the > network, making a gradual transition possible. > Why did the concept disappear? Is it that solar collectors got better > but not enough better? The conversion cost was too high? It hasn't - quite. But new ventures take business sense to get them adopted, and it looks like the biz side of this could use some help. Or so I guess from the fact that their Web server is down, and that their Google cache was all about promoting the tech but didn't announce so much as a pilot installation: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:0Vne0U7zJwsJ:www.solarpavement.com/faqs.htm++site:www.solarpavement.com+%22solar+pavement%22&hl=en http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=+site:www.solarpavement.com+%22solar+pavement%22 From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 25 02:28:29 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:28:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] big fierce animals In-Reply-To: <92FACB97-EBF7-4C3A-A688-15A6B746F3D5@mac.com> Message-ID: <200510250231.j9P2VJe22237@tick.javien.com> A while back I read _Why Big Fierce Animals Are Rare_ by Paul Colinvaux, an ecologist. I had a thought when I heard of this title. If one thinks of carnivorous dinosaurs is tempting to imagine that bigger is always better: they can devour more kinds of beasts, run faster, etc. But if one imagines scaling upward linearly, the strength of the muscles increases as the square of the linear dimension, whereas the moment of inertia of the body increases as the fifth power of the linear dimension. Result: the bigger the dinosaur, the slower he can react. An ecological niche for smaller carnivores becomes apparent. They could be built with a relatively small but powerful jaw like a pit bull and a short but heavily muscled neck. The relatively small carnivore could make its living by running past a large carnivore and ripping a hunk of flesh out of the big guy's leg, then running off with that one bite before the larger carnivore could react. Do you suppose this is how velociraptor velocirapted? spike From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 03:47:22 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:17:22 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] big fierce animals In-Reply-To: <200510250231.j9P2VJe22237@tick.javien.com> References: <92FACB97-EBF7-4C3A-A688-15A6B746F3D5@mac.com> <200510250231.j9P2VJe22237@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0510242047v37ee355i@mail.gmail.com> On 25/10/05, spike wrote: > A while back I read _Why Big Fierce Animals Are Rare_ by Paul Colinvaux, an > ecologist. > > > I had a thought when I heard of this title. If > one thinks of carnivorous dinosaurs is tempting > to imagine that bigger is always better: they > can devour more kinds of beasts, run faster, > etc. But if one imagines scaling upward linearly, > the strength of the muscles increases as the square > of the linear dimension, whereas the moment of > inertia of the body increases as the fifth > power of the linear dimension. Result: the > bigger the dinosaur, the slower he can react. You can get very small carnivores, probably for exactly this reason. I guess you don't have to prey on everything, just critters around your size range. I imagine another reason is that the bigger you are, the more food you need, so every bit of bulk you put on (as a species) must be justified by increased ability to feed. Hard to do! It doesn't seem to be common knowledge that Australian marsupials come in carnivorous varieties, mostly quite small (mouse size up to rabbit size). Many of them are amazingly cute, and incredibly aggressive; I remember seeing a wildlife show a while back where a fellow was holding out a finger that had a little marsupial mouse hanging on to it by its teeth. Shades of the chickenhawk in the warner bros cartoons. Here's a summary of carnivorous marsupials: http://www.australianwildlife.com.au/features/marsupials3.htm Here's are some cute pictures of rainforest predators: http://www.wildlife-australia.com/bandicoo.htm Scroll down for a good Quoll photo: http://www.quollseekers.com/Fact%20Sheet%201.htm Some of these guys aren't actually actually predators so much as carrion eating scavengers, and I guess they sometimes use a combination of strategies. > > An ecological niche for smaller carnivores > becomes apparent. They could be built with > a relatively small but powerful jaw like a > pit bull and a short but heavily muscled > neck. The relatively small carnivore could > make its living by running past a large > carnivore and ripping a hunk of flesh out > of the big guy's leg, then running off with > that one bite before the larger carnivore > could react. Do you suppose this is how > velociraptor velocirapted? > > spike A specialisation of chewing only on predators is probably a pretty tough one to carry off. But as a partial strategy it probably happened, especially to wounded large predators. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 25 04:07:44 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:07:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: evolution In-Reply-To: <8CBD1017-BDB6-44AB-A52A-55216D146E13@mac.com> Message-ID: <200510250407.j9P47oe00516@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas > > Most people are not like you... You are too kind. {8-] > ...They answer what they really > believe. It is a large problem not to be swept away with a few witty > remarks. > > - samantha > But Samantha, *every* large problem can be swept away with witty remarks or by replacing the first consonant with schm. {8^D Be that as it may, I do not get too worked up about surveys showing what percentage of the population believes this or that, for those figures can be greatly affected by how the question is asked. Ron Numbers, in his excellent book The Creationists, deals with this by citing a number of studies based on surveys, some of which he designed himself, that demonstrates that a significant portion of the population believes in two or more mutually exclusive concepts simultaneously. Michael Shermer (Why People Believe Weird Things) and Steven Jay Gould (Rocks of Ages, et.al.) have also noted this, specifically with regard to evolution and creationism. In some (or perhaps most) cases this really is as absurd as it sounds, but consider the case of sophisticated creationists (yes such a thing does exist). People can be taught from earliest childhood that creationism is the truth, and to think otherwise is to deny the word of god. The notion is difficult for many to give up even if later they receive top-notch scientific training. So often some hybrid notion is derived. Consider the survey question: Do you believe in a) creationism b) evolution c) neither d) both A sophisticated creationist may answer choice d, reasoning that Noah only took aboard the ark the land-based families of beasts, or possible only orders, then genera and speciation occurred later, by the mechanisms of traditional evolution. If the survey is taken in rural Alabama, I have no doubt that the pollsters are appalled at how few choose b. One of our now-absent former ExI posters insisted that we avoid the use of the term "believe." He might choose c. So how do we score it? Do we say all the non-b choosers are the percentage that does not believe in evolution? Note that I am not claiming that the American public school system is doing an adequate job of teaching evolution; I know that it is not. This discipline has become politicized to such an extent that science teachers must despair. I think Max More mentioned having to teach his philosophy classes the very basics of evolutionary theory. College students, knowing not the very basics of evolution! Oy. Perhaps teachers simply avoid the topic if possible. I went to public schools in the 60s and 70s; the only time I heard of evolution there was when it was being seriously disparaged. When I did finally study it (in college!) the whole notion made so much sense I was stunned. Somewhere in this discussion, we need to note that one cannot make money off of a group of evolution believers. But money can be made from a group of creationists, I can assure you, big money. There are people who make a decent living by going around lecturing on creationism and the evils of that reprehensible heretic Darwin. Ron Numbers makes the case that those polls which show a person believing mutually exclusive notions should be eliminated from the final score. He suggests that this could result in most of the survey-returns being eliminated, but then the conclusions are much more evolution- friendly. Perhaps we can figure out a way to weight the results based on the number of contradictions in the survey, in the spirit of the three-coins test example. I suppose that if people take a serious interest in origins of life and approach the problem with a disciplined and open mind, they will find the answers they seek. If they take no interest in these matters, it is irrelevant what they believe. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 25 04:25:40 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:25:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] big fierce animals In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0510242047v37ee355i@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200510250425.j9P4Pee02430@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 8:47 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] big fierce animals > > On 25/10/05, spike wrote: > > A while back I read _Why Big Fierce Animals Are Rare_ by Paul Colinvaux, > an > > ecologist. > > > > > > ... Result: the > > bigger the dinosaur, the slower he can react. > > You can get very small carnivores, probably for exactly this reason... > > > > An ecological niche for smaller carnivores > > becomes apparent. ...The relatively small carnivore could > > make its living by running past a large > > carnivore and ripping a hunk of flesh out > > of the big guy's leg, then running off with > > that one bite before the larger carnivore > > could react. Do you suppose this is how > > velociraptor velocirapted? > > > > spike > > A specialisation of chewing only on predators is probably a pretty > tough one to carry off. But as a partial strategy it probably > happened, especially to wounded large predators. > > -- > Emlyn Ja I could have stated my argument more carefully. I meant to suggest that this might cause an upper practical limit to the size of a predator so that it does not continue to accumulate only advantages with size. The small carnivore could be taking chunks of flesh out of large herbivores too; in fact this would likely be much safer than going around biting Mr. T-rex. I got the idea from watching videos of feeding orcas. They swim alongside a much larger blue whale, biting chunks out of the hapless beast. The orca's jaw, neck and teeth are adapted for tearing out hunks of what must be very tough flesh. The larger the whale, the more tempting it must be to a bunch of hungry orcas. Could this put a practical limit on the size of a whale? The principle here is that the dinosaur's world seems to have had approximatly analogous ecological niches to those which can be observed in the animal kingdom today. It should not surprise us that this would happen. spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 04:41:04 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:41:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] big fierce animals In-Reply-To: <200510250231.j9P2VJe22237@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051025044104.58660.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > A while back I read _Why Big Fierce Animals Are > Rare_ by Paul Colinvaux, an > ecologist. > > > I had a thought when I heard of this title. If > one thinks of carnivorous dinosaurs is tempting > to imagine that bigger is always better: they > can devour more kinds of beasts, run faster, > etc. But if one imagines scaling upward linearly, > the strength of the muscles increases as the square > of the linear dimension, whereas the moment of > inertia of the body increases as the fifth > power of the linear dimension. Result: the > bigger the dinosaur, the slower he can react. There is an element of truth to what you are saying, Spike. But you also have to give adaptation its due. There were and are numerous instances of gigantic predators in the world. Tyrannosaurus rex with its hollow bones, warm blood, and bird-style lungs (birds have the most efficient lungs in the animal kindom) was no joke. It was an amazingly successful predator that survived to the very end of the age of the dinosaurs. It was not outcompeted by anything more fierce, it just couldn't handle an asteroid impact. Modern examples of gigantic predators that seem to have no problem catching prey are kodiak bears (largest on land), sperm whale (largest period), saltwater crocodiles (largest reptilian predator), great white sharks, and colossal squid (biggest invertabrate predator). The cold-blooded ones can go for long periods of time between meals and the warm-blooded ones have adaptations that make them well suited to their prey. A kodiak may be big and bulky, but you won't catch even a whole pack of wolves brave enough to try to take a bite out of one. One swipe of claws adapted to break the bones of a bull moose would pulverize a wolf and no wolf would take that chance. Plus they are deceptively agile as anyone who has tried to catch a salmon with their bare hands would tell you. > > An ecological niche for smaller carnivores > becomes apparent. They could be built with > a relatively small but powerful jaw like a > pit bull and a short but heavily muscled > neck. The relatively small carnivore could > make its living by running past a large > carnivore and ripping a hunk of flesh out > of the big guy's leg, then running off with > that one bite before the larger carnivore > could react. Do you suppose this is how > velociraptor velocirapted? I don't think the velociraptors that were not starving would employ such a tactic against an adult. Just like hyenas don't eat lions and wolves don't eat bears. It's just way too high risk to give those that employed it many offspring. While T rex might have been bulkier and less manueverable, it also had a much larger stride. Young T rexes were probably fair game. Although killer whale pods will prey on sperm whales from time to time so maybe their was an occasional take down of an old or wounded T rex by velociraptor but it surely was not a staple food item. Please do give the king of the tyrant lizards its due. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen "Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope" - Robert G. Ingersoll __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 06:28:45 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:58:45 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] big fierce animals In-Reply-To: <20051025044104.58660.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200510250231.j9P2VJe22237@tick.javien.com> <20051025044104.58660.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0510242328o96e0e55m@mail.gmail.com> On 25/10/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > An ecological niche for smaller carnivores > > becomes apparent. They could be built with > > a relatively small but powerful jaw like a > > pit bull and a short but heavily muscled > > neck. The relatively small carnivore could > > make its living by running past a large > > carnivore and ripping a hunk of flesh out > > of the big guy's leg, then running off with > > that one bite before the larger carnivore > > could react. Do you suppose this is how > > velociraptor velocirapted? > > I don't think the velociraptors that were not starving > would employ such a tactic against an adult. Just like > hyenas don't eat lions and wolves don't eat bears. > It's just way too high risk to give those that > employed it many offspring. While T rex might have > been bulkier and less manueverable, it also had a much > larger stride. Young T rexes were probably fair game. > Although killer whale pods will prey on sperm whales > from time to time so maybe their was an occasional > take down of an old or wounded T rex by velociraptor > but it surely was not a staple food item. Please do > give the king of the tyrant lizards its due. > This has reminded me of a game on the BBC's Science and Nature website, "Big Al", where you play the part of an Allosaurus trying to reach adulthood. I've played this with my kids, it's strangely addictive. >From the site: "Big Al game Eat enough to grow from a hatchling to an adult male Allosaurus. There are four levels to progress through as you gain more weight. At the start of each level you will be asked a question. How you answer will affect your life as Big Al." It's pretty tricky, especially early on. You can only successfully kill tiny things and you need to eat a a certain rate to survive. Bigger things will kill and eat you. If you are being hunted, staying close to your mother helps I think, but iirc she eats you sometimes. It's a tough life! -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From eugen at leitl.org Tue Oct 25 10:48:48 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:48:48 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Solar math (was: Nuke 'em) In-Reply-To: <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051024072623.GJ2249@leitl.org> <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051025104847.GT2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 02:11:56PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Math errors detected. Very possible. I hacked that out in a few minutes at breakfast before dashing off to work. > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_cell_light.html says it's about 6 > > kWh/m^2/month > > insolation, for U.S. June. At 5% efficiency, a 60x60 m would be about > > enough for > > the average 2005 household > > http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_new-eng.html > > >From your figures: > 6 kWh/(m^2*month) * 60m * 60m * 0.05 = 1080 kWh/month > > Of course, that's for US June; yearly average and northern latitudes > (much of the US is south of Germany - far west, but also a bit south) These were U.S. figures. If you look at the Solarhaus Freiburg http://www.oekosiedlungen.de/energieautarkes-solarhaus/steckbrief.htm (look at the picture http://www.oekosiedlungen.de/energieautarkes-solarhaus/79_4_Autark_H.jpg http://www.informatik.uni-bonn.de/~rhino/tourguide/bilder/solar.jpg http://www.informatik.uni-bonn.de/~rhino/tourguide/bilder/solar2.jpg no extra collectors but roof and facade) that's 100% self-sufficient. Summer surplus is stored as hydrogen in the tank, and is used in a fuel cell. The reason this is possible is because most energy is used for heating, and thermal solar collector efficiency is quantitative (>>85%, some do over 90%). The reason this is not cost effective is that the house is 3x as expensive as non self-sufficient analog. > would lead to a much lower yield. But let's overlook that for now. Actually 6 kWh is reasonably conservative for http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/images/map_solar.gif but this is order of magnitude, anyway. > >From the EIA page: > > In 2001, the 5.4 million New England households consumed 39 billion > > kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity > > (3.9 * 10^10)/(5.4 * 10^6) =~ 7222 kWh/year =~ 602 kWh/month There is a range of U.S. household consumption cited, ~1000 kWh being at the top. The trend is up. > > (notice that's *one third* of that in Germany at 333 kWh/month, so > > 30x30 m should > > have been enough -- something is running quite wrong on your side of > > the pond). > > (60*60)/(30*30) = 1/4, not 1/3 Math error allright, however insignificant. > That which is running quite wrong over here can be traced in part to > the two main occupants of the White House, and their extreme reluctance > (until recently) to pursue energy efficiency and conservation as part > of national energy policy. That's only one factor, though, and > digressing in any case. I'm not sure this is something which can be blamed on an a single administration, or a couple. It must be a national trait. > > 12% of Germany land area is covered with artificial structures, > > that's about > > 42843 km^2. At 5% efficiency that's 257058000000 kWh, or enough > > energy for > > 771251125 people. As there are only 82.5 Mpeople, it would be enough > > to use > > 1.2%, one tenth of the entire covered area. > > 6 kWh/(m^2*month) * 42843km^2 * (10^6 m^2/km^2) * 0.05 = > 12852900000 kWh/month. > > Using the (unsourced, but plausible) German number: > (12852900000 kWh/month)/(333 kWh/(month*household)) =~ > 38597297 households > > (8.25 * 10^7)people/38597297 households =~ 2 people/household, which is > about right. Okay, 357031.0 km^2 * 0.12 = 42843.72 km^2 paved. 42843.0 km^2 / 82500000.0 people = 0.0005193 km^2 = ~520 m^2 paved /person. Using http://www.solarserver.de/pvrechner/index.php at 10% efficiency I get 49936 kWh/year where I live. According to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energieverbrauch for Germany total energy consumption (i.e., not just the household number) is 48594 kWh/person. This means that those 12% can completely cover the total energy consumption of Germany at current 10% efficiency. According to http://www.boxer99.de/subs/Tabellen/stromverbrauch_europa.htm 6000 kWh/year electricity person. This means 1.45%, not 12% of land area is enough at 10% efficiency. 2.9%, not 12% enough at 5% efficiency. Heating costs by solar thermal collectors are not included, but are negligible, given quantitative efficieny. > So your figures appear to support covering all artificial structures - > the full 12% of the land that's already covered - with solar panels, > but not merely 1/10th of the structures. And, again, that's not Only if you want to completely cover the energy input, industry included. > correcting for the difference in insolation between US June and Germany > year-round...although perhaps improvements from the current 5% > efficiency could eventually make up for that difference: > http://www.solarserver.de/lexikon/lexikons-e.html > says the average annual insolation in Germany varies between 950 and > 1100 kWh/m^2 depending on the region, so 30% efficient panels > (advanced, but not apparently physically impossible), plus power > storage to smooth out the differences in insolation over the year, > might do the trick. Again, the efficiency is irrelevant. Total integrated cost over lifetime is, and efficiency is only a small factor there. If you can have high efficiency effectively for free (e.g. by scaling the rectenna approach into solar (NIR/VIS/UV) spectrum), the more power to you. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Oct 25 16:35:38 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Solar math (was: Nuke 'em) In-Reply-To: <20051025104847.GT2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20051025163538.12485.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 02:11:56PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > Math errors detected. > > Very possible. I hacked that out in a few minutes at breakfast > before dashing off to work. No prob. I recall a certain antpower post of mine... ^_^;; > > would lead to a much lower yield. But let's overlook that for now. > > Actually 6 kWh is reasonably conservative for > http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/images/map_solar.gif The point was German insolation vs. US (average) insolation. Germany gets less, being closer to the pole, da? > but this is > order > of magnitude, anyway. True - even with the German/US difference (about 6 kWh/m^2 in US vs. about 1 kWh/m^s in Germany). > Only if you want to completely cover the energy input, industry > included. If you're going to cover a nation's power needs, you definitely need to include industry. > the more power to you. Pun intended? ;) From scerir at libero.it Tue Oct 25 16:46:57 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:46:57 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] triangles References: <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000301c5d983$b763ee90$f5bd1b97@administxl09yj> 'On Math, Matter and Mind' http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510188 Authors: Piet Hut. Mark Alford, Max Tegmark 'We discuss the nature of reality in the ontological context of Penrose's math-matter-mind triangle. The triangle suggests the circularity of the widespread view that math arises from the mind, the mind arises out of matter, and that matter can be explained in terms of math. Non-physicists should be wary of any claim that modern physics leads us to any particular resolution of this circularity, since even the sample of three theoretical physicists writing this paper hold three divergent views. Some physicists believe that current physics has already found the basic framework for a complete description of reality, and only has to fill in the details. Others suspect that no single framework, from physics or other sources, will ever capture reality. Yet others guess that reality might be approached arbitrarily closely by some form of future physics, but probably based on completely different frameworks. We will designate these three approaches as the fundamentalist, secular and mystic views of the world, as seen by practicing physicists. We present and contrast each of these views, which arguably form broad categories capturing most if not all interpretations of physics. We argue that this diversity in the physics community is more useful than an ontological monoculture, since it motivates physicists to tackle unsolved problems with a wide variety of approaches.' ----------------- I've got the vague impression that the paper above has to do with the triangle, the circularity, the entanglement of entanglements discussed by the two papers below .... -G?nther Krenn, -Anton Zeilinger, 'Entangled Entanglement' http://www.ati.ac.at/~summweb/ifm/publications/entent/entent.html in: Phys.Rev.A 54 1793-1797 (1996). 'In entangled systems values cannot be assigned to all quantum mechanical observables of individual members of the system independent of the measurement context of the whole system. While various cases are known where properties like spin, momentum, energyetc. can be entangled, entanglement itself is usually considered to bean objective property of the system. We show that situations can arise where this is no longer the case and where therefore entanglement itself becomes an entangled property.' -P.K. Aravind, 'Borromean entanglement of the GHZ state', http://users.wpi.edu/~paravind/borrom.pdf in 'Quantum Potentiality, Entanglement and Passion-at-a-Distance: Essays for Abner Shimony', eds. R. S. Cohen, M. Horne and J. Stachel, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1997, pp. 53-59. --------------------- .... not to mention here these two links, one about some planar triangles http://www.planarity.net/ the other about some fuzzy Planckian triangulations, -R. Loll, -J. Ambjorn, -J. Jurkiewicz 'The Universe from Scratch' http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0509010 'A fascinating and deep question about nature is what one would see if one could probe space and time at smaller and smaller distances. Already the 19th-century founders of modern geometry contemplated the possibility that a piece of empty space that looks completely smooth and structureless to the naked eye might have an intricate microstructure at a much smaller scale. Our vastly increased understanding of the physical world acquired during the 20th century has made this a certainty. The laws of quantum theory tell us that looking at spacetime at ever smaller scales requires ever larger energies, and, according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, this will alter spacetime itself: it will acquire structure in the form of "curvature". What we still lack is a definitive Theory of Quantum Gravity to give us a detailed and quantitative description of the highly curved and quantum-fluctuating geometry of spacetime at this so-called Planck scale. - This article outlines a particular approach to constructing such a theory, that of Causal Dynamical Triangulations, and its achievements so far in deriving from first principles why spacetime is what it is, from the tiniest realms of the quantum to the large-scale structure of the universe.' From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Oct 25 17:58:19 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Belief in logic (was: survey on fringe ideas: evolution) In-Reply-To: <200510250407.j9P47oe00516@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051025175819.37246.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Ron Numbers makes the case that those polls which > show a person believing mutually exclusive notions > should be eliminated from the final score. He suggests > that this could result in most of the survey-returns being > eliminated, but then the conclusions are much more evolution- > friendly. Possibility: there is a correlation between those who believe in logic, specifically the very possibility that evidence can disprove notions and that said disproven notions should then receive less or no further belief (depending on the strength of the argument against them), and those who believe in evolution. We might take this as obvious or nonsensical. Logic exists, whether we believe it or not. 1+1=2 no matter how much one may preach against it. But this is not the mindset of everyone. Some believe that preaching that 1+1=3 is enough to make it so - and either it has not occurred to them to try it, or they have rationalizations of why it has failed to work every time it has been attempted (possibly backed up with accounts of it working for other people - entirely fictitious, but they may or may not be aware of this, and for whatever reason they do not make much use of science's error-correcting mechanisms for cases like this). I wonder what a survey focussed on belief in a logical, rational world would turn up, especially if it looked for correlations with belief in science vs. religion (which could possibly be distilled to belief in evolution vs. creationism). From bradbury at aeiveos.com Tue Oct 25 17:20:53 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <437623CE9CFE7E409243C5E427BA8C81D137@AMAZEMAIL.amazeent.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Acy James Stapp wrote: > Most plants are CO2 limited. > > http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/2004-January/000546.html You have to be careful with this. Obviously to raise the CO2 to 600 ppm, they had to enclose the plants in something. It isn't clear whether that something had a UV shielding effect. If they were using artificial light then it wasn't a "real world" test. I suspect a non-trivial amount of energy goes into generating UV absorbing molecules and recycling molecules damaged by UV-B & UV-C radiation and repairing the DNA damage caused by natural sunlight. Ideally one wants solar ponds where the top-most cell layer(s) do nothing but absorb UV-B and UV-C radiation and the layers below can focus on picking of photons of specific energies and not worry about UV damage (readers of Nanosystems will note that this is not too different from Drexler's suggestion of coating nanomachinery with a thin layer of aluminium to protect it from UV radiation). *Now*, if you could develop solar cells (or bacteria) that could effectively harvest and use the UV photons you would have a significant advantage over current plant (chlorophyll) based systems. Robert From bradbury at aeiveos.com Tue Oct 25 17:55:06 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:55:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <291AA8C2-0A02-46E5-9ED1-316627B512A9@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > I don't see how that is true in any meaningful way after reading > this. Please show me how a pebble bed reactor always makes plutonium > or is even well suited for such use. Samantha, Pu production is a natural consequence of the basic fission reaction. Reactor grade fuel is a mixture of U-235 + U-238. (Uranium is more than 99% U-238, reactor grade fuel is somewhat enriched with U-235, weapons grade is highly enriched with U-235. This is why the current debate over what Iran is doing is problematic. If you can make reactor grade, all one has to do is run the centrifuges somewhat longer to get weapons grade.) The basic fission reaction in any nuclear reactor produces neutrons (this is what makes the whole thing "go"). Neutrons that are captured U-238 which is present producing Np-239 which then decays into Pu-239. If Pu-239 captures another neutron it produces Pu-240. [See 1,2]. Argonne & the EPA have good pages about various Uranium & Plutonium isotopes and half-lives [3,4]. The basic "nuclear" fission reaction is: U-235 + 1n --> Xe-134 + Sr-100 + 2n Presumably the initial neutron is from either cosmic rays or the decay of other naturally occuring radioactive elements. Using 1 neutron and getting 2 neutrons is what starts the chain reaction. If any of those neutrons are absorbed by any U-238 you end up with plutonium. You can structure the reactors to increase or decrease the production of Pu by controlling the speed of the neutrons but I strongly doubt you can eliminate Pu production entirely unless you completely replaced the U-238 with some other isotope (presumably one that comfortably absorbs neutrons without becoming radioactive). That would probably be an extremely expensive process due to the fact that natural uranium is mostly U-238. (You can't use pure U-235 as I'm fairly sure that either gets very hot and melts or explodes.) Robert 1. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Plutonium/ 2. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fission.html 3. http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/uranium.pdf http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/uranium.htm 4. http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/plutonium.pdf http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/plutonium.htm From hal at finney.org Tue Oct 25 19:18:17 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts Message-ID: <20051025191817.A5A2057EF9@finney.org> I am returning belatedly to this topic because I finally found time to read the article, which was sent to me a couple of weeks ago by a kind list member. The good news is that I subsequentlyfound a copy online, via an unlikely source: Google Print, the controversial service in which Google is scanning in every book in the world and making them available online for search. Using scholar.google.com I searched for "Kahneman Tversky" in an attempt to find some of their earlier research, and this book was the first hit. I've never had a Google Print hit before. This link may work: http://print.google.com/print?id=P5GsREMbUmAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&sig=nZ3y4LHNfAsrlxMfZDSt3cbSCOs You might need to register with Google to read it. I recommend using the "Search within this book" form at the left and search for the word "inside". The discussion in question is pretty much confined to pages 404-408 of the book, which you can read via the links provided. This was my first surprise when I read the article, that of the 21 page chapter in the book being reviewed, only 4 pages were devoted to the inside/outside modelling issue. The first 12 pages were on a totally different topic, the irrationality of risk aversion preferences. And the remaining pages were about other sources of optimistic bias. Further, these four pages said little to justify their arguments and relied largely on a single anecdote. The issues that were brought out in the discussion here of the difficulty of choosing an appropriate outside view were generally ignored in the authors' eagerness to disparage people's supposed preferences for inside views. They did reference an earlier work by Kahneman and Tversky from 1979, which is actually what I was searching Google for above. (The references were not visible in the chapter excerpt I was sent; ironically, Google Print blocks out a tiny fraction of pages for viewing from the books it scans in, and the one page in the back of the book that would identify this reference was one of the ones blocked!) Their main argument is "It should be obvious that when both methods are applied with equal intelligence and skill, the outside view is much more likely to yield a realistic estimate." I don't like this kind of argument by intimidation. They follow with a long list of the errors people can make attempting to use "inside view" models, but don't subject the outside process to the same scrutiny. It has more the feel of a sales pitch than an objective analysis. Let me discuss a couple of interesting cases where we might try to apply this distinction. In each case the inside view produces a more pessimistic conclusion (the article did mention one example where this happens, so the analysis is supposed to work in that case as well). One of these cases came up in the discussion here, Moore's Law. There are all kinds of inside-view analyses which show that Moore's Law is about to stop working, if it hasn't already. Robert and Eugen both gave examples. I have seen this referred to in the literature as the "red brick wall". This refers to a chart showing challenges ahead in semicondunctor manufacturing. Fixable problems are shown in green; problems that have a theoretical solution are shown in yello; and problems that have no solution even in theory are shown in red. A few years ahead the chart fills with red, forming this "red brick wall" and predicting the failure of Moore's Law. OTOH the outside view might well look at the previous history of this trend and the many predictions in the past, one of which was mentioned by Dirk, that it was about to fail. Those have always been wrong before. Moravec even traces Moore's Law back to the early days of the 20th century. With such a long history, a simple, "dumb" outside view forecast would contradict the insiders and predict that Moore's Law will continue indefinitely. Another case is one I have been looking at in detail, the Peak Oil scenario. This predicts that perhaps in as little as five years the total worldwide production of oil will peak, forcing consumption to flatten and then fall. This will cause oil prices to climb to astronomical levels and cause anything from a worldwide depression to a disastrous famine and economic collapse that will kill off most of the human race within a few years. See lifeaftertheoilcrash.com for some examples. Peak Oil is a fundamentally inside-view phenomon. Analysts delve into every detail of the oil production situation, producing detailed analyses of future oil production levels. These actually go down to the country by country and even field by field level, predicting exactly how many barrels per day of oil will be produced by every single oil field in the world, every year for the next several years. You can see some examples of this kind of analysis at theoildrum.com. These results often come out with similar answers, namely that future oil production will not keep up with demand, leading to disastrous consequences. The outside view, on the other hand, is more sanguine. We have never run out of a crucial industrial input without being able to switch over to an alternative that was even cheaper. As the Chevron spokesman says, the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. We can also look at "dumb" forecasting models like futures markets, which do not predict any major oil price rises in the next five years. Peak Oilers hate futures markets and the economists who use them to say that worst-case P.O. scenarios won't happen, at least not in this time frame. The often frame the debate as being between no-nothing economists who use their blind models and historical precedents, vs geologists and oil experts who say we're running out, and that economists cannot create oil where there is none. It looks to me like a classic inside/outside issue. Hal From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Oct 25 19:58:35 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:58:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <20051025191817.A5A2057EF9@finney.org> References: <20051025191817.A5A2057EF9@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051025155729.01f272d0@mail.gmu.edu> At 03:18 PM 10/25/2005, Hal Finney wrote: >Further, these four pages said little to justify their arguments and >relied largely on a single anecdote. The issues that were brought out in >the discussion here of the difficulty of choosing an appropriate outside >view were generally ignored in the authors' eagerness to disparage >people's supposed preferences for inside views. ... This seems a valid criticism to me. Doesn't mean they are wrong of course. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From sentience at pobox.com Tue Oct 25 20:38:06 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:38:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Inside Vs. Outside Forecasts In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051025155729.01f272d0@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20051025191817.A5A2057EF9@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051025155729.01f272d0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <435E97AE.6040604@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 03:18 PM 10/25/2005, Hal Finney wrote: > >> Further, these four pages said little to justify their arguments and >> relied largely on a single anecdote. The issues that were brought out in >> the discussion here of the difficulty of choosing an appropriate outside >> view were generally ignored in the authors' eagerness to disparage >> people's supposed preferences for inside views. ... > > This seems a valid criticism to me. Doesn't mean they are wrong of course. It should be noted that the authors are speaking from within a long tradition and probably assume (consciously or unconsciously) that the readers are familiar with it. Robyn Dawes's paper "The Robust Beauty of Improper Linear Models" or his book "Rational Choice in an Uncertain World" both convey some of the tradition. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 22:46:47 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:46:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Belief in logic (was: survey on fringe ideas: evolution) In-Reply-To: <20051025175819.37246.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200510250407.j9P47oe00516@tick.javien.com> <20051025175819.37246.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/25/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > --- spike wrote: > > Ron Numbers makes the case that those polls which > > show a person believing mutually exclusive notions > > should be eliminated from the final score. He suggests > > that this could result in most of the survey-returns being > > eliminated, but then the conclusions are much more evolution- > > friendly. > > Possibility: there is a correlation between those who believe in logic, > specifically the very possibility that evidence can disprove notions > and that said disproven notions should then receive less or no further > belief (depending on the strength of the argument against them), and > those who believe in evolution. > > We might take this as obvious or nonsensical. Logic exists, whether we > believe it or not. 1+1=2 no matter how much one may preach against it. > But this is not the mindset of everyone. Some believe that preaching > that 1+1=3 is enough to make it so - and either it has not occurred to > them to try it, or they have rationalizations of why it has failed to > work every time it has been attempted (possibly backed up with accounts > of it working for other people - entirely fictitious, but they may or > may not be aware of this, and for whatever reason they do not make much > use of science's error-correcting mechanisms for cases like this). Maybe they are thinking of rabbits. Or quantum theory. I wonder what a survey focussed on belief in a logical, rational world > would turn up, especially if it looked for correlations with belief in > science vs. religion (which could possibly be distilled to belief in > evolution vs. creationism). > Q: Do I believe in survival of Human consciousness after death? A: No Q: Do I believe in ghosts? A: Yes. Contradictory? Only if *you* make certain unspoken assumptions. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 26 02:56:19 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:56:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510260256.j9Q2uUe04862@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert J. Bradbury > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 10:21 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em > > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Acy James Stapp wrote: > > > Most plants are CO2 limited. > > > > http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/2004-January/000546.html > > You have to be careful with this. Obviously to raise the CO2 to 600 ppm, > they had to enclose the plants in something... > > Robert I attended a lecture where they set up a carbon dioxide source in a field with a CO2 sensors on a ten meter grid. I do not recall if they reached 600 ppm with no enclosure (probably not, perhaps more like 400), but the lecturer concluded that plants grow better with more CO2. spike From marc.geddes at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 03:53:14 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:53:14 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] triangles In-Reply-To: <000301c5d983$b763ee90$f5bd1b97@administxl09yj> References: <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> <000301c5d983$b763ee90$f5bd1b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <7a5e56060510252053m469f9aabg252b4035cf638c99@mail.gmail.com> On 10/26/05, scerir wrote: > > 'On Math, Matter and Mind' > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510188 > Authors: Piet Hut. Mark Alford, Max Tegmark > 'We discuss the nature of reality in the ontological context of Penrose's > math-matter-mind triangle. The triangle suggests the circularity of the > widespread view that math arises from the mind, the mind arises out of > matter, and that matter can be explained in terms of math. Non-physicists > should be wary of any claim that modern physics leads us to any particular > resolution of this circularity, since even the sample of three theoretical > physicists writing this paper hold three divergent views. Some physicists > believe that current physics has already found the basic framework for a > complete description of reality, and only has to fill in the details. > Others > suspect that no single framework, from physics or other sources, will ever > capture reality. Yet others guess that reality might be approached > arbitrarily closely by some form of future physics, but probably based on > completely different frameworks. We will designate these three approaches > as > the fundamentalist, secular and mystic views of the world, as seen by > practicing physicists. We present and contrast each of these views, which > arguably form broad categories capturing most if not all interpretations > of > physics. We argue that this diversity in the physics community is more > useful than an ontological monoculture, since it motivates physicists to > tackle unsolved problems with a wide variety of approaches.' > > ----------------- > > I've got the vague impression that the paper > above has to do with the triangle, the circularity, > the entanglement of entanglements discussed by the > two papers below .... > > -G?nther Krenn, -Anton Zeilinger, > 'Entangled Entanglement' > http://www.ati.ac.at/~summweb/ifm/publications/entent/entent.html > in: Phys.Rev.A 54 1793-1797 (1996). > 'In entangled systems values cannot be assigned to all quantum > mechanical observables of individual members of the system independent > of the measurement context of the whole system. While various cases > are known where properties like spin, momentum, energyetc. can be > entangled, entanglement itself is usually considered to bean objective > property of the system. We show that situations can arise where this > is no longer the case and where therefore entanglement itself > becomes an entangled property.' > > -P.K. Aravind, > 'Borromean entanglement of the GHZ state', > http://users.wpi.edu/~paravind/borrom.pdf > in 'Quantum Potentiality, Entanglement and Passion-at-a-Distance: > Essays for Abner Shimony', eds. R. S. Cohen, M. Horne and > J. Stachel, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1997, pp. 53-59. > > --------------------- > > .... not to mention here these two links, > one about some planar triangles http://www.planarity.net/ > the other about some fuzzy Planckian triangulations, > -R. Loll, -J. Ambjorn, -J. Jurkiewicz > 'The Universe from Scratch' > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0509010 > 'A fascinating and deep question about nature is what one would see if one > could probe space and time at smaller and smaller distances. Already the > 19th-century founders of modern geometry contemplated the possibility that > a > piece of empty space that looks completely smooth and structureless to the > naked eye might have an intricate microstructure at a much smaller scale. > Our vastly increased understanding of the physical world acquired during > the > 20th century has made this a certainty. The laws of quantum theory tell us > that looking at spacetime at ever smaller scales requires ever larger > energies, and, according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, this > will alter spacetime itself: it will acquire structure in the form of > "curvature". What we still lack is a definitive Theory of Quantum Gravity > to > give us a detailed and quantitative description of the highly curved and > quantum-fluctuating geometry of spacetime at this so-called Planck scale. > - > This article outlines a particular approach to constructing such a theory, > that of Causal Dynamical Triangulations, and its achievements so far in > deriving from first principles why spacetime is what it is, from the > tiniest > realms of the quantum to the large-scale structure of the universe.' > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Good stuff. These guys are on the right track, but they don't see the answer yet I think :D I think the solution to the math/matter/mind puzzle is that reality has *three* time dimensions, each time dimension being an *emergent* property of a complex system. The time dimensions are equivalent to conscioius experience (qualia). Singularity here I come. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :D -- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.geddes at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 04:32:28 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:32:28 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] New paper by David Chalmer's definitively squashing materialism In-Reply-To: <3ad827f30510221331vf23eba5ma4b7f40263fa8e11@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060510210046l404e54t4e1dc30832a72de0@mail.gmail.com> <3ad827f30510210343q5ae08b7m2be65265a8ca7d4d@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060510212353w4bd74a21x90e6ec693c5cad48@mail.gmail.com> <3ad827f30510221331vf23eba5ma4b7f40263fa8e11@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060510252132i7b1d0dd7yb15bfe35b2a2df02@mail.gmail.com> On 10/23/05, justin corwin wrote: > > > > Er, my point was that if you have a desire to respond to various > villains and ungentlemanly persons on sl4, shouldn't you do that... on > sl4? > > It seems rather evasive, not to mention cowardly, to run to another > list, and make points there in the seeming hope that no one will > reply. I'm not going to post a list where a bunch of obnoxious prats can call me nasty names and then moderate my replies. I used to be in awe of the Wilson/Yudkowsky duo but now that I think I've actually cracked the puzzle of consciousness I realize the two of them are just another pair of prats with high IQ's who went *thunk* against the problem of general intelligence and are suffering from delusions of grandeur and dreams of megalomania. Can't stand listening to the obnoxious lectures. I still actually wake up at night in a cold sweat dreaming of Wilson - and not in a good way - telling me : 'you must trust those smarter than you are' ;) >You fail here in your reading comprehension. The 'arguments', which Chalmers uses, are arbitrary statements, any one of which he explicitly admits is not axiomatic, and contestable(as well as historically contested). He prefers to imagine that logical statements can exist in a muddled state, with arguments both for and against accepting any one of them. This is not standard practice, even in modal logic. A single unanswered objection is more than enough to remove something from any resemblance of the word 'proof'. I actually posted your reply to his paper on David Chalmer's blog you know. He wasn't too impressed. Check out the thread here: http://fragments.consc.net/ (In the comments for 'The Two-Dimensional Argument Against Materialism') >Your mistake in all this is to assume that infinite categories imply infinite entities. It's trivial to contruct a mathematical argument that implies an infinite set of results. the N + 1 argument for the infinity of real numbers is probably the first. But we are not, in any case, actually interacting in the spiritual(sorry, I mean phenomological) sense with any infinite entities, we interact with an abstraction which is said to imply infinite sets. Transfinite math can be done on Turing machines, which this argument would claim is impossible, as Turing machines clearly are physical and finite. Oh, I agree that the *physical* substrate which generates mental experiences is entirely computable. But you are missing the point of my argument. The mental experiences *themselves* can transcend the computable proccesses which gave rise to them. For instance: in Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity, it's known that the Space-Time manifold as whole has properties which *transcend* the relational properties of individual physical things. Even though space-time is *generated by* the relations between physical things, space-time has properties which *transcend* mere relations between physical things. i.e the Space-Time manifold as a whole is an *entity* in its own right, over and above the mere physical things which gave rise to it. Prior to the work of Cantor, Robinson and Conway, one could get away with claiming that infinite categories ddon't have to imply infinite entities, but after the work Cantor, Robinson and Conway it's very clear that there *are* infinite entities. And since they can't be matched either directly or indirectly to empirical facts, they must have a reality that transcends empirical facts. The fact these entities can be *referenced* by finite, computable proccesses, in no way means that they are *reducible* to finite, computable proccesses. So materialism is false. >Further undermining the point is that fact that it's trivial to reduce these concepts to symbology which can be physically stored, and later interpreted by either machines or humans to output supposedly non-physical results. Unless you take the position that infinite compression takes place before we speak, write, or type these concepts, and infinite decryption takes place when a human or machine recieves those symbols, it seems rather untenable to say that infinite math is not reducible to physical features. All in all, it's a rather messy bit of argument, and I don't see how it all hangs together. -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com See what I said above. I agree that the infinite entities can be *referenced* by finite, computable proccesses, but this does not mean that the infinite entities are *reducible* to finiite computable proccesses. Symbols referencing a thing (which are finite and computable) are *not* the thing itself (which can be infinite and uncomputable). -- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Wed Oct 26 04:09:13 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:09:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Andrew Weil on ageing Message-ID: <435F0169.8030102@sasktel.net> Posted on Sun, Oct. 23, 2005, the Miami Hrald Weil takes on anti-aging 'false prophets' ARTHUR H. ROTSTEIN Associated Press VAIL, Ariz. - The best-known practitioner of integrative medicine, melding alternative and traditional approaches, has gone mainstream. Dr. Andrew Weil, whose 10th book came out Oct. 18, intends to raise the public consciousness about aging, and why it is and should be healthy. In his view, advocates of anti-aging medicine, who tout regimens ranging from growth hormone to Botox and cosmetic surgery to stop the aging process, have become the 21st century equivalent of snake-oil purveyors - long on pitch and short on scientific substance. It's a charge that's been leveled at Weil for years. Weil calls anti-aging advocates "false prophets who are putting out a message that aging is reversible or that we can stop it." "I think those are very wrong ideas," he says during a recent interview at his Vail ranch, about 30 miles southeast of Tucson. "Aging is a universal natural process, and I think if you set yourself up in opposition to it, you're in a very wrong relationship with nature." In his latest book, "Healthy Aging," Weil argues that there are no effective anti-aging medicines. Publisher Alfred A. Knopf is banking that Weil's streak of four straight best sellers will continue, with an initial printing of 650,000 copies. Throughout his career, Weil has championed herbal remedies, acupuncture, osteopathy, cranial therapy, hypnotherapy and nutritional approaches to wellness, as well as traditional medicine. He majored in botany as an undergrad at Harvard University, where he also went to medical school, graduating in 1968. He left the National Institutes of Mental Health after the first year of an internship to travel the world, pursuing his interest in plant study and herbal remedies. He largely supported himself through college and the 1970s as a freelance magazine writer. Then his car broke down in Tucson during the warm, wet winter of 1973, with the desert in full bloom, and he never left. Weil continued writing and eventually began lecturing at what was the University of Arizona's then-fledgling medical school about marijuana, which he said in interviews at the time was a mild intoxicant. Later, he began giving lectures on alternative medicine. He launched a first-of-its-kind integrative medicine program in the College of Medicine in 1997. "My strong conviction always had been that the main business of doctors should be to teach people how not to get sick," he says. "That is, there should be a real emphasis on prevention and lifestyle adjustment." He also believes that pharmaceutical drugs often "caused too much harm." His focus on alternatives has put him at odds with many mainstream practitioners and academics. One persistent critic, Dr. Arnold Relman, an editor emeritus of the New England Journal of Medicine and professor emeritus at Harvard Medical School, said he's long disagreed with Weil because "he believes in miracles, at least he used to." "He believed in the healing power of thought, and going back to his earliest career, he's taken a position that usually flies in the face of science, and for that reason I've disagreed with him." But Relman does acknowledge that Weil has advocated some sensible things about diet and lifestyle. Still, Weil's advocacy of such positions as broccoli being a cancer treatment and reliance on anecdotal evidence from patients "can't stand the light of scientific examination," Relman said. If Weil's anti-aging stand is based on hard, scientific, objective evidence, he added, "then I applaud it." Weil said he decided to write about aging because of his concern about the rise of anti-aging medicine and said he hopes the book will trigger a national dialogue. "The most damaging perception out there is that the worth of human life diminishes with aging, and I've tried to make a case that aging brings its own rewards - that there can be an increase in the value of life, like fine wine," he says. He acknowledges that skillfully done cosmetic procedures can provide "pleasing results" and enhance quality of life. But he takes issue if the reason for surgery is to deny that aging happens. Weil's own appearance, including his trademark full white beard and a bald head, help to underscore his own age, 63. He remains very active, though a casual, almost idyllic home setting helps offset the hectic pace that swirls around him. He is divorced, his teenage daughter is in boarding school and he's "involved in a relationship." A frequent guest on TV talk shows, he's committed to a 23-city, seven-week book tour, and he just appeared for the second time on the cover of Time magazine, which previously heralded him as one of the world's 100 most influential people. He works part time in the University of Arizona's integrative medicine program, writes a newsletter and a column for Prevention magazine. He offers vitamin, antioxidant and nutritional supplements, endorses skin care products and even pet foods on his Web site, http://www.drweil.com, while giving daily advice on healthy living. And he's just been sued over a five-year, $14 million deal, accused of failing to adequately market and promote an online pharmacy company as the exclusive distributor of his endorsed health care products. He called it a contract dispute. Weil has lived for 11 years on his 120-acre ranch. It's one of about 30 "ranchettes," mostly 40-acre plots, carved out of the X-9 Ranch, once a historic cattle operation spread over 36,000 acres. Weil's property, set off behind a gated entrance, is the nowhere reached at the end of a three-mile rutted, tooth-jarring washboard dirt road. Weil, who is partial to shorts, sandals and loose-fitting Hawaiian-style sports shirts, lives in a comfortable but hardly lavish setting in what was the X-9's main ranch house, rebuilt after a 1938 fire. "I have lots of friends; I have my dogs, who are wonderful companions," he says about Rhodesian ridgebacks Jambo and Daisy. Large picture windows in his Mexican-tiled home look onto a patio and the Rincon Mountains. A spring-fed swimming pool sits on grounds dappled in shade by cottonwood, walnut and mesquite trees. There's also an outdoor garden and a large greenhouse. His various enterprises are run in nearby offices. Weil believes he's aging gracefully. "I think I'm doing a pretty good job. I keep very active. I like my body. I'm generally not so bad. I enjoy coming into my own as an elder." Some critics view him as a self-promoter and product huckster, but Weil says that all after-tax profits from his books and product sales go to his Weil Foundation to help fund his integrative medicine program. And Weil does have his medical supporters. Cardiologist Dr. Joseph Alpert of the University of Arizona, Weil's best friend from medical school, calls Weil a top leader in integrative medicine. "Has he brought credibility among physicians? Probably not. Has he brought credibility among patients? Definitely, yes. He's tremendously bright, an excellent communicator and a very good writer," Alpert said. Twenty-six American medical schools and three in Canada have integrative or alternative medicine programs, and the Congress, recognizing a growing public interest, created the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine in 1999. "From what it's meant to the public, he (Weil) has been the father of integrative medicine," raising public awareness and interest through his down-to-earth, sensible writing style, said Dr. Richard Liebowitz, medical director of Duke University's Center for Integrative Medicine. But while Andrew Weil pushes a diet rich in nuts and olive oil, multigrain breads, soybeans and fresh, organic fruits, vegetables and fish, he's been known to indulge a sweet or two. On this day, it's a 20-pound peach pie sent by a friend and baked by Pam Rinella, who operates the mountaintop Mount Lemmon Caf? about 90 minutes from Weil's ranch. "I haven't had any of her pies in years," he says, eying the fruity treat. "That's a serious pie." From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 05:14:52 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:14:52 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] New paper by David Chalmer's definitively squashing materialism In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060510212353w4bd74a21x90e6ec693c5cad48@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060510210046l404e54t4e1dc30832a72de0@mail.gmail.com> <3ad827f30510210343q5ae08b7m2be65265a8ca7d4d@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060510212353w4bd74a21x90e6ec693c5cad48@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520510252214o14bed096i208d27e6fb8ce127@mail.gmail.com> Why do you group morality and mathematics? Why not morality and jellyfish biology? Or dirty jokes and mathemathics? How about nail clipping and theology? Morality and mathematics have NOTHING to do one with the other. Thinking that they do is, I believe, an obstacle to understanding both. G. On 10/22/05, Marc Geddes wrote: > It's obvious to me that no one on SL4 has any real intuitive grasp of > morality or mathematics. From marc.geddes at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 05:24:19 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:24:19 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] New paper by David Chalmer's definitively squashing materialism In-Reply-To: <470a3c520510252214o14bed096i208d27e6fb8ce127@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060510210046l404e54t4e1dc30832a72de0@mail.gmail.com> <3ad827f30510210343q5ae08b7m2be65265a8ca7d4d@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060510212353w4bd74a21x90e6ec693c5cad48@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520510252214o14bed096i208d27e6fb8ce127@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060510252224p2a6b68d8ubc25f469be2e6bda@mail.gmail.com> On 10/26/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > Why do you group morality and mathematics? Why not morality and > jellyfish biology? Or dirty jokes and mathemathics? How about nail > clipping and theology? > Morality and mathematics have NOTHING to do one with the other. > Thinking that they do is, I believe, an obstacle to understanding > both. > G. Guilio, The language which we use to describe reality is mathematics right? Since morality is part of reality we can use mathematics to describe that as well. Decision, Game Theory and Propositional logic attempts to do just that doesn't it? Mathematics is the world viewed from the 'outside'. Direct conscious experience (Qualia) is the world viewed from the 'inside'. Don't you agree? -- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.geddes at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 05:57:18 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:57:18 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] triangles In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060510252053m469f9aabg252b4035cf638c99@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> <000301c5d983$b763ee90$f5bd1b97@administxl09yj> <7a5e56060510252053m469f9aabg252b4035cf638c99@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060510252257y561b487dhf27182224cf00e0e@mail.gmail.com> As an addendum to the above, you can actually see the consistency of my conjecture with the Baars Global Workspace model and the Jeff Hawkins memory-prediction framework for the mind. If I'm right, what's going in the brain is that there's an emergent property of the complex system which is the brain which trascends the sum of its parts and this property is actually a sort of miniature space-time (or a kind of 'pre space-time' ) if you like - there's a slight extension into the extra time dimensions. It's exactly the same mechanism by the physical space-time manifold is emergent from (and transcends) the sum of the relations between physical objects in General Relativity, only on a smaller scale. Look at how it all fits: In the Baars model parts of the complex system (the brain) that were seperate from each other get integrated and impose global constraints on the complex system as a whole. These global constraints also impose an 'arrow of time' on the system (a direction of irreversible change). This is exactly what happens with the physical universe when we consider the physical universe as a complex system. Parts of the complex system (the individual relations between physical objects in the physical universe) get integrated into an emergent property (i.e the space-time manifold in Einstein's General Relativity) which imposes global constraints on the system as a whole and we interpret these global constraints as a direction of irreversible change i.e a arrow of time. The 'arrow of time' imposed on the brain by the Baars global workspace allows us to interpret the brain as a memory-prediction system whereby past experiences get integrated with current experiences to make projections into the future. Only what Hawkins didn't realize is that there are *three* different kinds of causality, corresponding to the actual three time dimensions of reality. Baars has also failed to realize that his proposed model is actually a property of *all* complex systems, not just the brain and his model is of enormous profoundity! The first kind of causality is the physical causality of functional systems (the first time dimension) The second kind of causality is -volitional causality - where choices made by a moral agent alter the memetic system (the second time dimension) And the third kind is *mathematical* causality - where different kinds of knowledge get integrated (Consistency and Causality). This last kind of causality is the third time dimension. > -- > > Please vist my website: > http://www.riemannai.org > > Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy > > --- > > 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 vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.geddes at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 06:34:37 2005 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:34:37 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] New paper by David Chalmer's definitively squashing materialism In-Reply-To: <3ad827f30510252253s461c8b3amd960c5b08978979@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060510210046l404e54t4e1dc30832a72de0@mail.gmail.com> <3ad827f30510210343q5ae08b7m2be65265a8ca7d4d@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060510212353w4bd74a21x90e6ec693c5cad48@mail.gmail.com> <3ad827f30510221331vf23eba5ma4b7f40263fa8e11@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060510252132i7b1d0dd7yb15bfe35b2a2df02@mail.gmail.com> <3ad827f30510252253s461c8b3amd960c5b08978979@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060510252334k65cc8a3bjc073583c30fc55bc@mail.gmail.com> On 10/26/05, justin corwin wrote: > > On 10/25/05, Marc Geddes wrote: > > I'm not going to post a list where a bunch of obnoxious prats can call > me > > nasty names and then moderate my replies. I used to be in awe of the > > Wilson/Yudkowsky duo but now that I think I've actually cracked the > puzzle > > of consciousness I realize the two of them are just another pair of > prats > > with high IQ's who went *thunk* against the problem of general > intelligence > > and are suffering from delusions of grandeur and dreams of megalomania. > > Can't stand listening to the obnoxious lectures. I still actually wake > up > > at night in a cold sweat dreaming of Wilson - and not in a good way - > > telling me : 'you must trust those smarter than you are' ;) > > well, there isn't a lot I can say here. You were moderated via several > public List Sniper announcements, but if brilliant arguments of yours > were deleted before they hit the list, I of course wouldn't' know > about them. > > If you have indeed 'cracked the puzzle of consciousness', as you say, > I should think that you would have little trouble dealing with such > deluded folk. the Truth is always easier to defend, you know. I'm going to 'deal' to them quite soon. Before I was operating on pure intuition to try to crack the general principles behind general intelligence. Now that I've got the general principles I'm quickly trying to put them on a firmer foundation via a proper careful study of the facts. I should be able to put the hapless SL4 crowd out of their misery quite soon ;) > I actually posted your reply to his paper on David Chalmer's blog you > know. > > He wasn't too impressed. Check out the thread here: > > Amusing. You didn't really read his reply, did you? He's responding > here to my claim that his arguments are unchanged by existing in a Q > or ~Q world, which is trivially false, when I obviously meant you had > to invert the premises in order for it to work. > > Logically true, but not particularly interesting, nor new information. > > > For instance: in Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity, it's known > that > > the Space-Time manifold as whole has properties which *transcend* the > > relational properties of individual physical things. Even though > space-time > > is *generated by* the relations between physical things, space-time has > > properties which *transcend* mere relations between physical things. i.e > > the Space-Time manifold as a whole is an *entity* in its own right, over > > and above the mere physical things which gave rise to it. > > This is gibberish. "Transcend" the relational properties of individual > physical things? What could you possibly mean here? Are you talking > about the relative complexity of a space-time deformation vs. the > positions and masses that generate it, or what? This is not gibberish, as anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity and philosophy could tell you: Google on the 'Relationalism' versus 'Substantivalism' debate for instance. Relationalists (like Leibniz for instance) thought that the notion of a 'space-time manifold' was simply a convienienent device (an abstraction or fiction) being used to describe the relational properties of matter. Substantivalists (like Newton for instance) thought space-time had an existence over and above the relational properties of matter. The debate seems to have gone in favor of Substantivalism. In General Relativity, there are properties of the space-time manifold as a whole which cannot be completely reduced to the local relational properties between the matter within it. > Prior to the work of Cantor, Robinson and Conway, one could get away with > > claiming that infinite categories ddon't have to imply infinite > entities, > > but after the work Cantor, Robinson and Conway it's very clear that > there > > *are* infinite entities. > > You'll need to unpack this quite a bit for me, before I see your > point. You seem to be referencing Cantor's proof via diagonalization > for the existence of uncountable infinities (numbers not on a > constructable number line). Assuming for the moment I accept infinite > set theory(which his proof requires), please tell me how the existence > of a *category* of uncountably infinite numbers (the Reals) implies > infinite actual entities. Simple mathematical platonism. I think you'll find that a sizable portion of modern scientists believe that mathematical entities are actually *out there* in reality, not just astract fictions. The alephs (transfinites) *are* actual numbers - entities with their own rules of arithmetic. Read Rudy Rucker's 'Inifinity and The Mind' for very strong arguments that there are actual infinite entities being referred to. I further assume that you're talking about Abraham Robinson's > Non-standard analysis, which is another poor example, since it doesn't > actually propose the existence of entities that can be used as > anything but analytic tools, as infinitesimals are valueless(you can > divide by them, but adding them to anything is the same as the > original number). A quick search shows that some mathematicians doubt > that infinitesimals are anything but a formalism(see Wikipedia: > Non-standard analysis). > > I am truly stumped on Conway, I guess that my googling skills have > reached their limit of name-dropping references with no terms for > today. It's a common misconception that 'infinitesimals are just analytic tools'. On the contrary, they too are actually well defined entities with their own rules of arithmetic. You obviously haven't read Rudy Rucker's 'Infinity And The Mind' - probably you should ;) Conway's 'Surreal Numbers' were another kind of non-standard analysis involving infinitesimals. The point is that there *are* actual infinitesimal entities there - well-defined numbers with their own rules of arithemetic - not just 'categories'. > And since they can't be matched either directly or > > indirectly to empirical facts, they must have a reality that transcends > > empirical facts. The fact these entities can be *referenced* by finite, > > computable proccesses, in no way means that they are *reducible* to > finite, > > computable proccesses. So materialism is false. > > This is a silly argument. This is like saying that you can conceive of > a purple heffalump, but no such purple heffalump exists in reality, > hence materialism is false, because there exist phenomenological > symbols without reference that fully represent that symbol. Infinite > sets can be talked about, but no one actually interacts with an > infinite set, just logic that implies infinite sets. Internally > consistent logic does not force the existence of things, or I would be > able to say, as the mac hall kids teach us, "God is the greatest jelly > donut in existence" > > http://www.machall.com/index.php?strip_id=189 Um... ever heard of David Lewis and modal realism? The Many-Worlds interpretation of qauntum mechanics? Tegmark's Multiverse theory? I think many mathematical platonists would insist that if there are well-defined entities that are proven to be completely logically coherent, these entities do exist out there something. Vague notions like 'God' are not well defined and so cannot be compared to transfinites and infinitesimals, which ARE completely well-defined and logical. > See what I said above. I agree that the infinite entities can be > > *referenced* by finite, computable proccesses, but this does not mean > that > > the infinite entities are *reducible* to finiite computable proccesses. > > Symbols referencing a thing (which are finite and computable) are *not* > the > > thing itself (which can be infinite and uncomputable). > > Okay, so you're saying that materialism is false, but all computation > can be done by physical processes, and it's exactly the same, except > that there are infinite things being 'referenced' by the finite > processes. > > How do these infinite properties matter at all, if they can be > generated by simple finite means, and do not affect what we can do? Well of courese if everything physical is computable (as I agree) infinite entities cannot directly physically affect what we do, but indirectly they might be needed for a full explanation of reality. Remember math *is* the manipulation of symbols. We don't need to > actually juggle potatoes to determine that five potatoes plus four is > nine potatoes, but neither are we creating nine potatoes when we so > reason. > > -- > Justin Corwin > outlawpoet at hell.com > http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com > http://www.adaptiveai.com Hmm. Most mathematical platonists simply would not agree with you when you say that: 'math is the manipulation of symbols'! Mathematical platonists would say that there are mathematical entities out there in objective reality, which the symbols are referencing. -- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 07:32:34 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:32:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Andrew Weil on ageing In-Reply-To: <435F0169.8030102@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <20051026073234.52477.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." wrote: > VAIL, Ariz. - The best-known practitioner of > integrative medicine, > melding alternative and traditional approaches, has > gone mainstream. If "going mainstream" means throwing ones lot in with the death-lovers, I hope transhumanism NEVER goes mainstream. > Dr. > Andrew Weil, whose 10th book came out Oct. 18, > intends to raise the > public consciousness about aging, and why it is and > should be healthy. If aging was healthy, nobody would ever die from it. > > In his view, advocates of anti-aging medicine, who > tout regimens ranging > from growth hormone to Botox and cosmetic surgery to > stop the aging > process, have become the 21st century equivalent of > snake-oil purveyors > - long on pitch and short on scientific substance. > It's a charge that's > been leveled at Weil for years. Admittedly there are hucksters out there, but should this be used as an excuse to stop research into TRULY stopping the aging process? > Weil calls anti-aging advocates "false prophets who > are putting out a > message that aging is reversible or that we can stop > it." The Apollo astronauts did not just happen to wake up one morning on the moon. Somebody had to believe that it was possible to go to the moon and then try really hard to get them there. Just because something hasn't been done before does not mean it can't be done or shouldn't be done. And all prophets are false until their prophecies come true. > "I think those are very wrong ideas," he says during > a recent interview > at his Vail ranch, about 30 miles southeast of > Tucson. "Aging is a > universal natural process, and I think if you set > yourself up in > opposition to it, you're in a very wrong > relationship with nature." In a similar vein: Predation is a universal natural process. If you are being hunted by a tiger and you don't just lay down and let the tiger eat you, you're in a very wrong relationship with nature. > > "The most damaging perception out there is that the > worth of human life > diminishes with aging, and I've tried to make a case > that aging brings > its own rewards - that there can be an increase in > the value of life, > like fine wine," he says. Sure you can age like fine wine when you are a Harvard educated doctor, with 4 best sellers and a 120 acre ranch. But the average person just turns to vinegar, neglected in some old folks home. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "If you fear death, you are not living right but if you don't try to live forever, you are not living well." - a sparrow outside my window. __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com From fauxever at sprynet.com Wed Oct 26 08:27:43 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:27:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Andrew Weil on ageing References: <20051026073234.52477.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003301c5da07$239041d0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "The Avantguardian" > >> VAIL, Ariz. - The best-known practitioner of integrative medicine, >> melding alternative and traditional approaches, has gone mainstream. > > If "going mainstream" means throwing one's lot in with > the death-lovers, I hope transhumanism NEVER goes > mainstream. I hope transhumanism never goes WOO-WOO. Weil is a regular (repeat offender) on the quackwatch site: http://www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=weil Olga From scerir at libero.it Wed Oct 26 08:59:17 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:59:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] triangles References: <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com><000301c5d983$b763ee90$f5bd1b97@administxl09yj> <7a5e56060510252053m469f9aabg252b4035cf638c99@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009701c5da0b$8c8355c0$7abc1b97@administxl09yj> Marc: > I think the solution to the math/matter/mind puzzle > is that reality has *three* time dimensions, > each time dimension being an *emergent* property > of a complex system. Aristotle called it 'hylomorphism', from hule = matter, or sustance, and morphe = form, or information. (It is possible that Aristotle thought that forms - informations? - were emergent, 'evolutive' properties.) According to an 'updated' version of this 'hylomorphism' there is, in fact, a difference between physical states (i.e. quantum states) and the limited information carried by these states. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212084 http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/zeilinger/foundations.pdf http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/links/newscientist/bit.html For a different approach see Wheeler's 'participatory universe': 'All things physical are information - theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe... Observer participancy gives rise to information; and information gives rise to physics.' s. "The only laws of matter are those which our minds must fabricate, and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter." -James Clerk Maxwell "Nature is earlier than man, but man is earlier than natural science." -Carl Friedrich Freiherr von Weizsaecker From bradbury at aeiveos.com Wed Oct 26 12:49:22 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Andrew Weil on ageing In-Reply-To: <003301c5da07$239041d0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: A copy of a note I sent to the GRG list (which also picked up the commentary on Weil...) On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D. wrote: > Ref.: Andrew Weil; Healthy Aging: A Lifelong Guide to Your Physical and > Spiritual Well-Being > >> "I think those are very wrong ideas," he says during a recent > >> interview at his Vail ranch, about 30 miles southeast of Tucson, AZ. > >> "Aging is a universal natural process, and I think if you set yourself > >> up in opposition to it, you're in a very wrong relationship with nature." > This entire article has attracted some rather negative commentary on the Extropian list. But I will simply offer my opinions. 1) "Who died and made 'nature' GOD?" Nature doesn't exactly run around trying to preserve the lives of various animals. In fact the survival of all predators requires the death of other animals. So by definition people who embrace 'nature' are embracing 'death' (as well as pain and suffering). 2) Genomes are programs. Nature evolves them to allow for survival and reproduction. (Wrapped up in that process is evolution and natural selection). That does not imply that the "natural" process is the most efficient or the best process for increasing complexity. I doubt anyone who understands programs and programming would ever argue that a sophisticated program is "complete" or cannot be improved upon. Obviously the supporting the idea that aging is a "universal natural process" suggests one thinks it is a good process. It sounds to me like "sour grapes" [1] to me. Weil is getting old (he is currently 63), his previous efforts at preventing aging/increasing longevity have failed and so the rationalization that "aging is natural" seems the logical course. I have seen this before in aging researchers/gerontologists. It seems to be a general result of the complexity of aging and the fact that before the last decade it has been so complex and so difficult to *really* understand and envision doing something about it. Ultimately, I think there will be a lot of this in people aged 50-60 or older who have not seriously taken the time to really understand neuroscience (how information is organized in the brain), cryonics and molecular nanotechnology. People who fail to have a robust understanding of those areas who are facing "death's door" do not realize there is an alternative to "death". The result will be lots of handwaving to rationalize death. Robert 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 14:46:17 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:46:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Solar math (was: Nuke 'em) In-Reply-To: <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051024072623.GJ2249@leitl.org> <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510260746o7cca9073tb9d41299850f0137@mail.gmail.com> > http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_cell_light.html says it's about 6 > kWh/m^2/month > insolation, for U.S. June. 6 kWh/m^2/month? That can't be right. Suppose average insolation is only 100 W/m^2 (probably an underestimate for June); there are 720 hours in a month, so that would make the monthly insolation 72 kWh/m^2/month. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Wed Oct 26 16:17:22 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:17:22 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] ART: khronos projector References: <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com><000301c5d983$b763ee90$f5bd1b97@administxl09yj><7a5e56060510252053m469f9aabg252b4035cf638c99@mail.gmail.com> <009701c5da0b$8c8355c0$7abc1b97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <000701c5da48$bf61df10$4bc61b97@administxl09yj> a video 'time-warping' machine [not really], with a tangible deformable screen, http://www.k2.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/members/alvaro/Khronos/Khronos_Projector.htm and some more comments here http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2005/10/22/1601 From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 26 16:33:58 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:33:58 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Solar math (was: Nuke 'em) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510260746o7cca9073tb9d41299850f0137@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051024072623.GJ2249@leitl.org> <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510260746o7cca9073tb9d41299850f0137@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051026163358.GN2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 03:46:17PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > > http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_cell_light.html says it's about 6 > > kWh/m^2/month > > insolation, for U.S. June. > > 6 kWh/m^2/month? That can't be right. Suppose average insolation is only 100 Hey, I saw it on the internets, so it must be true. > W/m^2 (probably an underestimate for June); there are 720 hours in a month, In vacuum with 100% insolation at 1.35 kW/m^2 a m^2 receives some 1000 kWh/month. Best case Earth surface (no clouds, vertical insolation) is 1 kW/m^2, so with a 6 h day you'd get some 190 kWh. September in Germany is about 100 kWh/month according to http://www.solarserver.de/service/strahlungsdaten.html so http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_cell_light.html is bogus, and all my data based on it. In fact http://www.solarserver.de/pvrechner/index.php even gives 97 kWh for 1 m^2 for a year at 10%, which makes me think that those 6-8 kWh/month cited are real output of a PV panel at 10% efficiency, and not just insolation. Good catch, somebody is actually reading these mails. > so that would make the monthly insolation 72 kWh/m^2/month. So we don't even need those 1.2%. Can you crunch through the numbers, assuming 100 kWh for 1 m^2/year (at 10% efficiency, half that at 5% efficiency)? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 20:10:24 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:10:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Solar math (was: Nuke 'em) In-Reply-To: <20051026163358.GN2249@leitl.org> References: <20051024072623.GJ2249@leitl.org> <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510260746o7cca9073tb9d41299850f0137@mail.gmail.com> <20051026163358.GN2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510261310r25b9ef00u25a50bc4995f55f0@mail.gmail.com> On 10/26/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > So we don't even need those 1.2%. Can you crunch through > the numbers, assuming 100 kWh for 1 m^2/year (at 10% efficiency, > half that at 5% efficiency)? Let's take 10%, solar panels or heat engines give you maybe 20-30% but much of it will have to be stored and recovered so you'll take losses there. 100 kWh/year works out to average 12 watts delivered, which sounds like a plausible figure for cloudy northern climates. Say 5 kW/person (I've seen it quoted that Americans use 10 kW, but presumably they do that because it's cheap, and would cut back if it stops being cheap). That's 400 m^2, or a square 20 m on a side. You won't get it all from rooftops alone (though rooftops might supply a lot of domestic usage), but it's not a huge amount compared to total land use, so at the end of the day switching everything to solar looks doable (though not cheap) with present day technology. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 20:17:26 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:17:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Solar math (was: Nuke 'em) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510261310r25b9ef00u25a50bc4995f55f0@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051024072623.GJ2249@leitl.org> <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510260746o7cca9073tb9d41299850f0137@mail.gmail.com> <20051026163358.GN2249@leitl.org> <8d71341e0510261310r25b9ef00u25a50bc4995f55f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/26/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 10/26/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > > So we don't even need those 1.2%. Can you crunch through > > the numbers, assuming 100 kWh for 1 m^2/year (at 10% efficiency, > > half that at 5% efficiency)? > > > Let's take 10%, solar panels or heat engines give you maybe 20-30% but > much of it will have to be stored and recovered so you'll take losses there. > 100 kWh/year works out to average 12 watts delivered, which sounds like a > plausible figure for cloudy northern climates. Say 5 kW/person (I've seen it > quoted that Americans use 10 kW, but presumably they do that because it's > cheap, and would cut back if it stops being cheap). That's 400 m^2, or a > square 20 m on a side. You won't get it all from rooftops alone (though > rooftops might supply a lot of domestic usage), but it's not a huge amount > compared to total land use, so at the end of the day switching everything to > solar looks doable (though not cheap) with present day technology. > > Depends what 'cheap' means. Given our present 'uneconomic' PV tech, how much would five years worth of half the US military budget buy (say, round about $1t)? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Wed Oct 26 20:50:39 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:50:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Aubrey DeGray featured on Paul Harvey Message-ID: <435FEC1F.6040100@goldenfuture.net> http://www.paulharvey.com/ Check the Wednesday noon audio file, approximately halfway through. Not a negative word to be said about it, and for those who don't know who he is, Paul Harvey _is_ Mr. Red State America. Also mentions another researcher that is growing human tissue in the lab using the patient's own cells in the story immediately after. Cool stuff! Joseph From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Oct 26 21:30:51 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:30:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) A Better Transmission System For Deep-Space Message-ID: <435FF58B.6070804@mindspring.com> Source: Eureka Alert.Org - Washington, DC, USA The American Science Serving Society http://tinyurl.com/7t26l Public release date: 24-Oct-2005 Contact: Harvey Leifert hleifert at agu.org 202-777-7507 American Geophysical Union Creating A Better Transmission System For Deep-Space Applications Recent advances in wireless computing technology could improve deep-space missions like asteroid research and remote spacecraft operations by changing the way signals are sent from Earth. A new method designed to effectively deliver commands and instructions using hundreds of millions of tiny transmitters linked together could also free the giant satellite dishes currently used to send and receive the long-range information for other applications. A research paper describing the scheme for relatively simple high-power transmitters will be published in the October issue of Radio Science, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. The technique is based on a principle known as a phased array, a method to align a number of mini-transmitters alongside one another and direct their combined beam into the sky. Such a system has previously been used for military radar technology, but has only recently become cost effective for civilian use because of improvements in consumer computing technology, according to the paper authored by Louis Scheffer at Cadence Design Systems. He indicates that the advantages from so many individual transmitters, using designs similar to cell phone technology, could include improved reliability and efficiency over currently used systems while reducing the transmission costs associated with the mammoth satellite dishes. Overall, he suggests that the net result could be significantly lowered costs for space communications, more data from science spacecraft, and an increase in planetary and deep-space research that requires remote signals. Currently, planetary radars and distant spacecraft communications need transmitters with extremely high power, which has been accomplished by combining a strong microwave source with a large reflective antenna. This is now done with giant satellite dishes mechanically steered to a point in the sky. NASA's Goldstone radar, for example, the agency's sensitive, deep-space analysis radar, uses a 500 kilowatt transmitter and a 70-meter [230-foot] reflector for tracking asteroids that may collide with Earth. The large antenna is focused on only a small point in space at a time, and must be adjusted--and occasionally shut down--due to changing weather conditions. In addition, Scheffer points out that while almost all of the world's largest antennas are used to both send and receive, the powerful transmissions severely hinder their ability to detect faint signals from space. "Imagine trying to listen for a whisper while you are shouting," Scheffer said. "Also, these antennas are incredibly busy, so only a small fraction of the possible science gets done." He proposes a large, flat array of low-power transmitters printed on a number of circuit boards and attached to an unmoving infrastructure on the ground, controlled by computers, which can deliver an enormously powerful beam in any direction, or even multiple directions at once. The paper outlines the requirements of a new system that would offer enhanced reliability, since a single failure would not affect the overall signal, and improved maintenance costs because of its lack of moving parts and weather resistance. The system Scheffer proposes is designed solely to transmit, as is needed for planetary radar and spacecraft control. The transmitters would also allow existing antennas to operate in a more efficient receive-only mode. If available mass-production manufacturing techniques used for electronics can be assumed for the centimeter-sized chips, a transmitter similar to the Goldstone radar could be constructed for nearly one-quarter the cost, Scheffer reports. He notes that the significant amount of research and work done in the field of phased array radars renders the development of such a system plausible, though no previous applications to earth and space sciences have been studied. He further suggests that as computer chip technology continues to improve, additional wavelength and smaller antennas are possible to further improve the systems. The first possible application would likely be for spacecraft command and asteroid research to observe objects that may pose a threat to Earth. A more speculative application, according to Scheffer, is that sending powerful signals to distant stars is easier and cheaper than previously thought. This dramatically reduces the cost of potential interstellar transmissions, such as searched for by SETI. [Thanks to Stuart Miller of http://www.uforeview.net for the lead] -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 21:32:23 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:32:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Another step toward optical chips In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051005175827.0381e658@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20051026213223.44966.qmail@web60014.mail.yahoo.com> Extropes, The phenomenon which one might think of as Moore's Law continues its progress by dint of countless small, hushed, all-but-invisible steps. No single one seeming all that impressive. But put them all together... Stanford innovation helps 'enlighten' silicon chips http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-10/su-sih102405.php Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Oct 26 21:43:33 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:43:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Solar math (was: Nuke 'em) In-Reply-To: References: <20051024072623.GJ2249@leitl.org> <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510260746o7cca9073tb9d41299850f0137@mail.gmail.com> <20051026163358.GN2249@leitl.org> <8d71341e0510261310r25b9ef00u25a50bc4995f55f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051026214333.GA6298@ofb.net> On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 09:17:26PM +0100, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Depends what 'cheap' means. > Given our present 'uneconomic' PV tech, how much would five years > worth of half the US military budget buy (say, round about $1t)? > Dirk Last I saw, which was a few years ago, solar was $4/watt, vs. $1/watt for conventional power plants, lasting 30 years. So, 250 gigawatts. Keep on spending for 30 years and you'd buy 1.5 terawatts, half of what the US needs in terms of total energy. OTOH, providing heating through PV electricity is definitely the expensive way of doing it. Also, my estimate is that the US spends at least $250 billion a year on electricity, so this model is actually underspending. If we accepted spending twice as much as we do now then it all works out. If solar has gotten cheaper then all the better. -xx- Damien X-) From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 21:51:29 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:51:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Solar math (was: Nuke 'em) In-Reply-To: <20051026214333.GA6298@ofb.net> References: <20051024072623.GJ2249@leitl.org> <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510260746o7cca9073tb9d41299850f0137@mail.gmail.com> <20051026163358.GN2249@leitl.org> <8d71341e0510261310r25b9ef00u25a50bc4995f55f0@mail.gmail.com> <20051026214333.GA6298@ofb.net> Message-ID: On 10/26/05, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 09:17:26PM +0100, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > Depends what 'cheap' means. > > Given our present 'uneconomic' PV tech, how much would five years > > worth of half the US military budget buy (say, round about $1t)? > > Dirk > > Last I saw, which was a few years ago, solar was $4/watt, vs. $1/watt for > conventional power plants, lasting 30 years. So, 250 gigawatts. Keep on > spending for 30 years and you'd buy 1.5 terawatts, half of what the US > needs > in terms of total energy. OTOH, providing heating through PV electricity > is > definitely the expensive way of doing it. Also, my estimate is that the US > spends at least $250 billion a year on electricity, so this model is > actually > underspending. If we accepted spending twice as much as we do now then it > all > works out. If solar has gotten cheaper then all the better. > > So, by halving US military spending the US could build the equivalent of 250 major power stations every 5 yrs. Now, what is it that proponents of nuclear power want? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bradbury at aeiveos.com Wed Oct 26 20:53:11 2005 From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:53:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] PopTech conference, X-Prizes and breakthroughs Message-ID: Some may wish to read the article by Mark Anderson in Wired [1] about the recent PopTech conference in Camden, Maine [2]. Peter Diamandis of X-Prize fame was floating ideas for the establishment of additional X-prizes involving everything 200-mpg cars to $1000 genomes. This is on top of the recently announced Rocket Racing League [3]. Some of the other speakers apparently had other creative ideas as well. Robert 1. http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,69309,00.html 2. http://www.poptech.org/program.cfm?page=program_schedule 3. http://www.rocketracingleague.com/ From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Oct 27 00:47:20 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:47:20 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: evolution References: <200510250407.j9P47oe00516@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <002801c5da8f$fc983860$8998e03c@homepc> Spike wrote: > Consider the survey question: > > Do you believe in > > a) creationism > b) evolution > c) neither > d) both > > A sophisticated creationist may answer choice d, > reasoning that Noah only took aboard the ark the > land-based families of beasts, or possible only orders, > then genera and speciation occurred later, by the > mechanisms of traditional evolution. If the survey > is taken in rural Alabama, I have no doubt that > the pollsters are appalled at how few choose b. One > of our now-absent former ExI posters insisted that > we avoid the use of the term "believe." Ah that would be me. I'm not absent, I just don't always have time to read or reply. > He might choose c. I might choose c, probably would if you were the one asking the question because you'd know, I hope, that for me anyway, Not believing a) is not the same as believing Not a), so my answering neither would not mislead you and you could ask the question in a different way if you chose. Can you see a difference between asking "Do you believe in: a) creation b) evolution c) neither d) both " and "Which do you think is true : a) creation b) evolution c) neither d) both " ? I suspect most posters to this list would see the two questions as asking essentially the same thing. Brett Paatsch From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 00:56:51 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:56:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: evolution In-Reply-To: <002801c5da8f$fc983860$8998e03c@homepc> References: <200510250407.j9P47oe00516@tick.javien.com> <002801c5da8f$fc983860$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: On 10/27/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > Spike wrote: > > > Consider the survey question: > > > > Do you believe in > > > > a) creationism > > b) evolution > > c) neither > > d) both > > > > A sophisticated creationist may answer choice d, > > reasoning that Noah only took aboard the ark the > > land-based families of beasts, or possible only orders, > > then genera and speciation occurred later, by the > > mechanisms of traditional evolution. If the survey > > is taken in rural Alabama, I have no doubt that > > the pollsters are appalled at how few choose b. One > > of our now-absent former ExI posters insisted that > > we avoid the use of the term "believe." > > Ah that would be me. I'm not absent, I just don't always > have time to read or reply. > > > He might choose c. > > > I might choose c, probably would if you were the > one asking the question because you'd know, I hope, > that for me anyway, Not believing a) is not the same > as believing Not a), so my answering neither would > not mislead you and you could ask the question in > a different way if you chose. Being a fan of the Simulation Argument, I'll choose d) Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Oct 27 01:00:52 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (M.B. Baumeister) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:00:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: evolution In-Reply-To: <002801c5da8f$fc983860$8998e03c@homepc> References: <200510250407.j9P47oe00516@tick.javien.com> <002801c5da8f$fc983860$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <35720.72.236.102.84.1130374852.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > Can you see a difference between asking > > "Do you believe in: > > a) creation > b) evolution > c) neither > d) both " > > and > > "Which do you think is true : > > a) creation > b) evolution > c) neither > d) both " > > ? > Huh? Believe? As in Take On Faith? Or *think*, as in Use Your Brain. Have an opinion. Using the word "believe" that way is just sloppy language custom. It reminds me of writings on science which talk about "design" - but they do NOT mean designed by anybody/anything. We've not got the words figured out yet. IMHO. Regards, MB From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Oct 27 01:02:14 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:02:14 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: evolution References: <200510250407.j9P47oe00516@tick.javien.com><002801c5da8f$fc983860$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <004f01c5da92$11c94290$8998e03c@homepc> Dirk wrote: > Being a fan of the Simulation Argument, I'll choose d) I'm curious Dirk, would you give the same answer d) to both forms of the question? i.e. Do you consider both forms of the question as asking you the same thing? Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 01:31:05 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:31:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: evolution In-Reply-To: <004f01c5da92$11c94290$8998e03c@homepc> References: <200510250407.j9P47oe00516@tick.javien.com> <002801c5da8f$fc983860$8998e03c@homepc> <004f01c5da92$11c94290$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: On 10/27/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > Dirk wrote: > > Being a fan of the Simulation Argument, I'll choose d) > I'm curious Dirk, would you give the same answer d) to both > forms of the question? i.e. Do you consider both forms of > the question as asking you the same thing? > In normal conversation, yes. Maybe you should ask which I believe is true:-) Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Thu Oct 27 02:54:32 2005 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:54:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: evolution In-Reply-To: <35720.72.236.102.84.1130374852.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <200510250407.j9P47oe00516@tick.javien.com> <002801c5da8f$fc983860$8998e03c@homepc> <35720.72.236.102.84.1130374852.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <43604168.7060807@goldenfuture.net> M.B. Baumeister wrote: >>Can you see a difference between asking >> >>"Do you believe in: >> >>a) creation >>b) evolution >>c) neither >>d) both " >> >>and >> >>"Which do you think is true : >> >>a) creation >>b) evolution >>c) neither >>d) both " >> >>? >> >> >> > >Huh? Believe? As in Take On Faith? Or *think*, as in Use Your Brain. Have >an opinion. > >Using the word "believe" that way is just sloppy language custom. It >reminds me of writings on science which talk about "design" - but they do >NOT mean designed by anybody/anything. We've not got the words figured out >yet. IMHO. > >Regards, >MB > > Speaking as a professional opinion pollster (and no, I'm not kidding; I work for the largest pollster in the US, and the one which was the most accurate during the 2004 elections), I can agree 100% with MB. My company employs exactly the same standard. We do not use the word "believe" unless we are specifically talking about religion. It's not only a loaded term, but the meaning is fuzzy, and respectable pollsters want to be as precise as possible. We use "think" in that context. Joseph From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Oct 27 03:36:29 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:36:29 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: evolution References: <200510250407.j9P47oe00516@tick.javien.com> <002801c5da8f$fc983860$8998e03c@homepc><35720.72.236.102.84.1130374852.squirrel@main.nc.us> <43604168.7060807@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <00dc01c5daa7$9e55e4b0$8998e03c@homepc> Joseph Bloch wrote: > My company employs exactly the same standard. We do not use the word > "believe" unless we are specifically talking about religion. It's not > only a loaded term, but the meaning is fuzzy, and respectable pollsters > want to be as precise as possible. We use "think" in that context. This makes sense to me. Yet, I'm curious. How does a polling company like the one you work for *decide* that the meaning of a term like "belief" is fuzzy, and that "think" should be used instead? Is an executive decision made in each case by someone experienced and hopefully skilled or are instructions on how to write good poll questions put together in a form that can be taught young poll question formulators? Brett Paatsch From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Oct 27 03:40:30 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:40:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510270340.j9R3eZe14744@tick.javien.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dirk Bruere ... And the politically correct are OK about converting farmland from food to fuel production in an increasingly hungry world? Dirk This is what I suspected when you first asked. Ours is a decreasingly hungry world: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173456,00.html spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Oct 27 03:42:21 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:42:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] remote control of humans In-Reply-To: <435F0169.8030102@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <200510270342.j9R3gMe14890@tick.javien.com> Cool this looks like fun. I would sign up to be a test subject, especially if they figure out how to do other stuff with the technology: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173500,00.html spike From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 04:02:30 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (jrd1415) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:02:30 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: KSRM now available online Message-ID: --- In nanotech at yahoogroups.com, "Gina Miller" wrote: Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines Now Freely Available Online The most comprehensive review of the field of Kinematic Self- Replicating Machines (KSRM), the title of a book co-authored by Robert A. Freitas Jr. (http://www.rfreitas.com) and Ralph C. Merkle (http://www.merkle.com), was published in hardback in late 2004. The book is still available in print (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1570596905), but KSRM is now freely accessible online at http://www.MolecularAssembler.com/KSRM.htm. With 200+ illustrations and 3200+ literature references, KSRM describes all proposed and experimentally realized self-replicating systems that were publicly known as of 2004, ranging from nanoscale to macroscale systems. The book extensively describes the historical development of the field. It presents for the first time a detailed 137-dimensional map of the entire kinematic replicator design space to assist future engineering efforts. KSRM has been cited in two articles appearing in Nature this year (Zykov et al, Nature 435, 163 (12 May 2005) and Griffith et al, Nature 437, 636 (29 September 2005)) and appears well on its way to becoming the classic reference in this field. The moderator - Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at h... "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- End forwarded message --- From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 04:04:20 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:04:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] remote control of humans In-Reply-To: <200510270342.j9R3gMe14890@tick.javien.com> References: <435F0169.8030102@sasktel.net> <200510270342.j9R3gMe14890@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: New Scientist had a story (with a short video) on this a couple months ago: It'd be fun to grab a bunch of people and implement Boids with it. http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/ On 10/26/05, spike wrote: > > > Cool this looks like fun. I would sign up to > be a test subject, especially if they figure > out how to do other stuff with the technology: > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173500,00.html > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Thu Oct 27 04:53:22 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:53:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em References: <015001c5d7f4$03088810$15ef4d0c@MyComputer> <291AA8C2-0A02-46E5-9ED1-316627B512A9@mac.com> Message-ID: <002801c5dab2$69aa00b0$d0ef4d0c@MyComputer> Me: >> Weapons proliferation is indeed a very serious problem >> and all reactors make Plutonium, but I'm not sure >> expanding the use of power reactors would make >> things much worse. Samantha Atkins Wrote: >I don't see how that is true in any meaningful way after > reading this. Please show me how a pebble bed reactor > always makes plutonium or is even well suited for such use. If you place Uranium is a sea of neutrons, and that's what a reactor is, then like it or not, commercial reactor or military you're going to make Plutonium. Indeed in the very article you mention I found this: "Pu-239 is normally manufactured in nuclear reactors. If U-238 is exposed to neutron radiation, the nuclei will occasionally capture a neutron, becoming U-239. This happens more easily with fast neutrons than with slow neutrons, although both can be used. The U-239 rapidly undergoes beta decay to give Np-239, which rapidly undergoes a second beta decay, giving Pu-239. " And it says to make bombs the Pu- 239 should not be polluted with Pu-240 and your article then says this: "A nuclear reactor that is used to produce plutonium must therefore have a means for exposing U-238 to neutron radiation, and for frequently rotating this U-238" Since one of the claims of fame of the pebble bed reactor is that you can refuel without shutting down it would seem to me to be especially suitable for making weapons grade Plutonium John K Clark From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Oct 27 04:54:42 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:54:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] remote control of humans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510270454.j9R4sje22121@tick.javien.com> Perhaps they could figure out how to use this tech to make me act suave and debonair like Bond James Bond. I have always wanted to be cool and hip, but I don't really know how. We could carry a module in a palm pilot with a clip for the ear, instant cool. I could write a subroutine to help cool people act like geeks, should they determine that would be advantageous. spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Neil H. Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:04 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] remote control of humans New Scientist had a story (with a short video) on this a couple months ago: It'd be fun to grab a bunch of people and implement Boids with it. http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/ On 10/26/05, spike wrote: Cool this looks like fun. I would sign up to be a test subject, especially if they figure out how to do other stuff with the technology: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173500,00.html spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 05:03:05 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:03:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051027050305.59637.qmail@web60016.mail.yahoo.com> Extropes, Let me add to Roberts remarks below, that the situation with reactor fuel has become quite more complex. Setting aside the whole next generation reactor design question -- pebble bed reactors and other innovations -- there is something called MOX. (I just discovered it while trying to find out the composition of "spent" reactor fuel.) Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) http://www.uic.com.au/nip42.htm Here are the bullet points 1) MOX is a means to "burn" the plutonium remaining in spent reactor fuel to provide energy and make electricity. 2) MOX provides about 2% of the new fuel used today, but this proportion is increasing. 3)MOX also provides a means of burning weapons-grade plutonium (from military sources) to produce electricity, though using thorium-plutonium fuel is another possible means of achieving this. I also discovered: http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/brat_fuel.htm CANDU(Canada Deuterium Uranium) FUEL CYCLES (Which I take to suggest a continuous recycling of used nuke fuel until the energy is largely consumed and the waste is not amenable to the extraction of weapons-grade material.) >From the abstract: The CANDU? reactor is the most versatile commercial power reactor in the world. It has the potential to extend resource utilization significantly, to allow countries with developing industrial infrastructures access to clean and abundant energy, and to destroy long-lived nuclear waste or surplus weapons plutonium. These benefits are available by choosing from an array of possible fuel cycles. And from the Introduction: There are currently 23 CANDU reactors in operation and six under construction around the world, for a global market share of 6%. (So it's not just vaporware.) Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles --- "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > I don't see how that is true in any meaningful way > after reading > > this. Please show me how a pebble bed reactor > always makes plutonium > > or is even well suited for such use. > > Samantha, Pu production is a natural consequence of > the basic fission reaction. > > Reactor grade fuel is a mixture of U-235 + U-238. > (Uranium is more than 99% U-238, > reactor grade fuel is somewhat enriched with U-235, > weapons grade is highly > enriched with U-235. This is why the current debate > over what Iran is doing > is problematic. If you can make reactor grade, all > one has to do is run > the centrifuges somewhat longer to get weapons > grade.) > > The basic fission reaction in any nuclear reactor > produces neutrons (this > is what makes the whole thing "go"). Neutrons that > are captured U-238 > which is present producing Np-239 which then decays > into Pu-239. If Pu-239 > captures another neutron it produces Pu-240. [See > 1,2]. Argonne & the EPA > have good pages about various Uranium & Plutonium > isotopes and half-lives [3,4]. > > The basic "nuclear" fission reaction is: > U-235 + 1n --> Xe-134 + Sr-100 + 2n > > Presumably the initial neutron is from either cosmic > rays or the decay > of other naturally occuring radioactive elements. > Using 1 neutron and > getting 2 neutrons is what starts the chain > reaction. If any of those > neutrons are absorbed by any U-238 you end up with > plutonium. You can > structure the reactors to increase or decrease the > production of Pu > by controlling the speed of the neutrons but I > strongly doubt you > can eliminate Pu production entirely unless you > completely replaced > the U-238 with some other isotope (presumably one > that comfortably > absorbs neutrons without becoming radioactive). > That would probably > be an extremely expensive process due to the fact > that natural uranium > is mostly U-238. (You can't use pure U-235 as I'm > fairly sure that > either gets very hot and melts or explodes.) > > Robert > > > 1. > http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Plutonium/ > 2. > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fission.html > 3. http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/uranium.pdf > > http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/uranium.htm > 4. http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/plutonium.pdf > > http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/plutonium.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Oct 27 05:07:22 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:07:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] iran and israel In-Reply-To: <002801c5dab2$69aa00b0$d0ef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200510270507.j9R57Je23399@tick.javien.com> This whole discussion of plutonium from reactors takes on a new importance with these kinds of discussions taking place: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/index.html {8-[ spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:53 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em > > Me: > > >> Weapons proliferation is indeed a very serious problem > >> and all reactors make Plutonium, but I'm not sure > >> expanding the use of power reactors would make > >> things much worse. > > Samantha Atkins Wrote: > > >I don't see how that is true in any meaningful way after > > reading this. Please show me how a pebble bed reactor > > always makes plutonium or is even well suited for such use. > > If you place Uranium is a sea of neutrons, and that's what a reactor is, > then like it or not, commercial reactor or military you're going to make > Plutonium. Indeed in the very article you mention I found this: > > "Pu-239 is normally manufactured in nuclear reactors... > > And it says to make bombs the Pu- 239 should not be polluted with Pu-240 > and > your article then says this: > ... > > John K Clark From scerir at libero.it Thu Oct 27 06:50:03 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:50:03 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em References: <20051027050305.59637.qmail@web60016.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000a01c5dac2$aa060900$afc61b97@administxl09yj> From: "Jeff Davis" > (So it's not just vaporware.) :-) There has been interest, in the past, in utilising thorium-232 as a nuclear fuel. It is 3 times as abundant as uranium (about half as abundant as lead) and a high % of the mined thorium is useable in a reactor. A thorium reactor would work, more or less, this way (if I remember well). Th-232 capture a neutron to become Th-233 which decays to uranium-233, which in turn fissions. The main problem is that insufficient neutrons are generated to keep the reaction going. A particle accelerator would be used to produce neutrons that provoke nuclear fission. So the reaction is not self sustaining and the machine needs energy to keep it going (Prof. Rubbia, the inventor, named it 'energy amplifier'). Because the amount of energy produced is >> the energy put in. http://einstein.unh.edu/FWHersman/energy_amplifier.html [Cern] http://www.nea.fr/html/trw/docs/saturne8/sat15.pdf [prof. Rubbia] http://www.cavendishscience.org/bks/nuc/thrupdat.htm http://www.thoriumpower.com/english/technologies/tech_publications.htm http://www.thoriumpower.com/ http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/printable_information_papers/inf35print.ht m From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Oct 27 07:39:41 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:39:41 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: KSRM now available online References: Message-ID: <018401c5dac9$9790d460$8998e03c@homepc> jrd1415 wrote: > --- In nanotech at yahoogroups.com, "Gina Miller" wrote: > > Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines Now Freely Available Online > > The most comprehensive review of the field of Kinematic Self- > Replicating > Machines (KSRM), the title of a book co-authored by Robert A. Freitas > Jr. > (http://www.rfreitas.com) and Ralph C. Merkle > (http://www.merkle.com), was > published in hardback in late 2004. The book is still available in > print > (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1570596905), but KSRM is now > freely > accessible online at http://www.MolecularAssembler.com/KSRM.htm. > With 200+ > illustrations and 3200+ literature references, KSRM describes all > proposed > and experimentally realized self-replicating systems that were > publicly > known as of 2004, ranging from nanoscale to macroscale systems. The > book > extensively describes the historical development of the field. It > presents > for the first time a detailed 137-dimensional map of the entire > kinematic > replicator design space to assist future engineering efforts. KSRM > has been > cited in two articles appearing in Nature this year (Zykov et al, > Nature > 435, 163 (12 May 2005) and Griffith et al, Nature 437, 636 (29 > September > 2005)) and appears well on its way to becoming the classic reference > in this > field. Are any readers of this list familiar enough with the contents of this book to tell me if it contains even a single instance of a full set of component parts that would together make up the first self replication device? It seems to me that a full parts list would be needed before those parts could be intentionally assembled by any means into a first instantiation of a self-replicator. Nature does self assembly with biological cells, so with biological cells we know self-replication is possible but we don't know exactly how. That is, to the best of my knowledge no scientist knows even the full list of molecular parts for a biological cell capable of replication yet. Knowing the 960 odd genes of simple creatures doesn't of itself give us the set of their protein structures and the other component molecules. To the best of my knowledge it is a simple statement of the truth that we do not know how nature does self replication at the molecular level that it must do it. Brett Paatsch From eugen at leitl.org Thu Oct 27 13:42:14 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:42:14 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Solar math (was: Nuke 'em) In-Reply-To: <20051026214333.GA6298@ofb.net> References: <20051024072623.GJ2249@leitl.org> <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510260746o7cca9073tb9d41299850f0137@mail.gmail.com> <20051026163358.GN2249@leitl.org> <8d71341e0510261310r25b9ef00u25a50bc4995f55f0@mail.gmail.com> <20051026214333.GA6298@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20051027134214.GD2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:43:33PM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > Last I saw, which was a few years ago, solar was $4/watt, vs. $1/watt for > conventional power plants, lasting 30 years. So, 250 gigawatts. Keep on Residential electricity is e.g. 0.155 EUR/kWh where I sit. http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/ph162/l7.html claims 0.25-0.50$/kWh for solar electricity. http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm claims around 0.30$/kWh, or 2-5 times residential electricity tarifs. > spending for 30 years and you'd buy 1.5 terawatts, half of what the US needs > in terms of total energy. OTOH, providing heating through PV electricity is > definitely the expensive way of doing it. Also, my estimate is that the US Right. http://www.solarserver.de/berechnen/index.html tells me that a 2-person household with 70 l/day (60 C) needs 3.6 m^2 and a 200 l insulate tank to achieve >80% coverage during 6 months of the year and 10%-60% the rest of the year. Another good investment is insulation, heat exchangers in ventilation and winter gardens. > spends at least $250 billion a year on electricity, so this model is actually > underspending. If we accepted spending twice as much as we do now then it all > works out. If solar has gotten cheaper then all the better. Price crossover will happen quite soon, especially if the polymer/semiconductor spin-coat cells are stable and cheap. It's still a major investment, and most of the U.S. is deep in debt. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 18:29:59 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:29:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Solar math (was: Nuke 'em) In-Reply-To: <20051027134214.GD2249@leitl.org> References: <20051024072623.GJ2249@leitl.org> <20051024211156.62640.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0510260746o7cca9073tb9d41299850f0137@mail.gmail.com> <20051026163358.GN2249@leitl.org> <8d71341e0510261310r25b9ef00u25a50bc4995f55f0@mail.gmail.com> <20051026214333.GA6298@ofb.net> <20051027134214.GD2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 10/27/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:43:33PM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > > Last I saw, which was a few years ago, solar was $4/watt, vs. $1/watt > for > > conventional power plants, lasting 30 years. So, 250 gigawatts. Keep on > > Residential electricity is e.g. 0.155 EUR/kWh where I sit. > http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/ph162/l7.html > claims 0.25-0.50$/kWh for solar electricity. > http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm > claims around 0.30$/kWh, or 2-5 times residential electricity tarifs. > > > spending for 30 years and you'd buy 1.5 terawatts, half of what the US > needs > > in terms of total energy. OTOH, providing heating through PV electricity > is > > definitely the expensive way of doing it. Also, my estimate is that the > US > > Right. http://www.solarserver.de/berechnen/index.html tells me that a > 2-person > household with 70 l/day (60 C) needs 3.6 m^2 and a 200 l insulate tank to > achieve >80% coverage during 6 months of the year and 10%-60% the rest of > the > year. Another good investment is insulation, heat exchangers in > ventilation > and winter gardens. > > > spends at least $250 billion a year on electricity, so this model is > actually > > underspending. If we accepted spending twice as much as we do now then > it all > > works out. If solar has gotten cheaper then all the better. > > Price crossover will happen quite soon, especially if the > polymer/semiconductor > spin-coat cells are stable and cheap. It's still a major investment, and > most > of the U.S. is deep in debt. > > Then better to piss away money on something useful rather than a bloated military whose only justification is fighting oil wars because the cash isn't invested in other energy resources. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 27 18:41:45 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:41:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: evolution In-Reply-To: <200510250407.j9P47oe00516@tick.javien.com> References: <200510250407.j9P47oe00516@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Oct 24, 2005, at 9:07 PM, spike wrote: > > Be that as it may, I do not get too worked up about > surveys showing what percentage of the population > believes this or that, for those figures can be > greatly affected by how the question is asked. > If I had not personally met up with major human irrationality on many occasions it would be easier to be soothed by this. Ignoring the fact that a large part of the population is not only ignorant but willfully ignorant is ignoring reality. This is not extropic. > Ron Numbers, in his excellent book The Creationists, > deals with this by citing a number of studies based > on surveys, some of which he designed himself, that > demonstrates that a significant portion of the > population believes in two or more mutually > exclusive concepts simultaneously. Michael Shermer (Why > People Believe Weird Things) and Steven Jay Gould (Rocks > of Ages, et.al.) have also noted this, specifically > with regard to evolution and creationism. Yep, which is why in the 21st century we are still wasting time on monkey trials in the US. > > In some (or perhaps most) cases this really is as > absurd as it sounds, but consider the case of > sophisticated creationists (yes such a thing > does exist). Sophisticated rationalization exists. I have done more than a little of it myself. > People can be taught from earliest > childhood that creationism is the truth, and to > think otherwise is to deny the word of god. The > notion is difficult for many to give up even if > later they receive top-notch scientific training. Sure. But this is part of recognizing or explaining the truth of what the surveys portray. We are also too used to treating religious notions as so sacrosanct that we don't point out the obvious errors in one another's religious beliefs. Even atrocities are condoned in the name of religion. > So often some hybrid notion is derived. > > Consider the survey question: > > Do you believe in > > a) creationism > b) evolution > c) neither > d) both > > A sophisticated creationist may answer choice d, > reasoning that Noah only took aboard the ark the > land-based families of beasts, or possible only orders, > then genera and speciation occurred later, by the > mechanisms of traditional evolution. Well and completely exploded. A total non-starter. > If the survey > is taken in rural Alabama, I have no doubt that > the pollsters are appalled at how few choose b. One > of our now-absent former ExI posters insisted that > we avoid the use of the term "believe." He might > choose c. So how do we score it? Do we say all > the non-b choosers are the percentage that does > not believe in evolution? Irrelevant to the problem and I very much expect you know it. > > Ron Numbers makes the case that those polls which > show a person believing mutually exclusive notions > should be eliminated from the final score. What for? It is merely an accurate portrayal of the chaos in the minds of many people. > He suggests > that this could result in most of the survey-returns being > eliminated, but then the conclusions are much more evolution- > friendly. Perhaps we can figure out a way to weight > the results based on the number of contradictions > in the survey, in the spirit of the three-coins test > example. > What for? The on-going monkey trials show all to real fire behind what you would pass off in part as meaningless smoke. > I suppose that if people take a serious interest > in origins of life and approach the problem with > a disciplined and open mind, they will find the answers > they seek. If they take no interest in these matters, > it is irrelevant what they believe. Not in a country where they have the votes to force the poisoning of the minds of future generations. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 19:04:00 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:04:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <200510270340.j9R3eZe14744@tick.javien.com> References: <200510270340.j9R3eZe14744@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 10/27/05, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dirk Bruere > ... > > And the politically correct are OK about converting farmland from food to > fuel production in an increasingly hungry world? > > Dirk > > > This is what I suspected when you first asked. Ours > is a decreasingly hungry world: > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173456,00.html > > It will not take much climate instability to decimate food production globally. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 27 19:28:09 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:28:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <002801c5dab2$69aa00b0$d0ef4d0c@MyComputer> References: <015001c5d7f4$03088810$15ef4d0c@MyComputer> <291AA8C2-0A02-46E5-9ED1-316627B512A9@mac.com> <002801c5dab2$69aa00b0$d0ef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <937680AA-6E39-451C-9D0A-E2E6DF12478D@mac.com> On Oct 26, 2005, at 9:53 PM, John K Clark wrote: > > Samantha Atkins Wrote: > > >> I don't see how that is true in any meaningful way after >> reading this. Please show me how a pebble bed reactor >> always makes plutonium or is even well suited for such use. >> > > If you place Uranium is a sea of neutrons, and that's what a > reactor is, > then like it or not, commercial reactor or military you're going to > make > Plutonium. Indeed in the very article you mention I found this: > Is this also true of Thorium based reactors? The article points out the stickiness of getting weapons grade plutonium also. It is not quite enlightening to simply say every reactor produces plutonium and thus is a problem for anti-proliferation. > "Pu-239 is normally manufactured in nuclear reactors. If U-238 is > exposed to > neutron radiation, the nuclei will occasionally capture a neutron, > becoming > U-239. This happens more easily with fast neutrons than with slow > neutrons, > although both can be used. The U-239 rapidly undergoes beta decay > to give > Np-239, which rapidly undergoes a second beta decay, giving Pu-239. " > > And it says to make bombs the Pu- 239 should not be polluted with > Pu-240 and > your article then says this: > > "A nuclear reactor that is used to produce plutonium must therefore > have a > means for exposing U-238 to neutron radiation, and for frequently > rotating > this U-238" > > Since one of the claims of fame of the pebble bed reactor is that > you can > refuel without shutting down it would seem to me to be especially > suitable > for making weapons grade Plutonium Simply removing the pellets periodically is certainly not enough to enable efficient weapons-grade plutonium production. Also it is possible to run a pebble bed reactor starting with plutonium rather than uranium. If this can be done with non-weapons grade plutonium I wonder if this could be a reasonable choice. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 27 19:30:54 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:30:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] iran and israel In-Reply-To: <200510270507.j9R57Je23399@tick.javien.com> References: <200510270507.j9R57Je23399@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <8020EB38-3A31-4E85-8D68-4FFF164160EA@mac.com> Which is precisely why it is important not to jump to premature conclusions linking all reactors to weapons. -s On Oct 26, 2005, at 10:07 PM, spike wrote: > This whole discussion of plutonium from reactors > takes on a new importance with these kinds of > discussions taking place: > > http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/index.html > > {8-[ > > spike > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark >> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:53 PM >> To: ExI chat list >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em >> >> Me: >> >> >>>> Weapons proliferation is indeed a very serious problem >>>> and all reactors make Plutonium, but I'm not sure >>>> expanding the use of power reactors would make >>>> things much worse. >>>> >> >> Samantha Atkins Wrote: >> >> >>> I don't see how that is true in any meaningful way after >>> reading this. Please show me how a pebble bed reactor >>> always makes plutonium or is even well suited for such use. >>> >> >> If you place Uranium is a sea of neutrons, and that's what a >> reactor is, >> then like it or not, commercial reactor or military you're going >> to make >> Plutonium. Indeed in the very article you mention I found this: >> >> "Pu-239 is normally manufactured in nuclear reactors... >> >> And it says to make bombs the Pu- 239 should not be polluted with >> Pu-240 >> and >> your article then says this: >> >> > ... > >> >> John K Clark >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 19:58:29 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] iran and israel In-Reply-To: <8020EB38-3A31-4E85-8D68-4FFF164160EA@mac.com> Message-ID: <20051027195829.46017.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Marx was wrong. Religion is not an opiate. It is a hallucinagenic stimulant like angel dust. It does nothing but sow dissent and violence between brothers. It is the salve that fanatics put upon their consciences to ease the pain of what they know is wrong. --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > Which is precisely why it is important not to jump > to premature > conclusions linking all reactors to weapons. > > -s > > On Oct 26, 2005, at 10:07 PM, spike wrote: > > > This whole discussion of plutonium from reactors > > takes on a new importance with these kinds of > > discussions taking place: > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/index.html > > > > {8-[ > > > > spike > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat- > >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K > Clark > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:53 PM > >> To: ExI chat list > >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em > >> > >> Me: > >> > >> > >>>> Weapons proliferation is indeed a very serious > problem > >>>> and all reactors make Plutonium, but I'm not > sure > >>>> expanding the use of power reactors would make > >>>> things much worse. > >>>> > >> > >> Samantha Atkins Wrote: > >> > >> > >>> I don't see how that is true in any meaningful > way after > >>> reading this. Please show me how a pebble bed > reactor > >>> always makes plutonium or is even well suited > for such use. > >>> > >> > >> If you place Uranium is a sea of neutrons, and > that's what a > >> reactor is, > >> then like it or not, commercial reactor or > military you're going > >> to make > >> Plutonium. Indeed in the very article you mention > I found this: > >> > >> "Pu-239 is normally manufactured in nuclear > reactors... > >> > >> And it says to make bombs the Pu- 239 should not > be polluted with > >> Pu-240 > >> and > >> your article then says this: > >> > >> > > ... > > > >> > >> John K Clark > >> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "If you fear death, you are not living right; if you don't want to live forever, you are not living well." - a sparrow outside my window. __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 20:25:17 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:25:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Jose Cordeiro interviewed by Maclean's magazine Message-ID: <20051027202517.93320.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> Maclean's 100th anniversary issue is taken up with predictions for the next 100 hundred years. Cordeiro is quoted on pp. 141-146. He says, "if you are under the age of twenty death will be optional". What about those over twenty, he was asked. "We will just have to hope for the best" was the answer. --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 02:30:39 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: KSRM now available online In-Reply-To: <018401c5dac9$9790d460$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20051028023040.29007.qmail@web60018.mail.yahoo.com> Extropes, --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > jrd1415 wrote: > > > --- In nanotech at yahoogroups.com, "Gina Miller" > wrote: > > > > Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines Now Freely > Available Online > > > > The most comprehensive review of the field of > Kinematic Self- > > Replicating > > Machines (KSRM), the title of a book co-authored > by Robert A. Freitas > > Jr. > > (http://www.rfreitas.com) and Ralph C. Merkle > > (http://www.merkle.com), was > > published in hardback in late 2004. The book is > still available in > > print > > > (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1570596905), > but KSRM is now > > freely > > accessible online at > http://www.MolecularAssembler.com/KSRM.htm. > > With 200+ > > illustrations and 3200+ literature references, > KSRM describes all > > proposed > > and experimentally realized self-replicating > systems that were > > publicly > > known as of 2004, ranging from nanoscale to > macroscale systems. The > > book > > extensively describes the historical development > of the field. It > > presents > > for the first time a detailed 137-dimensional map > of the entire > > kinematic > > replicator design space to assist future > engineering efforts. KSRM > > has been > > cited in two articles appearing in Nature this > year (Zykov et al, > > Nature > > 435, 163 (12 May 2005) and Griffith et al, Nature > 437, 636 (29 > > September > > 2005)) and appears well on its way to becoming the > classic reference > > in this > > field. > > Are any readers of this list familiar enough with > the contents > of this book to tell me if it contains even a > single instance of > a full set of component parts that would together > make up > the first self replication device? I pre-ordered a copy from the publisher, and got it hot off the presses. I read it cover to cover on my winter sojourn to Baja last year. Lovely read. For an ?ber nerd. The short answer to your question is no. There's the trivial case, but it's, well, trivial. (Two robots, one with an uninstalled fuse. The working robot completes the "replication" of robot #2 by installing the fuse.) Then there are conceptual but fairly complete designs for "cellular" replicators, such as Forest Bishop's XY Active Cell (See Figure 3.18). This design approach is a mechanical parallel to biology. A minimum parts list makes a "cellular" building block. By connecting a multitude of these blocks in different configurations one constructs the various machines necessary to perform all the tasks necessary to reproduce and assemble, in quantity, the component parts of the cellular building blocks. The design space for machine self-replication is deliciously complex (yet oddly simple ;-})with a multitude of approaches. F&M (the authors) have described the design space by breaking it down into four principle categories; 12 sub-categories; and finally 137 practical multi-valued design properties. (See figure 5.5) > > It seems to me that a full parts list would be > needed before > those parts could be intentionally assembled by any > means > into a first instantiation of a self-replicator. Agreed. But if your point is that it's a difficult problem, far from a solution due to it's exceeding depth and complexity, (This I conclude from your comments below), I don't agree. I seem to be rather lonely in my view that it's actually rather straightforward -- big, but not hard -- a clear cut case of "Everything's hard till you know how to do it.", or, to be just a tad more pointed, directly at the nature of THIS particular problem, "Anything conventionally and mistakenly seen as hard will continue to be presumed so until someone gets off their ass and does it." Or more succinctly, "A thing is impossible until it isn't." > Nature does self assembly with biological cells, so > with biological > cells we know self-replication is possible but we > don't know > exactly how. That is, to the best of my knowledge no > scientist > knows even the full list of molecular parts for a > biological cell > capable of replication yet. It may very well be that the absolutely comprehensively complete parts list is not known, but I think we're closing in on it rapidly. And I think we know enough, to say we know how it works. We've passed from "It's a mystery." to "There are gaps in our understanding." My opinion. No doubt there will be smarter folks who disagree. > Knowing the 960 odd > genes of > simple creatures doesn't of itself give us the set > of their protein > structures and the other component molecules. > > To the best of my knowledge it is a simple statement > of > the truth that we do not know how nature does self > replication at the molecular level that it must do > it. > It surely does do it. We're all replicators on the bus. We have been supremely lucky to have been born into this precise moment in history. It is with an ever-cresting crescendo of wonder and enthusiasm that I commend you to the great adventure and the great adventure to you. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Oct 28 03:21:40 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:21:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: evolution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510280322.j9S3MFe25042@tick.javien.com> ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:42 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: evolution On Oct 24, 2005, at 9:07 PM, spike wrote: ... >>Ron Numbers...demonstrates that a significant portion of the >>population believes in two or more mutually >>exclusive concepts simultaneously... >Yep, which is why in the 21st century we are still wasting time on monkey trials in the US. The kick is that they aren't really monkey trials. They are battles in a culture war. Science is politicized. >Sophisticated rationalization exists. I have done more than a little of it myself. Haven't we all. >Sure. But this is part of recognizing or explaining the truth of what the surveys portray. We are also too used to treating religious notions as so sacrosanct that we don't point out the obvious errors in one another's religious beliefs. Even atrocities are condoned in the name of religion. Ja, understatement. The worst attrocities can only be explained in terms of religion. >>Ron Numbers makes the case that those polls which show a person believing mutually exclusive notions should be eliminated from the final score. >What for? It is merely an accurate portrayal of the chaos in the minds of many people. So let's try to measure it. In the spirit of previous posts on the topic, let us consider a test of some kind, that is a combination of belief survey and a measure of mastery of the subject. In the evolution example, I would speculate that those who demonstrate a stronger belief in evolution will also know more about evolution. How would we design a test? >What for? The on-going monkey trials show all to real fire behind what you would pass off in part as meaningless smoke. If you mean public schools are failing to teach evolution, I am fully aware of that. The question is how can it be measured? What if we show that belief in creationism correlates with ignorance of evolution? Perhaps this would be meaningless, for a creationist could design a test to show that belief in evolution correlates with ignorance of creationism. So how do we derive metrics? spike From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Oct 28 04:55:01 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:55:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: politics In-Reply-To: <200510280322.j9S3MFe25042@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200510280454.j9S4sve02151@tick.javien.com> I propose a game, along the lines of a proposal for trying to find a correlation between one's knowledge of a situation and their beliefs. I want to propose one that is out of the arena of religion, and rather do one on knowledge of some current event. There is a really bizarre test case currently in the US. Several high level white house staffers are being investigated for leaking the identity of an undercover CIA agent. This is a crime, so if there is sufficient evidence, indictments will result. The results of the two-year investigation will be announced tomorrow, Friday 28 October. Let us see if there is any correlation between one's knowledge of this particular case and their beliefs. The first part is a matching game: match the name with the short description. All of the people in the left column had some direct or indirect involvement, many as commentators, some as participants. If you decide to play, you may post your results here, or just keep it to yourself if you wish. This is just a game. In the second part, you will measure your beliefs. Come on, extropians, let us play. {8-] Match the name with the description: 1 Tracey Schmitt a NY Times publisher 2 Ken Mehlman b Republican Nat. Committee spokeshuman 3 David Keene c Cheney's lawyer 4 Judy Miller d Republican biggie in trouble 5 Robert Bennett e NY Times spokeshuman 6 Terrence O'Donnell f NY Times editor 7 Brent Scowcroft g Judy Miller's attorney 8 Dick Cheney h Republican National Committee chairhuman 9 Dana Milbank i US vice president 10 Randall Samborne j Chairhuman of American Consevative Union 11 Patrick Fitzgerald k USA Today columnist 12 Bill Keller l Head of the CIA 13 Barney Calame m New York Times reporter, went to jail 14 Scooter Libby n Dick Cheney's chief of staff 15 Richard Benedetto o Patrick Fitzgerald's spokeshuman 16 Karl Rove p Deputy to Bush's chief of staff 17 Valerie Plame q US president 18 Scott McClellan r Secret CIA operative, was outed 19 George Bush s Boston Globe columnist 20 Joe Wilson t Democrat National Committee spokeshuman 21 Karen Finney u Went to Niger, Plame's husband 22 David G. Savage v Independent council ong CIA-gate 23 Rick Klein w Former nat. security advisor for Bush 41 24 Art Sulzberger x Los Angeles Times columnist 25 George Tenet y Washington Post columnist 26 Tom DeLay z Whitehouse press secretary OK now. Do you think that 1. Rove leaked the CIA agent's identity to get revenge 2. Libby leaked the CIA agent's identity to get revenge 3. Cheney leaked the CIA agent's identity to get revenge 4. Rove didn't leak the CIA agent's identity 5. Libby didn't leak the CIA agent's identity 6. Cheney didn't leak the CIA agent's identity 7. Rove leaked the CIA agent's identity legally (she wasn't covert) 8. Libby leaked the CIA agent's identity legally (she wasn't covert) 9. Cheney leaked the CIA agent's identity legally (she wasn't covert) 10. There was funny business but it is not provable, so no indictments will result 11. There was no funny business, it was all pretty much a misunderstanding, no indictments 12. Wilson did it 13. There were no crimes committed by anyone, but unethical behavior 14. It was a wicked setup by democrats 15. It was a wicked setup by republicans More than one of the 11 choices above are expected. How well did you score on part 1? Which numbers did you pick in part 2? spike From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Oct 28 05:07:22 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:07:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: evolution In-Reply-To: <200510280322.j9S3MFe25042@tick.javien.com> References: <200510280322.j9S3MFe25042@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Oct 27, 2005, at 8:21 PM, spike wrote: > > > ________________________________________ > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Samantha Atkins > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:42 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: evolution > > > On Oct 24, 2005, at 9:07 PM, spike wrote: > > ... > > >>> Ron Numbers...demonstrates that a significant portion of the >>> population believes in two or more mutually >>> exclusive concepts simultaneously... >>> > > >> Yep, which is why in the 21st century we are still wasting time on >> monkey >> > trials in the US. > > > > The kick is that they aren't really monkey trials. They > are battles in a culture war. Science is politicized. > It was political and "culture war" during Scopes also. > > > >>> Ron Numbers makes the case that those polls which >>> > show a person believing mutually exclusive notions > should be eliminated from the final score. > > >> What for? It is merely an accurate portrayal of the chaos in the >> minds of >> > many people. > > > So let's try to measure it. In the spirit of > previous posts on the topic, let us consider > a test of some kind, that is a combination of > belief survey and a measure of mastery of the > subject. In the evolution example, I would > speculate that those who demonstrate a stronger > belief in evolution will also know more about > evolution. How would we design a test? Why is measuring this particularly interesting or important? > > > >> What for? The on-going monkey trials show all to real fire behind >> what you >> > would pass off in part as meaningless smoke. > > > If you mean public schools are failing to > teach evolution, I am fully aware of that. The > question is how can it be measured? What if we > show that belief in creationism correlates with > ignorance of evolution? Perhaps this would be > meaningless, for a creationist could design > a test to show that belief in evolution > correlates with ignorance of creationism. So > how do we derive metrics? > Why would such "metrics" be meaningful or useful for dealing with the real problem? How is studying on aspects of surveys and perhaps improving them doing more than fiddling while Rome burns? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Oct 28 05:10:17 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:10:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Guinness' Evolution Ad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Whoa! That was great! Thanks! On Oct 24, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > Wow! Check out Guinness' evolution ad : > > http://www.bestadsontv.com/ad_details.php?id=634 > > "The rhythm of life..." is a catchy tune, even. > > I would watch TV if more people in the TV business were as smart > as the people who made this ad. > > Amara > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Oct 28 05:18:54 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:18:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: evolution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510280518.j9S5Ioe04631@tick.javien.com> > >...Perhaps this would be > > meaningless, for a creationist could design > > a test to show that belief in evolution > > correlates with ignorance of creationism. So > > how do we derive metrics? > > > > Why would such "metrics" be meaningful or useful for dealing with the > real problem? How is studying on aspects of surveys and perhaps > improving them doing more than fiddling while Rome burns? > > - samantha Note that I am not claiming to have the answer to the decline of science education, or to culture wars. The coming war between radical Islam vs the rest of Islam and everyone else is another example of a culture war to which I have no suggestions for a solution. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Oct 28 06:25:22 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:25:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: politics In-Reply-To: <200510280454.j9S4sve02151@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200510280625.j9S6PIe12919@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ... > > OK now. Do you think that > > 1. Rove leaked the CIA agent's identity to get revenge > 2. Libby leaked the CIA agent's identity to get revenge > 3. Cheney leaked the CIA agent's identity to get revenge > 4. Rove didn't leak the CIA agent's identity > 5. Libby didn't leak the CIA agent's identity > 6. Cheney didn't leak the CIA agent's identity > 7. Rove leaked the CIA agent's identity legally (she wasn't covert) > 8. Libby leaked the CIA agent's identity legally (she wasn't covert) > 9. Cheney leaked the CIA agent's identity legally (she wasn't covert) > 10. There was funny business but it is not provable, > so no indictments will result > 11. There was no funny business, it was all pretty much > a misunderstanding, no indictments > 12. Wilson did it > 13. There were no crimes committed by anyone, but unethical behavior > 14. It was a wicked setup by democrats > 15. It was a wicked setup by republicans > > More than one of the 11 choices above are expected. > > How well did you score on part 1? Which numbers did you > pick in part 2? > > spike For the record, my predictions for tomorrow: 8, 10 and possibly 12 and 2. Here's my reasoning: the mainstream news media kept pounding on the question "who leaked Mrs. Wilson's name?" But this might not be the right question. I looked up the original column by Novak on 14 July 2003. His comment, which started it all is: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me." http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2003/07/14/160881.html What occurred to me is that nowhere in this article does it say Plame was an undercover operative. The next day Joe Wilson, Plame's husband, went wild claiming his wife had been outed. But she hadn't. Until he started talking. So in that sense Wilson outed his wife. My prediction then is that the grand jury will find that Novak didn't receive illegal leaks, but that Rove's testimony was inconsistent, so he may have lied about a non-crime. But Fitzgerald will choose to not attempt to prosecute a lie about a non-crime, even tho that in itself is a crime. Prediction then: no indictments tomorrow. spike From jonkc at att.net Fri Oct 28 15:15:40 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:15:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em References: <015001c5d7f4$03088810$15ef4d0c@MyComputer><291AA8C2-0A02-46E5-9ED1-316627B512A9@mac.com><002801c5dab2$69aa00b0$d0ef4d0c@MyComputer> <937680AA-6E39-451C-9D0A-E2E6DF12478D@mac.com> Message-ID: <002201c5dbd2$84335960$fb0c4e0c@MyComputer> "Samantha Atkins" > Is this also true of Thorium based reactors? I have no idea, I know nothing about Thorium based pebble bed reactors and didn't know one had been built, tell me more. In general I do know that Thorium reactors produce less Plutonium but they also produce Uranium 233, and you can make bombs with that too. Up to now nobody has bothered to make a bomb with Uranium 233 because Thorium reactors are less economical than conventional reactors, but if that were to change .... > It is not quite enlightening to simply say every > reactor produces plutonium Ok, let me try again then: What is the sound of one hand clapping? > and thus is a problem for anti-proliferation. I believe I specifically said it wasn't clear that power reactors would significantly increase the proliferation problem. > Simply removing the pellets periodically is certainly not enough > to enable efficient weapons-grade plutonium production. Actually it is. The key way to prevent your weapons grade Pu-239 from being polluted with PU- 240 is to limit the time your Uranium fuel is in the reactor, and with pebble beds it's especially easy to do that. John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 28 17:27:30 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:27:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] THE SOULS OF CYBERFOLK In-Reply-To: <002201c5dbd2$84335960$fb0c4e0c@MyComputer> References: <015001c5d7f4$03088810$15ef4d0c@MyComputer> <291AA8C2-0A02-46E5-9ED1-316627B512A9@mac.com> <002801c5dab2$69aa00b0$d0ef4d0c@MyComputer> <937680AA-6E39-451C-9D0A-E2E6DF12478D@mac.com> <002201c5dbd2$84335960$fb0c4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051028121944.01dc9c98@pop-server.satx.rr.com> This new book-length study by academic Thomas Foster was released a few months ago by the University of Minnesota press, with the subtitle: Posthumanism as Vernacular Theory. As promised on the jacket, it launches from a (rather outdated) discussion of Max More and Extropy Institute, discusses what it calls Hans Moravec's "fantasy" of "downloading" -- Foster means uploading, and apparently never bothers to explain why it's a fantasy -- and wanders about between cyberpunk and Eganesque science-fiction, queer theory and other fashionable discourses, and analysts of trans- and posthumanism. I haven't yet read the book. Max might wish to. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 28 17:28:54 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:28:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: politics In-Reply-To: <200510280625.j9S6PIe12919@tick.javien.com> References: <200510280454.j9S4sve02151@tick.javien.com> <200510280625.j9S6PIe12919@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051028122822.01c8be28@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 11:25 PM 10/27/2005 -0700, spike wrote: >Prediction then: no indictments tomorrow. Another theory falsified. Bad luck. From hal at finney.org Fri Oct 28 18:27:29 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:27:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: politics Message-ID: <20051028182729.8542357EFB@finney.org> There is one thing I find interesting about this story, relating to these questions from Spike: > OK now. Do you think that > > 1. Rove leaked the CIA agent's identity to get revenge > 2. Libby leaked the CIA agent's identity to get revenge > 3. Cheney leaked the CIA agent's identity to get revenge The interesting point to me is that again and again in reports on this issue, the motivation described is not, as Spike has it, for revenge. Revenge makes sense. Punishment would make sense as well - my theory is that Wilson was threatened before publication that if he went forward, his wife would be outed. And so they followed through. That seems logical to me. The administration would have known he was going to publish and they would have tried to stop him. When they failed, they have to follow through with their threats to retain credibility. The problem though is that much or most of the media analysis I have read in the past does not describe the hypothetical motivation as being revenge or punishment. Rather, we read stories like the following from the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/10/25/bush_in_pr_blitz_amid_leak_probe/ "Fitzgerald's investigation began with the 2003 publication of Plame's status as a covert operative in an article by syndicated columnist Robert Novak. The column sought to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who became a vocal critic of the Bush administration's case for the Iraq war." The motivation described here is to "discredit" Wilson. Apparently the fact that his wife is a high level CIA operative is supposed to make him less credible? Does that make sense? Not to me. If anything it raises his stature, in my mind. Wilson is already a credible figure, and the fact that his wife is also someone of importance makes them sound like a true power couple. It's frustrating to me because, perhaps due to editorial decisions by the local paper, "discredit" is the verb that I almost always see. And it is used over and over again, in every story on the topic. It's like no one is even thinking when they write these stories. They just parrot this language about discrediting Wilson without any analysis of how exactly this is going to discredit him. My guess is that the real reason they do this, rather than using the blunt language Spike does of "revenge", is because that is just too harsh and shocking. To say that the administration outed Plame for revenge reminds us that in fact this action was a severe blow to her, and by extension, to her husband. Her career is ruined now. And it's not impossible that she could face physical harm as a result of being outed so visibly. She might become a target for anti-CIA operations, either foreign or domestic. It is indeed a very strong act of revenge and punishment. To write this, then, is to imply that the administration wanted to kill this woman's career and possibly put her life in danger. That's a terrible thing to accuse someone of. And since there is no direct evidence that this is what happened, my guess is that most newspapers are unwilling to make that accusation even implicitly. So they fall back on this "discredit" language, something far more mild and less inflamatory, and they use it even though it makes virtually no sense. It at least gives them a word they can use in their stories without having to go out on the limb of accusing Rove et al of such a harsh action as revenge. The absence of logic doesn't matter. The sad thing is that they have such a low opinion of their readers that they think they can use such words and no one will notice or care. Perhaps even sadder is that in fact no one does seem to notice or care. Hal From hal at finney.org Fri Oct 28 23:41:25 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech expert Richard Smalley dies Message-ID: <20051028234125.60AC057EFC@finney.org> I was shocked to run across this a few moments ago: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3423476 > Richard Errett Smalley, a gifted chemist who shared a Nobel Prize for > the discovery of buckyballs, helped pioneer the field of nanotechnology > and became Houston's most notable scientist, died this afternoon after > a six-year struggle with cancer. He was 62. Smalley was famous in our community for his skepticism about Drexlerian nanotech. Despite this view, relatively unpopular around here, I know that we all will recognize that his untimmely death is very sad and that the field has lost one of its giants. Hal From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat Oct 29 00:23:15 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:23:15 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanotech expert Richard Smalley dies References: <20051028234125.60AC057EFC@finney.org> Message-ID: <033901c5dc1e$f451d360$8998e03c@homepc> Hal Finney wrote: > the field has lost one of its giants. Wow! Yes. Damn. He was only 62. Brett Paatsch. From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 29 01:03:32 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:03:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: politics In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051028122822.01c8be28@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200510290103.j9T13Qe11745@tick.javien.com> Ja, that is why I chose this one as a test case. It had a definite falsifiable result, with a definite timeline. I did note that RoveX dropped in price: http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=RoveX What other cases can we use to demonstrate the notion of designing tests of knowledge vs. belief? spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 10:29 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: politics > > At 11:25 PM 10/27/2005 -0700, spike wrote: > > >Prediction then: no indictments tomorrow. > > Another theory falsified. Bad luck. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 29 03:09:14 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:09:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: politics In-Reply-To: <20051028182729.8542357EFB@finney.org> Message-ID: <200510290309.j9T39Be22852@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 11:27 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: politics > > There is one thing I find interesting about this story, relating to > these questions from Spike: > > > OK now. Do you think that > > > > 1. Rove leaked the CIA agent's identity to get revenge > > 2. Libby leaked the CIA agent's identity to get revenge > > 3. Cheney leaked the CIA agent's identity to get revenge > > The interesting point to me is that again and again in reports on this > issue, the motivation described is not, as Spike has it, for revenge...Hal Hal makes many interesting observations. My interest in this particular story is to demonstrate a means of establishing a correlation between knowledge of a particular event or concept with a particular end of the belief spectrum. (Apologies to Brett for using the term belief. I don't know how else to express this meme.) I included the choices 1 thru 3 to give the test-taker the option of expressing that particular extreme. Is there another test case we can use? The evolution example isn't ideal, since we have no way to completely and finally determine the outcome. We who are reading this already think that evolution is correct. Should a deep manly voice come booming out of the heavens tomorrow explaining that evolution is correct, it wouldn't answer every question; it might actually create more than it answers. We need test cases where we can determine a person's knowledge, then see if the knowers predictions are better than the know-notters. The remainder of this post is about U.S. politics, so do hit delete now if you take no particular interest. Hal wrote: ...my theory is that Wilson was threatened before publication that if he went forward, his wife would be outed. spike: But Wilson wasn't cleared. He theoretically had no way of knowing his wife was a secret agent. If he did know this, this implicates Plame Valerie Plame as the most likely leaker. Counter theory: Wilson wasn't cleared, so he shouldn't have known his wife's CIA status. When he read that Plame Valerie Plame was "a CIA operative" he assumed this was the same thing as a secret operative. But the Novak column doesn't actually say she is a secret operative. He then went berserk, perhaps out of anger, accusing ROVE of outing his wife, Rove who never really did have much to do with any of this sordid affair. Reason: Rove works for Card who works for Bush. Libby works for Cheney, and Cheney was involved because Wilson claimed (probably out of ignorance, possibly with some darker motive) that Cheney had sent him to Nigeria. After Wilson claimed that Cheney had sent him, Cheney and Libby probably tried to find out who is this Wilson character and who sent him to Nigeria. They learned that Plame Valerie Plame is a supervisor at the CIA and that she had suggested him (still mysterious, but it looks suspicious, which would in itself make Wilson questionable). I wouldn't be surprised if Libby (but not Rove, who was not really deeply involved that I can tell) arranged for reporters to learn that Plame Valerie Plame worked at the CIA and had sent Mr. Plame Valerie Plame to Nigeria. I am still a bit puzzled by the fact that the actual indictment does not accuse anyone of leaking anything. It is all about Libby's claims regarding his conversations with reporters, which would have been legal if he did not reveal her covert status. spike From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Sat Oct 29 03:33:19 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:33:19 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em References: <200510281800.j9SI0De03151@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <004f01c5dc39$871e6590$0801a8c0@EF02jack> > And the politically correct are OK about converting farmland from food to > fuel production in an increasingly hungry world? > > Dirk > > > This is what I suspected when you first asked. Ours > is a decreasingly hungry world: Think Spike said that? Unclear from the dated snip... Anyway, the UN would disagree with you about decreasing hunger, as would just about any NGO you might like to consult on this topic... http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/14wfp.htm On Oct 14th, the UN said that 6 million people had already dead of hunger this year - this is a death-toll equivalent to US losses in Iraq for every 2-3 hours of every day I think... Not to mention the 1 in 4 kids around the world who are malnourished right now - and the 1 in 3 dying of hunger before the age of 5 years in hell-holes like Haiti... http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm I'd say the scale of world hunger today pales your average famine of yesteryear into relative obscurity. Africa is a lot worse off than they were a generation ago - and they are unfortunately not alone... Jack Parkinson From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 29 04:12:54 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 21:12:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <004f01c5dc39$871e6590$0801a8c0@EF02jack> Message-ID: <200510290412.j9T4Cme28193@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jack Parkinson > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 8:33 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em > > > And the politically correct are OK about converting farmland from food > to > > fuel production in an increasingly hungry world? > > > > Dirk > > > > > > ... Ours is a decreasingly hungry world: > > Think Spike said that? Unclear from the dated snip... > > Anyway, the UN would disagree with you about decreasing hunger, as would > just about any NGO you might like to consult on this topic... Jack I just googled on globesity and found a number of references that claim that obesity is becoming a greater health threat to developing countries than hunger. Producing more food will not solve the problem of some starving while others in the same country strangling their arteries with flab. spike >From one of the references: "Globesity" is a term coined by the World Health Organization to describe the growing phenomenon of expanding waistlines around the globe. No longer limited to rich countries, Barry M. Goggins of The Babson Staff Letter notes that obesity, (generally defined as 30 to 40 pounds overweight,) "appears to be surpassing famine and malnutrition as a problem in countries striving for economic development." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4900095/ http://ific.org/foodinsight/2001/jf/globesityfi101.cfm http://www.worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-glo2.htm http://my.webmd.com/content/article/114/111181?src=RSS_PUBLIC http://www.paho.org/English/DPI/Number15_article2_5.htm From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Sat Oct 29 05:38:52 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:38:52 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em References: <20051029041104.959B273F36@c9mailgw17.amadis.com> Message-ID: <006a01c5dc4b$10d3c8a0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> > > Anyway, the UN would disagree with you about decreasing hunger, as would > > just about any NGO you might like to consult on this topic... > > Jack I just googled on globesity and found a number of references > that claim that obesity is becoming a greater health threat to > developing countries than hunger. Producing more food will > not solve the problem of some starving while others in the > same country strangling their arteries with flab. > > spike > > From one of the references: > > "Globesity" is a term coined by the World Health Organization to describe > the growing phenomenon of expanding waistlines around the globe. No longer > limited to rich countries, Barry M. Goggins of The Babson Staff Letter notes > that obesity, (generally defined as 30 to 40 pounds overweight,) "appears to > be surpassing famine and malnutrition as a problem in countries striving for > economic development." > Yes! I see - thanks for the refs. It would be wonderful if one problem cancelled the other, but this is unfortunately not the case. Interesting one of your refs was about China - This one has to be at least partly a beat up! I've been working in South east China for the past three years and have travelled widely. It's true that locally we have 9 McDonalds, plus any number of KFC's and Pizza Huts scattered around the city here - but away from the biggest population centres western fast food is non-existent - and the vast majority of Chinese have never stepped inside a McDonalds or KFC - treating an adult to his/her first-ever McDonalds is one of the strange commonplaces of my life here.. I recently toured a university with 50,000 students - wandered a crowded campus all day and didn't see a single even moderately fat person! Skinny, malnourished kids, (multi-generationally malnourished with mothers and fathers around five feet tall in many cases) start just 30 minutes away from the city centre here. Teenagers and adults with the typical bow-legged gait of those malnourished in early childhood are a lot more common than even moderately stoutly built physiques. There are over 6 million people in this city and they are skinny, skinny, skinny! I recently had to go to local 'large women's sizes to buy dresses for an eleven year old (moderately slim!) Australian girl! And, even in the rich areas, obesity is extremely rare - it will attract pointing and amazement. I'm starting to see a few podgy smaller kids now, but that is partly because a fat child here is a badge of good parenting! It's all subjective I know, but its hard to discount the evidence of your own eyes - and the astonishment of Chinese who visit a western country for the first time and see all those fat people... Before China I spent a year in India - there the gap is wider and the contrasts more stark... But it was always the hungry guys who made me feel sorriest! The most important point (I think) is that the obese, at least potentially, have the means to take some control of their problem. By and large the malnourished do not. To my mind, a successful extropian future is partly dependent on making a transition from economics of scarcity to economics of plenty - just having a more radical juxtaposition of haves and have-nots is never going to do this. Jack Parkinson From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Sat Oct 29 10:42:32 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:42:32 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <006a01c5dc4b$10d3c8a0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> References: <20051029041104.959B273F36@c9mailgw17.amadis.com> <006a01c5dc4b$10d3c8a0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Jack Parkinson wrote: >> > Yes! I see - thanks for the refs. It would be wonderful if one problem > cancelled the other, but this is unfortunately not the case. It seems so. I found the following table on the FAO website (http://www.fao.org/es/ess/faostat/foodsecurity/Files/PrevalenceUndernourishment.xls): Prevalence of undernourishment in total population (percent): Numbers are percentages for 1969-1971, 1979-1981, 1990-1992, 1993-1995, 1995-1997 and 2000-2002. Fixed-spacing font needed to see the table correctly, alas... ASIA AND THE PACIFIC 41 32 20 17 16 LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN 20 13 13 11 10 NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICA 23 9 8 10 10 SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 36 37 36 36 33 CIS/Baltic/East europe 6 7 It seems that, apart from Africa where malnutrition levels are relatively stable, the rest of the world is getting better. I don't find West europe or north america, but I guess their percentages are low. Alfio From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Sat Oct 29 11:42:12 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:42:12 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: References: <20051029041104.959B273F36@c9mailgw17.amadis.com> <006a01c5dc4b$10d3c8a0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Jack Parkinson wrote: > >>> >> Yes! I see - thanks for the refs. It would be wonderful if one problem >> cancelled the other, but this is unfortunately not the case. > > It seems so. Damn, I meant exactly the opposite: it seems that hunger is (slowly) decreasing. Alfio From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Oct 29 12:36:26 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:36:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: politics In-Reply-To: <200510290309.j9T39Be22852@tick.javien.com> References: <20051028182729.8542357EFB@finney.org> <200510290309.j9T39Be22852@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 10/29/05, spike wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" > > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 11:27 AM > > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: politics > > > > There is one thing I find interesting about this story, relating to > > these questions from Spike: > > > > > OK now. Do you think that > > > > > > 1. Rove leaked the CIA agent's identity to get revenge > > > 2. Libby leaked the CIA agent's identity to get revenge > > > 3. Cheney leaked the CIA agent's identity to get revenge > > > > The interesting point to me is that again and again in reports on this > > issue, the motivation described is not, as Spike has it, for > revenge...Hal > > > Hal makes many interesting observations. My interest in > this particular story is to demonstrate a means of establishing > a correlation between knowledge of a particular event or > concept with a particular end of the belief spectrum. > > This whole argument seems philosophically flawed in that there is no "100% knowledge" - only degress of belief. Let's assume that Rove 'really' leaked the info. How would anyone except Rove know for sure? Orders and instructions can be misinterpreted, go awry etc Even if you were in the same room when he made the phonecall, you would not know for sure who he was talking to. Even he could not have known 'for sure' who he was talking to without a face to face meeting. There is no certainty, and without certainty there is only belief. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Sat Oct 29 14:41:19 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:41:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <006a01c5dc4b$10d3c8a0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> References: <20051029041104.959B273F36@c9mailgw17.amadis.com> <006a01c5dc4b$10d3c8a0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051029100031.07634f40@unreasonable.com> Jack Parkinson wrote: >To my mind, a successful extropian future is partly dependent on making a >transition from economics of scarcity to economics of plenty - just having a >more radical juxtaposition of haves and have-nots is never going to do this. I see those expressions -- "economics of scarcity" and "economics of plenty" -- occasionally. They seem like a hand-waving fancy. First, I don't see how there's more than one economics. Second, it seems to me that there will always be scarcity. You may mean a future where what we today consider the essentials of life are trivially available to all. That may happen. But the goalposts keep moving. Want will always exceed supply, since the former is effectively infinite and the latter is effectively finite. There also seems to be a socialist tinge in talking of haves and have-nots. One of the consequences of technology has always been, and will continue to be, increasing the gap between the top and the bottom of the asset curve. -- David Lubkin. From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 29 16:14:11 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 09:14:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: politics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510291614.j9TGE4e09895@tick.javien.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dirk Bruere Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: politics This whole argument seems philosophically flawed in that there is no "100% knowledge" - only degress of belief. ... There is no certainty, and without certainty there is only belief. Dirk We have often said here that we want more transparency in government. This whole CIA-leak thing demonstrates that we are getting a lot more of that. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 29 17:07:40 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:07:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051029100031.07634f40@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200510291707.j9TH7de17117@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 7:41 AM > To: exI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em > > Jack Parkinson wrote: > > >To my mind, a successful extropian future is partly dependent on making a > >transition from economics of scarcity to economics of plenty - just > having a > >more radical juxtaposition of haves and have-nots is never going to do > this. > ... David Lubkin wrote: > > Second, it seems to me that there will always be scarcity... Yes, because scarcity is arbitrarily defined. During the Katrina disaster, there were numerous news videos of people slogging thru flooded streets, belated attempts to evacuate, endless droning about poverty this and poverty that. But the people they showed on the videos appeared quite well fed. None of them looked in immediate danger of starvation, in fact most of them appeared overweight, some waaaay overweight. This must be puzzling indeed to those in truly hungry places in the world, to see apparently wealthy people given as examples of how the west shamefully allows grinding poverty among its own people, while failing to produce a even single example of a person who appears to be actually starving. Actually we have a few such people; they are known as supermodels. The absurdity of the situation cries out for biting satire. spike From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat Oct 29 19:56:32 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:56:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Solar math (was: Nuke 'em) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0510260746o7cca9073tb9d41299850f0137@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051029195632.68498.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > > http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_cell_light.html says it's about > 6 > > kWh/m^2/month > > insolation, for U.S. June. > > 6 kWh/m^2/month? That can't be right. Suppose average insolation is > only 100 > W/m^2 (probably an underestimate for June); there are 720 hours in a > month, > so that would make the monthly insolation 72 kWh/m^2/month. If we suppose that, yes - but we really should get data from cited sources if possible, for things like this. It is possible that the cited sources could be incorrect, but if so then we should counter those with other, possibly more reliable cited sources. Not that intuition like this is useless. It's a great tool for pointing out where and when we should look. But it can also lead astray more readily than solid data, so it should only be the beginning of correcting this type of error. From benboc at lineone.net Sat Oct 29 20:28:38 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:28:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: politics In-Reply-To: <200510291800.j9TI09e23238@tick.javien.com> References: <200510291800.j9TI09e23238@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4363DB76.2070301@lineone.net> Dirk: "There is no certainty, and without certainty there is only belief." This was said in irony, right? Cos the only thing which produces certainty is belief. Anyone with their eyes open should be able to see that there is no such thing as certainty. This is what science is all about. I'm stating the obvious here, aren't i? I sincerely hope so. ben From pharos at gmail.com Sat Oct 29 23:25:29 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 00:25:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Confirmed: Trees DO protect against tsunami waves Message-ID: About 276,000 people died during the titanic Indian Ocean tsunami of Dec. 26, 2004. Like the human toll, the physical damage was beyond counting. But here's a glimmer of hope amid the devastation: Nature can reduce the damage of a horrific natural disaster. Thick stands of trees along India's shore slowed the massive waves and reduced the damage to villages further inland. A study in this week's (Oct. 28, 2005) Science magazine shows that trees soaked up energy from the huge waves. When an international group of researchers examined land along the coast, they found that trees offered serious protection from the surge of water. Although it's uncertain if the trees reduced the overall height of the flood, Danielsen says they certainly slowed the floodwaters. The trees also blocked floating logs, buildings and cars, which, in many places, destroyed houses and killed victims trapped in the floodwaters. Trees = Life-savers? The forests had a third benefit. In many places, the receding water pulled people to their death. But behind the trees, Danielsen says," When the waves went out, many people were able to cling to the trees and not get taken out to sea. We have no doubt that a lot of people survived because they were able to grab the trees and not get taken out to sea." Mangroves are dense stands of trees that are adapted to life in tropical, coastal wetlands. An estimated 26 percent of mangroves have been destroyed around the Indian Ocean through conversion to farm fields, aquaculture ponds, or from other causes, exposing the coast to accelerated erosion. The study also found that beach forest trees that had been planted to protect against typhoons (as hurricanes are called in the region) helped protect land. --------------- So the conclusion is: - If you chop all the trees down to make money on coastal development with nice sea views, then you had better cash in quick and get your profits out before the next hurricane, storm surge or tsunami comes along and wipes it all away. BillK From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat Oct 29 23:54:28 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:54:28 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: politics References: <200510291800.j9TI09e23238@tick.javien.com> <4363DB76.2070301@lineone.net> Message-ID: <005d01c5dce4$1997f350$8998e03c@homepc> ben wrote: > Dirk: "There is no certainty, and without certainty there is only belief." > > This was said in irony, right? > > Cos the only thing which produces certainty is belief. Anyone with their > eyes open should be able to see that there is no such thing as certainty. > This is what science is all about. I'm stating the obvious here, aren't i? > I sincerely hope so. Pretty much. But consider, are you certain that - one and one are two - that a square has four sides - that the average reader of this sentence would know his or her own name (excepting amnesiacs) Seems to me that these things are beyond the fuzziness of mere belief and that most people would be certain of them. I am prepared to say that I am certain that one and one make two, that a square has four sides and that my name is Brett. I am prepared to say that I do not (merely) believe those things but know them. Dirk's statement strikes me as a statement of what many people including especially religious/superstitious people assume to be true of all other people. Its about as unattractive to my mind as if he had said "there is no god but Allah and Mohammad (or Dirk!) is his prophet". In that respect it also strikes me as a dangerous way of thinking because one who believes like that seems likely to think that everyone else hold their views on no better bases than they hold theirs. A key difference between people, it seems to me, is that only a minority are capable of being objective when considering their own positions in their worldview. Objectivity in all respects is probably beyond everyone because of what we choose to direct our attention towards, but some people can be far more objective than the vast majority. Those people, in my experience, tend to be the ones that are the better scientists and the more honest truthseekers. Brett Paatsch From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Oct 30 00:45:49 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (M.B. Baumeister) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:45:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Confirmed: Trees DO protect against tsunami waves In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37454.72.236.103.158.1130633149.squirrel@main.nc.us> > So the conclusion is: - > If you chop all the trees down to make money on coastal development > with nice sea views, then you had better cash in quick and get your > profits out before the next hurricane, storm surge or tsunami comes > along and wipes it all away. > IIUC there are folks on the coast of Florida and South Carolina who know about that too. If you walk or dune-buggy on all the dunes and destroy them, there is no protection either. So avoid the dunes, leave the wild grasses and sea-oats alone, let them do their thing. They help to hold the beach front against the water. Those great high-rises right next to the beach are bad news too, but in a slightly different way. They make the wind off the sea curl back which blows the sand away. Some coastal towns severely limit the height of the buildings by the beach for just this reason. This is my understanding from conversation with a person from Boynton Beach, Florida. I hope your report about the trees makes it into widespread public knowledge so that folks can be guided by it in future. :) Regards, MB From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Sun Oct 30 01:34:17 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:34:17 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em References: <200510291800.j9TI0Ce23253@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <014e01c5dcf2$0ff2e4a0$54df0405@EF02jack> > Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:41:19 -0400 > From: David Lubkin Jack Parkinson wrote: > >To my mind, a successful extropian future is partly dependent on making a > >transition from economics of scarcity to economics of plenty - just having a > >more radical juxtaposition of haves and have-nots is never going to do this. > > I see those expressions -- "economics of scarcity" and "economics of > plenty" -- occasionally. They seem like a hand-waving fancy. > > First, I don't see how there's more than one economics. > > Second, it seems to me that there will always be scarcity. > > You may mean a future where what we today consider the essentials of > life are trivially available to all. That may happen. But the > goalposts keep moving. > > Want will always exceed supply, since the former is effectively > infinite and the latter is effectively finite. > > There also seems to be a socialist tinge in talking of haves and > have-nots. One of the consequences of technology has always been, and > will continue to be, increasing the gap between the top and the > bottom of the asset curve. > > -- David Lubkin. I read the info from spike and Alfio and Googled again on: "is world hunger decreasing or increasing?" A quick glance at the results indicates a divided opinion with some trends up and some down. Not much doubt about the size of the problem - we have a lot of hungry people. Regarding David's comments on not seeing how there can be more than one economics. My gut reaction is 'No! nononono!' Economic systems are two a penny... A properly formulated reasoning on this will need to wait until the time is available - but Marshall Sahlins wrote a famous essay back in the 70's in which he made a good case for the existence of an 'economics of plenty' in prehistoric times - "Stone Age Economics." I am also thinking of the essay on Agalmics (which is easily found on the net) and the characterization of Manfred (agalmic entrepreneur) in Charlie Stross's 'Accelerando.' Finally: we already have an interesting 'economics of plenty' subculture already in operation - namely the bit torrent/P2P networks. And very successful they are too... Jack Parkinson From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun Oct 30 03:23:48 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 23:23:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <014e01c5dcf2$0ff2e4a0$54df0405@EF02jack> References: <200510291800.j9TI0Ce23253@tick.javien.com> <014e01c5dcf2$0ff2e4a0$54df0405@EF02jack> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051029225905.07bbf1c0@unreasonable.com> Jack Parkinson wrote: >Regarding David's comments on not seeing how there can be more than one >economics. My gut reaction is 'No! nononono!' Economic systems are two a >penny... I did not write "economic system." Nor did you. >A properly formulated reasoning on this will need to wait until the time is >available - but Marshall Sahlins wrote a famous essay back in the 70's in >which he made a good case for the existence of an 'economics of plenty' in >prehistoric times - "Stone Age Economics." > >I am also thinking of the essay on Agalmics (which is easily found on the >net) and the characterization of Manfred (agalmic entrepreneur) in Charlie >Stross's 'Accelerando.' > >Finally: we already have an interesting 'economics of plenty' subculture >already in operation - namely the bit torrent/P2P networks. And very >successful they are too... I look forward to your properly formulated reasoning. I don't see how there's more than one economics, just as there's only one physics. A niche behavior pattern does not make for a distinct science. Also, whatever the linguistic coinage, that there may be an abundance of some resource does not negate the inevitability of scarcities in other resources. There has always and will always be a reason for trade and trade-offs. -- David. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 30 03:33:28 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:33:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropic Freedom and the Fate of Dissidents Message-ID: <20051030033328.91209.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> I am writing this because I had noticed that the list has been rather tame lately with respect to heated political debate. In trying to put my finger on exactly why this normally lively list had seemed sort of flat lately, I noticed that I had seen a post by Mike Lorrey in some time. Now I don't Mike personally, and in many respects he is a carmudgeon and a gadfly, I also know that he is very bright and opinionated. While I myself am a liberal (I live in California and so socialism is in air I breath and the water I drink.) and disagree with Mike on many issues, I also FOR THIS VERY REASON value Mike's input. Without somebody to disagree with you, to challenge your beliefs and opinions, you stand the risk of falling into the delusion of believing that your own opinions (and when we speak of politics that is all there are - opinions) are true, flawless, and consistent. Well as we all know, Mike is a controversial figure in many respects, going so far as to challenge the SCOTUS on issues of imminent domain and such. With the scent of fascism in the air, here in the U.S., I naturally worried that Mike had gotten in some sort of trouble and had been arrested or what not. So I emailed him to ascertain his fate. Imagine my surprise when I discovered he had been booted from the list by none other than Natasha. So in the interest of justice and the Extropic principles of freedom and self-expression, I ask that someone here in authority (how can you have AUTHORITY whilst being apolitical?) explain to me the justification for exiling one of the most opinionated and interesting posters from this list? To claim to be apolitical and then turning around and heavy-handedly booting someone from the list for challenging that notion seems ironic to say the least but that is not my chief complaint. I am not questioning the RIGHT of the Keepers of the List to boot anybody they want to (including myself) from the list for whatever reason they want. What I am questioning is why they did not do it in full public view with stated reasons, instead of "disappearing" them in the quiet of the night like insecure dictators? Don't get me wrong, I like this list and I respect its moderators, but I liked it a lot more when there was heterogeneity of opinion. I for one love my critics because they give me ideas for continual self-improvement. Extropically Yours, The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "If you fear death, you are not living right; if you don't want to live forever, you are not living well." - a sparrow outside my window. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Oct 30 03:38:16 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:38:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em In-Reply-To: <002201c5dbd2$84335960$fb0c4e0c@MyComputer> References: <015001c5d7f4$03088810$15ef4d0c@MyComputer> <291AA8C2-0A02-46E5-9ED1-316627B512A9@mac.com> <002801c5dab2$69aa00b0$d0ef4d0c@MyComputer> <937680AA-6E39-451C-9D0A-E2E6DF12478D@mac.com> <002201c5dbd2$84335960$fb0c4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <63B856D1-E105-4655-B68A-0B86D363535A@mac.com> OK; ; OK; necessary but insufficient. - s On Oct 28, 2005, at 8:15 AM, John K Clark wrote: > "Samantha Atkins" > > >> Is this also true of Thorium based reactors? >> > > I have no idea, I know nothing about Thorium based pebble bed > reactors and > didn't know one had been built, tell me more. > > In general I do know that Thorium reactors produce less Plutonium > but they > also produce Uranium 233, and you can make bombs with that too. Up > to now > nobody has bothered to make a bomb with Uranium 233 because Thorium > reactors > are less economical than conventional reactors, but if that were to > change .... > > >> It is not quite enlightening to simply say every >> reactor produces plutonium >> > > Ok, let me try again then: What is the sound of one hand clapping? > > >> and thus is a problem for anti-proliferation. >> > > I believe I specifically said it wasn't clear that power reactors > would > significantly increase the proliferation problem. > > >> Simply removing the pellets periodically is certainly not enough >> to enable efficient weapons-grade plutonium production. >> > > Actually it is. The key way to prevent your weapons grade Pu-239 > from being > polluted with PU- 240 is to limit the time your Uranium fuel is in the > reactor, and with pebble beds it's especially easy to do that. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Oct 30 03:51:31 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:51:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051029100031.07634f40@unreasonable.com> References: <20051029041104.959B273F36@c9mailgw17.amadis.com> <006a01c5dc4b$10d3c8a0$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <6.2.3.4.2.20051029100031.07634f40@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <816AFBFC-95E8-4B96-B8DC-B78ACC3886F3@mac.com> On Oct 29, 2005, at 7:41 AM, David Lubkin wrote: > Jack Parkinson wrote: > > >> To my mind, a successful extropian future is partly dependent on >> making a >> transition from economics of scarcity to economics of plenty - >> just having a >> more radical juxtaposition of haves and have-nots is never going >> to do this. >> > > I see those expressions -- "economics of scarcity" and "economics > of plenty" -- occasionally. They seem like a hand-waving fancy. > > First, I don't see how there's more than one economics. > It is a bit sloppy but seems to be shorthand for the difference between relative scarcity of even necessities compared to demand as compared to relative abundance of even many "luxuries" much less necessities relative to demand. > Second, it seems to me that there will always be scarcity. > Depends a lot on scarcity of what. Some things are not easily (if at all) replicable even with universally available MNT. But the ones that aren't might be a lot less crucial to economics in the future. > You may mean a future where what we today consider the essentials > of life are trivially available to all. That may happen. But the > goalposts keep moving. > I am not sure they of necessity will always move that much relative to demand. > Want will always exceed supply, since the former is effectively > infinite and the latter is effectively finite. > This is a standard assumption but it is not completely obvious (to me at least). > There also seems to be a socialist tinge in talking of haves and > have-nots. One of the consequences of technology has always been, > and will continue to be, increasing the gap between the top and the > bottom of the asset curve. This seems like a different conversation. Under some scenarios of conceivable future tech the gap could narrow significantly. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Oct 30 03:55:33 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:55:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] survey on fringe ideas: politics In-Reply-To: <4363DB76.2070301@lineone.net> References: <200510291800.j9TI09e23238@tick.javien.com> <4363DB76.2070301@lineone.net> Message-ID: <58052957-B26E-454E-B0A0-BEE6B133DEB6@mac.com> Do not confuse "certainty" with "absolute certainty". Science is about producing and quantifying certainty. - s On Oct 29, 2005, at 1:28 PM, ben wrote: > Dirk: "There is no certainty, and without certainty there is only > belief." > > This was said in irony, right? > > Cos the only thing which produces certainty is belief. Anyone with > their eyes open should be able to see that there is no such thing > as certainty. This is what science is all about. I'm stating the > obvious here, aren't i? I sincerely hope so. > > ben > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Oct 30 04:03:50 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:03:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropic Freedom and the Fate of Dissidents In-Reply-To: <20051030033328.91209.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051030033328.91209.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <72D06BD5-664E-48DF-8D2B-6DCB03AE8BF2@mac.com> What Mike did often went far beyond what is acceptable or healthy for the list. That said, I did not know he had been banned although I advocated it myself more than once. I had my reasons. I don't consider it very fruitful to discuss them here at this time. It is not remotely an issue of "extropic freedom" or unfairness to dissidents. - samantha On Oct 29, 2005, at 8:33 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > I am writing this because I had noticed that the > list has been rather tame lately with respect to > heated political debate. In trying to put my finger on > exactly why this normally lively list had seemed sort > of flat lately, I noticed that I had seen a post by > Mike Lorrey in some time. Now I don't Mike personally, > and in many respects he is a carmudgeon and a gadfly, > I also know that he is very bright and opinionated. > While I myself am a liberal (I live in California and > so socialism is in air I breath and the water I > drink.) and disagree with Mike on many issues, I also > FOR THIS VERY REASON value Mike's input. Without > somebody to disagree with you, to challenge your > beliefs and opinions, you stand the risk of falling > into the delusion of believing that your own opinions > (and when we speak of politics that is all there are - > opinions) are true, flawless, and consistent. > > Well as we all know, Mike is a controversial figure in > many respects, going so far as to challenge the SCOTUS > on issues of imminent domain and such. With the scent > of fascism in the air, here in the U.S., I naturally > worried that Mike had gotten in some sort of trouble > and had been arrested or what not. So I emailed him to > ascertain his fate. > > Imagine my surprise when I discovered he had been > booted from the list by none other than Natasha. So in > the interest of justice and the Extropic principles of > freedom and self-expression, I ask that someone here > in authority (how can you have AUTHORITY whilst being > apolitical?) explain to me the justification for > exiling one of the most opinionated and interesting > posters from this list? > > To claim to be apolitical and then turning around and > heavy-handedly booting someone from the list for > challenging that notion seems ironic to say the least > but that is not my chief complaint. I am not > questioning the RIGHT of the Keepers of the List to > boot anybody they want to (including myself) from the > list for whatever reason they want. What I am > questioning is why they did not do it in full public > view with stated reasons, instead of "disappearing" > them in the quiet of the night like insecure > dictators? > > Don't get me wrong, I like this list and I respect its > moderators, but I liked it a lot more when there was > heterogeneity of opinion. I for one love my critics > because they give me ideas for continual > self-improvement. > > Extropically Yours, > > > > > > The Avantguardian > is > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "If you fear death, you are not living right; if you don't want to > live forever, you are not living well." - a sparrow outside my window. > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From amara at amara.com Sun Oct 30 05:18:38 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:18:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropic Freedom and the Fate of Dissidents Message-ID: The Avantguardian avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com : > I am writing this because I had noticed that the >list has been rather tame lately with respect to >heated political debate. And have you noticed that the list has seen some new 'faces'? It's been a very long time since new people had the courage to show themselves here (or even stay more than 5 minutes). Ask yourself why. 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/ ******************************************************************** "It is intriguing to learn that the simplicity of the world depends upon the temperature of the environment." ---John D. Barrow From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 30 05:22:24 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051029100031.07634f40@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20051030052224.57638.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com> --- David Lubkin wrote: > I see those expressions -- "economics of scarcity" > and "economics of > plenty" -- occasionally. They seem like a > hand-waving fancy. Could it be that you don't know what they mean and aren't really interested in finding out? > First, I don't see how there's more than one > economics. Not an unreasonable position. Try this: Those prevailing economic conditions where demand, in particular demand for the basic necessities of life, outstrip supply, versus those economic conditions where supply -- again, of the fundamental necessities -- outstrips demand. And if you might be curious as to how this turnabout from the current conditions -- conditions of scarcity -- could come about, it would be the result of the historic and unrelenting natural progression, the constant increase in industrial productivity. Mediated by technology, but more commonly called simply automation. > Second, it seems to me that there will always be > scarcity. Indeed that seems likely, but in what particulars? What are the characteristics of a thing which can not be produced in arbitrarily large quantities. I've thought about this at some length. I invite others to add to the list. I've come up with two categories of 'things': personally-created "originals", items such as original art or anything personally hand-crafted; and the time of or time in the company of any individual. > You may mean a future where what we today consider > the essentials of > life are trivially available to all. That may > happen. But the goalposts keep moving. For pathologically driven human cravings that have no correspondence to genuine human need or fulfillment, yes. For basic human necessities, no. > Want will always exceed supply, since the former is > effectively infinite and the latter is effectively > finite. Want is effectively infinite because want is essentially irrational. An impulse from the pre-rational era of life guided by instinct. The distinguishing feature of humanity is the interconnected suite of abilities: consciousness, cognition, judgment, forethought, and planning; to be human is to use these abilities to forge one's own destiny. The 'want' of which write is jungle-bred, thoughtless, insatiable acquisitiveness. > There also seems to be a socialist tinge in talking > of haves and have-nots. Egad! We can't have that. Next thing you know people will be insisting on justice and freedom from violence. Bad socialists, bad bad. > One of the consequences of technology has always > been, and will continue to be, increasing the gap > between the top and the bottom of the asset curve. "...has always been, and will continue to be..." He speaketh and verily it is so. I wish you all the wealth your heart desires, and then like Johnny Rocco, "More. Yeah, that's it, I want 'more'." Or perhaps you might hope to rise above the insatiable, irrational animal within, the animal of the endless craving, dial that down some, and connect with the more judicious more human notion of proportionality. Find out what you need -- what you REALLY need -- and, having gained that, try to figure out what you -- not your primordial impulses -- want to do with what's left. Best, Jeff Davis Natural selection constructs a mind that wants things that would have helped you reproduce in the ancestral environment,... ... whether or not that helps you reproduce now. Eliezer S. Yudkowsky __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From amara at amara.com Sun Oct 30 05:44:37 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:44:37 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] George Dyson article: Turing's Cathedral Message-ID: Triggered by a Boing Boing post (http://www.boingboing.net/ ) where they quote this paragraph of George Dyson's essay, where he describe his visit to Google headquarters: "Despite the whimsical furniture and other toys, I felt I was entering a 14th-century cathedral - not in the 14th century but in the 12th century, while it was being built. Everyone was busy carving one stone here and another stone there, with some invisible architect getting everything to fit. The mood was playful, yet there was a palpable reverence in the air. "We are not scanning all those books to be read by people," explained one of my hosts after my talk. "We are scanning them to be read by an AI." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dyson05/dyson05_index.html TURING'S CATHEDRAL [10.24.05] by George Dyson A visit to Google on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of John von Neumann's proposal for a digital computer Introduction by John Brockman: Sorry, but the big news at the Frankfurt Book Fair this year was not about the international sales of your new book. It was about the activities of a new (second year) exhibitor: Google. What is Google doing at the Frankfurt Book Fair? And why has a consortium of publishers filed a lawsuit against them? On the other hand, why do the "digerati" love Google Print and Google Print Library? How does Google's definition of "fair use" as it pertains to the digital domain, square with the notion that as a writer, own my own words? Clearly, we need to redefine "fair use" in the digital age as a "different use" with its own new set of benchmarks. Whether we're talking about John Cage's idea of "the mind we all share" or H.G. Well's "World Brain", Google has its act together and are at the precipice of astonishing changes in human communication...and ultimately, in our sense of who or what we are. And like nearly all science-driven, technological developments, governments can only play catch-up as no one is going to get to vote for Google's changes, and the current laws, written in a pre-digital age, don't address the new situation. Some sincerely believe we are entering a golden age of wonder and Google is leading the way. And I am pleased to add from personal experience that the leading players, Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, are fine individuals: very serious, highly intelligent, principled. They don't come any better. Still, others believe there are reasons for legitimate fear of a (very near) future world in which the world's knowledge is privatized by one corporation. This could be a problem, a very big problem. George Dyson visited Google last week at the invitation of some Google engineers. The occasion was the 60th anniversary of John von Neumann's proposal for a digital computer. After the visit, Dyson recalled H.G. Wells' prophecy, written in 1938: "The whole human memory can be, and probably in a short time will be, made accessible to every individual," wrote H. G. Wells in his 1938 prophecy World Brain. "This new all-human cerebrum need not be concentrated in any one single place. It can be reproduced exactly and fully, in Peru, China, Iceland, Central Africa, or wherever else seems to afford an insurance against danger and interruption. It can have at once, the concentration of a craniate animal and the diffused vitality of an amoeba." Wells foresaw not only the distributed intelligence of the World Wide Web, but the inevitability that this intelligence would coalesce, and that power, as well as knowledge, would fall under its domain. "In a universal organization and clarification of knowledge and ideas... in the evocation, that is, of what I have here called a World Brain... in that and in that alone, it is maintained, is there any clear hope of a really Competent Receiver for world affairs... We do not want dictators, we do not want oligarchic parties or class rule, we want a widespread world intelligence conscious of itself." -JB GEORGE DYSON, a historian among futurists, is the author of Darwin Among the Machines; and Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship. -- ******************************************************************** 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 have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library." -- Jorge Luis Borges From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 30 05:52:03 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <200510291707.j9TH7de17117@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051030055203.90937.qmail@web60011.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat- > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David > Lubkin > > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 7:41 AM > > To: exI chat list > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em > > > > Jack Parkinson wrote: > > > > >To my mind, a successful extropian future is > partly dependent on making a > > >transition from economics of scarcity to > economics of plenty - just > > having a > > >more radical juxtaposition of haves and have-nots > is never going to do > > this. > > > ... > > David Lubkin wrote: > > > > Second, it seems to me that there will always be > scarcity... > > > Yes, because scarcity is arbitrarily defined. > > During the Katrina disaster, there were numerous > news videos > of people slogging thru flooded streets, belated > attempts > to evacuate, endless droning about poverty this and > poverty > that. But the people they showed on the videos > appeared > quite well fed. None of them looked in immediate > danger > of starvation, in fact most of them appeared > overweight, > some waaaay overweight. This must be puzzling > indeed to > those in truly hungry places in the world, to see > apparently > wealthy people given as examples of how the west > shamefully > allows grinding poverty among its own people, while > failing > to produce a even single example of a person who > appears > to be actually starving. > > Actually we have a few such people; they are known > as > supermodels. The absurdity of the situation cries > out > for biting satire. > > spike In a similar vein. I was rather surprised to see, back when the Soviet Union was collapsing and the Berlin wall was coming down, all the folks in the street nicely dressed in sturdy, warm, even stylish (if practical) attire. What ever happened to the impoverished victims of communism? You know, the ragged, downtrodden, dispirited folks, all condemned to wear boring, unaesthetic, gunney sacks of the lowest possible quality? Did they all of a sudden get a credit card from REI or Land's End? Or perhaps the answer is that the information we got from the govt/MSM concerning the nature of their (govt/MSM's) ideological adversaries was a load of propacrap. Once again the words of Bob Dylan come to mind: "Freedom, just around the corner from you, But with truth so far off, what good will it do." Best, Jeff Davis "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Oct 30 05:56:18 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:56:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropic Freedom and the Fate of Dissidents In-Reply-To: <72D06BD5-664E-48DF-8D2B-6DCB03AE8BF2@mac.com> Message-ID: <200510300556.j9U5uBe01530@tick.javien.com> > On Oct 29, 2005, at 8:33 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > ...I live in California and > > so socialism is in air I breath and the water I > > drink... I am often seen going about with a bottle of distilled water and a SCUBA tank. Seems the environmentalists could pass laws here in Taxifornia to keep this foul miasma out of our air and water. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Oct 30 06:19:56 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 23:19:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropic Freedom and the Fate of Dissidents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510300620.j9U6K5e04458@tick.javien.com> > The Avantguardian avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com : > > > I am writing this because I had noticed that the > >list has been rather tame lately with respect to > >heated political debate... Avant, Mike runs a libertarian-oriented Exi-freedom list, where heated political debate is the coin of the realm. Posters there are free to flame away at each other. Altho there was deeply divided opinion on this and merit in both views, many of us saw the wisdom in separating the heated political debate from what we see on ExI today. The owners of the ExI list did not want the political debate to drown out the rest of the signal, which it had a habit of doing. Do visit exi-freedom at yahoogroups.com or post to Mike directly at mlorrey at yahoo.com. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Oct 30 06:43:24 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 23:43:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <20051030055203.90937.qmail@web60011.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200510300643.j9U6hXe07858@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis ... > In a similar vein. I was rather surprised to see, > back when the Soviet Union was collapsing and the > Berlin wall was coming down, all the folks in the > street nicely dressed in sturdy, warm, even stylish > (if practical) attire. What ever happened to the > impoverished victims of communism?... > > Best, Jeff Davis We judged them by their cars, Jeff. We know west Germany produces Mercedes, Audis and BMWs. What cars are made in East Germany? In Russia? North Korea? China?* We could only guess what life was like on the eastern side of the wall. I often heard about people trying to escape to West Berlin, but I do not know of anyone trying to scale that wall to get to the east side. Were there any? Were there even guards on the west side? Have there been people in Miami cobble together a raft to try to float to Cuba? Would Cuba take them if they did? I am not making a political statement, only asking, for it seems we would have to have idealists in the west who would long to live under communism. Did South Koreans defect to the north? Do you know Jeff? I think I heard of a U.S. marine who defected to North Korea a long time ago. *Decades ago, Three Dog Night uttered: If I were the king of the world Tell you what I'd do I'd throw away the cars and the bars and the war Make sweet love to you Sing it now, jooooy to the world... Jeff or someone who was there, please explain: I can see wanting to throw away the war, but why would anyone wish to throw away the cars and the bars? Neo- prohibitionists? Who liked horses? spike From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Sun Oct 30 13:14:20 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 14:14:20 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Confirmed: Trees DO protect against tsunami waves In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, BillK wrote: > > > Mangroves are dense stands of trees that are adapted to life in > tropical, coastal wetlands. An estimated 26 percent of mangroves have > been destroyed around the Indian Ocean through conversion to farm > fields, aquaculture ponds, or from other causes, exposing the coast to > accelerated erosion. If I recall correctly, the name given to Mangroves by the indigenous populations in some regions hit by the Indian Ocean tsunami is "the tree that protects from the wave" (!), or something similar. Those populations do not live on the coast, but only in the interior of the islands. One wonders why... Alfio > > The study also found that beach forest trees that had been planted to > protect against typhoons (as hurricanes are called in the region) > helped protect land. > > --------------- > > So the conclusion is: - > If you chop all the trees down to make money on coastal development > with nice sea views, then you had better cash in quick and get your > profits out before the next hurricane, storm surge or tsunami comes > along and wipes it all away. > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Oct 30 14:22:37 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (M.B. Baumeister) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:22:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <20051030055203.90937.qmail@web60011.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200510291707.j9TH7de17117@tick.javien.com> <20051030055203.90937.qmail@web60011.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <37823.72.236.103.215.1130682157.squirrel@main.nc.us> > In a similar vein. I was rather surprised to see, > back when the Soviet Union was collapsing and the > Berlin wall was coming down, all the folks in the > street nicely dressed in sturdy, warm, even stylish > (if practical) attire. What ever happened to the > impoverished victims of communism? You know, the > ragged, downtrodden, dispirited folks, all condemned > to wear boring, unaesthetic, gunney sacks of the > lowest possible quality? Did they all of a sudden get > a credit card from REI or Land's End? > > Or perhaps the answer is that the information we got > from the govt/MSM concerning the nature of their > (govt/MSM's) ideological adversaries was a load of > propacrap. > Interesting. My brother was in the SU shortly before the wall came down and he said it was rather like going into a time warp, decades into the past. He didn't mention clothing, he was speaking of the buildings. He found it quite depressing, for much seemed not all that different from his previous "visit", at the end of WW2. I heard similar comments from a couple who lived near us. They'd lived in Denmark and visited the SU. Their comment was on "greyness" - the clothing, the buildings, the vehicles. Also there was trouble because they took some pictures, and the camera film was confiscated at the border after a several hour interrogation of the husband. They never knew what pictures they'd taken that were "wrong". The wife said she was terrified, she and her baby son sitting there waiting, not knowing if her husband would ever be coming back. That said, I've no doubt there's misinformation been spread for ever. It's the human thing to do, isn't it? :( Regards, MB From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sun Oct 30 20:16:16 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:16:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A life/machine singularity Message-ID: <43652A10.4060609@mindspring.com> Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss < http://www.science-frontiers.com > SCIENCE FRONTIERS, No. 162, Nov-Dec 2005, p. 4 UNCLASSIFIED A life/machine singularity Futurist R. Kurzweil has written a book entitled *The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology*. He charts first the increasing complexity of universe as an exponential function beginning with the formation of the Milky Way 10^10 years ago, progressing [?] to the emergence of modern man 10^5 years ago to our present Internet-connected planet. Based on past exponential advances in computer technology, he foresees by 2030 a paradigm shift when the biological part of our intelligence will no longer predominate. By the 2040s, *non*-biological intelligence will then be billions of times more powerful than the collective human brain. This overwhelming predominance and (supposed) superiority of machine intelligence will also be accompanied by the biological reengineering of human and, perhaps, other [useful?] life forms. All earth will then be a unified entity---a biomechanical Gaia, with emphasis on the "mechanical"! Thus, the article being digested is titled "Human 2.0" Phase 2 of the human adventure. (Kurzweil, Ray; "Human 2.0," *New Scientist*, p. 33, September 24, 2005) *Questions and comments*. Is the "Human 2.0" state desirable in terms of current human ambitions and moral values? What would a "Human 3.0" entity be like? Shouldn't there be biological "states" beyond mere intellectual capacity? Kurzweil dismisses present human life as merely a collection of 23,000 software programs (our genes, that is). Life, though, seems to be much more than genes alone. Kurzweil may, in fact, see his futuristic vision outflanked and surpassed by biological paradigm shifts. He gives no notice to these possibilities. Such biological shifts could conceivably produce biological "states" beyond sheer computer power and superintelligence---perhaps displaying even purpose! Of course, science fiction writers have not neglected such non-mechanical paradigm shifts. Finally, today's supercomputers and, very likely, any "Human 2.0"-type entity, are chaotic systems and difficult-to-predict. For example, the same program will often takes different times to run on the same supercomputer. (*New Scientist*, p. 17, July 9, 2005) A "Human 2.0"-entity might turn out to be a biomechanical Frankenstein according to current societal values! Will biology totally hybridize with machines? Or will biology initiate paradigm shifts that create functions or "states" that we do not presently even conceive---"states" that computers could never emulate? SCIENCE FRONTIERS is a bimonthly collection of scientific anomalies in the current literature. Published by the Sourcebook Project, P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD 21057 USA. Annual subscription: $8.00. -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 31 03:27:47 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:27:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <200510300643.j9U6hXe07858@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20051031032747.58581.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > We judged them by their cars, Jeff. We know west > Germany produces Mercedes, Audis and BMWs. Not to mention the fau vey, first gazed upon with that warm feeling of teutonic technische superiorit?t by ?bermensch numero uno, der Furor himself. And their women are stocky and grow armpit hair from out there nostrils. Oh I'm sorry, we were talking about something, what was it again? > What cars are made in East Germany? In Russia? > North Korea? China?* Oh right. The quality of nation's automobiles as the bedrock metric of cultural/ideological self-satisfaction. That doesn't work for me, you remember my old Volvo? > > We could only guess what life was like on the > eastern > side of the wall. I often heard about people trying > > to escape to West Berlin, but I do not know of > anyone > trying to scale that wall to get to the east side. > Were > there any? Were there even guards on the west side? > Have > there been people in Miami cobble together a raft to > try > to float to Cuba? Would Cuba take them if they did? And let us not forget all those Mexicans fleeing the horror that is Mexico. Let me draw you a picture: -> -> -> -> -> -> $$$$$$$$$$$ <- <- <- <- <- <- > I > am not making a political statement, only asking, > for it > seems we would have to have idealists in the west > who > would long to live under communism. Did South > Koreans > defect to the north? Do you know Jeff? I don't know. But then I don't read the North Korean newspapers, and I doubt you'd find mention of such defections in the western press. > I think I heard of a U.S. marine who defected to > North Korea a long time ago. > *Decades ago, Three Dog Night uttered: > > If I were the king of the world > Tell you what I'd do > I'd throw away the cars and the bars and the war > Make sweet love to you > Sing it now, jooooy to the world... > > Jeff or someone who was there, please explain: I can > see > wanting to throw away the war, but why would anyone > wish to throw away the cars and the bars? Neo- > prohibitionists? Who liked horses? Sorry spike, I never could make out all the lyrics to those songs, though I do recall the "make sweet love to you" part. Best, Jeff Davis "We call someone insane who does not believe as we do to an outrageous extent." Charles McCabe __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 31 03:49:27 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:49:27 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: I'd throw away the cars and the bars and the war In-Reply-To: <20051031032747.58581.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200510300643.j9U6hXe07858@tick.javien.com> <20051031032747.58581.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051030214705.01d34340@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:27 PM 10/30/2005 -0800, spike wrote: > > *Decades ago, Three Dog Night uttered: > > > > If I were the king of the world > > Tell you what I'd do > > I'd throw away the cars and the bars and the war > > Make sweet love to you > > Sing it now, jooooy to the world... > > > > Jeff or someone who was there, please explain: I can > > see > > wanting to throw away the war, but why would anyone > > wish to throw away the cars and the bars? Pacifist stoner pedestrians? Mellow public-transport enthusiasts with no taste for a particular vile conflict (as they see it)? From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Mon Oct 31 04:01:56 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:01:56 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] economics of scarcity to economics of plenty References: <200510301900.j9UJ0Ke07580@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <002401c5ddcf$dc431600$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Since there was a good deal of comment on this issue of the economics of plenty, I changed the subject line. I don't think that *our* economics of scarcity generally has very much to do with availability (or lack thereof). There is for instance, a fairly broad agreement that there is enough food in the world to go around... Yet almost a quarter of all people are starving - and another quarter are obese. surely by any dispassionate measure this is a poor use of resources? Scarcity is manipulated into being because it is good for business - the best business is surely an unchallenged monopoly - with control of availability and hence of price/profit etc. This is what I was alluding to in mentioning the P2P networks, bit torrent etc - they turn this business model upside down and represent a miniature economics of plenty - a model you might imagine as being extendable to the rest of society. For this very reason these technologies are subject to vast amounts of hostile propaganda, political/legal scrutiny - and plain old pressure to cease and desist... Further examples might be the development of Linux, the Wiki, the Opensource movement, Copyleft, Creative Commons etc... It was not so long ago that the promise of technology was abundance and leisure - 3 day working weeks, automated production releasing people from the monotonous grind for a life of richness. A generation later - that promise has never been realized. In reality of course, the automated production lines made their owners rich and their employees redundant. People are now working longer hours - harder than ever for more years of their lives - certainly the 35 hour working weeks that once prevailed in Europe and Australia are now mostly a thing of the past. And whereas before it was only necessary for one person in a family to work - now it takes two... I don't see why we must always have scarcity! Because there is absolutely no doubt that it it is divisive, and it does create a double-tier society - EVEN when there is demonstrably enough for all. A story two days ago on Alternet remarked on a survey that claimed that more than half of Wal Marts quarter of a million employees cannot afford basic health care - the same story also mentions that the Walton family income earns in excess of 771,000 times the median US family income. This is not good economics... Don't get me wrong - I am not against riches per se... Some tenson between rich and poor is motivating and helps drive healthy ambition. But an economic model *should* serve the needs of a society. If it does not - it is a failure in my book - no matter how spectacularly successful it is in enriching a niche of that society. Lines of robots producing cars and trucks while the former employees watch daytime tv and worry about paying their power bills is also not economic success... Full employment is economic success. My thesis here is - though perhaps I have not formulated it very well in this rush to get the words on paper - is that economics of scarcity is a bad model. Not necessarily because of the philosophical implications of the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer - but from the pragmatic point of view that it is inefficient, fosters conflict, and represents a poor distribution model for any product/asset in society. For minor examples of alternatives - look at how much better Firefox is than IE... and how frequently it is updated, how customizable... Look at Microsoft - a behemoth that takes 5 years to produce the next version of Windows - Linux developers run rings around them... Look at how it is now possible to watch any tv program in any part of the world - and how the production studios fight this tooth and nail - even when this is free to air tv! Because they want to maintain their control of scarcity. The argument is often defined in terms of intellectual property... but this is not the real issue in most cases. And lastly, to show this is not the case, look at how authors like Cory Doctorow and musicians galore are now releasing their works into P2P alongside traditional distribution... Maybe the times are a'changin? Jack Parkinson > From: David Lubkin Jack Parkinson wrote: > >To my mind, a successful extropian future is partly dependent on making a > >transition from economics of scarcity to economics of plenty - just having a > >more radical juxtaposition of haves and have-nots is never going to do this. > > I see those expressions -- "economics of scarcity" and "economics of > plenty" -- occasionally. They seem like a hand-waving fancy. > > First, I don't see how there's more than one economics. > > Second, it seems to me that there will always be scarcity. From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Oct 31 04:24:05 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:24:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <20051031032747.58581.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200510310424.j9V4O8e28580@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis > Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 7:28 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em > > --- spike wrote: > > > We judged them by their cars, Jeff... > > Oh right. The quality of nation's automobiles as the > bedrock metric of cultural/ideological > self-satisfaction. That doesn't work for me, you > remember my old Volvo?... Ummm, yes I do recall that Volvo. If there were a version of the SPCA that applied to cars instead of animals, they would have insisted you euthanize that poor beast. However, you may remember the tired old pickup that I was still flogging when you and I first made a local sushi run. I am told by a friend that knows from Russian cars that the Italians taught the commies how to build cars. So a modern Russian-built car is analogous to a 1970s lower end Fiat, but more poorly built. ... > > And let us not forget all those Mexicans fleeing the > horror that is Mexico. Let me draw you a picture: > > -> -> -> -> -> -> $$$$$$$$$$$ <- <- <- <- <- <- ... Hey, that works for me. > > > *Decades ago, Three Dog Night uttered: > > > > ... Neo-prohibitionists? Who liked horses? > > Sorry spike, I never could make out all the lyrics to > those songs, though I do recall the "make sweet love > to you" part. > > Best, Jeff Davis We all got that line. {8-] Funny you should mention never getting the lyrics, since it started out: Jeremiah was a bullfrog Was a good friend of mine, ---> NEVER UNDERSTOOD A SINGLE WORD HE SAID <--- But I helped him drink his wine... spike From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Oct 31 04:59:11 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:59:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] economics of scarcity to economics of plenty In-Reply-To: <002401c5ddcf$dc431600$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Message-ID: <200510310459.j9V4xee31811@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jack Parkinson > Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 8:02 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] economics of scarcity to economics of plenty > ... > > Lines of robots producing cars and trucks while the former employees watch > daytime tv and worry about paying their power bills is also not economic > success... Full employment is economic success... > > Jack Parkinson Jack, why is full employment defined as success? Is not the goal to have machines do our work, freeing us to do whatever we please? That is what I would call economic success, even if everyone does not achieve it. spike From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Mon Oct 31 06:04:53 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:04:53 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] economics of scarcity to economics of plenty References: <20051031045742.4AEA673D48@c9mailgw17.amadis.com> Message-ID: <001001c5dde1$06fc3820$0801a8c0@EF02jack> > > > > Jack, why is full employment defined as success? Is not > the goal to have machines do our work, freeing us to do > whatever we please? That is what I would call economic > success, even if everyone does not achieve it. > > spike ... > > Lines of robots producing cars and trucks while the former employees watch > > daytime tv and worry about paying their power bills is also not economic > > success... Full employment is economic success... > > > > Jack Why is full employment defined as success? Because the case above represents only an economic success from the point of view of the company. It is still a scarcity scenario. True economic success might be considered as win/win/win - company/individual/society - the economics of plenty. In the situation in the automated factory above, if the economic success of the company is balanced by a disaffected, unemployed, or welfare group of individuals - then net economic benefits to society are nullified. The technology is not being used to allow freedom, leisure and family quality time - it is being used to deprive one section of the community of a chance to make a living - while at the same time empowering another section to ask society to feed, clothe and house the unwanted workers - why would that be efficient!? It takes almost 800 million farmers to feed 1.3 billion in China. Depending on your viewpoint this is either grossly inefficient (corporate farmers could maybe do the same job with a few thousand people) or superbly efficient - it very effectively feeds clothes and houses a huge sector of the population (the farmers) at an efficiency level way higher than any western country could aspire to... And there is no massive burden on the tax payers due to wide spread unemployment from the introduction of *efficiency measures* Similarly, mega corporations are wasteful for the very reasons they pride themselves on being efficient - the bigger the company, the less percentage of tax they are likely to pay and the more tax payer handouts they are likely to receive - bigger companies accrue less benefits for society as a whole than smaller companies do. At worst they move offshore, contribute next to nothing, encourage sweat shop labor and become almost parasitic in some societies. Smaller companies contribute much more to society, they employ more people for less gross earnings and are hence more economically efficient by this reasoning. As big businesses reduce their work-forces in the interests of efficiency - a hugely inefficient drag and burden on the rest of society is imposed - the incomes of the poor must come from somewhere. If big business is *efficient* - that somewhere is maybe you and me... Jack Parkinson From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 31 06:26:38 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:26:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: I'd throw away the cars and the bars and the war In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20051030214705.01d34340@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <200510300643.j9U6hXe07858@tick.javien.com> <20051031032747.58581.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051030214705.01d34340@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Oct 30, 2005, at 7:49 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 07:27 PM 10/30/2005 -0800, spike wrote: > > >> > *Decades ago, Three Dog Night uttered: >> > >> > If I were the king of the world >> > Tell you what I'd do >> > I'd throw away the cars and the bars and the war >> > Make sweet love to you >> > Sing it now, jooooy to the world... >> > >> > Jeff or someone who was there, please explain: I can >> > see >> > wanting to throw away the war, but why would anyone >> > wish to throw away the cars and the bars? >> > > Pacifist stoner pedestrians? > There was a big back to nature sort of vibe going down in the 60s. Thankfully that part had mostly burned out in unsuccessful communes by the time I was old enough to begin my latter day hippie thing in the early 70s. - samantha From amara at amara.com Mon Oct 31 06:28:59 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:28:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] scarcity absurdities ? (was gm biodiesel 'em) Message-ID: > In a similar vein. I was rather surprised to see, > back when the Soviet Union was collapsing and the > Berlin wall was coming down, all the folks in the > street nicely dressed in sturdy, warm, even stylish > (if practical) attire. What ever happened to the > impoverished victims of communism?... Some are dead... Many had/have family who send packages of things regularly. High quality items like wool sweaters, they usually had for 20 years, taking extremely good care of it through the years. When I met my former East Germany colleagues in 1995 at a conference, the quality of their clothes was not noticeable. I think that there could be any number of reasons to explain what you saw. I visited the Soviet Union twice (spending about two months, living with my relatives in Tallinn and Cesis, before the Baltics gained their independence. There was a grayness to everything. General attire at that time was the kind of clothes one could find in a Goodwill store 30 years ago. My relatives are in the professional music business so their clothes were much more important; they those bought in Finland, or elsewhere when they had opportunities to go out. One suit, one dress, certainly no clothes horses there. It will need at least another generation to erase that time, but the life there is progressing nicely. Amara Lest we Forget http://www.amara.com/Independence/LestWeForget.html -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "What is important is to spread confusion, not to eliminate it." -- Salvador Dal? From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 31 06:50:40 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:50:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] economics of scarcity to economics of plenty In-Reply-To: <001001c5dde1$06fc3820$0801a8c0@EF02jack> References: <20051031045742.4AEA673D48@c9mailgw17.amadis.com> <001001c5dde1$06fc3820$0801a8c0@EF02jack> Message-ID: <71B27A54-8C54-4529-81C4-322D42B4AAA8@mac.com> On Oct 30, 2005, at 10:04 PM, Jack Parkinson wrote: >> >> >> >> Jack, why is full employment defined as success? Is not >> the goal to have machines do our work, freeing us to do >> whatever we please? That is what I would call economic >> success, even if everyone does not achieve it. >> >> spike >> > ... > >>> Lines of robots producing cars and trucks while the former employees >>> > watch > >>> daytime tv and worry about paying their power bills is also not >>> economic >>> success... Full employment is economic success... >>> >>> Jack >>> > > Why is full employment defined as success? > Because the case above represents only an economic success from the > point of > view of the company. It is still a scarcity scenario. True economic > success > might be considered as win/win/win - company/individual/society - the > economics of plenty. > Sure. Ideally one doesn't need a j-o-b or equivalent to partake of the bounty. How exactly we get there from here or whether it is ever possible to get there are fine questions. But even without that it is not in any way better to use less efficient and more limited means simply to keep everyone employed. > In the situation in the automated factory above, if the economic > success of > the company is balanced by a disaffected, unemployed, or welfare > group of > individuals - then net economic benefits to society are nullified. There is no meaningful entity named "society". Being able to produce more wealth with less resources and effort is a net win regardless of distribution problems. > The > technology is not being used to allow freedom, leisure and family > quality > time - it is being used to deprive one section of the community of > a chance > to make a living - while at the same time empowering another > section to ask > society to feed, clothe and house the unwanted workers - why would > that be > efficient!? > I don't see any disjoint sections here necessarily. Maximization of wealth seems to me to logically include maximization of all human potential to add to that wealth. > > Similarly, mega corporations are wasteful for the very reasons they > pride > themselves on being efficient - the bigger the company, the less > percentage > of tax they are likely to pay and the more tax payer handouts they are > likely to receive - This is an often challenged canard and is not terribly relevant to future economic forms. > bigger companies accrue less benefits for society as a > whole than smaller companies do. At worst they move offshore, > contribute > next to nothing, encourage sweat shop labor and become almost > parasitic in > some societies. One of the fastest ways that developing countries quickly move up the ladder is by offering cheaper labor. Very quickly the type of labor offered is more and more advanced. Very meager wages here can be much sought after riches elsewhere. There are abuses but there are also a lot of win-win situations. > Smaller companies contribute much more to society, they > employ more people for less gross earnings and are hence more > economically > efficient by this reasoning. You seem to assume a zero sum wealth model. > > As big businesses reduce their work-forces in the interests of > efficiency - > a hugely inefficient drag and burden on the rest of society is > imposed - the > incomes of the poor must come from somewhere. If big business is > *efficient* - that somewhere is maybe you and me... Not necessarily. Retraining, distribution of benefits without predatory government practices can lessen the strain as the economy needs fewer and fewer human workers and of more rarefied skills and knowledge. Paying for everyone who can be retrained to go back to school as long as they perform reasonably well there is MUCH better in my mind than today's welfare and such. I do believe that there is a real problem as technology advances and I am not convinced fully that a *really free* market would fix it by itself. We have traveled too far and too long in an unfree market to even get there from here in a believable fashion and then it is a theoretical krap shoot whether the problem would be resolved. But I am utterly certain that limiting technology and fighting against increased efficiency is not only not in the solution space. This purported cure is much worse than the disease. - samantha From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Mon Oct 31 08:47:59 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:47:59 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] economics of scarcity to economics of plenty References: <20051031045742.4AEA673D48@c9mailgw17.amadis.com> <001001c5dde1$06fc3820$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <71B27A54-8C54-4529-81C4-322D42B4AAA8@mac.com> Message-ID: <003d01c5ddf7$f1d62110$0801a8c0@EF02jack> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Samantha Atkins" Jack Parkinson wrote: > > Why is full employment defined as success? > > Because the case above represents only an economic success from the > > point of > > view of the company. It is still a scarcity scenario. True economic > > success > > might be considered as win/win/win - company/individual/society - the > > economics of plenty. > > > > Sure. Ideally one doesn't need a j-o-b or equivalent to partake of > the bounty. How exactly we get there from here or whether it is ever > possible to get there are fine questions. > > But even without that it is not in any way better to use less > efficient and more limited means simply to keep everyone employed. Yes! We are in agreement on this. I certainly am not an advocate for putting tecnological genies back in their bottles. I am simply challenging some accepted notions of what *economic efficiency* might really be. > > > In the situation in the automated factory above, if the economic > > success of > > the company is balanced by a disaffected, unemployed, or welfare > > group of > > individuals - then net economic benefits to society are nullified. > > There is no meaningful entity named "society". Being able to > produce more wealth with less resources and effort is a net win > regardless of distribution problems. True again. But we all work in some type of cooperative human hierarchy. I'm not sure about net wins as you describe them, wealth undistributed is meaningless. If all the money was in one bank account - of what use could it be? > > > The > > technology is not being used to allow freedom, leisure and family > > quality > > time - it is being used to deprive one section of the community of > > a chance > > to make a living - while at the same time empowering another > > section to ask > > society to feed, clothe and house the unwanted workers - why would > > that be > > efficient!? > > > > I don't see any disjoint sections here necessarily. Maximization of > wealth seems to me to logically include maximization of all human > potential to add to that wealth. > > > > > Similarly, mega corporations are wasteful for the very reasons they > > pride > > themselves on being efficient - the bigger the company, the less > > percentage > > of tax they are likely to pay and the more tax payer handouts they are > > likely to receive - > > This is an often challenged canard and is not terribly relevant to > future economic forms. Cost/benefits analyses would be required to prove/disprove this. But surely most would agree that a degree of equal competition was a healthy thing - those disagreeing, (in practice - if not in expressed thought) would be the megacorps themselves whose mission is to destroy, assimilate and nullify such competition - waste them in effect. > > > bigger companies accrue less benefits for society as a > > whole than smaller companies do. At worst they move offshore, > > contribute > > next to nothing, encourage sweat shop labor and become almost > > parasitic in > > some societies. > > One of the fastest ways that developing countries quickly move up the > ladder is by offering cheaper labor. Very quickly the type of labor > offered is more and more advanced. Very meager wages here can be > much sought after riches elsewhere. There are abuses but there are > also a lot of win-win situations. Yes! A good kick-start for developing countries. Not so good for the thousands of redundancies created back home - UNLESS they can access training, new opportunity etc. > > Smaller companies contribute much more to society, they > > employ more people for less gross earnings and are hence more > > economically > > efficient by this reasoning. > > You seem to assume a zero sum wealth model. No. I am aware that my comments were fairly simplistic. But I really only intended to challenge some assumptions rather than provide a wholly coherent alternative. I'm not sure there is one yet! > > > > > As big businesses reduce their work-forces in the interests of > > efficiency - > > a hugely inefficient drag and burden on the rest of society is > > imposed - the > > incomes of the poor must come from somewhere. If big business is > > *efficient* - that somewhere is maybe you and me... > > Not necessarily. Retraining, distribution of benefits without > predatory government practices can lessen the strain as the economy > needs fewer and fewer human workers and of more rarefied skills and > knowledge. Paying for everyone who can be retrained to go back to > school as long as they perform reasonably well there is MUCH better > in my mind than today's welfare and such. I do believe that there is > a real problem as technology advances and I am not convinced fully > that a *really free* market would fix it by itself. We have traveled > too far and too long in an unfree market to even get there from here > in a believable fashion and then it is a theoretical krap shoot > whether the problem would be resolved. But I am utterly certain that > limiting technology and fighting against increased efficiency is not > only not in the solution space. This purported cure is much worse > than the disease. > > - samantha Limiting technology is not the answer as you say. But at present we do routinely limit ACCESS to technology and to my mind this amounts to an equivalent sin. If we had nanoscale manufacturing and an available wide range of *free* consumer goods, the proverbial evil dictator would naturally want to control these devices. Corporations and governments certainly will want to control them. I would argue in this instance that (except for some proscribed usages) these devices should be as free as most info on the web is now... This maybe would be the start of a true economics of plenty. But, I would predict that there will be many who believe scarcity and deprivation would suit them better and who might dismiss this as craziness... Patents, digital rights, copyrights et al, are all blockages in the system - guardians of the creed of scarcity. Yes they protect a few legitimate concerns... but there must surely be a better way! Jack Parkinson From nanogirl at halcyon.com Mon Oct 31 09:56:02 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:56:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~ Message-ID: <010201c5de01$5f26f790$0200a8c0@Nano> The Nanogirl News October 31, 2005 Carbon nanoparticles stimulate blood clotting, researchers report. Both nanotubes and airborne particles cause platelets to clump together. Carbon nanoparticles - both those unleashed in the air by engine exhaust and the engineered structures thought to have great potential in medical applications - promote blood-clotting, scientists report in an upcoming edition of the British Journal of Pharmacology. Researchers from The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and Ohio University examined the impact of various forms of carbon nanoparticles in a laboratory experiment on human platelets - blood's principal clotting element - and in a model of carotid artery thrombosis, or blockage, using anesthetized rats. (Innovations Report 10.24.05) http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-50706.html Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines Now Freely Available Online. The most comprehensive review of the field of Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines (KSRM), the title of a book co-authored by Robert A. Freitas Jr. (http://www.rfreitas.com) and Ralph C. Merkle (http://www.merkle.com), was published in hardback in late 2004. The book is still available in print (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1570596905), but KSRM is now freely accessible online at http://www.MolecularAssembler.com/KSRM.htm. With 200 + illustrations and 3200 + literature references, KSRM describes all proposed and experimentally realized self-replicating systems that were publicly known as of 2004, ranging from nanoscale to macroscale systems. The book extensively describes the historical development of the field. It presents for the first time a detailed 137-dimensional map of the entire kinematic replicator design space to assist future engineering efforts. KSRM has been cited in two articles appearing in Nature this year (Zykov et al, Nature 435, 163 (12 May 2005) and Griffith et al, Nature 437, 636 (29 September 2005) and appears well on its way to becoming the classic reference in this field. Scientists build world's first single-molecule car. Rice University Scientists have done it. After BMW announced the possibility of producing a car that would utilize nanotechnology practically for all functions, Rice University scientists developed the world's first single-molecule car- the car that was driven on a gold microscopic highway. It a small coupe that is devoid of any plush seating or conventional steering system. But it is a real solution for the grid locked cities. With a wheelbase of less than 5 nm, parking it is a cakewalk. (Physorg 10.20.05) http://www.physorg.com/news7438.html Richard Errett Smalley, a gifted chemist who shared a Nobel Prize for the discovery of buckyballs, helped pioneer the field of nanotechnology and became Houston's most notable scientist, died Friday afternoon after a six-year struggle with cancer. He was 62. Smalley possessed prodigious talent both within the lab, where he cobbled individual atoms together like tinker toys, and outside academia after he won science's greatest prize. In the decade since he became a Nobel laureate, Smalley pushed Rice University and Houston to the forefront of nanotechnology research. (HoustonChronicle 10.29.05) http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3424406 Engineers Build DNA 'Nanotowers' With Enzyme Tools. Duke engineers have added a new construction tool to their bio-nanofabrication toolbox. Using an enzyme called TdTase, engineers can vertically extend short DNA chains attached to nanometer-sized gold plates. This advance adds new capability to the field of bio-nanomanufacturing. "The process works like stacking Legos to make a tower and is an important step toward creating functional nanostructures out of biological materials," said Ashutosh Chilkoti, associate professor of biomedical engineering at Duke's Pratt School of Engineering. (ScienceDaily 10.14.05) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051013085140.htm Foresight Awards Nanotech Prizes. The Foresight Nanotech Institute, a think tank and public interest organization focused on nanotechnology, awarded prizes to leaders in research, communication, government and study in the field of nanotechnology at the 13th Foresight Conference. (SmallTimes 10.27.05) http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?section_id=39&document_id=10230 Modifications render carbon nanotubes nontoxic. Rice team mitigates toxicity of tiny cylinders with chemical changes. In follow-on work to last year's groundbreaking toxicological study on water-soluble buckyballs, researchers at Rice University's Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) find that water-soluble carbon nanotubes are significantly less toxic to begin with. Moreover, the research finds that nanotubes, like buckyballs, can be rendered nontoxic with minor chemical modifications. The findings come from the first toxicological studies of water-soluble carbon nanotubes. The study, which is available online, will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Toxicology Letters. The research is a continuation of CBEN's pioneering efforts to both identify and mitigate potential nanotechnology risks. (EurekAlert 10.26.05) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-10/ru-mrc102605.php Nanotechnology seeks to detect food contaminants. Using microchips to detect and remove contaminants such as E. coli, anthrax or botulism from food may sound like Star Wars technology to some, but Larry Branen believes it's possible. The challenge is that researching and developing the necessary technology requires working with materials smaller than a hair. Such research even has its own name: nanotechnology. "At such small levels, there are changes in the properties of materials and how they interact. Scientifically, we must approach them in new ways," said Branen, associate director of the University of Idaho's Research Institute here. (Capital Press 10.21.05) http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=67&SubSectionID=617&ArticleID=20611&TM=30977.9 Future nanotech tools made from clay. NaturalNano says that by filling Halloysite tubes with copper and then mixing the tubes into a polymer, a manufacturer could make an electrically conductive plastic. If filled with fungicides, the Halloysite particles--which consist of aluminum, oxygen, silicon and hydrogen--could be swirled into paint to make it more resistant to mildew and mold. Time-released coatings could also be added to make all-day deodorant. The tubes could even have agricultural uses. (Cnet 10.26.05) http://news.com.com/Future+nanotech+tools+made+from+clay/2100-11390_3-5914034.html Solar cell solution: nanotechnology. One-hundred times smaller than bacteria, more efficient than plastic film, nanotubes prove promising at harvesting sun's power. If the nation decided to blanket its rooftops in solar cells - generating as much as 75 percent of all electricity produced today - it would be costly beyond belief and probably impossible: There isn't enough silicon. Scientists for 20 years have searched for an answer in very thin, plastic films, something that could be rolled out nationwide for a few cents per square foot. But they haven't proved very efficient at harvesting the power of the sun and tend to break down in air and sunlight. (Inside Bay Area 10.21.05) http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/localnews/ci_3138128 $35 Million in Awards to 12 Cancer Nanotechnology Platform Partnerships. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), today announced funding for a major component of its $144.3 million, five-year initiative for nanotechnology in cancer research. Awards totaling $35 million over five years, with $7 million total in the first year, will establish 12 Cancer Nanotechnology Platform Partnerships. (Azonano 10.18.05) http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=1548 Physicists have observed the Jahn-Teller effect in a molecule for the first time. The effect was seen in carbon-60 molecules doped with potassium. The results could shed more light on the fundamental properties of molecular nanostructures (Science 310 468)."The Jahn-Teller effect has long been known to play an important role in the relationship between the structure of molecules and their energy levels, but this is the first time anyone has directly imaged it at the single-molecule level," says Mike Crommie of the University of California at Berkeley and the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, leader of the team that saw the effect. (nanotechweb 10.24.05) http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/4/10/15?alert=1 Nanotechnology targets new food packaging products. Exciting new nanotechnology products for food packaging are in the development pipeline or, as in the case of anti-microbial films, have already entered the market, according to a report published this month by an EU-funded research team. "While far reaching visions such as nanotech food synthesizers or pathogen killing nanobots are not expected to become reality within the next decades, nanotechnology related R&D for food processing, food engineering and food packaging is in the innovation pipeline of the food industry today," the team said. (Foodnavigator 10.12.05) http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?n=63147-nanotechnology-food-packaging-research-and-development Center on Nanotechnology and Society Created at IIT. A nearly $500,000 Congressional earmark is helping fund the creation of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Housed in IIT's Chicago-Kent College of Law, the Center will examine legal, social and ethical implications of nanotechnology. (nanotechwire 10.13.05) http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=2440 Ford, Boeing and Northwestern Form Nanotechnology Alliance. Ford Motor Co., The Boeing Co. and Northwestern University have big plans to work together to make the future very small. The two companies and the university are in final negotiations to form a new alliance to research commercial applications of nanotechnology, the branch of engineering that deals with things smaller than 100 nm and at the molecular level. Ford and Boeing will each provide financial support for three years, and Northwestern's Robert R. McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science will provide administration of the alliance and office space for a full-time Ford employee who will serve as the industrial alliance coordinator. (Photonics 10.1205) http://www.photonics.com/todaysheadlines/XQ/ASP/navclick.true/QX/article.asp?id=5862 Engineers at Purdue University have shown how researchers might better use tiny hollow fibers called "multi-walled carbon nanotubes" to more precisely measure structures and devices for electronics and other applications. Findings will appear in the November issue of the journal Nanotechnology. Researchers attach the tubes to the ends of imaging instruments called atomic force microscopes. Because the tubes are long and slender, their shape is ideal for the emerging field of "nanometrology," which is precisely measuring structures on the scale of nanometers, or billionths of a meter. (Physorg 10.12.05) http://www.physorg.com/news7175.html Nanotechnology Emergence Generates High Expectations, Expert Says. Independent oversight of research needed to address any health hazards. The following article appears in the October 2005 issue of the State Department's electronic journal Economic Perspectives. It is based on an op-ed article published on the Pennsylvania State University Internet site but has been revised and updated by the author for this publication. The complete issue, titled The Promise of Biotechnology, can be viewed on the USINFO Web site. (begin byliner) Wither Nanotechnology? By Akhlesh Lakhtakia Distinguished Professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Pennsylvania State University. Think small, dream big" is a typical slogan about the promise of nanotechnology within the scientific research community. Once relegated to pure fiction, nanotechnology is becoming increasingly linked with advances in biotechnology and information technology. With annual expenditure for nanotechnology research in the United States estimated to be in excess of $2.6 billion in 2004, the word "nano" is even finding its way into popular culture, from daily horoscopes to newspaper cartoons. (USINFO.STATE.GOV 10.27.05) http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=October&x=20051027140334SAikceinawz0.3895227&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html Proofreading and error-correction in nanomaterials inspired by nature. Mimicking nature, a procedure developed by researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign can find and correct defects in self-assembled nanomaterials. The new proofreading and error-removal process is based on catalytic DNA and represents a paradigm shift in nanoscale science and engineering. (nanotechwire 10.18.05) http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=2461 Nanomanufacturing: First Systematic Study Of Cadmium Selenide Nanostructure Growth Yields Production 'Road Map'. Researchers have taken an important step toward high-volume production of new nanometer-scale structures with the first systematic study of growth conditions that affect production of one-dimensional nanostructures from the optoelectronic material cadmium selenide (CdSe). Using the results from more than 150 different experiments in which temperature and pressure conditions were systematically varied, nanotechnology researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology created a "road map" to guide future nanomanufacturing using the vapor-liquid-solid (VLS) technique. (ScienceDaily 10.30.05) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051028140332.htm Nano skyscrapers may precede space elevator. Liftport, a space-infrastucture company, has been among those who support construction of a space elevator, a long thin cable made of carbon nanotubes anchored to a platform or ship at sea and extending out into space. Held in place by the earth's rotation, the space elevator, with the help of robots, would ferry materials to outer space. (ZDnet 10.26.05) http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9596_22-5914208.html Happy Hallows Eve. Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Nano animations for hire: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Mon Oct 31 11:19:50 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:19:50 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: <200510310424.j9V4O8e28580@tick.javien.com> References: <200510310424.j9V4O8e28580@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, spike wrote: > I am told by a friend that knows from Russian cars > that the Italians taught the commies how to build > cars. So a modern Russian-built car is analogous > to a 1970s lower end Fiat, but more poorly built. Uh oh. As an Italian, I pity them :-)) Alfio From pharos at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 11:29:05 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:29:05 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] economics of scarcity to economics of plenty In-Reply-To: <002401c5ddcf$dc431600$0201a8c0@JPAcer> References: <200510301900.j9UJ0Ke07580@tick.javien.com> <002401c5ddcf$dc431600$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Message-ID: On 10/31/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > For minor examples of alternatives - look at how much better Firefox is than > IE... and how frequently it is updated, how customizable... Look at > Microsoft - a behemoth that takes 5 years to produce the next version of > Windows - Linux developers run rings around them... > Minor nit-picking here. I am no supporter of Microsoft, but they have a very successful business running just fine, at present. If IE has over 90% of the market and is bringing in no direct income, why bother to spend resources on changing it? Microsoft has bought thousands of the best tech engineers in the world. The reason they have taken 5 years to produce the next version of Windows is historical. They spent years flogging the dead horse of the XP codebase before the VP in charge had the guts to tell Bill Gates the job was impossible. (He's retiring next year as a reward). So MS had to start from scratch and write a completely new operating system, taking the best bits of Linux design and attaching as much of the old XP code that can be certified good and reliable. *If it works*, it should have all the good bits of Linux and XP and continue feeding income into MS. 5 years is not bad for a project on that scale. BillK From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Mon Oct 31 12:19:53 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:19:53 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] economics of scarcity to economics of plenty In-Reply-To: References: <200510301900.j9UJ0Ke07580@tick.javien.com> <002401c5ddcf$dc431600$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Message-ID: On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, BillK wrote: > On 10/31/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: >> >> For minor examples of alternatives - look at how much better Firefox is than >> IE... and how frequently it is updated, how customizable... Look at >> Microsoft - a behemoth that takes 5 years to produce the next version of >> Windows - Linux developers run rings around them... >> > > Minor nit-picking here. I am no supporter of Microsoft, but they have > a very successful business running just fine, at present. > > If IE has over 90% of the market and is bringing in no direct income, > why bother to spend resources on changing it? I think that's exactly Jack's point here - Internet Explorer is good for the business that made it (apart from direct income, IE is very useful for vendor lock-in using ActiveX, frontpage-generated sites, windows media player integration, and so on), but not for the users (feature-poor, full of exploits, etc). It took a non-business generated browser to have a better one. From this point of view, the corporation model was inefficient at creating value for the society. Alfio From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Mon Oct 31 12:20:46 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:20:46 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] economics of scarcity to economics of plenty References: <200510301900.j9UJ0Ke07580@tick.javien.com> <002401c5ddcf$dc431600$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Message-ID: <001f01c5de15$8d080640$0801a8c0@EF02jack> ----- Original Message ----- From: "BillK" On 10/31/05, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > For minor examples of alternatives - look at how much better Firefox is than > IE... and how frequently it is updated, how customizable... Look at > Microsoft - a behemoth that takes 5 years to produce the next version of > Windows - Linux developers run rings around them... > Minor nit-picking here. I am no supporter of Microsoft, but they have a very successful business running just fine, at present. If IE has over 90% of the market and is bringing in no direct income, why bother to spend resources on changing it? Microsoft has bought thousands of the best tech engineers in the world. The reason they have taken 5 years to produce the next version of Windows is historical. They spent years flogging the dead horse of the XP codebase before the VP in charge had the guts to tell Bill Gates the job was impossible. (He's retiring next year as a reward). So MS had to start from scratch and write a completely new operating system, taking the best bits of Linux design and attaching as much of the old XP code that can be certified good and reliable. *If it works*, it should have all the good bits of Linux and XP and continue feeding income into MS. 5 years is not bad for a project on that scale. BillK All of the above is true enough - but the point was not that Microsoft are bad. The point is that a rival and total alien 'economics of plenty' model of doing business can not only keep up with the world leader - but in some respects surpass them. All without the corporate support net that MS employees take for granted... How many might have predicted that during the early 1990's? Jack Parkinson From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Oct 31 12:40:10 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:40:10 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Biochemistry text challenges students to find biological fallacy in cryonics Message-ID: <01ca01c5de18$3b6085d0$8998e03c@homepc> I just stumbled across this question and the answer to it in a text _Biochemistry_ 3rd Edition by Voet and Voet published 2004. I found it interesting that a standard university biochemistry text was aware of cryonics and addressing students minds to it in this way. Chap 22, no. 14. "Certain unscrupulous operators offer, for a fee, to freeze recently deceased individuals in liquid nitrogen until medical science can cure the disease from which they died. What is the biological fallacy of this procedure?" The answer given: "Death is essentially an irreversible loss of order. On dying, cells loose their order on the molecular level by loosing their ion gradients, enzymatically digesting their macromolecular components, breaking down their membranes, etc. Thus, although cells and the organisms they comprise appear to change little on dying, the microscopic changes which occur are profound and cannot be reversed by simply "curing" the condition that caused death". Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 12:58:13 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:58:13 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] economics of scarcity to economics of plenty In-Reply-To: <200510310459.j9V4xee31811@tick.javien.com> References: <002401c5ddcf$dc431600$0201a8c0@JPAcer> <200510310459.j9V4xee31811@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 10/31/05, spike wrote: > Jack, why is full employment defined as success? Is not > the goal to have machines do our work, freeing us to do > whatever we please? That is what I would call economic > success, even if everyone does not achieve it. > Link this POV to the article in NYT The End of Pensions By ROGER LOWENSTEIN Published: October 30, 2005 In 1980, about 40 percent of the jobs in the private sector offered pensions; now only 20 percent do. Earlier this month, Miller and Delphi gave in to the pressure and sought protection under the bankruptcy code - the largest such filing ever in the auto industry. It followed by a few weeks the Chapter 11 filings of Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines, whose pension promises to workers exceeded the assets in their pension funds by an estimated $16 billion. The three filings have blown the lid off America's latest, if long-simmering, financial debacle. It is not hedge funds or the real-estate bubble - it is the pension system, both public and private. And it is broken. --------------------- So our magic machines will have to support a non-working population. How? Everybody on Social Security? BillK From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Oct 31 15:17:55 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:17:55 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510311518.j9VFIAe08138@tick.javien.com> Ja my grandfather had an early 70s Fiat. Oy vey, that was a junky car. The Japanese stuff at the time was as bad or worse. The small American cars of those days were terrible too. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alfio Puglisi > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 3:20 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] gm biodiesel 'em > > On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, spike wrote: > > > I am told by a friend that knows from Russian cars > > that the Italians taught the commies how to build > > cars. So a modern Russian-built car is analogous > > to a 1970s lower end Fiat, but more poorly built. > > Uh oh. As an Italian, I pity them :-)) > > Alfio > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Oct 31 15:33:17 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:33:17 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropic Freedom and the Fate of Dissidents In-Reply-To: <200510300620.j9U6K5e04458@tick.javien.com> References: <200510300620.j9U6K5e04458@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051031092934.02b00860@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 12:19 AM 10/30/2005, Spike wrote: > > The Avantguardian avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com : > > > > > I am writing this because I had noticed that the > > >list has been rather tame lately with respect to > > >heated political debate... > > >Avant, Mike runs a libertarian-oriented Exi-freedom >list, where heated political debate is the coin of >the realm. Mike's list cannot be an Exi-Freedom because that would be an infringement on ExI's name. Can you verify? Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Oct 31 15:40:40 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:40:40 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropic Freedom and the Fate of Dissidents In-Reply-To: <20051030033328.91209.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051030033328.91209.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051031093415.02af9780@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 09:33 PM 10/29/2005, Avant wrote: > Imagine my surprise when I discovered he had been >booted from the list by none other than Natasha. Stuart, you are making a leap in judgment. I did not boot Mike off the list. And I would appreciate you respecting the list rules and the decision of its moderators for doing what is believed to be the right thing in deference to all list members and ExI. If you have any complaints, email the Board of ExI directly at info at extropy.org and the email will be forwarded to all Board members and list moderators. Best wishes, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Oct 31 15:44:22 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:44:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Biochemistry text challenges students to find biological fallacy in cryonics In-Reply-To: <01ca01c5de18$3b6085d0$8998e03c@homepc> References: <01ca01c5de18$3b6085d0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <22360fa10510310744l71a4d879q1f452355f1e4a06a@mail.gmail.com> On 10/31/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > I just stumbled across this question and the answer to it > in a text _Biochemistry_ 3rd Edition by Voet and Voet > published 2004. > > I found it interesting that a standard university biochemistry > text was aware of cryonics and addressing students minds > to it in this way. > > > Chap 22, no. 14. > > > "Certain unscrupulous operators offer, for a fee, to freeze > recently deceased individuals in liquid nitrogen until medical > science can cure the disease from which they died. What > is the biological fallacy of this procedure?" > > > The answer given: > > > "Death is essentially an irreversible loss of order. On dying, > cells loose their order on the molecular level by loosing their > ion gradients, enzymatically digesting their macromolecular > components, breaking down their membranes, etc. Thus, > although cells and the organisms they comprise appear to > change little on dying, the microscopic changes which occur > are profound and cannot be reversed by simply "curing" the > condition that caused death". > > It can be frustrating to see such ignorance from acknowledged "authorities", and irritating to see the bias that accompanies the ignorance. How to turn this to a positive? Q: Certain organizations offer, for a fee, to freeze individuals as quickly and non-destructively as possible following the legally defined moment of death, with the intention of halting further biological breakdown until technologies are developed that may reverse the damage caused by both the preservation process and the original disease. Notwithstanding the cultural and legal impediments, what are the various modes of biological breakdown that must be addressed by these procedures? A: ... And then you "simply" make this additional viewpoint readily available to the students... But seriously, I think an effective general approach to making progress on these issues is by raising awareness through increasingly shared knowledge platforms. The days of "authoritative" textbooks are declining. - Jef From brian at posthuman.com Mon Oct 31 16:17:02 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:17:02 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] economics of scarcity to economics of plenty In-Reply-To: References: <002401c5ddcf$dc431600$0201a8c0@JPAcer> <200510310459.j9V4xee31811@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4366437E.7000502@posthuman.com> BillK wrote: > > So our magic machines will have to support a non-working population. > How? Everybody on Social Security? > No. Rather than everyone a worker for someone else, or everyone getting free money dropped by government helicopters, I would suggest considering the idea that more and more people need to start considering becoming capitalists. Why moan about having to work for some other factory owner, or losing your job to a robot, when you may be able to take advantage of rapidly increasing technological-capability-per-buck to eventually own your own automated hardware or software that would allow you to operate your own company. Everyone, start saving up a down payment for your own robot crew now. Eventually it'll be like buying a car. In the meantime try running an Ebay business like the other million or so people that already make a living there, or come up with some other way to take advantage of currently available software, services, or new hardware tech. The time of complaining "I can't start a business because of..." is ending. Excuses based on costs of equipment, software, or materials are going to fall by the wayside. Don't know how to administrate a company? There will be automated software to handle it all. I think corporate size is trending smaller and smaller, the long tail is growing. Almost everyone will have to consider being a part of this trend eventually. Start thinking now. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 18:59:36 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:59:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropic Freedom and the Fate of Dissidents In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051031092934.02b00860@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <200510300620.j9U6K5e04458@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051031092934.02b00860@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0510311059n5d83ad93u94cf1775724e926b@mail.gmail.com> On 10/31/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Mike's list cannot be an Exi-Freedom because that would be an infringement > on ExI's name. Can you verify? It isn't, it's extro-freedom. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bret at bonfireproductions.com Mon Oct 31 19:25:10 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:25:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI Website - Your Comments In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051020113758.029a8828@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <37AD0BB6-39AD-4B97-BBF8-3B2E730286EF@bonfireproductions.com> Yes, I am this far behind in the list it would seem. I am fixating somewhat, to be sure, but this is part of what I do. More percolating: I know that the strength of the >H use tends to wax and wane. We also tend to tread lightly as a group, and do not want to be branded by the press or linked by society to the wrong elements. I know that since the earliest magazine covers we have also had the outward- spiral of Extropy. I'd like to focus on these for a moment. Without stepping on toes I think that these or something needs to be embraced as a more active brand. I see a lot of strength in either form, but would like to re-consider part of the >H. Obviously, greater-than human is an easy read and can lead to the wrong assumption. But what if we altered it to include more information, to change the value of the variable H as it were. >H = >Human = >History? >H with H being the span of civilization to this point, no matter when 'this point' is taking place. Sort of summarizes the principles or at least perpetual progress. Not to be base, but seeing >H on a bumper in front of me at the toll booth would be nice once in a while. Something I could put outside my office as well. ]3 On Oct 20, 2005, at 12:47 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Extropes, Transhumanists, futurists and all other list members - > What do you think about the content, look and feel of Extropy > Institute's website located at http://www.extropy.org > We launched the new site two months ago and so far, so good. But I > would like to hear from you, as your opinions and insights are > valuable to us. Please send your thoughts directly to me at > natasha at extropy.org > Once I receive a dozen comments, I will post them to the list for > further review and commentary. > Thanks for working with us to realize Extropy's future. We will be > making more and more changes before the end of the year and I want > to make sure that the Board is fully addressing your needs, > concerns, and your vision for the future. > Natasha > > > Natasha Vita-More > Cultural Strategist - Designer > Future Studies, University of Houston > President, Extropy Institute > Member, Association of Professional Futurists > Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture > Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association > Senior Associate, Foresight Institute > Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation > > If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the > circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what > is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that > is an open system perspective. > Buckminster Fuller > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon Oct 31 23:03:35 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:03:35 -0700 Subject: FWD [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~ Message-ID: <4366A2C7.9030207@mindspring.com> The Nanogirl News October 31, 2005 Carbon nanoparticles stimulate blood clotting, researchers report. Both nanotubes and airborne particles cause platelets to clump together. Carbon nanoparticles - both those unleashed in the air by engine exhaust and the engineered structures thought to have great potential in medical applications - promote blood-clotting, scientists report in an upcoming edition of the British Journal of Pharmacology. Researchers from The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and Ohio University examined the impact of various forms of carbon nanoparticles in a laboratory experiment on human platelets - blood's principal clotting element - and in a model of carotid artery thrombosis, or blockage, using anesthetized rats. (Innovations Report 10.24.05) http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-50706.html Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines Now Freely Available Online. The most comprehensive review of the field of Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines (KSRM), the title of a book co-authored by Robert A. Freitas Jr. (http://www.rfreitas.com) and Ralph C. Merkle (http://www.merkle.com), was published in hardback in late 2004. The book is still available in print (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1570596905), but KSRM is now freely accessible online at http://www.MolecularAssembler.com/KSRM.htm. With 200 + illustrations and 3200 + literature references, KSRM describes all proposed and experimentally realized self-replicating systems that were publicly known as of 2004, ranging from nanoscale to macroscale systems. The book extensively describes the historical development of the field. It presents for the first time a detailed 137-dimensional map of the entire kinematic replicator design space to assist future engineering efforts. KSRM has been cited in two articles appearing in Nature this year (Zykov et al, Nature 435, 163 (12 May 2005) and Griffith et al, Nature 437, 636 (29 September 2005) and appears well on its way to becoming the classic reference in this field. Scientists build world's first single-molecule car. Rice University Scientists have done it. After BMW announced the possibility of producing a car that would utilize nanotechnology practically for all functions, Rice University scientists developed the world's first single-molecule car- the car that was driven on a gold microscopic highway. It a small coupe that is devoid of any plush seating or conventional steering system. But it is a real solution for the grid locked cities. With a wheelbase of less than 5 nm, parking it is a cakewalk. (Physorg 10.20.05) http://www.physorg.com/news7438.html Richard Errett Smalley, a gifted chemist who shared a Nobel Prize for the discovery of buckyballs, helped pioneer the field of nanotechnology and became Houston's most notable scientist, died Friday afternoon after a six-year struggle with cancer. He was 62. Smalley possessed prodigious talent both within the lab, where he cobbled individual atoms together like tinker toys, and outside academia after he won science's greatest prize. In the decade since he became a Nobel laureate, Smalley pushed Rice University and Houston to the forefront of nanotechnology research. (HoustonChronicle 10.29.05) http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3424406 Engineers Build DNA 'Nanotowers' With Enzyme Tools. Duke engineers have added a new construction tool to their bio-nanofabrication toolbox. Using an enzyme called TdTase, engineers can vertically extend short DNA chains attached to nanometer-sized gold plates. This advance adds new capability to the field of bio-nanomanufacturing. "The process works like stacking Legos to make a tower and is an important step toward creating functional nanostructures out of biological materials," said Ashutosh Chilkoti, associate professor of biomedical engineering at Duke's Pratt School of Engineering. (ScienceDaily 10.14.05) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051013085140.htm Foresight Awards Nanotech Prizes. The Foresight Nanotech Institute, a think tank and public interest organization focused on nanotechnology, awarded prizes to leaders in research, communication, government and study in the field of nanotechnology at the 13th Foresight Conference. (SmallTimes 10.27.05) http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?section_id=39&document_id=10230 Modifications render carbon nanotubes nontoxic. Rice team mitigates toxicity of tiny cylinders with chemical changes. In follow-on work to last year's groundbreaking toxicological study on water-soluble buckyballs, researchers at Rice University's Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) find that water-soluble carbon nanotubes are significantly less toxic to begin with. Moreover, the research finds that nanotubes, like buckyballs, can be rendered nontoxic with minor chemical modifications. The findings come from the first toxicological studies of water-soluble carbon nanotubes. The study, which is available online, will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Toxicology Letters. The research is a continuation of CBEN's pioneering efforts to both identify and mitigate potential nanotechnology risks. (EurekAlert 10.26.05) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-10/ru-mrc102605.php Nanotechnology seeks to detect food contaminants. Using microchips to detect and remove contaminants such as E. coli, anthrax or botulism from food may sound like Star Wars technology to some, but Larry Branen believes it's possible. The challenge is that researching and developing the necessary technology requires working with materials smaller than a hair. Such research even has its own name: nanotechnology. "At such small levels, there are changes in the properties of materials and how they interact. Scientifically, we must approach them in new ways," said Branen, associate director of the University of Idaho's Research Institute here. (Capital Press 10.21.05) http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=67&SubSectionID=617&ArticleID=20611&TM=30977.9 Future nanotech tools made from clay. NaturalNano says that by filling Halloysite tubes with copper and then mixing the tubes into a polymer, a manufacturer could make an electrically conductive plastic. If filled with fungicides, the Halloysite particles--which consist of aluminum, oxygen, silicon and hydrogen--could be swirled into paint to make it more resistant to mildew and mold. Time-released coatings could also be added to make all-day deodorant. The tubes could even have agricultural uses. (Cnet 10.26.05) http://news.com.com/Future+nanotech+tools+made+from+clay/2100-11390_3-5914034.html Solar cell solution: nanotechnology. One-hundred times smaller than bacteria, more efficient than plastic film, nanotubes prove promising at harvesting sun's power. If the nation decided to blanket its rooftops in solar cells -- generating as much as 75 percent of all electricity produced today -- it would be costly beyond belief and probably impossible: There isn't enough silicon. Scientists for 20 years have searched for an answer in very thin, plastic films, something that could be rolled out nationwide for a few cents per square foot. But they haven't proved very efficient at harvesting the power of the sun and tend to break down in air and sunlight. (Inside Bay Area 10.21.05) http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/localnews/ci_3138128 $35 Million in Awards to 12 Cancer Nanotechnology Platform Partnerships. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), today announced funding for a major component of its $144.3 million, five-year initiative for nanotechnology in cancer research. Awards totaling $35 million over five years, with $7 million total in the first year, will establish 12 Cancer Nanotechnology Platform Partnerships. (Azonano 10.18.05) http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=1548 Physicists have observed the Jahn-Teller effect in a molecule for the first time. The effect was seen in carbon-60 molecules doped with potassium. The results could shed more light on the fundamental properties of molecular nanostructures (Science 310 468)."The Jahn-Teller effect has long been known to play an important role in the relationship between the structure of molecules and their energy levels, but this is the first time anyone has directly imaged it at the single-molecule level," says Mike Crommie of the University of California at Berkeley and the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, leader of the team that saw the effect. (nanotechweb 10.24.05) http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/4/10/15?alert=1 Nanotechnology targets new food packaging products. Exciting new nanotechnology products for food packaging are in the development pipeline or, as in the case of anti-microbial films, have already entered the market, according to a report published this month by an EU-funded research team. "While far reaching visions such as nanotech food synthesizers or pathogen killing nanobots are not expected to become reality within the next decades, nanotechnology related R&D for food processing, food engineering and food packaging is in the innovation pipeline of the food industry today," the team said. (Foodnavigator 10.12.05) http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?n=63147-nanotechnology-food-packaging-research-and-development Center on Nanotechnology and Society Created at IIT. A nearly $500,000 Congressional earmark is helping fund the creation of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Housed in IIT's Chicago-Kent College of Law, the Center will examine legal, social and ethical implications of nanotechnology. (nanotechwire 10.13.05) http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=2440 Ford, Boeing and Northwestern Form Nanotechnology Alliance. Ford Motor Co., The Boeing Co. and Northwestern University have big plans to work together to make the future very small. The two companies and the university are in final negotiations to form a new alliance to research commercial applications of nanotechnology, the branch of engineering that deals with things smaller than 100 nm and at the molecular level. Ford and Boeing will each provide financial support for three years, and Northwestern's Robert R. McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science will provide administration of the alliance and office space for a full-time Ford employee who will serve as the industrial alliance coordinator. (Photonics 10.1205) http://www.photonics.com/todaysheadlines/XQ/ASP/navclick.true/QX/article.asp?id=5862 Engineers at Purdue University have shown how researchers might better use tiny hollow fibers called "multi-walled carbon nanotubes" to more precisely measure structures and devices for electronics and other applications. Findings will appear in the November issue of the journal Nanotechnology. Researchers attach the tubes to the ends of imaging instruments called atomic force microscopes. Because the tubes are long and slender, their shape is ideal for the emerging field of "nanometrology," which is precisely measuring structures on the scale of nanometers, or billionths of a meter. (Physorg 10.12.05) http://www.physorg.com/news7175.html Nanotechnology Emergence Generates High Expectations, Expert Says. Independent oversight of research needed to address any health hazards. The following article appears in the October 2005 issue of the State Department's electronic journal Economic Perspectives. It is based on an op-ed article published on the Pennsylvania State University Internet site but has been revised and updated by the author for this publication. The complete issue, titled The Promise of Biotechnology, can be viewed on the USINFO Web site. (begin byliner) Wither Nanotechnology? By Akhlesh Lakhtakia Distinguished Professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Pennsylvania State University. Think small, dream big" is a typical slogan about the promise of nanotechnology within the scientific research community. Once relegated to pure fiction, nanotechnology is becoming increasingly linked with advances in biotechnology and information technology. With annual expenditure for nanotechnology research in the United States estimated to be in excess of $2.6 billion in 2004, the word "nano" is even finding its way into popular culture, from daily horoscopes to newspaper cartoons. (USINFO.STATE.GOV 10.27.05) http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=October&x=20051027140334SAikceinawz0.3895227&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html Proofreading and error-correction in nanomaterials inspired by nature. Mimicking nature, a procedure developed by researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign can find and correct defects in self-assembled nanomaterials. The new proofreading and error-removal process is based on catalytic DNA and represents a paradigm shift in nanoscale science and engineering. (nanotechwire 10.18.05) http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=2461 Nanomanufacturing: First Systematic Study Of Cadmium Selenide Nanostructure Growth Yields Production 'Road Map'. Researchers have taken an important step toward high-volume production of new nanometer-scale structures with the first systematic study of growth conditions that affect production of one-dimensional nanostructures from the optoelectronic material cadmium selenide (CdSe). Using the results from more than 150 different experiments in which temperature and pressure conditions were systematically varied, nanotechnology researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology created a "road map" to guide future nanomanufacturing using the vapor-liquid-solid (VLS) technique. (ScienceDaily 10.30.05) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051028140332.htm Nano skyscrapers may precede space elevator. Liftport, a space-infrastucture company, has been among those who support construction of a space elevator, a long thin cable made of carbon nanotubes anchored to a platform or ship at sea and extending out into space. Held in place by the earth's rotation, the space elevator, with the help of robots, would ferry materials to outer space. (ZDnet 10.26.05) http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9596_22-5914208.html Happy Hallows Eve. Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Nano animations for hire: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: file:///C|/DOCUME%7E1/FORTEAN1/LOCALS%7E1/TEMP/nsmail.txt URL: