From c.hales at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au Fri Dec 1 00:05:31 2006 From: c.hales at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au (Colin Geoffrey Hales) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 11:05:31 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational thinking In-Reply-To: <456F2DE1.5070309@mydruthers.com> References: <456F2DE1.5070309@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <1243.128.250.225.217.1164931531.squirrel@webmail.student.unimelb.edu.au> > Jef Allbright wrote: >> A key difference between the sacrifices of the founding fathers and >> those of the kamikaze pilots was that the founding fathers were >> taking action on behalf of a wide sphere of self-identity to promote >> their values into the significant future, while the kamikaze pilots >> were acting within the narrow sphere of individual identity in fear >> of societal pressure and dire consequences in the very near term. >> (Note that the question asked about the rationality of the pilots, >> and not of their commanders. Note also that we have not addressed >> factors of pride or patriotism which have little overlap with the >> domain of individual rational decision-making.) > > This seems to be uncharitable to the motivations of the Japanese pilots, > and I can't tell whether the intent is to include all uniformed > soldiers, all those acting in the moment, or only conscripts. > > I won't try to argue that those pilots were acting rightly, or that they > were fighting on behalf of a noble cause, but to say that they were > irrational because their immediate motivations were due to training and > group pressure doesn't give any credit to their feelings of patriotism > and their desire to support a large cause. > > When phrased that way, all soldiers in combat act for those motivations, > but surely some of them have decided to place themselves in that > position. That was what the founders of the US were doing when they > made the aforementioned pledge. Once having done so, they each often > found themselves pressured by the force of later events and earlier > commitments. But you give them credit for the noble motivations behind > the earlier pledge, rather than the situations the pledge let them into. > > Would you like to draw a finer or a different distinction? How do you > want to characterize the actions of an American in uniform, who > voluntarily enlists, and later finds him or herself in a battlefield > situation, falling on a grenade to save fellow soldiers? Or soldiers in > earlier wars who made attacks against daunting odds in service of a > cause they chose to defend? > > Chris Consider this: "... that neither beliefs nor acts of belief, nor decisions, nor even preferences, are reasonable or rational except in the sense that they are reached by procedures methods that are reasonable or rational. (The phrase rational belief is rather like the phrase ?fast food?.)..." ?Induction: A Problem Solved" in David Miller 2005, "Out of Error" p111. The healthy human brain (=rationality) can come to almost any conclusion/belief. Consider advertising. Consider religion. That the belief is 'rational' means that it was reached through a rational process, not that it makes any sense! The payoff: you get to be wrong (=creative). And you get to die for your country. Cheers, Colin From hibbert at mydruthers.com Fri Dec 1 00:47:18 2006 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:47:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational thinking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <456F7B96.7050101@mydruthers.com> Jef Allbright wrote: > Chris, I'm going to insert here two directly relevant lines from my > post that somehow you neglected to include in your reply: I hope I don't have to quote everything relevant in your message in order to be understood to be taking that as context. Your main point seems to be these > (1) The rationality of any act can be assessed only according to its > effectiveness toward achieving specified goals (creating the desired > future) within context and has no direct correspondence with good or > bad, right or wrong. > > (2) However, actions that are seen to work over increasing scope are > seen as increasingly good -- as they increasingly promote the values > of the assessing agent. > > (3) And actions that are seen to work over increasing scope are seen > as increasingly moral -- as they increasingly promote the values of > the assessing population. I think I agree with you that we attribute more moral weight to more carefully considered decisions of increasing scope. I don't agree that rationality equates to effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes. I prefer to use the term when decisions take into consideration the likelihoods of desired and unwanted consequences. Sometimes rational choices produce the wrong outcomes, but that doesn't mean a lucky gamble is rational in hindsight. The point I was trying to make in my earlier post was that it is hard to tease out what the relevant distinctions are between your two examples. In one, you chose a group we hold in high regard, sitting calmly in a large gathering, explicitly considering matters of deep philosophy and distant impact, and who seem to have made choices that turned out well for us, and have made them into heroes. In the other, you choose old enemies, caught up in the moment, under heavy pressure to go along with the group, and making decisions which seemed to have been bad for them and not to have helped their society. Is the difference in apparent rationality due to the social pressures of the situation, or the cause for which they fought? Do we have preconceptions based on who they were, how the battle turned out, or the results they achieved for themselves or their posterity? It's all a tangle. If you had replaced either party in the original comparison with WW II troops on suicide missions, we'd learn very different things from what we conclude from your contrast, and the emotional weights wouldn't prejudice the conclusions so much. The country's founders had time to make more considered decisions than combat soldiers entrusted with a suicide mission. We respect them more highly, but the soldiers' decisions in context are set up by earlier choices. The founders were making context-setting choices. I think this is the point you were trying to make. The point seems much clearer without the emotional weight of hero vs. enemy, winner vs. loser, and so on. I'm not sure what to conclude from a comparison of allied troops, who also sometimes were sent on suicide missions, with the kamikazes. The social pressure is seen to be less (few would say of them "the shame would be much worse than an honorable death"), but is present. They had more access to news about the context of the battle. We believe that they were fighting on the right side, but I don't know whether, in the context of a conversation on extropy-chat, it makes sense to give one side credit for knowing they are on the right side. But both groups made similar decisions--to give up their lives for something larger. Was one group more rational than the other because they were on the winning side? Are members of a suicide team more rational when their raid succeeds in its goals than when it fails? re: your rock climbing example. I'm a climber, and perhaps I'm reading details into the example that you didn't intend. If I'm at the bottom of a rope, and convinced that the rope won't hold three people, the conclusion is that it's a choice of the other two surviving or none surviving. I'd sure look hard for other choices, but sometimes you're just the person at the bottom of the rope, and you can only save any lives by giving up your own. There are other situations in which you end up with the conclusion that you cut the rope and let your partner die because there's no way to save him, and if you don't cut him loose, you'll die, too. It's not obvious to me that there are trade-offs to be made in these situations. You can rail against the unfairness, but if you wait too long, everyone dies. If you value the lives of the others, sometimes you have to give up your own life in order to not cost them theirs. I think I'm agreeing with you when I say that it's not particularly an altruistic act. In this case, to follow your terminology, it's rational within the context. It's mostly a local issue, so it doesn't bring in much of morality. > I would give the founding fathers a great deal of moral credit for > their rationally considered actions to create a better future for > posterity. I wouldn't think of assigning credit for the "situations > the pledge led them into." I'm not even sure any of us know what > that might mean, although the pattern is a familiar idiom in popular > thought, as in "that was wonderful how you avoided all those > obstacles and got the car back on road after falling asleep at the > wheel." My point is that it makes sense to give credit for > intentional acts, not those which are accidental or > contra-intentional [better word here?]. To try to find some common ground, I agree that the founders get a great deal of moral credit for what they did during the constitutional convention. When I mentioned the "situations the pledge led them into", I was only pointing out that like other soldiers in other wars, many of them ended up having to make choices in context, that their earlier choices led them to. I guess it's fair to evaluate the rationality, morality, or innate goodness of a battlefield decision within its context. But if you want to compare the actions of the founders with those of the kamikaze pilots, I don't see why it makes sense to evaluate one only in its local context, and the other with regard to it's global effects. That's why I pulled these words of yours out of the original message: > A key difference between the sacrifices of the founding fathers and > those of the kamikaze pilots was that the founding fathers were > taking action on behalf of a wide sphere of self-identity to promote > their values into the significant future, while the kamikaze pilots > were acting within the narrow sphere of individual identity in fear > of societal pressure and dire consequences in the very near term. Even when I look at that paragraph in its original context I see many levels of distinction. Chris -- It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org http://mydruthers.com Prediction Market Software: http://zocalo.sourceforge.net Skype: ChrisHibbert Yahoo Instant Message: ag_cth From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 1 01:47:41 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:47:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] cool visualization of time In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200612010147.kB11lqPV020749@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Here's a cool site: http://home.tiscali.nl/annejan/swf/timeline.swf This brings me to a question I wondered about the other day. A few years ago when PayPal showed up, Eli and others pointed out that it could be used to give donations to reward or encourage people who put up cool or interesting content on their sites. You could applaud someone by leaving them a little tip, down to a few cents or even fractions of a cent. So now a few years down the road, how did that work out? I know a number of extropians here have good websites. Did anyone ever make any money by donations? Did anyone get regular PayPal donations years ago and have it diminish? Did anyone get job offers from their websites? spike From pj at pj-manney.com Fri Dec 1 03:21:00 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:21:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Music and Science Message-ID: <28710158.2457741164943260233.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Thanks so much for this. It's really, really interesting and the idea that "Kepler discovered the laws of planetary motion while trying to achieve the Pythagorean purpose of finding the harmony of the celestial spheres" (Wiki) is very cool. In the book it goes! PJ The Avantguardian wrote: >Johannes Kepler was greatly inspired by what he though >of as the "music of the spheres". A concept first >proposed by Pythagoras the ancient Greek. Kepler's >three laws of planetary motion still hold their own >under General Relativity, faring much better than >Newton's laws in this regard. Here is a site that >discusses it: > >http://www.skyscript.co.uk/kepler.html From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Dec 1 04:49:19 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:49:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational thinking In-Reply-To: <456F7B96.7050101@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: Chris Hibbert wrote: > I hope I don't have to quote everything relevant in your > message in order to be understood to be taking that as context. No you don't have to include all the relevant text, but the funny thing is that twice now you've deleted my sentence stating that both classes of actors, (the founding fathers and the kamikaze pilots) were acting rationally, acting effectively within their contextual environment. But it's clear that that relevant line hasn't been making an impression on you, because earlier you said you thought I was calling the kamikaze pilots irrational, and now (below) you're referring to the "difference in apparent rationality". To summarize: First I said something about rationality: That rationality can be assessed only within context. **** I keep saying I think they were each acting rationally, acting as effectively as they could within their respective contextual environments. **** I then went on to say something about morality: That increasing morality corresponds with increasingly rational actions applied to promoting increasingly shared values over increasing scope. **** I keep saying that I think the founding fathers' actions were more moral than the kamikaze pilots' actions, because, despite effectively equal degree of rationality, the founding fathers were acting on behalf of a larger shared identity, to promote values that would have consequences over larger scope. **** > > Your main point seems to be these >> (1) The rationality of any act can be assessed only >> according to its effectiveness toward achieving specified >> goals (creating the desired future) within context and >> has no direct correspondence with good or bad, right or wrong. >> >> (2) However, actions that are seen to work over increasing >> scope are seen as increasingly good -- as they increasingly >> promote the values of the assessing agent. >> >> (3) And actions that are seen to work over increasing scope >> are seen as increasingly moral -- as they increasingly promote >> the values of the assessing population. > > I think I agree with you that we attribute more moral weight > to more carefully considered decisions of increasing scope. Okay so far... > I don't agree that rationality equates to effectiveness in > achieving desired outcomes. I prefer to use the term when > decisions take into consideration the likelihoods of desired > and unwanted consequences. Sometimes rational choices > produce the wrong outcomes, but that doesn't mean a lucky > gamble is rational in hindsight. I fully agree with this and can only blame my less than rigorous writing. Of course there are several similar loopholes in the vicinity. > The point I was trying to make in my earlier post was that it > is hard to tease out what the relevant distinctions are > between your two examples. > In one, you chose a group we hold in high regard, sitting > calmly in a large gathering, explicitly considering matters > of deep philosophy and distant impact, and who seem to have > made choices that turned out well for us, and have made them > into heroes. In the other, you choose old enemies, caught up > in the moment, under heavy pressure to go along with the > group, and making decisions which seemed to have been bad for > them and not to have helped their society. Actually I've never thought of the Japanese as enemies, being much too young to have developed such feelings during the way, and having several close friends in Japan. I also haven't considered their decisions to become kamikaze pilots as bad for them. As I've said repeatedly, I think they did the best they could have in that situation. The consequences of refusing to become kamikaze pilots would have been much worse. > Is the difference in apparent rationality I keep saying that I think both the kamikaze pilots and the founding fathers were acting relatively rationally within their respective contexts. In other words, I don't agree and have never asserted that their was a difference in apparent rationality. > due to the social pressures of the situation, or the cause > for which they fought? Do we have preconceptions based on > who they were, how the battle turned out, or the results > they achieved for themselves or their posterity? No, but maybe this is clearer now based on clarifications above. > It's all a tangle. > > If you had replaced either party in the original comparison > with WW II troops on suicide missions, we'd learn very > different things from what we conclude from your contrast, > and the emotional weights wouldn't prejudice the conclusions so much. I'm pretty sure I haven't been including any emotional weights... > > The country's founders had time to make more considered > decisions than combat soldiers entrusted with a suicide > mission. We respect them more highly, but the soldiers' > decisions in context are set up by earlier choices. The > founders were making context-setting choices. I think this > is the point you were trying to make. The point seems much > clearer without the emotional weight of hero vs. enemy, > winner vs. loser, and so on. Please recall that I have been comparing moral scope, not rationality. > > I'm not sure what to conclude from a comparison of allied > troops, who also sometimes were sent on suicide missions, > with the kamikazes. Huh? I'm quite sure there was only a Japanese pilot in those kamikaze planes. Maybe you meant to say that Allied troops were also sent on suicide missions. > The social pressure is seen to be less > (few would say of them "the shame would be much worse than an > honorable death"), but is present. They had more access to > news about the context of the battle. We believe that they > were fighting on the right side, but I don't know whether, in > the context of a conversation on extropy-chat, it makes sense > to give one side credit for knowing they are on the right > side. But both groups made similar decisions--to give up > their lives for something larger. > Was one group more rational than the other because they were > on the winning side? Are members of a suicide team more > rational when their raid succeeds in its goals than when it fails? No, I think we have established that success is not a direct measure of rationality. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Dec 1 05:18:29 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:18:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational thinking In-Reply-To: <1243.128.250.225.217.1164931531.squirrel@webmail.student.unimelb.edu.au> Message-ID: Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: > Consider this: > > "... that neither beliefs nor acts of belief, nor decisions, > nor even preferences, are reasonable or rational except in > the sense that they are reached by procedures methods that > are reasonable or rational. (The phrase rational belief is > rather like the phrase 'fast food'.)..." Turtles all the way down, eh? Isn't that the same kind of thinking that killed Buridan's Ass? I understand the point, and avoid the word "belief" for that very reason, but isn't it interesting that absolutely effective decisions are made and actions taken all the while lacking any valid means of support? Every system functions within a context. Despite all the uncertainties, the spider was just as dead after being swatted by the master. > "Induction: A Problem Solved" in David Miller 2005, "Out of > Error" p111. I've had this book on my Amazon wish list for a while now but it's a bit pricey and I don't know when I'll get to it. Checked UCSB library but they don't have it either. Do you have a used copy to sell? - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 1 07:10:28 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:10:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] 'a process of non-thinking called faith' 2 (2) References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com><456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jeff writes > Islam has been on the defense, legitimately so, against western > aggression, domination and expansion for a long time. What about the entire history since 632. They've changed much less than we have in the interval. In most instances (except the Balkans) that Moslem armies conquered, the native religion and culture got stamped out. > The most recent spasm of western aggression beginning in Nov of > 1917 and continuing with substantial ferocity to this day. But it's NOTHING LIKE their successful aggressions. Lebanon used to be a Christian country, as recently as the 1950's or 1960's. Look, the only reason that Moslem armies were able to overrun Spain in 711 (or the reason that Spanish armies eventually won it back---a slow process taking 800 years), was that their armies were stronger. The contest between the west and Islam---raging on for so many centuries culminating in the near loss of Vienna on two occasions separated by 150 years or so---has been strangely quiet the last two hundred years. The reason for this is absolutely overwhelming Western military superiority. What grounds do you have for thinking that *their* behavior would be any different than it was, were only the military positions reversed? When the British and French assumed political control over the middle-east, why was the Muslim culture left untouched? Why didn't the west do the same thing to the middle east that it had done centuries earlier to North America? Lee From hibbert at mydruthers.com Fri Dec 1 06:59:15 2006 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:59:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational thinking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <456FD2C3.1080205@mydruthers.com> > Chris Hibbert wrote: >> > I hope I don't have to quote everything relevant in your >> > message in order to be understood to be taking that as context. > > No you don't have to include all the relevant text, but the funny > thing is that twice now you've deleted my sentence Hmmm. Seems we have different approaches to constructing a reply. I don't delete particular sentences, I include the particular sentences that give context to what I'm saying. In this case, I didn't understand your argument, so I didn't recognize the points you made to provide a foundation. I left them out because they weren't the points I wanted to address. > stating that both classes > of actors, (the founding fathers and the kamikaze pilots) were acting > rationally, acting effectively within their contextual environment. But > it's clear that that relevant line hasn't been making an impression on > you, because earlier you said you thought I was calling the kamikaze > pilots irrational, and now (below) you're referring to the "difference > in apparent rationality". > > To summarize: > > First I said something about rationality: That rationality can be > assessed only within context. > > **** I keep saying I think they were each acting rationally, acting as > effectively as they could within their respective contextual > environments. **** > > I then went on to say something about morality: That increasing morality > corresponds with increasingly rational actions applied to promoting > increasingly shared values over increasing scope. > > **** I keep saying that I think the founding fathers' actions were more > moral than the kamikaze pilots' actions, because, despite effectively > equal degree of rationality, the founding fathers were acting on behalf > of a larger shared identity, to promote values that would have > consequences over larger scope. **** Thanks. That exposition makes your stance clear to me. I was missing it, probably mostly because I saw your example of kamikaze pilots as an example of the "other" and jumped to a conclusion about where you were heading. My apologies. > Actually I've never thought of the Japanese as enemies, being much too > young to have developed such feelings during the way, and having several > close friends in Japan. I also haven't considered their decisions to > become kamikaze pilots as bad for them. As I've said repeatedly, I > think they did the best they could have in that situation. The > consequences of refusing to become kamikaze pilots would have been much > worse. I lived in Japan for several years as well, but was too young for deep discussions of rationality or morality at the time. I did see your repeated claim that they were rational. I thought your point was that rationality can lead you astray rather than that rationality is distinct from morality. > I keep saying that I think both the kamikaze pilots and the founding > fathers were acting relatively rationally within their respective > contexts. In other words, I don't agree and have never asserted that > their was a difference in apparent rationality. I get it now. >> > due to the social pressures of the situation, or the cause >> > for which they fought? Do we have preconceptions based on >> > who they were, how the battle turned out, or the results >> > they achieved for themselves or their posterity? > > No, but maybe this is clearer now based on clarifications above. Yes. >> > I'm not sure what to conclude from a comparison of allied >> > troops, who also sometimes were sent on suicide missions, >> > with the kamikazes. > > Huh? I'm quite sure there was only a Japanese pilot in those kamikaze > planes. > > Maybe you meant to say that Allied troops were also sent on suicide > missions. I think what I wrote can be interpreted the same as if I had written >> I'm not sure what to conclude from a comparison of allied >> troops (who also sometimes were sent on suicide missions) >> with the kamikazes. But the latter would have been clearer. Usually I'm guilty of using too many parenthetical asides, rather than too few. Thanks for sticking with me, Chris -- All sensory cells [in all animals] have in common the presence of ... cilia [with a constant] structure. It provides a strong argument for common ancestry. The common ancestor ... was a spirochete bacterium. --Lynn Margulis (http://edge.org/q2005/q05_7.html#margulis) Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org http://mydruthers.com From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 1 08:54:16 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 00:54:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational thinking References: <00f801c71428$a1413100$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><456E5CAD.9000207@pobox.com><002101c71497$86209d10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <456F3AC1.7020304@pobox.com> Message-ID: <009101c71526$838c0280$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eliezer writes >> Those Founders deployed their rationality to good effect; the Nazis >> obviously did not. But that was not the question. > > Um, no human being is "rational" which may be one reason why I declined > to provide a definite answer to your question. I might as well mention something else that's also obvious: namely, that rationality is, of course, a matter of degree, and when some people (evidently not you) were maintaining that suicide bombers were irrational, what they meant, of course, is that they were a lot less rational than normal. > There's varying degrees of rationality on many different levels. We agree. >> Yes. But the question still remains, When they put their own lives >> at great risk, were they being rational, and how exactly is that >> fundamentally different from the case of the kamikazes? >> >> (It's Obvious to Me / What the Answer should Be :-) > > Maybe I'm reading too much into your question - assuming that you were > looking for a nonobvious answer. Actually, given the potential for miscommunication, I simply wondered if you shared my belief that in terms of rationality the Founders were no different than kamikaze pilots (the ones, that is---to acknowledge criticism from other quarters---who felt an overwhelming reverence for the Emperor and a keen sense of duty and loyalty to Japan). > I thought you acknowledged that human beings can have interests > (components in their utility function) beyond their own self-preservation. Indeed I did. And I thought that I was the one making a big deal of this. > but maybe you're just fishing for the obvious answer, "They > sacrificed themselves for different ends, and rationality is neutral > about the question of self-sacrifice as such." Yes, that's it. Lee From hibbert at mydruthers.com Fri Dec 1 18:08:17 2006 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:08:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational thinking In-Reply-To: <009101c71526$838c0280$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <00f801c71428$a1413100$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><456E5CAD.9000207@pobox.com><002101c71497$86209d10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <456F3AC1.7020304@pobox.com> <009101c71526$838c0280$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <45706F91.1020003@mydruthers.com> To butt in on a conversation between Lee and Eliezer, > Actually, given the potential for miscommunication, I simply wondered > if you shared my belief that in terms of rationality the Founders > were no different than kamikaze pilots (the ones, that is---to > acknowledge criticism from other quarters---who felt an overwhelming > reverence for the Emperor and a keen sense of duty and loyalty to > Japan). One of my conclusions from the discussion that Jef and I were having is that while you can call them both rational, they aren't the same kind of rationality. The kamikaze pilots were doing the best they could in a fairly constrained situation. Their previous actions and decisions led them to where they were, but in context, they weren't acting irrationally. The founders of the constitution were calmly considering all options, discussing alternative theories and approaches, and thinking about the effects of their proposals as far out as they could see. I'm willing to say that they're both rational processes, but I wouldn't say that they're not different. Chris -- It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Dec 1 19:29:10 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:29:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational thinking In-Reply-To: <45706F91.1020003@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: Chris Hibbert wrote: > One of my conclusions from the discussion that Jef and I were > having is that while you can call them both rational, they > aren't the same kind of rationality. The kamikaze pilots > were doing the best they could in a fairly constrained > situation. Their previous actions and decisions led them to > where they were, but in context, they weren't acting > irrationally. The founders of the constitution were calmly > considering all options, discussing alternative theories and > approaches, and thinking about the effects of their proposals > as far out as they could see. Parsing this I get the following: Rationality of founding fathers Acted calmly. (While calmness is associated with greater rationality, their emotional state by itself says nothing about their rationality.) Thoroughly considered options, theories, approaches. (Not possible to consider "all" options as stated.) Thought about extended effects. Rationality of kamikaze pilots Did best they could under constraints. (I think you would also apply this to the other case.) Their past determined their present. (Applies to all cases.) Acted rationally within context. (I think you would also apply to the other case.) So it appears that your point is the following: "Two kinds of rationality" (1) Considered calmly and thoroughly within larger scope. (2) Considered quickly under pressure within smaller scope. Do you really think these are differences in kind, or could they be just qualitative differences of scale? Of course an angry person can be rational, right? Of course a quick decision under pressure can be rational, right? And consideration of extended consequences is always constrained to some extent. And let's be wary of falling into the thinking-trap whereby no decision is "rational" because no process of decision-making nor source of knowledge can be perfectly founded. Have you already read overviews of rational philosophy on the web to get a good idea of where your thinking fits? Or did I miss your point? Oh, and please don't confuse rationality with morality. If the difference isn't clear, I am happy to discuss it. - Jef P.S. Note that I do not necessarily agree with some of the surrounding statements such as that the founding fathers were generally calm, or that the kamikaze pilots were generally proud, but I wanted to clarify this so these details don't become issues for discussion. From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Dec 1 21:11:02 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:11:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] 'a process of non-thinking called faith' 2 (2) In-Reply-To: <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Lee, it's good to hear from you again, engage with you again. Too bad the subject isn't something where your talent for uniquely unconstrained thinking could deliver a richer yield. Nevertheless life is good. On 11/30/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > Jeff writes > > > Islam has been on the defense, legitimately so, against western > > aggression, domination and expansion for a long time. > > What about the entire history since 632. Sadly, you seem inclined (Where's your "different drummer" style on this subject?) to add your voice to the "All-Muslims-are-evil!" deracinated mob. Why go back to the heyday off Islamic expansion? It's not the current day or the current state of Islam. > They've changed > much less than we have in the interval. In most instances > (except the Balkans) that Moslem armies conquered, the > native religion and culture got stamped out. If I accepted this assertion as true, which I don't, (I seem to recall that Jews lived happily in Muslim societies, and were respected as fellow "peoples of the book" -- this one exception, to my mind, casts doubt, on your blanket assertion -- I would counter that most invading cultures replace the local religion with their own. It's neither unusual nor restricted to Islam. > > > The most recent spasm of western aggression beginning in Nov of > > 1917 and continuing with substantial ferocity to this day. > > But it's NOTHING LIKE their successful aggressions. Lebanon used > to be a Christian country, as recently as the 1950's or 1960's. Huh?!! Lebanon used to be part of Syria before the Brits and French carved the area up as their spoils after WW1. (Notwithstanding the feeble legitimacy associated with the "League of Notions" farcical moment in history.) But beyond the questionable legitimacy of separating "the" Lebanon from Syria, there's the simple fact that the slight majority the Maronite Christians enjoyed at one time was converted to a minority status not by Islamic aggression but rather by a higher Islamic birth rate. Do you really want to argue that the miracle of birth is an Islamic imperialist conspiracy? > Look, the only reason that Moslem armies were able to overrun > Spain in 711 (or the reason that Spanish armies eventually won it > back---a slow process taking 800 years), was that their armies > were stronger. > The contest between the west and Islam---raging on for so many > centuries culminating in the near loss of Vienna on two occasions > separated by 150 years or so---has been strangely quiet the last > two hundred years. "[The Ottomans] reached their zenith of power with Suleyman the Magnificent whose armies reached Hungary and Austria. From the 17th century onward with the rise of Westem European powers and later Russia, the power of the Ottomans began to wane." http://www.barkati.net/english/#11 > The reason for this is absolutely overwhelming > Western military superiority. > What grounds do you have for thinking > that *their* behavior would be any different than it was, were only > the military positions reversed? None. But the fact is the positions ARE NOT REVERSED. You disappoint me Lee with argument so feeble: the evil of the Bush/neocon cabal is to be overlooked because the evil of Islam WOULD BE JUST AS BAD IF Islam were in some other state (more akin to its long gone heyday) than a vast ineffectual pre-modern provincialism. Please Lee, return to shining a light on the unexplored philosophical realms of tech, human culture, and human nature. > When the British and French assumed political control over the > middle-east, why was the Muslim culture left untouched? Why > didn't the west do the same thing to the middle east that it had > done centuries earlier to North America? Perhaps because Islam couples religious zeal to patriotism, making defense of nation the same as defense of faith. The soldiers of Islam fight fiercely because they believe surrender is an act of apostasy, and martyrdom (keeping the faith) results in "going to heaven". The wife and I are enroute to our winter stomping grounds in Baja's East Cape region, so I'll be out of touch even more than usual. -- Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 22:14:59 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:14:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] 'a process of non-thinking called faith' 2 (2) In-Reply-To: <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <687398.26104.qm@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> Please go into some detail as how to rectify the situation. Do you want negotiations with the other side? to what purpose? to say What? what does the other side have to say to us? what message do they have to give us?: "just wait 'til we get our hands on your families; just wait 'til we plant a dirty bomb in DC"? There's no placating anyone whose fondest hope is to slice and dice you. You think it's mainly about imperialism-- it's a great more than that, it is very complicated. And just say Bush & Cheney were impeached, who would replace them? You can't just say 'impeach and remove them', there's got to be more of an outlook for the future. Do you want Nancy Pelosi, next in line, for President? Who do you want? The administration has screwed up the war effort, but are you completely free from doubt that a replacement for this administration if it were removed could handle it all more ably for the rest of this decade and into the next? Would the dislocation from removing this administration negate the admittedly positive results? Would this country be politically crippled from impeachment and removal? You don't know; nobody does. It's all up in the air, there are too many loose ends. It's all political parlor talk so far, and the brighter ones in the administration know that, as professionals they are aware of the entire situation. Jeff writes > Islam has been on the defense, legitimately so, against western > aggression, domination and expansion for a long time. --------------------------------- Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thomas at thomasoliver.net Sat Dec 2 00:58:59 2006 From: thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:58:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islam on defense? In-Reply-To: <687398.26104.qm@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> References: <687398.26104.qm@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7D0341C6-12B9-4DEC-9661-183DF4B78366@thomasoliver.net> Joe Biden seems to be vying for alpha dog at the moment. Bush is staying the course. (sigh . . . ) On Dec 1, 2006, at 3:14 PM, Al Brooks wrote: > [ . . . ]Do you want Nancy Pelosi, next in line, for President? Who > do you want? The administration has screwed up the war effort, but > are you completely free from doubt that a replacement for this > administration if it were removed could handle it all more ably for > the rest of this decade and into the next? > Would the dislocation from removing this administration negate the > admittedly positive results? Would this country be politically > crippled from impeachment and removal? You don't know; nobody does. > It's all up in the air, there are too many loose ends. It's all > political parlor talk so far, and the brighter ones in the > administration know that, as professionals they are aware of the > entire situation. > > Jeff writes > > > Islam has been on the defense, legitimately so, against western > > aggression, domination and expansion for a long time. > > Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 02:27:51 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:27:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Islam on defense? In-Reply-To: <7D0341C6-12B9-4DEC-9661-183DF4B78366@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: <252410.66529.qm@web51614.mail.yahoo.com> Tom, men and alpha dogs are one and the same; in fact a man by definition is a hog, with few exceptions. Maybe in the UK it's a little different, but American men are swine, that's a fact-- how do you think America got to be top dog? You know how bloodyminded American guys are? That's why sex is so important, if men weren't balling they'd be committing more acts of violence. I tolerate Dubya, he is a swine but Jimmy Carter didn't cut it because he was considered a "girly-man"... as governor of our most important state would say. Besides, Nietszche had a point: the weak are often jealous of the strong. It's all business-- even religion is business!! The Catholic Church is big business and that's alright, if wasn't them it might very well be someone worse. > Joe Biden seems to be vying for alpha dog at the > moment. Bush is > staying the course. (sigh . . . ) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Dec 2 02:58:10 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:58:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] 'a process of non-thinking called faith' 2 (2) References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jeff---likewise, it's good to talk to you again, thanks for your generous personal comments :-) For those short-sighted individualists who embrace Crocker's Rules, human psychology is very subtle, and I'm very happy to remain on good personal terms with very nice and fully civilized and courteous people like you! :-) If you say something that strikes me as extremely dumb or ignorant, I'm going to stifle my response :-) Always have, always will, just as I know you do (thanks!). >> > Islam has been on the defense, legitimately so, against western >> > aggression, domination and expansion for a long time. >> >> What about the entire history since 632. > > Sadly, you seem inclined (Where's your "different drummer" style on > this subject?) to add your voice to the "All-Muslims-are-evil!" > deracinated mob. Why go back to the heyday off Islamic expansion? > It's not the current day or the current state of Islam. The recent bombings in Spain were, according to Al Qaeda, for the purpose of furthering the struggle against the insufferable Spanish aggression of 722 - 1492 in trying to get their country back. >> They've changed much less than we have in the interval. In most >> instances (except the Balkans) that Moslem armies conquered, the >> native religion and culture got stamped out. > > If I accepted this assertion as true, which I don't, (I seem to > recall that Jews lived happily in Muslim societies, and were respected > as fellow "peoples of the book" -- this one exception, to my mind, > casts doubt, on your blanket assertion -- I would counter that most > invading cultures replace the local religion with their own. It's > neither unusual nor restricted to Islam. "Invading cultures", you say! You seem to be of the frame of mind that suggests it's all right to be an invading culture so long as that culture is not yours. > "[The Ottomans] reached their zenith of power with Suleyman the > Magnificent whose armies reached Hungary and Austria. From the 17th > century onward with the rise of Westem European powers and later > Russia, the power of the Ottomans began to wane." > http://www.barkati.net/english/#11 Yes, exactly. Thanks. But notice that it is all about *power*. It has always been about power, and always will be about power. Except in a few historically insignicant cultures. For example, the Quakers could afford to be not about power because they were safely protected by the more serious English speaking people about them. (Actually, it was a good deal for both: the Quaker economic prosperity and high birth rate provided strength to the more responsible parts of their countries who did not want to be overrun by the Dutch or French.) But *our* culture is now a great exception! People like you hold the west to an impossibly high standard. A so-called "high standard" that dooms societies who adopt it. And when/if ours goes down, so does enlightenment and most of the things you cherish. >> What grounds do you have for thinking that *their* behavior >> would be any different than it was, were only the military >> positions reversed? > > None. But the fact is the positions ARE NOT REVERSED. Well, then quit commiting Fatal Error #4: "The victim is virtuous." Remember, sad as it may be to the idealists here and on this list, history has always been about power in exactly the same way that evolution has always been about fitness and struggle. > You disappoint me Lee with argument so feeble: the evil of the Bush/neocon > cabal is to be overlooked because the evil of Islam WOULD BE JUST AS > BAD IF Islam were in some other state (more akin to its long gone > heyday) than a vast ineffectual pre-modern provincialism. I may not choose to dispute that the Bush/neocon position is what you'd call evil. But I would suggest that it may be expedient, and that failing to take a strong stand against enemies is, in the long run, suicide. Imagine any Maya city-state, or American plains-Indian tribe adopting the standards you advocate. Would we ever have heard about them? No! Because their neighbors would have made short work of them. > The wife and I are enroute to our winter stomping grounds in Baja's > East Cape region, so I'll be out of touch even more than usual. Have a great time, Jeff! Lee From hibbert at mydruthers.com Sat Dec 2 03:10:56 2006 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:10:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational thinking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4570EEC0.2010002@mydruthers.com> Jef Albright said: > So it appears that your point is the following: > > "Two kinds of rationality" > (1) Considered calmly and thoroughly within larger scope. > (2) Considered quickly under pressure within smaller scope. > > Do you really think these are differences in kind, or could they be > just qualitative differences of scale? Of course an angry person can > be rational, right? Of course a quick decision under pressure can be > rational, right? And consideration of extended consequences is > always constrained to some extent. I'm willing to agree that there are gradations between them. That doesn't mean we can't make distinctions between them. The fact that hot and cold both lie along a scale, and that 50 degrees is hot in some contexts and cold in others doesn't mean that it isn't useful to notice the difference. > And let's be wary of falling into the thinking-trap whereby no decision > is "rational" because no process of decision-making nor source of > knowledge can be perfectly founded. Have you already read overviews of > rational philosophy on the web to get a good idea of where your thinking > fits? > > Or did I miss your point? Maybe you did, or maybe I'm missing some point you're making. I don't understand what you're trying to say about thinking-traps here. Does it have something to do with my claim that (1) and (2), while both being kinds of rationality are at extreme ends of a scale? > Oh, and please don't confuse rationality with morality. If the > difference isn't clear, I am happy to discuss it. I think I left out morality this time around. Does it appear that I made a reference to it? Chris -- I think that, for babies, every day is first love in Paris. Every wobbly step is skydiving, every game of hide and seek is Einstein in 1905.--Alison Gopnik (http://edge.org/q2005/q05_9.html#gopnik) Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Dec 2 04:07:30 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:07:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Good Epistemology (was Rational thinking) References: <4570EEC0.2010002@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <00e001c715c7$7005ec20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef wrote >> And let's be wary of falling into the thinking-trap whereby no decision >> is "rational" because no process of decision-making nor source of >> knowledge can be perfectly founded. and Chris wrote > I'm willing to agree that there are gradations between [kinds of rationality]. > That doesn't mean we can't make distinctions between them. The fact that > hot and cold both lie along a scale, and that 50 degrees is hot in some > contexts and cold in others doesn't mean that it isn't useful to notice > the difference. And yesterday I wrote > > Um, no human being is "rational" which may be one reason why I declined > > to provide a definite answer to your question. > > I might as well mention something else that's also obvious: namely, > that rationality is, of course, a matter of degree... It's odd that we all need to be saying this to each other. I almost, in fact, deployed Chris's hot/cold analogy myself. Almost everything outside mathematics lies on a continnum. We all know that. Let's practice keeping it in mind. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Dec 2 14:53:59 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 06:53:59 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Undying [Threads on this List] References: Message-ID: <000c01c71621$b93e05d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> There seem to be a few threads on the list that seemingly cannot >> die. One of them involves pointless (IMO) struggles over the >> meaning of "rationality". This word has a reasonably clear >> definition provided on wikipedia, Okay: Here is it: General definition Rationality is a characteristic which human behaviour or human situations can have, and it normally refers to a means-ends relationship, in which there is a non-arbitrary relationship between a conscious purpose or goal and the means to achieve it. If the chosen means are indeed conducive to achieving the purpose or goal, they are judged rational, if not, they are judged irrational. Behaviour which is arbitrary or random is normally regarded as irrational. However, purposes and goals can themselves be judged rational or irrational, with reference to other relevant means-ends relationships. >> although there is also a Gordian knot of circular definitions scattered >> over other sources. Well, the wikipedia definition plainly tries to cover too many bases for our purposes here. (I have no argument with it for a Wikipedia description, but we require a narrower usage.) Moreover, I haven't seen a *problem* arising because we didn't know what the term referred to; yes, we wonder about what is the most useful scope of it we ought to employ, but that's all, and doesn't IMO really cause confusion. >> There is no need to invent a definition of this common term, and if new >> but related referents need a name, it's better to come up with a new word. Quite right. But neologisms are almost always as futile as "attempting to define all your terms and prove all your propositions". [1] >> I know that since "rational" has strong positive emotional >> and moral connotations (especially among us self-declared >> rationalists), there is the temptation to redefine the term >> so as to be able to claim the moral high ground but it only >> sows confusion (irrationality, one might say) and makes for >> horribly boring threads. My general advice has been for one to avoid horribly boring threads, (for what it's worth). > Rafal, I agree with you that it gets old rehashing what we mean by > rationality. Same goes for personal identity, free-will, morality and > X*. I dispute that the problem is inability to reach and agree upon common definition. At least in most cases, even we on the extropian list are far too intelligent to just debate terminology; in most these cases there is something real that is bothering people. (An interesting exception, however, is "qualia". People who believe in qualia just have their epistemology so screwed up that they're usually beyond help.) > But it's interesting to me that this problem of understanding runs so > deeply on a common thread tied to the meaning of self. I demur slightly; morality has never to me seemed to depend on the meaning of self. > And it's very interesting that we have yet to come to terms with this, > or agree widely that it's a problem, even as we claim to anticipate and > embrace radical technological change that clearly threatens to challenge > our practical understanding of these concepts. I feel that one of Jef's usual exhortations that morality is about what works coming on. > There's a tendency for thinkers of above average intelligence to > discover and climb the mountain of libertarian philosophy nearly to its > peak and stand there in awe of the elegance of its structure and the > sharpness of its fine point. But fewer then move back down the > slope--not all the way down to the tepid waters of "ideal"democracy > --but partway down to the fog at the edge of chaos where Self > meets the adjacent possible, and novel structures branch anew. Oh, I was wrong. Instead, we have material that could start about four interesting threads. > Sorry to go all poetic on your shit, but there's a self-reinforcing > sterility to certain forms of rational thought, and it takes more than > logic to break out of that kind of rut. Quite a number of us have been viewing rationality---or as I like to call it---"hyperrationality" with deep suspicion for a long time. If you've not read "The Robot's Rebellion", I cannot recommend it highly enough. It's not that I entirely sympathize with the author ---he's a socialist, for one thing, but he very clearly delineates what the problem is here, and suggests language and provides information that seem to me crucial for making progress. > *X in the sequence above stands for an as yet unimplemented form of > collaborative social decision making based on a rational understanding > of the preceding items in the sequence. See the thread? You should make it clear that this is only a conjecture on your part that such a form of collaborative social decision-making exists or will exist. Yes, it's probably tied up with identity, but I've taken a stand on what I mean by identity, and so long as I'm Lee Corbin, that view, which I've held since 1966, is not going to change. I'll turn into someone else the day it does. Lee [1] "If he contend, as sometimes he will contend, that he has defined all his terms and proved all his propositions, then either he is a performer of logical miracles or he is an ass; and, as you know, logical miracles are impossible." --Cassius J. Keyser From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Dec 2 18:24:58 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 10:24:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islam on defense? In-Reply-To: <7D0341C6-12B9-4DEC-9661-183DF4B78366@thomasoliver.net> References: <687398.26104.qm@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> <7D0341C6-12B9-4DEC-9661-183DF4B78366@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: On Dec 1, 2006, at 4:58 PM, Thomas wrote: > Joe Biden seems to be vying for alpha dog at the moment. Bush is > staying the course. (sigh . . . ) > On Dec 1, 2006, at 3:14 PM, Al Brooks wrote: > >> [ . . . ]Do you want Nancy Pelosi, next in line, for President? Who >> do you want? The administration has screwed up the war effort, but >> are you completely free from doubt that a replacement for this >> administration if it were removed could handle it all more ably for >> the rest of this decade and into the next? Sorry to have missed the original. But no, I am certainly not "free from doubt". Furthermore, I think that the actual situation is well known in Congress and the American people are being kept in the dark. Else I do not understand why the Democrats have completely ignored so many chances in the last six years to stand against the administration and its policies for something quite different. I am not a fan of the Democratic party (or the other major one either) but I wrote many times to their leaders begging them to stand against many of the policies of this administration including the NSA wiretaps, the Iraq mess, various rank violation of civil liberty, the way 911 mostly was not investigated, the Patriot act throughout its history to date, the DHS boondoggle and so on. That they really never did suggests to me that the game is rigged and that both parties are in substantial agreement of how they are going to play things out. >> Would the dislocation from removing this administration negate the >> admittedly positive results? Would this country be politically >> crippled from impeachment and removal? You don't know; nobody does. >> It's all up in the air, there are too many loose ends. It's all >> political parlor talk so far, and the brighter ones in the >> administration know that, as professionals they are aware of the >> entire situation. >> There are extremely few positive results. There are extremely serious and quite extensive negative results. - samantha From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Dec 2 18:29:36 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 10:29:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Undying [Threads on this List] In-Reply-To: <000c01c71621$b93e05d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Lee Corbin wrote: > Jef writes >> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >>> There seem to be a few threads on the list that seemingly >>> cannot die. One of them involves pointless (IMO) struggles >>> over the meaning of "rationality". This word has a >>> reasonably clear definition provided on wikipedia, By the way, Rafal sent a thoughtful reply to me offlist, by which I was assured that Rafal does indeed have quite a clear and encompassing understanding of these issues and some of the questions at the edges. We differ, however, in regard to our willingness to engage in these discussions on-list which tend to be more masochistic than productive. I agree that they are largely unproductive (for those of us who have been through them so many times) but my main motivation is the larger issue of understanding how (or whether?) people can change their beliefs through such low-bandwidth interaction. > Well, the wikipedia definition plainly tries to cover too > many bases for our purposes here. (I have no argument with it > for a Wikipedia description, but we require a narrower usage.) Interesting. I think that an obvious weakness of the Wikipedia article is not that it lacks a sufficiently narrow usage, but that it lacks a single elegant definition of the concept, broad in its applicability, from which one can then proceed to describe the many narrow variations. As an example we have Newton's laws of motion, elegantly stated and broad in their applicability, from which we can discuss narrower cases involving friction, turbulence, etc. Such elegance is lacking in these fields, in my opinion, mainly because we are still deeply entrenched in variations of Cartesian duality. For many of us, holding on as if survival depends on it. > Moreover, I haven't seen a *problem* arising because we > didn't know what the term referred to; yes, we wonder about > what is the most useful scope of it we ought to employ, but > that's all, and doesn't IMO really cause confusion. I would point out, again, that the context of rational decision-making, including the scope of expected consequences (including interactees and interactions over time), is what distinguishes "what works" from "what is moral" and that this distinction is of vital importance to implementing future systems of rational collaborative social decision-making. I think we can either implement these systems intentionally, or they will emerge from the marketplace via selection of what works--if we don't self-destruct before then. Strict libertarians will say that a free market is the pure, correct and complete solution to this problem, but they tend to see growth as originating from within, rather than emerging from effective interaction between self and the adjacent possible. Deeper thinkers see that intentionally cultivating a cooperative environment is just as important as exploiting that environment. Thus my poetical exhortation to come down from the pristine peaks to the more fecund mountain valleys. >>> There is no need to invent a definition of this common >>> term, and if new but related referents need a name, it's >>> better to come up with a new word. > > Quite right. But neologisms are almost always as futile as > "attempting to define all your terms and prove all your > propositions". [1] > >>> I know that since "rational" has strong positive emotional >>> and moral connotations (especially among us self-declared >>> rationalists), there is the temptation to redefine the term >>> so as to be able to claim the moral high ground but it only >>> sows confusion (irrationality, one might say) and makes for >>> horribly boring threads. > > My general advice has been for one to avoid horribly boring > threads, (for what it's worth). > >> Rafal, I agree with you that it gets old rehashing what >> we mean by rationality. Same goes for personal identity, >> free-will, morality and X*. > > I dispute that the problem is inability to reach and agree > upon common definition. At least in most cases, even we on > the extropian list are far too intelligent to just debate > terminology; in most these cases there is something real > that is bothering people. (An interesting exception, > however, is "qualia". People who believe in qualia just have > their epistemology so screwed up that they're usually beyond help.) > >> But it's interesting to me that this problem of >> understanding runs so deeply on a common thread >> tied to the meaning of self. > > I demur slightly; morality has never to me seemed to depend > on the meaning of self. Then I have failed miserably over the last several years to communicate this crucial point. I don't know what else I could say, but I am seriously considering moving toward writing persuasive fiction rather than rational discourse. >> And it's very interesting that we have yet to come to terms >> with this, or agree widely that it's a problem, even as we >> claim to anticipate and embrace radical technological change >> that clearly threatens to challenge our practical understanding >> of these concepts. > > I feel that one of Jef's usual exhortations that morality is > about what works coming on. That would be "what is seen to work over increasing scope (of interactees and interactions over time)". The suggestion that morality is simply what works is what leads to such strong resistance by people thinking they're fighting against "might makes right" and certain "rational, scientific" examples of eugenics and genocide. Yes, I have certainly failed, not only to gain your agreement, but even to gain your understanding of my argument. > >> There's a tendency for thinkers of above average intelligence >> to discover and climb the mountain of libertarian philosophy >> nearly to its peak and stand there in awe of the elegance of >> its structure and the sharpness of its fine point. But fewer >> then move back down the slope--not all the way down to the >> tepid waters of "ideal" democracy--but partway down to the fog >> at the edge of chaos where Self meets the adjacent possible, >> and novel structures branch anew. > > Oh, I was wrong. Instead, we have material that could start > about four interesting threads. > >> Sorry to go all poetic on your shit, but there's a >> self-reinforcing sterility to certain forms of rational thought, >> and it takes more than logic to break out of that kind of rut. > > Quite a number of us have been viewing rationality---or as I > like to call it---"hyperrationality" with deep suspicion for > a long time. > If you've not read "The Robot's Rebellion", I cannot > recommend it highly enough. It's not that I entirely > sympathize with the author ---he's a socialist, for one > thing, but he very clearly delineates what the problem is > here, and suggests language and provides information that > seem to me crucial for making progress. > >> *X in the sequence above stands for an as yet unimplemented form >> of collaborative social decision making based on a rational >> understanding of the preceding items in the sequence. >> See the thread? > > You should make it clear that this is only a conjecture on > your part that such a form of collaborative social > decision-making exists or will exist. Yes, it's probably tied > up with identity, but I've taken a stand on what I mean by > identity, and so long as I'm Lee Corbin, that view, which > I've held since 1966, is not going to change. I'll turn into > someone else the day it does. > > Lee Lee, I appreciate the frankness and clarity of this last paragraph in which you have stated the main reason why such discussion tends not to proceed. Self-preservation is the root of much unyielding belief. - Jef From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 23:53:40 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 15:53:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Islam on defense? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061202235340.93246.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com> As no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people, no one ever went broke underestimating the gullibility of the American people either-- many, very many, Americans want to be fooled. Those in the Heartland are some of the most thickheaded people who have ever existed. Morally you have been correct and you always saw that the peace would be lost in Iraq when some of us thought the insurgency would be containable-- which can no longer be imagined. But beyond the Iraq war there's the question if we can know a world without imperialist war given that men are predators and that one nation's markets are in conflict with another nation's markets. Hypothetically of course the free market can operate without imperialist war but that may not be the case in actuality. The failure of the Communist crusade against imperialism (however cynical & brutal that crusade was) may have been a signal that the cuddly dog of the free market comes with the persistent fleas of imperialist war. As a coward and pacifist I don't like this at all yet Trotsky may have been correct when he said "you might not be interested in war but war is interested in you". There's something to that statement, putting aside that Trotsky was a Commie rat. War still appears to be the norm for men; peace the anomaly. BTW, the NSA handles 80 percent of intelligence today so the wiretaps are no surprise whatsoever. Wouldn't you be surprised at this point if the NSA wasn't abusing its wiretapping function? Samantha Atkins wrote: Sorry to have missed the original. But no, I am certainly not "free from doubt". Furthermore, I think that the actual situation is well known in Congress and the American people are being kept in the dark. Else I do not understand why the Democrats have completely ignored so many chances in the last six years to stand against the administration and its policies for something quite different. I am not a fan of the Democratic party (or the other major one either) but I wrote many times to their leaders begging them to stand against many of the policies of this administration including the NSA wiretaps, the Iraq mess, various rank violation of civil liberty, the way 911 mostly was not investigated, the Patriot act throughout its history to date, the DHS boondoggle and so on. That they really never did suggests to me that the game is rigged and that both parties are in substantial agreement of how they are going to play things out. --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 00:20:35 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 16:20:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] 'a process of non-thinking called faith' 2 (2) In-Reply-To: <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <934592.11958.qm@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> Okay, Lee, but civilization still remains a veneer, and women civilize men-- that is to say they ATTEMPT to civilize men. The convention of a man being a Real Man and not a 'girlie man' still exists in large part. Given this, war makes sense; peace does not make sense. Did this war surprise you? Not me, the intensity of the insurgency in Iraq was (is) a shock, but not the continued existence of war. No way. Lee Corbin wrote: For those short-sighted individualists who embrace Crocker's Rules, human psychology is very subtle, and I'm very happy to remain on good personal terms with very nice and fully civilized and courteous people like you! :-) --------------------------------- Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 01:21:27 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 17:21:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] 'a process of non-thinking called faith' 2 (2) In-Reply-To: <687398.26104.qm@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> References: <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <687398.26104.qm@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/1/06, Al Brooks wrote: > Please go into some detail as how to rectify the situation. I am going to assume that by "the situation" you mean Islamic fundamentalist militancy in general, Al Quaeda in particular as well as other lesser-known agents of violence, the Iraq mess in particular and the mid-east mess in general. > Do you want > negotiations with the other side? to what purpose? to say What? what does > the other side have to say to us? what message do they have to give us?: > "just wait 'til we get our hands on your families; just wait 'til we plant a > dirty bomb in DC"? "What message do they have to give us?", you ask. Are you sincere, or is it just rhetorical? Seeing as how you've provided an answer to your own question, I conclude that you're not interested in the REAL answer, that is, the answer that the Islamists might actually provide. Have you ever cared to seek out the statements of bin Laden that address your question? I suspect not, but I challenge you directly, "Is your point of view on this matter based on facts; have you read bin Laden's statements regarding why he does what he does, or is your point of view all Fox news derived?" > There's no placating anyone whose fondest hope is to slice and dice you. This suggest to me that you are a Neocon Kool-Aid junkie. The classic boogeyman fear-mongering horseshit is that "the terrorists" fondest hope is to kill as many Americans as they can, any time, any place. More of the "They hate us for our freedoms, our prosperity, and our way of life" crap. This whole line of nonsense is a reflection of American self-absorption. It's all about us, all the time. As if the Islamists wake up in the morning thinking how much they hate Americans, and spend the day thinking some variation on that theme while desperately craving the violent deaths of Americans/jews by the busload. Get over yourself. They have lives of their own. It's not all about you. > You think it's mainly about imperialism-- it's a great more than that, it is > very complicated. Indeed it is. And when I hear a fact or two coming from you that suggests that you have a clue, then we can talk. > And just say Bush & Cheney were impeached, who would replace them? You can't just say 'impeach and remove them',... Oh, yes I can. It's a friggin' lovely idea. And immensely practical. > ... there's got to be more of an outlook for the future. No more Bush cabal wars for the sake of the psycho-moron's ego, stolen oil, and the looting of the American treasury, no more lies from those for whom lieing is their only area of competency. Already the "outlook for the future" is looking much better. > Do you want Nancy Pelosi, next in line, for President? Kerry is a douchebag. Gore ran the worst campaign in human history, until Kerry outdid him. The Repubs are vicious and corrupt. The Dems spineless, clueless and corrupt. But anyone -- N E 1 -- would be better than the Bush cabal. And frankly, I think Nancy Pelosi might make a great president. (Am I right that you're a full on right wing partisan, and on that basis disagree?) > Who do you want? The administration has screwed up the war effort, but are you > completely free from doubt that a replacement for this administration if it > were removed could handle it all more ably for the rest of this decade and > into the next? My dog could do better. In other words: yes. > Would the dislocation from removing this administration negate the > admittedly positive results? Would this country be politically crippled from > impeachment and removal? Impeachment, removal, indictment, conviction, and incarceration would restore the hope of Americans and people everywhere that the American Dream, the dream of a better world a, world where the law is not a cobweb, is alive and well in these United States. Sadly the Dems are such swine and the political system so debased, that it's far more likely that the American experiment is over. > You don't know; nobody does. It's all up in the > air, there are too many loose ends. It's all political parlor talk so far, > and ... > ...the brighter ones in the administration know that, as professionals they > are aware of the entire situation. The curse of --for want of a better phrase -- Kool-Aid poisoning is so deep and widespread that those "professionals" seem devoid of rational capacity. At the start you said, "Please go into some detail as how to rectify the situation. " Here's what I would do: If I didn't care about US bases in the mideast, preferring to eschew military adventurism, then I would flippin RACE to get every American back safe to his or her family.(After which I would make a point of making a daily announcement that in Iraq that day no Americans had been killed and no Americans wounded. I would continue this till folks got tired of it.) Then the only dealings I would authorize with the mideast -- Israel included -- would be to pay for oil and take delivery. That's the short version. There are some details, and plenty of room for flexibility. Otherwise, I would declare to the world the US intent to redeploy with all speed, and invite whomever to help in whatever fashion to make it orderly. To that end (the orderliness part) I would move some troops to Kurdistan and send the rest home. I would let the Shia and Sunni settle their differences (the Shia outnumber the Sunni 4 to 1), with American air power on tap to prejudice the outcome and discourage intransigence. For the most part, however, I don't give a flying f***. F*** the troops, f*** the country, I've got mine. I have no loyalty whatsoever to the US anymore. It's a total sham. If the American people don't care enough to preserve their experiment and make it work, then let them join the detritus of history. The Indian and Chinese seem enthusiastic and more than qualified to take the lead in the human adventure. As for me, I support the truth. > Jeff writes > > > Islam has been on the defense, legitimately so, against western > > aggression, domination and expansion for a long time. -- Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Dec 3 03:18:30 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 19:18:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Undying [Threads on this List] References: Message-ID: <001a01c7168a$0537a820$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > [Lee wrote] >> Well, the wikipedia definition plainly tries to cover too >> many bases for our purposes here. (I have no argument with it >> for a Wikipedia description, but we require a narrower usage.) > > Interesting. I think that an obvious weakness of the Wikipedia article > is not that it lacks a sufficiently narrow usage, but that it lacks a > single elegant definition of the concept, broad in its applicability, > from which one can then proceed to describe the many narrow variations. Yes---but I contend that *rationality* is used by many kinds of people for many kinds of purposes; ours here is rather narrow. I hold it not against the big W for their even-handed characterizations. >> I demur slightly; morality has never to me seemed to depend >> on the meaning of self. > > Then I have failed miserably over the last several years to communicate > this crucial point. Oh, don't take it so hard. Your explanatory skills are pretty good, not that there isn't room for improvement of course. Maybe you're just wrong. But your evident goal of simply *convincing* everyone of your point of view---rather than even ostensibly engaging as equals in a search for the truth that may very well lie between us--- causes me to conclude that there is little openmindedness on your part, and all my arguments against your points of view are completely futile. > Yes, I have certainly failed, not only to gain your agreement, but even > to gain your understanding of my argument. Ah, well, join the club. I've railed on about notions on which I too have a lot of confidence, and although I've met many of the like-minded, all too often enormous debates end up with no one's position having been altered in the slightest. But then, I never expect them too! Do you really think that after a while in some long thread someone is going to suddenly say, "Oh, I see! I was wrong and you were right." That is NOT how it works, Jef. Your arguments create small doubts in their minds which when things go well for your arguments gradually grow and eventually convince them---or at least cause their minds to change. But not in real time. I have said that before. Do you or do you not think that what I have written just above is indeed how it works? >> You should make it clear that this is only a conjecture on >> your part that such a form of collaborative social >> decision-making exists or will exist. Yes, it's probably tied >> up with identity, but I've taken a stand on what I mean by >> identity, and so long as I'm Lee Corbin, that view, which >> I've held since 1966, is not going to change. I'll turn into >> someone else the day it does. > > Lee, I appreciate the frankness and clarity of this last paragraph in > which you have stated the main reason why such discussion tends > not to proceed. Again, just how the hell do you think that people are going to fall completely over to your views in real time? It almost *never* happens, and I will go so far to say that indeed it does never happen on any deep issue at all. As for my words above, apparently you simply have failed to understand--despite all my effort--what I mean by identity and how unconnected with relatively peripheral issues such as morality it is. All my examples of what ORDINARY people mean when they stare death in the face seem to have utterly no effect on you. As I mentioned offlist, do you think that Nathan Hale believed that *he* was going to survive when he said "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country?". You also have a distressing tendency not to answer direct questions of the above kind. With sincere respect, believe it or not, Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Dec 3 03:29:32 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 19:29:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Crockers Rules and Changing the Bleeping Subject Line References: <934592.11958.qm@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002501c7168b$49a00ec0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Al Brooks responds, in one of the most perplexing emails I've ever read. I had written > For those short-sighted individualists who embrace Crocker's Rules, > human psychology is very subtle, and I'm very happy to remain on > good personal terms with very nice and fully civilized and courteous > people like you [Jeff Davis]! :-) But the main point of this thread " 'a process of non-thinking called faith' 2 (2)" ---how's that for a subject line??---had absolutely nothing to do with my mini-polemic against the use of Crocker's rules, to which Al declaimed on "civilization and war" !! I have also taken the liberty of changing the subject line " 'a process of non-thinking called faith' 2 (2)". Again and again, how can people put huge amounts of effort into a post, and COMPLETELY IGNORE THE SUBJECT LINE. OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE ARE NOT LAZY; THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THE ENERGY TO RANT THE WAY THEY DO. But I have a theory: By responding the way they do, "hit the Reply key and peck away", they're signaling that they really are very important people who have far better things to do with their time than attend to niceties like subject lines. It's an ego thing. Alas, I've veered off Al's point. See my next email. Lee P.S. And Al, I wasn't singling you out for the criticism here; your post was short. I was attacking all the long and substantial posts that had nothing to do with this putrid subject line. > Okay, Lee, but civilization still remains a veneer, and women civilize men-- > that is to say they ATTEMPT to civilize men. The convention of a man > being a Real Man and not a 'girlie man' still exists in large part. Given this, > war makes sense; peace does not make sense. Did this war surprise you? > Not me, the intensity of the insurgency in Iraq was (is) a shock, but not the > continued existence of war. No way. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Dec 3 03:43:10 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 19:43:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Civilization and War References: <934592.11958.qm@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002a01c7168d$66a3d040$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> I had written > For those short-sighted individualists who embrace Crocker's > Rules, human psychology is very subtle, and I'm very happy to > remain on good personal terms with very nice and fully civilized > and courteous people like [Jeff Davis]! and in a really great---but very interesting---non sequitur Al writes > Okay, Lee, but civilization still remains a veneer, and women > civilize men Very true. A review of what happened in the 19th century gold-mining camps after a few months fully vindicates this old observation. People who had been fully inculcated in civilized habits slowly reverted to the law of the jungle. > -- that is to say they ATTEMPT to civilize men. No; they really do civilize men, at least the sense of helping men introduce a lot of order into society. And I should add that this historical generality perhaps does not apply except in the West and except in the last two hundred years. > The convention of a man being a Real Man and not a 'girlie man' > still exists in large part. Given this, war makes sense; peace does > not make sense. Not so! War no longer makes sense between healthy normal nations because it destroys everyone's wealth. That's the real reason that Germany and France, or France and England, are never warring with each other any more. In the old days, especially before the 1500s, one of the easier ways for a prince to secure more wealth was to seize his neighbor's. People found in the 19th and 20th centuries that war made even the winner poorer. > Did this war surprise you? Eh? You mean that Saddam attacked Kuwait, or that the U.N. threatened him with invasion if he didn't stop ignoring their countless resolutions? No. These highly disfunctional states pose a definite menace to civilization, and the civilized powers ought to take them out. > Not me, the intensity of the insurgency in Iraq was (is) a shock, That it is! I never expected that sans jungles and infiltration routes it would be possible. But C4 and the willingness to target civilians, coupled with a "Mr. Nice Guy" approach by the U.S. has made it possible. > but not the continued existence of war. No way. Can you provide me an instance where two democracies ever went to war? For years I thought that there was one: the war of 1812. But it turns out that at the time only 3% of English people had the vote and could influence politicians. I still need a counter-example. Lee From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 05:20:57 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 21:20:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Civilization and War In-Reply-To: <002a01c7168d$66a3d040$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <951042.73717.qm@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> [Lee, you are right about changing the subject line, but one person on another list says 'leave the subject line as constant as possible so too many subject lines are not on the screen', and another says to change it as often as possible- matter of opinion] It's not that you are morally wrong-- completely the opposite-- but doesn't war have other (admittedly reactionary) functions? doesn't war reduce population? war can provide male bonding, individual and group discipline for both sexes (many women are in Defense); character development. In '69 our family went to Vietnam protests, the elderly people in the neighborhood saying: "you think this is the last war? 25 years ago we thought WWII was the last war, but it wasn't". They were right, we protesters thought it was the last war, but we found out later how war didn't think it needed our permission to continue. How long do you think the Iraq insurgency will go on? 5 years? 10? 20? 30? And what is the likely outcome? We'll be forced to withdraw and instead of dozens being killed in Iraq every day, the number will be in the hundreds. You think? > Not so! War no longer makes sense between healthy > normal > nations because it destroys everyone's wealth. > That's the real > reason that Germany and France, or France and > England, are > never warring with each other any more. In the old > days, > especially before the 1500s, one of the easier ways > for a prince > to secure more wealth was to seize his neighbor's. > People found > in the 19th and 20th centuries that war made even > the winner poorer. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 05:45:27 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 21:45:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Civilization and War In-Reply-To: <002a01c7168d$66a3d040$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <358471.73405.qm@web51609.mail.yahoo.com> Doesn't war have other functions? reducing population?; stimulating economic activity and R & D?; can't war provide male bonding, individual and group discipline for both sexes (many women are in Defense); character development? War continues until all possible potential is exhausted. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Dec 3 06:24:48 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 22:24:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Civilization and War References: <951042.73717.qm@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004701c716a4$0bbb4b60$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Al writes > [Lee, you are right about changing the subject line, > but one person on another list says 'leave the subject > line as constant as possible so too many subject lines > are not on the screen', and another says to change it > as often as possible- matter of opinion] Indeed, the subject line should NOT be changed until the actual subject drifts. I've heard no one until now suggest that it should remain the same when what is being discussed has changed. Moreover, I believe that this is the official policy here. > It's not that you are morally wrong-- completely the > opposite-- but doesn't war have other (admittedly > reactionary) functions? doesn't war reduce population? In primitive times, yes. But since the 1700s there has been plenty of food in advanced societies. What is needed is to distribute capitalism, not largess, to the rest. > How long do you think the Iraq insurgency will go on? > 5 years? 10? 20? 30? And what is the likely outcome? It will go on until a strong-man takes over. One whose every move is not criticized in the Western press. Some nice fellow like Saddam Hussein. On the one hand, the U.S. should have installed such a strongman (who could put real fear into his enemies unlike the mambly-pambly Western sissies), although alas, so long as he was pro-Western, there would be utterly no limit to the daily bombardment of his atrocities. You never saw complaints during the last 30 years in the Western press about Castro's brutalities (except maybe in Florida). Had Castro been a U.S. supporter, however, the stories would have been constant. This is all part of the leftist- socialist-deathwish of the West, and the cultural blinders than make Bush more evil than Saddam Hussein in the eyes of so many otherwise well-educated people. Lee From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 06:48:01 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 22:48:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Civilization and War In-Reply-To: <004701c716a4$0bbb4b60$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <811567.4991.qm@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Aside from all you correctly mention below is something quite unpleasant to dwell on: the Iranians are very brave, they are determined to fight, if necessary, to the last Iraqi in order to advance their national and pan-Shiite goals. What to do-- lobotomize the Iranian government? > It will go on until a strong-man takes over. One > whose > every move is not criticized in the Western press. > Some > nice fellow like Saddam Hussein. > > On the one hand, the U.S. should have installed such > a > strongman (who could put real fear into his enemies > unlike > the mambly-pambly Western sissies), although alas, > so > long as he was pro-Western, there would be utterly > no > limit to the daily bombardment of his atrocities. > You never > saw complaints during the last 30 years in the > Western > press about Castro's brutalities (except maybe in > Florida). > Had Castro been a U.S. supporter, however, the > stories > would have been constant. This is all part of the > leftist- > socialist-deathwish of the West, and the cultural > blinders > than make Bush more evil than Saddam Hussein in the > eyes of so many otherwise well-educated people. > Lee ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Dec 3 07:21:15 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 23:21:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Self-preservation and unyielding belief In-Reply-To: <001a01c7168a$0537a820$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Lee Corbin wrote: >>> You should make it clear that this is only a >>> conjecture on your part that such a form of >>> collaborative social decision-making exists or >>> will exist. Yes, it's probably tied up with >>> identity, but I've taken a stand on what I >>> mean by identity, and so long as I'm Lee Corbin, >>> that view, which I've held since 1966, is not >>> going to change. I'll turn into someone else >>> the day it does. >> >> Lee, I appreciate the frankness and clarity of >> this last paragraph in which you have stated >> the main reason why such discussion tends not to >> proceed. >> >> Self-preservation is the root of much unyielding belief. > > Again, just how the hell do you think that people are going > to fall completely over to your views in real time? It almost > *never* happens, and I will go so far to say that indeed it > does never happen on any deep issue at all. The metaphor I most often use is of planting seeds of thought that may occasionally flourish. > As for my words above, apparently you simply have failed to > understand--despite all my effort--what I mean by identity > and how unconnected with relatively peripheral issues such as > morality it is. My understanding of your view of identity (in rough overview) is that it has everything to do with the idea of your personal survival into the indefinite future. That the most important element of your self is your memories (your current memories, right?) and that if a suitable computational substrate implementing these memories were given runtime (the more the better) to process experience in a Lee Corbin-esque way, effectively to be aware of the ongoing experience of self (relative to those preserved memories) in a future setting, that you would feel satisfied that survival had been accomplished. Further, if multiple copies, each with its own runtime, were to exist, you would be even more satisfied due to the "increased measure" of your personal identity in active existence. Just a few weeks ago you said that my summary of your position on personal identity was excellent, the best you had ever seen, or some similar words. Here I have provided a similar synopsis, but with more words and thus more potential points of failure. If you please, let us know where you agree or would make changes to more clearly state the essentials of your position as concisely as possible. I see self-identification over expanding scope as absolutely essential to a rational description of morality, but no need to explain that again here and now. > All my examples of what ORDINARY people mean > when they stare death in the face seem to have utterly no > effect on you. As discussed, popular thinking on these issues will be challenged dramatically by anticipated technological developments. Our present common-sense notions are biased by our linguistic idioms, cultural patterns, and a very strong evolved drive to maintain homeostasis. These biases lead to incoherence and breakdown when extrapolated beyond present common usage. You want to discuss ORDINARY on this list? Seriously, I don't know what effect you were looking for. I take it for granted that we share such common understanding and try to keep my focus on the leading edge when posting in this public forum. > As I mentioned offlist, do you think that > Nathan Hale believed that *he* was going to survive when he > said "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country?". The issue offlist was with regard to an idealized agent, and which is more fundamental to its decision-making: its values or its survival. My point has always been that survival of an entity is just one of its many values, and thus values are more fundamental. I actually thought we had achieved understanding and agreement on this until today, when you said something to the effect that survival and other values are like apples and oranges. I can understand that someone might think that survival is essential to promoting the other values, but it is easy to show that while commonly true today, it isn't true in general. Values, such as Nathan Hales', can be promoted into the future quite independently of the agent's existence in that future. With regard to Nathan Hale, I think your point may be to ask whether I think he is in some sense "surviving" by promoting his values, perhaps in the same sense that we say a great artist lives on though his works or a parent lives on through his children. I have never taken such a position because I think it is a very narrow and distorted sense of the concept of personal survival. Where we really seem to disagree is where I say that survival without change is not possible even in principle within an open coevolutionary environment. > > You also have a distressing tendency not to answer direct > questions of the above kind. My children have often told me the same thing. So, as simply as I can, with regard to Nathan Hale, I would suppose that he did not expect that *he* was going to survive. Please let me know where you want to go with that. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Dec 3 08:52:10 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 00:52:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Undying [Threads on this List] In-Reply-To: <001a01c7168a$0537a820$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Lee Corbin wrote: > >> I demur slightly; morality has never to me seemed to depend on the > >> meaning of self. > > > > Then I have failed miserably over the last several years to > > communicate this crucial point. > > Oh, don't take it so hard. Your explanatory skills are pretty > good, not that there isn't room for improvement of course. > Maybe you're just wrong. My theory of morality might be wrong within its intended context, and I'm certain it will be updated within a larger context. I would welcome any corrections or enhancements as a gift. > But your evident goal of simply *convincing* everyone of your > point of view---rather than even ostensibly engaging as > equals in a search for the truth that may very well lie > between us--- causes me to conclude that there is little > openmindedness on your part, and all my arguments against > your points of view are completely futile. When deciding truth or other preferences of optimum structure it is not rational to expect that the optimum "may very well lie between us." I alluded to this earlier with the phrase "the tepid waters of 'ideal' democracy." For example: Alice and Bob, who had a great deal of experience fishing separately, decided to go out fishing together and to take their novice friends Cathy and Dave. They immediately fell into a dispute over where on the lake would provide the best fishing. Alice had been coming to fish almost every summer vacation and had learned that the shallows were by far the most productive. Bob had been coming almost every spring break and had learned that deeper areas further offshore always provided more fish. After an hour of arguing over which is best, Cathy suggested that if it wasn't clear who was right, then they might as well try fishing somewhere in between. At this point, Dave, who had been quietly watching and listening, pointed out that Alice appeared to be correct within the context of summer, Bob within the context of Spring, and that a more encompassing understanding must take season into account. The other three slapped their foreheads, said "duh!", and they all went on to choose a reasonable spot to sit and fish and discuss decision-theory for the rest of the day. > > Yes, I have certainly failed, not only to gain your agreement, but > > even to gain your understanding of my argument. > > Ah, well, join the club. I've railed on about notions on > which I too have a lot of confidence, and although I've met > many of the like-minded, all too often enormous debates end > up with no one's position having been altered in the slightest. > > But then, I never expect them too! Do you really think that > after a while in some long thread someone is going to > suddenly say, "Oh, I see! I was wrong and you were right." > That is NOT how it works, Jef. Your arguments create small > doubts in their minds which when things go well for your > arguments gradually grow and eventually convince them---or at > least cause their minds to change. But not in real time. > > I have said that before. Do you or do you not think that what > I have written just above is indeed how it works? Yes, I have seen that this is usually how it works. But as I said earlier, my main interest is about whether it need be so dismally ineffective, while acknowledging the constrained bandwidth of interaction. I keep thinking we could do better if we were to augment the discussions with concept maps, effective use of storytelling in combination with more linear logic, develop a progression of nested concepts, etc. - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Dec 3 14:33:29 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 06:33:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Self-preservation and unyielding belief References: Message-ID: <006201c716e8$07f3f240$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef had written a lofty and (I thought) a bit high-handed email to which I responded in like: >> As for my words above, apparently you simply have failed to >> understand--despite all my effort--what I mean by identity >> and how unconnected with relatively peripheral issues such as >> morality it is. Well, did I *ever* choose an unfortunate "nyaah, nyaah, I can say that too!", which Jef cooly refutes as follows: > My understanding of your view of identity (in rough overview) is that it > has everything to do with the idea of your personal survival into the > indefinite future. That the most important element of your self is your > memories (your current memories, right?) [YES!] and that if a suitable > computational substrate implementing these memories were given runtime > (the more the better) to process experience in a Lee Corbin-esque way, > effectively to be aware of the ongoing experience of self (relative to > those preserved memories) in a future setting, that you would feel > satisfied that survival had been accomplished. Further, if multiple > copies, each with its own runtime, were to exist, you would be even more > satisfied due to the "increased measure" of your personal identity in > active existence. You take the cake, Jeff! You should have been a Rogerian psychologist. Yes, you have utterly understood my position as perhaps no one who disagrees with it has ever before. You understand my views about 10^2 times as well as I understand yours, I confess. Or at least my ability to express your views. Kudos. Further on, I had totally misjudged where we actually disagree, but I won't waste bandwidth describing how. > The issue... was with regard to an idealized agent, and which is > more fundamental to its decision-making: its values or its survival. > My point has always been that survival of an entity is just one of its > many values, and thus values are more fundamental. Now that I see where you are coming from, I agree, although the word "fundamental" still sticks in my craw. For ordinary human behavior uncorrupted by philosophic (and hence often stupid) reflection, their survival is much more basic and fundamental than any "values". But---one could say that that was just a value of theirs, thus making your statements tautological, no? Your language invited me to consider "ordinary people" (see how broad the word "entity" is in your paragraph). > With regard to Nathan Hale, I think your point may be to ask whether I > think he is in some sense "surviving" by promoting his values, perhaps > in the same sense that we say a great artist lives on though his works > or a parent lives on through his children. I have never taken such a > position because I think it is a very narrow and distorted sense of the > concept of personal survival. Sorry for my false attribution of view to you, thanks for the correction. > Where we really seem to disagree is where I say that survival without > change is not possible even in principle within an open coevolutionary > environment. But it is possible to change so little that one remains the same person. That's what I have been saying all along, you know. I definitely *am* the same person I was five years ago, even though I have learned a lot, my intelligence has diminished a little, and I have taken up some new habits and discarded some old. In his book "Forever For All", the great cryonicist Mike Perry goes so far to say that such a thing as a "core personality" can be maintained that can sustain any number of extra layers, so that one may grow indefinitely and still remain the same person. I'm doubtful. In the above paragraph, you may be speaking of the tremendous changes that we all may have to undergo in the near future. Still, I fondly hope to remain me throughout these changes, or, if not, then to give backups enough runtime to keep Lee Corbin alive and flourishing. > My children have often told me the same thing. :-) > So, as simply as I can, with regard to Nathan Hale, I would suppose > that he did not expect that *he* was going to survive. Please let me > know where you want to go with that. In this thread (subject line), the *only* remaining point of further productive develoment seems now to be our tiff over > Where we really seem to disagree is where I say that survival without > change is not possible even in principle within an open coevolutionary > environment. But it is possible to change so little that one remains the same person.... [and one can still flourish by running backup copies of previous versions even if the most advanced version is no longer the same person].... as I described above. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Dec 3 14:41:35 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 06:41:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Undying [Threads on this List] References: Message-ID: <006d01c716e9$51fc51b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > When deciding truth or other preferences of optimum structure it is not > rational to expect that the optimum "may very well lie between us." I > alluded to this earlier with the phrase "the tepid waters of 'ideal' > democracy." I was speaking of *attitude*. Please try to refrain from speaking down to some of us who disagree with you. Yes---thankfully---it's seldom, and take my criticism for what it's worth, but that's all that was meant. (And I'm not disputing the possibility that this may be the kettle calling the pot black.) Of course, each of us believes himself to be in the right, but then, if not, why open one's mouth? >> Do you really think that >> after a while in some long thread someone is going to >> suddenly say, "Oh, I see! I was wrong and you were right." >> That is NOT how it works, Jef. Your arguments create small >> doubts in their minds which when things go well for your >> arguments gradually grow and eventually convince them---or at >> least cause their minds to change. But not in real time. >> >> I have said that before. Do you or do you not think that what >> I have written just above is indeed how it works? > > Yes, I have seen that this is usually how it works. But as I said > earlier, my main interest is about whether it need be so dismally > ineffective, while acknowledging the constrained bandwidth of > interaction. I keep thinking we could do better if we were to augment > the discussions with concept maps, effective use of storytelling in > combination with more linear logic, develop a progression of nested > concepts, etc. Dream on! After all, without such dreams progress is seldom achieved. But so far as I'm concerned at the present time, you are simply dreaming. Each of us has to simply try as hard as he or she can, and as hard as time permits, to make our writing clearer, to try to avoid misunderstanding the other person. Lee From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Dec 3 14:32:59 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 09:32:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] for Amara - a cartoon referencing Pluto In-Reply-To: <004701c716a4$0bbb4b60$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <951042.73717.qm@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> <004701c716a4$0bbb4b60$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <33814.72.236.102.124.1165156379.squirrel@main.nc.us> I've enjoyed this strip for some years now - it's pleasant and friendly, characteristics sorely lacking some days in Real Life! The Pluto cartoon is for Sunday, 3 December http://www.kevinandkell.com/ Regards, MB From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 16:14:59 2006 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 10:14:59 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anders Sandberg on "Keep on raging against aging" in Second Life, December 18, 2006 In-Reply-To: <3793.86.130.23.218.1164930420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <470a3c520611301010v5f4fdad4x59e266b5835d4fe9@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0611301300t4a8b0150iad515f353c634783@mail.gmail.com> <3793.86.130.23.218.1164930420.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <5366105b0612030814w30c1c9b6g4ffccb2db3c878cb@mail.gmail.com> You might try here (http://www.flickr.com/groups/secondlife/) for help. The SL fora and the people who set up the TV'06 on-line fraction might also have good ideas. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 3 17:04:41 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 18:04:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] lack of presence in Second Life Message-ID: <20061203170441.GU6974@leitl.org> Folks, we need to maintain a sufficient density in SL in order to be visible. I'm just aware of the uvvy island, so let's congregate there, and if you're only idling. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 18:03:00 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 19:03:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] lack of presence in Second Life In-Reply-To: <20061203170441.GU6974@leitl.org> References: <20061203170441.GU6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <470a3c520612031003r763cf652qa8fad954d8e276db@mail.gmail.com> Everyone is welcome in uvvy island! There is a WTA chapter in SL: http://www.transhumanism.com/secondlife/ (in SL, look for World Transhumanist Association in the list of groups, join free). G. On 12/3/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Folks, we need to maintain a sufficient density in SL in order > to be visible. I'm just aware of the uvvy island, so let's > congregate there, and if you're only idling. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 3 21:29:13 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 13:29:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] second life question In-Reply-To: <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200612032140.kB3Le6IY009812@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Since the subject of second life is popping up here, I have a question or an observation. I first saw email and the bulletin boards in fall of 79. Looking over the contents I noted that it was about 10% Star Trek/SciFi, about 10% dungeons&dragons/fantasy, about half lonely hearts, and the remaining 30% was serious science, engineering and everything else put together. Being single and 18 years at the time, I thought the lonely hearts bit was cool, but I soon found that the participants were about 80% men. Of the 20% women, about half of them were gay men. The few hetero women there were worshipped as the goddesses that they were. Fast forward ~15 yrs, www showed up. At first a lot of that was used for porno and lonely hearts, but with more actual women this time. Forward another 5 years to around 99/00 when Pleasure Palace came along. Interactive avatars, real-time chat, intentionally set up for lonely hearts, still mostly men but a better ratio than before. Looks like in some ways Second Life is an extension of Pleasure Palace, more polish, more real estate, more content, less likely to crash, more choices, better graphics, etc, yet much of the bandwidth is used for substitute meat-world social interaction and lonely hearts. Most importantly, this incarnation appears to be approximately gender balanced. Could this be? Or is it a trick? Am I the only one who has noticed this? spike From c.hales at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au Mon Dec 4 05:04:02 2006 From: c.hales at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au (Colin Geoffrey Hales) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:04:02 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational thinking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2648.139.168.37.69.1165208642.squirrel@webmail.student.unimelb.edu.au> > Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: >> Consider this: >> >> "... that neither beliefs nor acts of belief, nor decisions, >> nor even preferences, are reasonable or rational except in >> the sense that they are reached by procedures methods that >> are reasonable or rational. (The phrase rational belief is >> rather like the phrase 'fast food'.)..." > > Turtles all the way down, eh? Isn't that the same kind of thinking that > killed Buridan's Ass? > > I understand the point, and avoid the word "belief" for that very > reason, but isn't it interesting that absolutely effective decisions are > made and actions taken all the while lacking any valid means of support? > Every system functions within a context. Despite all the uncertainties, > the spider was just as dead after being swatted by the master. > >> "Induction: A Problem Solved" in David Miller 2005, "Out of >> Error" p111. > > I've had this book on my Amazon wish list for a while now but it's a bit > pricey and I don't know when I'll get to it. Checked UCSB library but > they don't have it either. Do you have a used copy to sell? > > - Jef > No copies to sell, unfortunately. Keep trying. It's a good book. I think Miller has nailed it. It aligns with scientific behaviour perfectly. You have to 'behave'... even inaction is a form of action (there's your ass!), so your behaviour automatically reflects an 'as-if' causal reflection of belief - even if it can't be articulated. In science, the process is simply more rigorous. Technology results from behaving 'as-if' a natural law (held as a belief) was a truth about the natural world. The facts of the matter are forever contingent and your technology will reflect its accuracy. Very very simple. Beliefs have to inhabit a human to acquire any causal efficacy as the ancestry to novel technology. cheers colin From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 14:34:26 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 06:34:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational thinking In-Reply-To: <2648.139.168.37.69.1165208642.squirrel@webmail.student.unimelb.edu.au> Message-ID: <134057.19396.qm@web51602.mail.yahoo.com> Most of you at this list have a positive outlook towards the future. I am motivated by an almost entirely negative outlook perceiving the past as being a horror that renders the future if nothing else a welcome escape from the past. The details of the future are naturally unknown, we can die in accidents. I thoroughly agree with Jeremy Rifkin that we live in an Orwellian world where truth is lies and lies are truth. Worse, perhaps, since hate so often disguises itself as love, all relationships are called into question, and philosophies and religions are-- to say the very least-- suspect. You might see this negative outlook as irrational yet not everyone shares the positive rationalism that such as philosophers, physicians, professors and scientists subscribe to. --------------------------------- Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 16:15:18 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:15:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Undying [Threads on this List] In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c71621$b93e05d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7641ddc60612040815g5f5a5ad0lbb57a0b4fc73061e@mail.gmail.com> On 12/2/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > Lee Corbin wrote: > > Jef writes > >> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >>> There seem to be a few threads on the list that seemingly > >>> cannot die. One of them involves pointless (IMO) struggles > >>> over the meaning of "rationality". This word has a > >>> reasonably clear definition provided on wikipedia, > > By the way, Rafal sent a thoughtful reply to me offlist, ### Jeez, did I again get messed up by the reply/reply to all button? Jeff, if you still have the email, and if you think it's worth being read by others, please feel free to post it to the list. :) Rafal From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 4 16:45:00 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:45:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] second life question In-Reply-To: <200612032140.kB3Le6IY009812@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200612032140.kB3Le6IY009812@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20061204164500.GJ6974@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 01:29:13PM -0800, spike wrote: > Forward another 5 years to around 99/00 when Pleasure Palace came along. > Interactive avatars, real-time chat, intentionally set up for lonely hearts, > still mostly men but a better ratio than before. I've missed that particular fad. I don't think they had realtime VR rendering, physics included. > Looks like in some ways Second Life is an extension of Pleasure Palace, more > polish, more real estate, more content, less likely to crash, more choices, > better graphics, etc, yet much of the bandwidth is used for substitute The interesting part is that, unlike Croquet, this is the first user-extensible game world with a large user base (though terrain inflation makes it into a desert) with the dedicated intention to not be a FPS. > meat-world social interaction and lonely hearts. Most importantly, this > incarnation appears to be approximately gender balanced. Of course it's like the real world, it's monkey-driven. In fact it's full of really young people who never used email so they're not aware of wta-talk and extropy-chat yet have heard of transhumanists. > Could this be? Or is it a trick? Am I the only one who has noticed this? SL is full of virtual pornography (I hear there are even BDSM folks who hold slaves). However, this doesn't detract one bit from the fact that this is the first public VR system deserving the name, including in-game object editor and a real programming language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linden_Scripting_Language Don't forget OpenCroquet, too, it's still very beta but it has been making progress in regards to avatar animation and input from popular 3rd-party builders. It's too bad it's so hardware-agnostic, being based on Squeak (a Smalltalk implementation). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From bret at bonfireproductions.com Mon Dec 4 14:14:02 2006 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 09:14:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] second life question In-Reply-To: <200612032140.kB3Le6IY009812@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200612032140.kB3Le6IY009812@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Hi Spike, My timetable and yours synch up. Though I think the BBS occupancy of the early era was more like 20%+ SciFi, but that could have just been where I was. Still remember copying the audio coupling modem program out of Byte, or whatever it was, to get the TRS-80 up to 300bps from 110. sigh. Anyway - two major points of SL - the first is the environment is shared and you can add to it, not just participate in it. They have a scripting language and a modeling program that lets you add to things. So its a good comparison to earlier MUDs that let you code in LPC to create content. The other point is that I'd wager the gender balance is visual only. Sure, better than it was in the 80s, but they are just avatars. Guys In Real Life as they say. Bret On Dec 3, 2006, at 4:29 PM, spike wrote: > Since the subject of second life is popping up here, I have a > question or an > observation. > > I first saw email and the bulletin boards in fall of 79. Looking > over the > contents I noted that it was about 10% Star Trek/SciFi, about 10% > dungeons&dragons/fantasy, about half lonely hearts, and the > remaining 30% > was serious science, engineering and everything else put together. > Being > single and 18 years at the time, I thought the lonely hearts bit > was cool, > but I soon found that the participants were about 80% men. Of the 20% > women, about half of them were gay men. The few hetero women there > were > worshipped as the goddesses that they were. > > Fast forward ~15 yrs, www showed up. At first a lot of that was > used for > porno and lonely hearts, but with more actual women this time. > > Forward another 5 years to around 99/00 when Pleasure Palace came > along. > Interactive avatars, real-time chat, intentionally set up for > lonely hearts, > still mostly men but a better ratio than before. > > Looks like in some ways Second Life is an extension of Pleasure > Palace, more > polish, more real estate, more content, less likely to crash, more > choices, > better graphics, etc, yet much of the bandwidth is used for substitute > meat-world social interaction and lonely hearts. Most importantly, > this > incarnation appears to be approximately gender balanced. > > Could this be? Or is it a trick? Am I the only one who has > noticed this? > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 16:51:50 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 08:51:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nietszche on rational irrationality Message-ID: <897863.7604.qm@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Nietzsche wrote, 'there are rational reasons for abandoning rationalism'. One could read into this, for instance, that in an irrational world behaving irrationally can be a plus in some circumstances. Like, say, you're at a seminar and everyone is gesticulating with their hands, a common yet irrational habit-- speech has no connection with hand movements, you might as well waggle your feet. However to fit in with the crowd you adopt the use of pointless hand waving, emphasizing certain words with a chopping or circular movement of the hand, and you fit in with everyone else :) --------------------------------- Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 17:37:25 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:37:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nietszche on rational irrationality In-Reply-To: <897863.7604.qm@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <897863.7604.qm@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62c14240612040937k178a2b36nd870fb615de7c061@mail.gmail.com> On 12/4/06, Al Brooks wrote: > > Nietzsche wrote, 'there are rational reasons for abandoning rationalism'. > One could read into this, for instance, that in an irrational world behaving > irrationally can be a plus in some circumstances. Like, say, you're at a > seminar and everyone is gesticulating with their hands, a common yet > irrational habit-- speech has no connection with hand movements, you might > as well waggle your feet. However to fit in with the crowd you adopt the use > of pointless hand waving, emphasizing certain words with a chopping or > circular movement of the hand, and you fit in with everyone else :) That is still a rational thought to emulate the behavior of the group. "Speech has no connection with hand movements" ? Perhaps not speech per se, but communication in general often involves much more than just the audio-track of a live performance. Have you ever done any public speaking? People tune-out more quickly if you are only speaking than if you engage their other senses during the speech. That's why gesturing to convey spatial relationships, or walking around is so common among good public speakers. (Obviously, it can be overdone. Pacing incessantly for example is very distracting) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Dec 4 18:45:37 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:45:37 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: The Undying Message-ID: Forwarded to the list per Rafal's request: -----Original Message----- From: Rafal Smigrodzki Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 1:10 PM To: Jef Allbright Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Undying On 11/30/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > Rafal, I agree with you that it gets old rehashing what we mean by > rationality. Same goes for personal identity, free-will, morality and > X*. > > But it's interesting to me that this problem of understanding runs so > deeply on a common thread tied to the meaning of self. ### Indeed, there is a very strong connection between the rationality and understanding of identity. After all, rationality (to use the dictionary meaning) is optimizing behavior to achieve goals, and goals are at the very core of our self, define morality, and are closely related to free will. What I find interesting is the recursive interaction between the inference structures in our mind, and the goal-definining structures. Once you turn your intellect (sharpened in the analysis of the outside world) to your own goals, strange things may happen. It appears that upon self-consideration, our self tends to become quite unstable, possibly chaotic, i.e. small changes in the initial emotional settings may lead to widely divergent outcomes. I presume that self-consideration is a relatively new phenomenon, evolutionarily speaking - our cave-dwelling and small-village ancestors didn't have the intellectual armamentarium accessible today to anybody who can read. Even in historical times and now only a fraction of the population, perhaps as little as 10%, engage in this sort of destabilizing activity. Not surprisingly, the neural safety features that would preclude gene-destructive outcomes, have not yet evolved to a high degree of efficacy. Is then the process of self-consideration a rational one? After all, turning your intellect on your goals may result in the erasure of many of the goals, possibly even all of them. If there was a goal "seek happiness" in my then sophomore mind a long time ago, it was erased upon noticing that happiness appears to be the subjective aspect of certain computations within, most notably, the cingulate and insular cortices and the nucleus accumbens. Why bother doing such computations? Somehow that goal didn't have an alarm system that would respond to such an inconoclastic question, and it was suppressed. On the other hand, other goals, like "avoid unhappiness", have a strong direct line in my mind to the cognitive faculties, so these goals are suppressed only mildly. It's dangerous for a goal to mess with itself. If rationality is using cognition to find ways of achieving goals, then using cognition to erase goals would be irrational. On the other hand, given the haphazard nature of our goal systems, consisting of a bunch of drives hastily (ca. 500 million years) slapped together by evolution, pruning some goals is almost always necessary to allow other goals to be achieved (I am referring to consciously shaping your goals over long periods of time, not to the simpler process of temporary supression of goals, such as "relieve bladder pressure", under certain circumstances). Therefore, I would hold that self-consideration is an indispensable, if dangerous, part of long-term rationality. Furthermore, it is facinating how the simple emotional images that constitute our initial goals are transformed by cogitation about some of the most advanced concepts in physics or neuroscience. On our list we can observe what happens to the urge for self-preservation after considering the many-worlds interpretation of QM, or the concept of uploading. We have the intellectual means to delve much deeper into what we really want than in the times when self-preservation meant simply running faster then the tiger. As you certainly notice, there are close analogies between the above process and the recursive development of the FAI. Will Eliezer's attempt at developing a reasonably safe but still powerful recursively self-modifying mind give us clues about what to do with our own minds? I stay tuned on SL4. Rafal From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 19:25:43 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:25:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nietszche on rational irrationality In-Reply-To: <62c14240612040937k178a2b36nd870fb615de7c061@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <550786.93197.qm@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> You're right. It was a joke. It's comical IMO to watch very smart people move their hands around in patterns with no real connection to what they are saying. Now, if you have someone who is very aware, they can plan their hand movements to fit their speech exactly -- an architect can use hand gestures to depict the raising of a structure :) But what is your guess as to what Nietszche might have meant by 'rational grounds for abandoning rationalism'? One possible clue comes immediately to mind: living in an anomised society you might perhaps do better to go with the flow as they say and modify somewhat your thinking & behavior to match your surroundings. Mike Dougherty wrote: That is still a rational thought to emulate the behavior of the group. "Speech has no connection with hand movements" ? Perhaps not speech per se, but communication in general often involves much more than just the audio-track of a live performance. Have you ever done any public speaking? People tune-out more quickly if you are only speaking than if you engage their other senses during the speech. That's why gesturing to convey spatial relationships, or walking around is so common among good public speakers. (Obviously, it can be overdone. Pacing incessantly for example is very distracting) _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Dec 4 18:54:56 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:54:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational thinking (2) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061204135445.0396a600@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:15 AM 11/30/2006 -0800, Chris Hibert wrote: snip >This seems to be uncharitable to the motivations of the Japanese pilots, >and I can't tell whether the intent is to include all uniformed >soldiers, all those acting in the moment, or only conscripts. > >I won't try to argue that those pilots were acting rightly, or that they >were fighting on behalf of a noble cause, but to say that they were >irrational because their immediate motivations were due to training and >group pressure doesn't give any credit to their feelings of patriotism >and their desire to support a large cause. "Rational" depends on the viewpoint being considered and with evolutionary psychology a person has at least two viewpoints to consider, himself or herself and that of his/her genes. People do things considered irrational all the time. But if you consider the viewpoint of genes, especially "inclusive fitness" where the copies of genes in relatives have a "vote" and then you note that human evolved in fairly closely related groups, most of the irrational acts turn out to be rational from a gene's viewpoint (or were rational in the stone age). >When phrased that way, all soldiers in combat act for those motivations, >but surely some of them have decided to place themselves in that >position. That was what the founders of the US were doing when they >made the aforementioned pledge. Once having done so, they each often >found themselves pressured by the force of later events and earlier >commitments. But you give them credit for the noble motivations behind >the earlier pledge, rather than the situations the pledge let them into. > >Would you like to draw a finer or a different distinction? How do you >want to characterize the actions of an American in uniform, who >voluntarily enlists, and later finds him or herself in a battlefield >situation, falling on a grenade to save fellow soldiers? Or soldiers in >earlier wars who made attacks against daunting odds in service of a >cause they chose to defend? The interesting aspect is where these psychological traits came from, i.e., evolved in the stone age. People commit to defend a group or make the ultimate sacrifice such as a suicide bomber because genes that caused people to behave that way did better than alternative genes when people lived in closely related hunter gather bands. People no longer live in closely related groups so falling on a grenade does not save a mess of relatives. But we are still wired up to treat people we are socially close to as if they were relatives. This trait's a blessing and a curse. Because of it, people can be induced into flying large aircraft into tall buildings. Without it, neither the aircraft or the buildings would exist. Keith Henson PS. I see that even this group has not yet fully integrated evolutionary psychology into our mental tools. It's hard to do, but well worth it. From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Dec 4 18:53:26 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:53:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational thinking In-Reply-To: References: <456F7B96.7050101@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061204135308.0379da08@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:49 PM 11/30/2006 -0800, Jef wrote: >Chris Hibbert wrote: snip Who would like to take a crack at an EP analysis of why the founders acted as they did? Keith Henson From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 22:24:37 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:24:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] second life question In-Reply-To: References: <200612032140.kB3Le6IY009812@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: I would guess part of the attraction in SL is that its got more bling. And to create the bling you have to invest time (at least if they keep copying & goo under control). Time = money, attraction, power, all the cool stuff you've got in the normal world. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 23:15:24 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 23:15:24 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] second life question In-Reply-To: References: <200612032140.kB3Le6IY009812@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 12/4/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > I would guess part of the attraction in SL is that its got more bling. > And to create the bling you have to invest time (at least if they keep > copying & goo under control). > > Time = money, attraction, power, all the cool stuff you've got in the normal > world. > The Gender / Age distribution in MMORPGs is mainly dependent on who has the spare time available to spend game playing. So it tends towards younger men and older home maker women. See The Daedalus Project. (Sorry to disappoint Spike, but the younger, mate-seeking women are not the women playing MMORPGs). BillK From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 23:27:49 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 18:27:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] second life question In-Reply-To: References: <200612032140.kB3Le6IY009812@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 12/4/06, BillK wrote: > The Gender / Age distribution in MMORPGs is mainly dependent on who > has the spare time available to spend game playing. Ain't that the truth... So it tends towards younger men and older home maker women. This I would raise an eyebrow at but find plausible. Who for heavens sake watches those soap operas all day long??? See The Daedalus Project. > Haven't read, don't know. (Sorry to disappoint Spike, but the younger, mate-seeking women are > not the women playing MMORPGs). Now, now, now, Spike has a fine S.O. and should be planning on dedicating the next 20 years of his life on focusing the little one to adapt to the singularity (I know of other parents of young'uns who seem to be focused on ignoring it, which IMO isn't a good idea.) He should be cultivating such places in SL where he can show some of his real foresight, not merely places where he can drop some dumb genes [1]. Robert 1. Which gets into a whole other can-o-worms, when will "genes-on-order" be a component of SL? Screw the bureacracy. I take some of the little buggers, stick them on dry ice, FedEx them to the downstream user and they do with them what they will. At least in Second Life one has the hope of Early Adopters + Early Adopters. In real life that may be much less probable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 23:37:57 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:37:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA list? Message-ID: <523037.42136.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> I was just curious, does anybody here know what happened to the WTA-talk list? I don't know if it is the whole list or just me, but I have not been able to send or recieve from them for almost a week now. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From pharos at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 00:23:13 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 00:23:13 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA list? In-Reply-To: <523037.42136.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> References: <523037.42136.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/4/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > I was just curious, does anybody here know what > happened to the WTA-talk list? I don't know if it is > the whole list or just me, but I have not been able to > send or recieve from them for almost a week now. > There are some messages in the archives at: but I agree that the WTA list seems to have stopped sending me mail around last Tuesday, Nov 28. BillK From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 00:24:11 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:24:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nietszche on rational irrationality In-Reply-To: <550786.93197.qm@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> References: <62c14240612040937k178a2b36nd870fb615de7c061@mail.gmail.com> <550786.93197.qm@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62c14240612041624of9bd20fk84b4b0d61f349ca5@mail.gmail.com> On 12/4/06, Al Brooks wrote: > > You're right. It was a joke. It's comical IMO to watch very smart people > move their hands around in patterns with no real connection to what they are > saying. Now, if you have someone who is very aware, they can plan their hand > movements to fit their speech exactly > -- an architect can use hand gestures to depict the raising of a structure > :) > But what is your guess as to what Nietszche might have meant by 'rational > grounds for abandoning rationalism'? One possible clue comes immediately to > mind: living in an anomised society you might perhaps do better to go with > the flow as they say and modify somewhat your thinking & behavior to match > your surroundings. > that makes me think of the Beatles "Imagine" - a truly depressing picture of a homeostatic society where everyone is equal. I wonder how much more likely one is to lose their identity completely once they're worn down to the point of acquiescence to the group mind? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Dec 5 00:40:46 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:40:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA list? Message-ID: <2064395.2766461165279245969.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> I've just sent Marcelo a heads-up. Usually I'm the one the WTA server hates. Now it's you all, too??? Hopefully he'll have a fix soon. PJ >On 12/4/06, The Avantguardian wrote: >> I was just curious, does anybody here know what >> happened to the WTA-talk list? I don't know if it is >> the whole list or just me, but I have not been able to >> send or recieve from them for almost a week now. >> > >There are some messages in the archives at: > > >but I agree that the WTA list seems to have stopped sending me mail >around last Tuesday, Nov 28. > >BillK >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From moulton at moulton.com Mon Dec 4 17:48:00 2006 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:48:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Predictions Discussion Message-ID: <1165254480.2673.134.camel@localhost.localdomain> I saw this event mentioned on another list and thought people in the SF Bay area on this list might be interested. Robin is listed as one of the speakers. http://upcoming.org/event/130004 Fred From hibbert at mydruthers.com Tue Dec 5 03:54:41 2006 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:54:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Predictions Discussion In-Reply-To: <1165254480.2673.134.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1165254480.2673.134.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4574ED81.9040703@mydruthers.com> > I saw this event mentioned on another list and thought people in the > SF Bay area on this list might be interested. Robin is listed as one > of the speakers. > > http://upcoming.org/event/130004 You might also be interested to know that "the developer of Zocalo, an open source prediction market platform" refers to me. I don't get star billing, but I'll get a few minutes to talk as well. Chris -- Currently reading: Marc Bekoff, The Cognitive Animal; Hahn and Tetlock: Information Markets; Robert T. Kiyosaki, Rich Dad's Guide to Investing; David D. Friedman: Harald Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Dec 5 04:49:48 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:49:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational thinking References: <456F7B96.7050101@mydruthers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061204135308.0379da08@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <05d301c71829$371901e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > Who would like to take a crack at an EP analysis of why the founders acted > as they did? Your posts were almost entirely adequate on this point. It's pretty obvious, really. These were men with stronger social skills and stronger social instincts than most, and nature, as many processes are wont to do, serves up a normal distribution of such skills and instincts. Based on survival evolution, their genes were the distal cause of their behavior; individuals and groups having such individuals fared better not only as you write, in the EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptedness), but also in the last 10,000 years. Your analysis, however, did not adequately mention the cultural evolution that had placed these men in those positions at those times. "The Rights of Englishmen" was not to them an idle phrase, and we can see its memetic power clearly. The proximate causes of their behavior included in many cases their own economic self-interest. George Washington, for example, had been incensed for years at the treatment of himself and his neighbors by the distant government of a King to whom they were still very loyal. Almost all of them exhibited strong mixtures of motivations---the feelings of group loyalty and patriotism to what they called and considered to be their own "dear native land". Not a few of these were written out in the Declaration of Independence, (which contains quite a list of grievances in addition to other observations keenly and sincerely felt). Genes provide just one level of explanatory power, a level that was sadly neglected for ideological reasons throughout the entire 20th century. But it's important to keep in mind that it's not the only level at which valid explanations are to be found. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Dec 5 04:55:23 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:55:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nietszche on rational irrationality References: <62c14240612040937k178a2b36nd870fb615de7c061@mail.gmail.com><550786.93197.qm@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240612041624of9bd20fk84b4b0d61f349ca5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <05d601c71829$a3cd3950$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike writes > that makes me think of the Beatles "Imagine" - a truly > depressing picture of a homeostatic society where > everyone is equal. Well, in no society has everyone been equal, and until we meddle enough with human nature or our mind children do it for us will it ever be possible. > I wonder how much more likely one is to lose their identity > completely once they're worn down to the point of > acquiescence to the group mind? Now *that* has happened before: just think of extraordinarily devout communities of religious believers. Living in free, open, and diverse societies is an extremely efficient and hardy antidote. In fact, you really need not that much. The puritans and pilgrims in Colonial America and in Great Britain were hardly bereft of strong individuals. So I don't think that there is really anything to worry about on this score. Lee From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 07:36:31 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 08:36:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting comment on a blog Message-ID: <470a3c520612042336g17b37b12te9cf1160ae51b3f1@mail.gmail.com> [Talking of a friend] She's saying that Francis Fukuyama and Leon R. Kass and other prominent bio-Luddites are right to fear transhumanism, but perhaps not for the reasons they think. Transhumanism, she says, can be seen as a sort of intentional sub-speciation; when two distinct subspecies compete in the same ecological niche for the same resources, conflict is often the result. And she's right. For the bulk of human society, we have found it very easy to dehumanize those whose skin is a different color. Just recently, on another forum I read, people were expressing discomfort and shock because other people ink their bodies or wear jewelry in unconventional places, and express doubt that such people can fit into society in a professional way. It need not be the machines that rebel, Cylon-style, against the humans; the humans are more than capable of starting the conflict, with our inbuilt fears and prejudices, ourselves. If we can not handle people who look a little bit different from us, ir decorate their bodies a little bit differently, how will we handle people who look nothing like us, or do not have human bodies at all? It is no accident, I think, that in the Matrix, is is the humans, not the machines, who (literally) throw the first stone. http://tacit.livejournal.com/193675.html From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Dec 5 11:03:24 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 12:03:24 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting comment on a blog Message-ID: <1496.86.130.31.75.1165316604.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Transhumanism, she says, > can be seen as a sort of intentional sub-speciation; when two distinct > subspecies compete in the same ecological niche for the same > resources, conflict is often the result. But what happens in a positive sum game? In most parts of economy (except of course getting limited government handout money) the interactions tend to be win-win situations. In that case conflict would not be the likely result but rather specialisation. > And she's right. For the bulk of human society, we have found it very > easy to dehumanize those whose skin is a different color. Just > recently, on another forum I read, people were expressing discomfort > and shock because other people ink their bodies or wear jewelry in > unconventional places, and express doubt that such people can fit into > society in a professional way. Yes, but this is a different kind of conflict than economical conflict. This is just xenophobia or mistrusting/punishing people not adhering to group norms. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 11:27:57 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 12:27:57 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting comment on a blog In-Reply-To: <1496.86.130.31.75.1165316604.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1496.86.130.31.75.1165316604.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <470a3c520612050327u2a94a89ds7ae1f3065cc1854@mail.gmail.com> What I found interesting and worth reporting is the last sentence, which may sadly be correct: "If we can not handle people who look a little bit different from us, ir decorate their bodies a little bit differently, how will we handle people who look nothing like us, or do not have human bodies at all? It is no accident, I think, that in the Matrix, is is the humans, not the machines, who (literally) throw the first stone." G. On 12/5/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > Transhumanism, she says, > > can be seen as a sort of intentional sub-speciation; when two distinct > > subspecies compete in the same ecological niche for the same > > resources, conflict is often the result. > > But what happens in a positive sum game? In most parts of economy (except > of course getting limited government handout money) the interactions tend > to be win-win situations. In that case conflict would not be the likely > result but rather specialisation. > > > And she's right. For the bulk of human society, we have found it very > > easy to dehumanize those whose skin is a different color. Just > > recently, on another forum I read, people were expressing discomfort > > and shock because other people ink their bodies or wear jewelry in > > unconventional places, and express doubt that such people can fit into > > society in a professional way. > > Yes, but this is a different kind of conflict than economical conflict. > This is just xenophobia or mistrusting/punishing people not adhering to > group norms. > > -- > Anders Sandberg, > Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics > Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Dec 5 12:32:25 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 13:32:25 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting comment on a blog In-Reply-To: <470a3c520612050327u2a94a89ds7ae1f3065cc1854@mail.gmail.com> References: <1496.86.130.31.75.1165316604.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <470a3c520612050327u2a94a89ds7ae1f3065cc1854@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1959.86.130.31.75.1165321945.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > What I found interesting and worth reporting is the last sentence, > which may sadly be correct: > "If we can not handle people who look a little bit different > from us, ir decorate their bodies a little bit differently, how will > we handle people who look nothing like us, or do not have human bodies > at all? Yes. This is why I think transhumanists should always support ways of making society more tolerant and better at handling diversity. It might be nearly as important for realizing our visions as enabling the technology. The trick is to do it without becoming naively politically correct about it. Much pro-tolerance argumentation is based on the implicit assumption that differences don't matter in the sense that we are all equally capable. Transhumanism explicitely aims at creating differences in capability (even if we might want everybody to have access to the enhanced capabilities different people are likely to choose different kinds of capabilities). We need to be able to argue for tolerance and diversity even with different capabilities. This is doable (e.g. core ethical values like human rights are not strongly tied to capability), but as many of the common criticisms of transhumanism show, it is not something people are used to. They assume different capability automatically implies different value. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Dec 5 14:34:30 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 06:34:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational thinking References: <456F7B96.7050101@mydruthers.com><5.1.0.14.0.20061204135308.0379da08@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <05d301c71829$371901e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <05ee01c7187a$7e402c00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith had *specifically* asked for someone to suggest (as an exercise) a EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGICAL analysis accounting for the behavior of America's founders > Who would like to take a crack at an EP analysis of why the founders acted > as they did? and, after a paragraph or two that really provided no new information, I launched into other types of explanation, as if that had been the question. My apologies. Lee > Your posts were almost entirely adequate on this point. It's > pretty obvious, really. These were men with stronger social skills > and stronger social instincts than most, and nature, as many > processes are wont to do, serves up a normal distribution > of such skills and instincts. > > Based on survival evolution, their genes were the distal cause > of their behavior; individuals and groups having such individuals > fared better not only as you write, in the EEA (environment of > evolutionary adaptedness), but also in the last 10,000 years. > > Your analysis, however, did not adequately mention the cultural > evolution that had placed these men in those positions at those > times. "The Rights of Englishmen" was not to them an idle phrase, > and we can see its memetic power clearly. > > The proximate causes of their behavior included in many cases > their own economic self-interest. George Washington, for example, > had been incensed for years at the treatment of himself and his > neighbors by the distant government of a King to whom they were > still very loyal. > > Almost all of them exhibited strong mixtures of motivations---the > feelings of group loyalty and patriotism to what they called and > considered to be their own "dear native land". Not a few of these > were written out in the Declaration of Independence, (which contains > quite a list of grievances in addition to other observations keenly > and sincerely felt). > > Genes provide just one level of explanatory power, a level that was > sadly neglected for ideological reasons throughout the entire 20th > century. But it's important to keep in mind that it's not the only level > at which valid explanations are to be found. > > Lee From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Dec 5 15:47:13 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 07:47:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting comment on a blog In-Reply-To: <470a3c520612050327u2a94a89ds7ae1f3065cc1854@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > What I found interesting and worth reporting is the last > sentence, which may sadly be correct: > "If we can not handle people who look a little bit different > from us, ir decorate their bodies a little bit differently, > how will we handle people who look nothing like us, or do not > have human bodies at all? It is no accident, I think, that in > the Matrix, is is the humans, not the machines, who > (literally) throw the first stone." Actually, in regard to the kind of innate tendency to feel repulsion which you mention here, the feeling is strongest when the difference is slight and close to home. It is much easier to accept that strange people (or machines) do strange things when such events are at the fringes of our sphere of moral self-identification. A practical aspect of this is that we are challenged to overcome such prejudices only to the extent that we interact outside that self-defined sphere. - Jef From ben at goertzel.org Tue Dec 5 15:58:52 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:58:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting comment on a blog In-Reply-To: References: <470a3c520612050327u2a94a89ds7ae1f3065cc1854@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <638d4e150612050758x35dd9d94x6580e361db082a8d@mail.gmail.com> > Actually, in regard to the kind of innate tendency to feel repulsion > which you mention here, the feeling is strongest when the difference is > slight and close to home. Yes. This is related to the phenomenon called the "Uncanny Valley", which is a big deal in the design of humanoid robots and avatars. -- Ben G From amara at amara.com Tue Dec 5 17:09:14 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 18:09:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] for Amara - a cartoon referencing Pluto Message-ID: MB: >I've enjoyed this strip for some years now - it's pleasant and friendly, >characteristics sorely lacking some days in Real Life! > >The Pluto cartoon is for Sunday, 3 December > >http://www.kevinandkell.com/ Thanks, MB. Now I have a 'Pluto' for you: http://www.amara.com/gracieextremeclose-up.jpg This is a picture of my sister's dog from the perspective of her 5 year old son. She encourages him to walk around their house with a cheap digital camera, taking pictures. I've been urging her for a while to collect all of his pictures, as they are a unique record of his life, and they are also an engaging view of the universe from a height of 1 meter and from the mind of someone who doesn't easily accept the words: 'no', you cannot. :-) To aid Anders' previous words about lending encouragement and support for the tolerance of differences, I suggest to all of those (and us) who are 'different', to: document, document, document... These five year olds have a lot to say and to contribute to the richness of the world we adults live in, don't you think? So do every other 'different' being. Since our media is almost instantaneous, I suggest to use it in order to show diversity in all its glory. Resist homogenization.... ! Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Tue Dec 5 17:18:54 2006 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 10:18:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting comment on a blog References: Message-ID: <4575A9FE.1010805@thomasoliver.net> Jef Allbright wrote: >Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > >>What I found interesting and worth reporting is the last >>sentence, which may sadly be correct: >>"If we can not handle people who look a little bit different >>from us, ir decorate their bodies a little bit differently, >>how will we handle people who look nothing like us, or do not >>have human bodies at all? It is no accident, I think, that in >>the Matrix, is is the humans, not the machines, who >>(literally) throw the first stone." >> >> > >Actually, in regard to the kind of innate tendency to feel repulsion >which you mention here, the feeling is strongest when the difference is >slight and close to home. It is much easier to accept that strange >people (or machines) do strange things when such events are at the >fringes of our sphere of moral self-identification. > >A practical aspect of this is that we are challenged to overcome such >prejudices only to the extent that we interact outside that self-defined >sphere. > >- Jef > According to Micheal Flynn the human brain at this point is hard wired for interpersonal relations with only 80 to 100 people (a small tribe). Cultural constrains aside, it's natural for us to share with and care for our tribe member. It's also natural to rob, kill and enslave non members. That's why there's such a demand for hypocrisy (diplomacy) in a global society. I'm thinking that tinkering with that wiring might help us get past some neuroses. -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Dec 5 20:17:58 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:17:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] for Amara - a cartoon referencing Pluto Message-ID: <13494580.59061165349878698.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Amara wrote: >http://www.amara.com/gracieextremeclose-up.jpg > >This is a picture of my sister's dog from the perspective of her 5 year >old son. She encourages him to walk around their house with a cheap >digital camera, taking pictures. I've been urging her for a while to >collect all of his pictures, as they are a unique record of his life, >and they are also an engaging view of the universe from a height of 1 >meter and from the mind of someone who doesn't easily accept the words: >'no', you cannot. :-) > >To aid Anders' previous words about lending encouragement and support >for the tolerance of differences, I suggest to all of those (and us) who >are 'different', to: document, document, document... These five year >olds have a lot to say and to contribute to the richness of the world we >adults live in, don't you think? So do every other 'different' being. > >Since our media is almost instantaneous, I suggest to use it in order to >show diversity in all its glory. Resist homogenization.... ! And increase empathy! Thanks for this Amara. This is a perfect example of visual storytelling increasing empathy. 5 year old meets dog, in the 5 year old's shoes. (Oh! Big Dog! And his nose is in my face! Is he going to lick me???) If you put his photos together, they'd tell the story of his 5 year old life. And you'd relate. If a five year old can crack this at his level, what about the rest of us? PJ From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Dec 5 20:35:14 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:35:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting comment on a blog - RESEND Message-ID: <31937347.61551165350914817.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Sorry if this is a little confusing. I sent this before I sent the Amara reply. >Thomas said: >I'm thinking that tinkering with that wiring might help us get past >some neuroses. ?-- Thomas Empathy, folks. It's all about empathy. So how do you generate empathy? I've repeatedly said storytelling, because it's a proven method. But if you all have another way to do it, or have a theory of how it can be achieved, I recommend we come up with it as soon as possible, concurrent with H+ therapies and enhancements. In fact, it may be more important than the H+ augmentations themselves in the short term. Because we're gonna need it. PJ From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 22:24:55 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 14:24:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nietszche on rational irrationality In-Reply-To: <05d601c71829$a3cd3950$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <497714.10894.qm@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> don't Americans deserve Bush? The country is corny and sentimental, so a cornball is elected president; a guy who reminds enough voters of their grandfathers is elected vice president. Americans have mediocre K-12 schools because too many want it that way. If no one goes broke underestimating the taste of Americans then we deserve a trash culture that is in-your-face. Rational irrationalism. --------------------------------- Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 01:45:28 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:45:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism Message-ID: <20061206014528.90218.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> The question is: do rational reasons exist for irrational thinking and behavior that enable one to escape irrational reality? the answer is yes. To an extraterrestrial visiting Earth, drinking and watching football would seem to be irrational, but it makes perfect sense, drinking helps a guy to forget; in watching football you can vicariously observe men harming each other. If a guy wasn't watching football and drinking he might very well be involved in fisticuffs in bars, driving DUI, engaging in acts of vandalism. Working on dairy farms I saw men busting their humps 10- 15 hours a day, then drinking themselves into a coma at night. Didn't make any sense... or did it? The farmers had large broods of children, and they would invariably say, "you can't live forever-- except through your kids". The work would give then plenty of exercise, they would drink themselves into oblivion, the children would inherit the farms after they passed away, there was a great deal of rationality to the irrationalism. Even geniuses can be rationally irrational, I know a free spirited professor who didn't want to get married, it was the last thing he wanted, but his libido overrode his better judgement, he ended up married with children. He's not happy-- or not particularly so-- but studies indicate marrieds live longer, so being married with children makes irrational sense to him. Even this war makes sense, in an irrational way. America is violent, the other side is violent; so though war is irrational, this war is rational in the context of an irrational world. What can Bush say? Could he appear on TV to say, "we're sadistic killers, the enemy are sadistic killers, in a nationalistic world headed by bumbling chief executives such as myself we will know war. Yes I screwed it up, but I'm such a vicious, resolute SOB you may do as well to keep me on as president rather than take a chance with someone else". ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 02:59:16 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:59:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <20061206014528.90218.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061206014528.90218.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62c14240612051859w2c2e3e5at69a18e5babbe47d4@mail.gmail.com> On 12/5/06, Al Brooks wrote: > harming each other. If a guy wasn't watching football > and drinking he might very well be involved in > fisticuffs in bars, driving DUI, engaging in acts of > vandalism. What would he be doing in bars if not drinking? Does being in bars while sober lead to fisticuffs? That's not how you usually hear about bar fights starting. ...And if a guy is not drinking, how is he going to be DUI? Isn't drinking a prerequisite for DUI? I'm not sure why vandalism is mitigated by drinking or watching football. I think a research grant should be secured to give this relationship further study. > Working on dairy farms I saw men busting their humps > 10- 15 hours a day, then drinking themselves into a > coma at night. Didn't make any sense... or did it? dairy cows have humps? I thought that was camels. No, you were right: makes no sense. The farmers had large broods of children, and they > would invariably say, "you can't live forever-- except > through your kids". The work would give then plenty of > exercise, they would drink themselves into oblivion, > the children would inherit the farms after they passed > away, there was a great deal of rationality to the > irrationalism. Even geniuses can be rationally irrational, I know a > free spirited professor who didn't want to get > married, it was the last thing he wanted, but his > libido overrode his better judgement, he ended up > married with children. He's not happy-- or not > particularly so-- but studies indicate marrieds live > longer, so being married with children makes > irrational sense to him. Does he drink like a farmer? (I know, but in what other context will I _ever_ be able to ask if someone drinks like a farmer?) Even this war makes sense, in an irrational way. > America is violent, the other side is violent; so > though war is irrational, this war is rational in the > context of an irrational world. What can Bush say? > Could he appear on TV to say, "we're sadistic killers, > the enemy are sadistic killers, in a nationalistic > world headed by bumbling chief executives such as > myself we will know war. Yes I screwed it up, but I'm > such a vicious, resolute SOB you may do as well to > keep me on as president rather than take a chance with > someone else". > If you have separate audio programming (SAP) on your TV, you can actually select that dialog during presidential speeches. Or maybe you need to read between the lines to get that. I'm not sure, but it's there. Was this intentionally a subtle meta-example of rational irrationality (self-referentially giving meaning to an almost nonsensical oxymoron?) If so, bravo. If not, 'hope I didn't offend - but I thought it was very funny. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Wed Dec 6 03:16:01 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 22:16:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <62c14240612051859w2c2e3e5at69a18e5babbe47d4@mail.gmail.com> References: <20061206014528.90218.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240612051859w2c2e3e5at69a18e5babbe47d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <638d4e150612051916r1b986d4bk84a6029ac408c9c3@mail.gmail.com> It can certainly be rational to think "irrational thoughts", in the sense of thinking thoughts that one believes are very unlikely to be correct -- and are in fact probably nonsensical, based on the knowledge one has. This can be rational to do if you are thinking about something and get "stuck", and want to "loosen up" your thought processes and push your mind in new directions --- even if these directions might seem nonsensical **at first** -- Ben G On 12/5/06, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On 12/5/06, Al Brooks wrote: > > > harming each other. If a guy wasn't watching football > > and drinking he might very well be involved in > > fisticuffs in bars, driving DUI, engaging in acts of > > vandalism. > > What would he be doing in bars if not drinking? Does being in bars while > sober lead to fisticuffs? That's not how you usually hear about bar fights > starting. ...And if a guy is not drinking, how is he going to be DUI? > Isn't drinking a prerequisite for DUI? I'm not sure why vandalism is > mitigated by drinking or watching football. I think a research grant should > be secured to give this relationship further study. > > > Working on dairy farms I saw men busting their humps > > 10- 15 hours a day, then drinking themselves into a > > coma at night. Didn't make any sense... or did it? > > dairy cows have humps? I thought that was camels. No, you were right: > makes no sense. > > > The farmers had large broods of children, and they > > would invariably say, "you can't live forever-- except > > through your kids". The work would give then plenty of > > exercise, they would drink themselves into oblivion, > > the children would inherit the farms after they passed > > away, there was a great deal of rationality to the > > irrationalism. > > > Even geniuses can be rationally irrational, I know a > > free spirited professor who didn't want to get > > married, it was the last thing he wanted, but his > > libido overrode his better judgement, he ended up > > married with children. He's not happy-- or not > > particularly so-- but studies indicate marrieds live > > longer, so being married with children makes > > irrational sense to him. > > Does he drink like a farmer? (I know, but in what other context will I > _ever_ be able to ask if someone drinks like a farmer?) > > > Even this war makes sense, in an irrational way. > > America is violent, the other side is violent; so > > though war is irrational, this war is rational in the > > context of an irrational world. What can Bush say? > > Could he appear on TV to say, "we're sadistic killers, > > the enemy are sadistic killers, in a nationalistic > > world headed by bumbling chief executives such as > > myself we will know war. Yes I screwed it up, but I'm > > such a vicious, resolute SOB you may do as well to > > keep me on as president rather than take a chance with > > someone else". > > > > If you have separate audio programming (SAP) on your TV, you can actually > select that dialog during presidential speeches. Or maybe you need to read > between the lines to get that. I'm not sure, but it's there. > > > Was this intentionally a subtle meta-example of rational irrationality > (self-referentially giving meaning to an almost nonsensical oxymoron?) If > so, bravo. If not, 'hope I didn't offend - but I thought it was very funny. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 03:41:06 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 19:41:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <62c14240612051859w2c2e3e5at69a18e5babbe47d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <446306.19824.qm@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Not everyone goes into bars to over-drink, sometimes they have only one drink and flirt rather than fight. Anyway, when someone is home alone drinking and watching football they are less likely to leave their dwelling to go to a location where they are more likely to get into a drunken fight, or get in a vehicle and DUI. I was trying to say that some irrational thinking & behavior can be less destructive than others, so that irrational thinking & behavior can be default rational. Aggressive nationalism is irrational however in an aggressively nationalistic world, aggressive nationalism can mean national survival-- a default rationalism. Will terminate this thread before it stretches on to the holidays and into 2007 (sigh of relief from all list members). What would he be doing in bars if not drinking? Does being in bars while sober lead to fisticuffs? That's not how you usually hear about bar fights starting. ...And if a guy is not drinking, how is he going to be DUI? Isn't drinking a prerequisite for DUI? I'm not sure why vandalism is mitigated by drinking or watching football. I think a research grant should be secured to give this relationship further study[...] Was this intentionally a subtle meta-example of rational irrationality (self-referentially giving meaning to an almost nonsensical oxymoron?) If so, bravo. If not, 'hope I didn't offend - but I thought it was very funny. --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pj at pj-manney.com Wed Dec 6 06:46:17 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:46:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism Message-ID: <4438603.111341165387577818.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >It can certainly be rational to think "irrational thoughts", in the >sense of thinking thoughts that one believes are very unlikely to be >correct -- and are in fact probably nonsensical, based on the >knowledge one has. > >This can be rational to do if you are thinking about something and get >"stuck", and want to "loosen up" your thought processes and push your >mind in new directions --- even if these directions might seem >nonsensical **at first** > >-- Ben G It's called the Creative Process. From ArtLex, the online art dictionary: The stages of the creative process: 1) Finding or formulating a problem. George Kneller (American psychologist) called this stage "first insight." 2) Researching and drawing from life experiences (memory), networking, etc. This stage is variously called "discovery" and "saturation." 3) Mulling over the problem in a sort of chaos of ideas and knowledge, letting go of certainties (forgetting). Jacob Getzel (American psychologist) called this stage "incubation" -- engaging the intuitive, non-sequential, or global thinking at the core of creativity. 4) One or more ideas surface. This is also called "immersion" and "illumination." 5) The idea is tested as a potential solution to the problem. Getzel called this "verification." This final stage often involves revision ? conscious structuring and editing of created material. PJ "What a strange machine man is! You fill him with bread, wine, fish, and radishes, and out comes sighs, laughter, and dreams." Nikos Kazantzakis (1885-1957), Greek novelist. From pj at pj-manney.com Wed Dec 6 06:50:08 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:50:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism Message-ID: <33250941.108341165387808226.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >It can certainly be rational to think "irrational thoughts", in the >sense of thinking thoughts that one believes are very unlikely to be >correct -- and are in fact probably nonsensical, based on the >knowledge one has. > >This can be rational to do if you are thinking about something and get >"stuck", and want to "loosen up" your thought processes and push your >mind in new directions --- even if these directions might seem >nonsensical **at first** > >-- Ben G It's called the Creative Process. From ArtLex, the online art dictionary: The stages of the creative process: 1) Finding or formulating a problem. George Kneller (American psychologist) called this stage "first insight." 2) Researching and drawing from life experiences (memory), networking, etc. This stage is variously called "discovery" and "saturation." 3) Mulling over the problem in a sort of chaos of ideas and knowledge, letting go of certainties (forgetting). Jacob Getzel (American psychologist) called this stage "incubation" -- engaging the intuitive, non-sequential, or global thinking at the core of creativity. 4) One or more ideas surface. This is also called "immersion" and "illumination." 5) The idea is tested as a potential solution to the problem. Getzel called this "verification." This final stage often involves revision ? conscious structuring and editing of created material. PJ "What a strange machine man is! You fill him with bread, wine, fish, and radishes, and out comes sighs, laughter, and dreams." Nikos Kazantzakis (1885-1957), Greek novelist. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 07:02:51 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 23:02:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <20061206014528.90218.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <653898.84758.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > The question is: do rational reasons exist for > irrational thinking and behavior that enable one to > escape irrational reality? When it comes to rational irrationalism, I think these guys take the cake: http://www.vhemt.org/ I don't know quite what to make of it. Bizarre. Best I can guess, this is what happens when one is spoiled by no longer having to run screaming in terror from nature in all its merciless ferocity. I can't imagine one of these guys going hungry for more than a day, despite all their appeals regarding the starving third world children. As if all the smart people in the world just decided not to breed, all the suffering in the world would just magically go away. True we are a force of nature when it comes to ecological damage, but you don't see nature wringing its hands in angst over mass extinctions caused by volcanos and asteroid impacts. Why should we care more about nature than the rest of nature cares about itself or us for that matter? We are the ONLY part of nature that cares one bit about nature. That is more than enough, in my opinion, to make up for all the damage we might cause. Unlike an asteroid or a volcano, we will write poems in loving memory of the trees we kill. Dylan Thomas must be rolling over in his grave. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick ____________________________________________________________________________________ Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. From neptune at superlink.net Wed Dec 6 12:42:13 2006 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 07:42:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational Irrationality References: <20061206014528.90218.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002e01c71933$f501a260$ee893cd1@pavilion> No time to participate in the discussion, but I thought all of you might look over http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/econ.html for three essays on this by Bryan Caplan. The essays are: "Rational Irrationality: A Framework for the Neoclassical-Behavioral Debate" (_Eastern Economic Journal_ 26(2), Spring 2000, pp.191-211.) Abstract: "Critics of behavioral economics often argue that apparent irrationality arises mainly because test subjects lack adequate incentives; the defenders of behavioral economics typically reply that their findings are robust to this criticism. The current paper presents a simple theoretical model of "rational irrationality" to clarify this debate, reducing the neoclassical-behavioral dispute to a controversy over the shape of agents' wealth/irrationality indifference curves. Many experimental anomalies are consistent with small deviations from polar "neoclassical" preferences, but even mildly relaxing standard assumptions about preferences has strong implications. Rational irrationality can explain both standard, costly biases, as well as wealth-enhancing irrationality, but it remains inconsistent with evidence that intensifying financial incentives for rationality makes biases more pronounced." "Rational Ignorance vs. Rational Irrationality" (_Kyklos_ 54(1), 2001, pp.3-26.) Abstract: "Beliefs about politics and religion often have three puzzling properties: systematic bias, high certainty, and little informational basis. The theory of rational ignorance (Downs 1957) explains only the low level of information. The current paper presents a general model of "rational irrationality," which explains all three stylized facts. According to the theory of rational irrationality, being irrational - in the sense of deviating from rational expectations - is a good like any other; the lower the private cost, the more agents buy. A peculiar feature of beliefs about politics, religion, etc. is that the private repercussions of error are virtually nonexistent, setting the private cost of irrationality at zero; it is therefore in these areas that irrational views are most apparent. The consumption of irrationality can be optimal, but it will usually not be when the private and the social cost of irrationality differ - for example, in elections." "Rational Irrationality and the Microfoundations of Political Failure" (_Public Choice_ 107(3/4), June 2001, pp.311-331.) Abstract: "Models of inefficient political failure have been criticized for implicitly assuming the irrationality of voters. (Wittman 1999, 1995, 1989; Coate and Morris 1995) Building on Caplan's (1999a, 1999b) model of "rational irrationality," the current paper maintains that the assumption of voter irrationality is both theoretically and empirically plausible. It then examines microfoundational criticisms of four classes of political failure models: rent-seeking, pork-barrel politics, bureaucracy, and economic reform. In each of the four cases, incorporating simple forms of privately costless irrationality makes it possible to clearly derive the models' standard conclusions. Moreover, it follows that efforts to mitigate political failures will be socially suboptimal, as most of the literature implicitly assumes. It is a mistake to discount the empirical evidence for these models on theoretical grounds." I'm not saying I agree with all Caplan has to say here, but I think he provokes some thought. Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 13:41:33 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 08:41:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Anti-Bayesian spam Message-ID: Well, the following got through the gmail filters this morning. I've converted it to text and removed the GIF attachment (which was presumably the real message). Interesting how it seems to be generating relatively coherent text. I wonder if they are picking out phrases from popular news items or simply generating semi-proper text using phrases that score low on Bayesian filtering methods. At any rate the battle continues... Robert ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Daniel A. Oconnell Date: Dec 6, 2006 1:11 AM Subject: purification To: robert.bradbury at gmail.com It will be really interesting to see how Google changes after this. but she rides like a dream! He fractured his ankle. Google obviously thought so too, since they went and bought the company so its especially nice to get it for free. I can come home at any time and settle down and live quietly - now is the time to see more of the world, and with a Canadian visa in my hands I might as well take advantage of it. I currently use rapid fire and have for a very long time. If I was in charge of the application process, I would not be three minutes late to grab a domain name. That deserves a blog post! Very interesting and down to earth, just the kind of thing you should be ready for in an interview I reckon. Now I can order my goodies! Born in Philadelphia, Bradley earned a. The next stage is in Santa Barbara and if there isn't. Cowgirls, here I come! It was so good in fact that it has inspired me to head back and work there for a year or so. David Pogue, from the. That big cold front has the Midwest looking like what I imagine Norway looks like - frozen rutted ice blobs waiting for you in the road and single digit temps. pesky newbie syndrome! Well It's good news in any case. I'm working on Google. but she rides like a dream! Google obviously thought so too, since they went and bought the company so its especially nice to get it for free. but she rides like a dream! Medley, an author and naturalist who devoted his life to promoting Yosemite National Park, died on Oct. I just got back from a lunch ride and I'm in love. Medley, an author and naturalist who devoted his life to promoting Yosemite National Park, died on Oct. Can you say steel bikes? so I reckon we're going to make it! eu domain name, despite fierce competition from Ralph Lauren and Polo-mint maker Nestle, a leading registrar reveals. The Alta Loma, Calif. They are beautiful with a lot of seams in the front, expecially on the knees and lower leg. With the move to Canada rushing towards me like a train, I have had to sit down and ensure I have everything sorted. I've been searching for a week with no luck in finding a certain pair of tights. The Alta Loma, Calif. com Cell Phones GuideSite. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Dec 6 13:56:35 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 05:56:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: The Undying References: Message-ID: <064b01c7193e$909ddcc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Rafal wrote---thanks to Jef for forwarding an accidentally offlist message--- > Forwarded to the list per Rafal's request: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rafal Smigrodzki > Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 1:10 PM > To: Jef Allbright > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Undying > >> But it's interesting to me that this problem of understanding runs so >> deeply on a common thread tied to the meaning of self. > > ### Indeed, there is a very strong connection between the rationality > and understanding of identity. After all, rationality (to use the > dictionary meaning) is optimizing behavior to achieve goals, and goals > are at the very core of our self, define morality, and are closely > related to free will. I'm not so sure that there is a "connection between rationality" and "understanding of identity". I do accept your dictionary definition of rationality, but to what extent are there "goals at the very core of our self"? (It may simply be that you are not talking about *personal* identity at all.) At the core of Rafal's self, for example, as opposed to, say, Jef's self? Without doubt, goal seeking behavior is a phenomenon closely related to free will, but to morality? I can understand this in only the most general sense---and that is because our goal seeking behavior is part of any aspect of our behavior, whether it's morality, aesthetic appreciation, love, whatever. It doesn't seem to have any specifically closer relationship to morality than to a lot of other things. > It appears that upon self-consideration, our self tends to become > quite unstable, possibly chaotic, i.e. small changes in the initial > emotional settings... (etc) Yes, for sure. > I presume that self-consideration is a relatively new phenomenon, > evolutionarily speaking - our cave-dwelling and small-village ancestors > didn't have the intellectual armamentarium accessible today to anybody > who can read. Sorry, I don't really see how this could be true. Are you are claiming that illiterate people---of whom there still are many in the world, many of whom are highly intelligent, socially perceptive and well-connected--- have less "self-consideration"? A socratic type claim that "the unexamined life is not worth living?" Or do you simply mean that literacy and living in a rich sea of memes does provide far stronger capability to engage in self-analysis. > Is then the process of self-consideration a rational one? After all, > turning your intellect on your goals may result in the erasure of many > of the goals, possibly even all of them. If I'm following you, then yes, I can imagine that a good rational case for "Do not engage in self-consideration, for it is dangerous" could be made. But surely the *process* of self-consideration will still be undertaken as a rational activity, except, of course, in those cases where the self-analysis is totally dominated by emotional reactions. (E.g., overwrought people who can scarcely form a single thought without it triggering an avalanche of emotions that wash out linear, step by step analysis.) Lee From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Dec 6 14:01:58 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 09:01:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Anti-Bayesian spam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33418.72.236.102.107.1165413718.squirrel@main.nc.us> Robert writes: > Well, the following got through the gmail filters this morning. I've > converted it to text and removed the GIF attachment (which was > presumably the real message). Interesting how it seems to be > generating relatively coherent text. I wonder if they are picking out > phrases from popular news items or simply generating semi-proper text > using phrases that score low on Bayesian filtering methods. > > At any rate the battle continues... > [snip] I have occasionally checked out what my spam says, and I'm amazed. Sometimes I wonder if the spammers are reading my email, or at least the subject lines. I find keywords that are frequently used on my various email lists - and names, not necessarily ordinary names like Jim or Bob. It's rather uncanny and somewhat unsettling. I am very greateful to have a filter! And I'm becomming more impressed with it as time goes on. No, I never ever look at any of the attachments! :))) Regards, MB From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Dec 6 14:20:12 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 06:20:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Criticizing One's Own Goals---Rational? References: Message-ID: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Rafal continued in a way that I couldn't quite connect up with what had gone before, but which was nevertheless most interesting: > If there was a goal "seek happiness" in my then sophomore mind > a long time ago, it was erased upon noticing that happiness appears > to be the subjective aspect of certain computations within, most > notably, the cingulate and insular cortices and the nucleus accumbens. > Why bother doing such computations? What!? How can awareness of the mechanics of a process interfere with your appreciation of it? Recall how Dawkins or Sagan would take the exactly opposite tack with regard to artistic or aesthetic appreciation of our world: just because we know scientifically what is going on beneath the surface ought not have any effect on our appreciation, unless it be an enhancing one. Why bother doing *any* computation? That is, suppose that you uncovered the precise mechanism responsible for your affections towards your family; would this immediately imperil the desirability to you of those computations? So what if we know how happiness works: I cannot fathom why this would make it any less desirable. > Somehow > that goal didn't have an alarm system that would respond to such an > inconoclastic question, and it was suppressed. On the other hand, other > goals, like "avoid unhappiness", have a strong direct line in my mind to > the cognitive faculties, so these goals are suppressed only mildly. It's > dangerous for a goal to mess with itself. Please explain why "avoiding unhappiness" has a stronger link to your cognitive faculties than does seeking happiness? Or, if this is simply a fact, do you try to justify it at all? > If rationality is using cognition to find ways of achieving goals, then > using cognition to erase goals would be irrational. I'm totally baffled here too: suppose X is a goal that you have (e.g. you want to kill the sonofabitch that just cut you off in traffic, and your .45 magnum you keep under the seat is still loaded), surely it is not irrational to hold this goal, or any other goal, up to the light of the rest of your memes and instincts and subject it to criticism. Why, in many cases, that's the *whole* idea: I wish to criticize my goals as much as my conjectures, and, with the explicit meta-goal of eliminating certain unsatisfactory goals. The remainder here seems unproblematical, except for the remark about "many-worlds". I would demur from the claim that the *urge* for self-preservation is in any way itself affected. What is changed for one is the realization that self- preservation may be achieved in non-obvious or non-customary ways. Lee > On the other hand, > given the haphazard nature of our goal systems, consisting of a bunch of > drives hastily (ca. 500 million years) slapped together by evolution, > pruning some goals is almost always necessary to allow other goals to be > achieved (I am referring to consciously shaping your goals over long > periods of time, not to the simpler process of temporary supression of > goals, such as "relieve bladder pressure", under certain circumstances). > Therefore, I would hold that self-consideration is an indispensable, if > dangerous, part of long-term rationality. > > Furthermore, it is facinating how the simple emotional images that > constitute our initial goals are transformed by cogitation about some of > the most advanced concepts in physics or neuroscience. On our list we > can observe what happens to the urge for self-preservation after > considering the many-worlds interpretation of QM, or the concept of > uploading. We have the intellectual means to delve much deeper into what > we really want than in the times when self-preservation meant simply > running faster then the tiger. From eugen at leitl.org Wed Dec 6 14:28:39 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:28:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Anti-Bayesian spam In-Reply-To: <33418.72.236.102.107.1165413718.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <33418.72.236.102.107.1165413718.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <20061206142839.GX6974@leitl.org> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:01:58AM -0500, MB wrote: > > Well, the following got through the gmail filters this morning. I've > > converted it to text and removed the GIF attachment (which was You could have blocked anything with a .gif|.png|.jpeg attachment at MTA level, or at least assign that a higher spam score. Which brings us back to the old evergreen: people who years ago claimed rich content was safe and had no unanticipated side effects now get a reality check. It is still possible to generate personalized spam by AI, but it's much harder, and you still can penalize by a realtime list of the origin (address diversity of all zombies on this planet is low). > > presumably the real message). Interesting how it seems to be > > generating relatively coherent text. I wonder if they are picking out > > phrases from popular news items or simply generating semi-proper text > > using phrases that score low on Bayesian filtering methods. The idea is to poison Bayesian spam filters. It's working. The only reliable measure is to penalize by origin. > > At any rate the battle continues... > > > > [snip] > > I have occasionally checked out what my spam says, and I'm amazed. Sometimes I > wonder if the spammers are reading my email, or at least the subject lines. I find There's a big problem with reflexively shedding a mature communication medium for its less mature but bearing a lower parasite load alternatives: abuse resistance has to be designed-in, or evolved slowly. IM and VoIP don't have any abuse immunity whatsoever, and VoIP spam is like clubbing baby seals. > keywords that are frequently used on my various email lists - and names, not > necessarily ordinary names like Jim or Bob. > > It's rather uncanny and somewhat unsettling. I am very greateful to have a filter! > And I'm becomming more impressed with it as time goes on. > > No, I never ever look at any of the attachments! :))) It would be even better if you didn't even receive the attachments. And it would be even better if your MTA was a veritable tarbaby for anyone with the temerity to spam you. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Dec 6 14:32:31 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 06:32:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism References: <446306.19824.qm@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <065f01c71943$8b810460$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> I can't let further posts on topic this pass without comment. First of all, the most immediate and well known examples of "irrational rationalism" are those provided by the philosophers who provide examples of how an irrational person cannot be intimidated or coerced in many cases as much as can a completely rational one. In fact, this is the entire evolutionary purpose of the emotion anger. Anger is a berserker-like state into which one falls that was designed to avoid being manipulated by others: even though someone has calculated that it is in your short term self-interest for you to comply with their demands, it may be that your anger saves you: others know this, and are more accomodating for fear of "making you mad". > I was trying to say that some irrational thinking & behavior can be > less destructive than others, For sure! > so that irrational thinking & behavior can be default rational. This risks messing up the meaning of the terms; we should simply say that it may be rational to have someone like Ronald Reagan behind the button, because if the Soviets attack, he's programmed by his religious memes to counter-attack. AND THEY KNOW THIS. > Aggressive nationalism is irrational however in an aggressively > nationalistic world, Why? No offense, but this sounds exactly like the usual mindless pablum presented thoughtlessly and emotionally from certain quarters because it sounds nice. But maybe I just don't quite see where you are coming from. > aggressive nationalism can mean national survival-- a default rationalism. Duh! Yes! Consider virtually any 18th century American plains Indian tribe: to fail to be aggressive was to court immediate disaster. And this has been the normal, usual, even default condition throughout history! Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Dec 6 14:39:16 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 06:39:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism References: <653898.84758.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <066301c71944$52824c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> The Avanguardian writes > Al Brooks wrote: > >> The question is: do rational reasons exist for >> irrational thinking and behavior that enable one to >> escape irrational reality? > > When it comes to rational irrationalism, I think these > guys take the cake: > > http://www.vhemt.org/ Why do you think that eliminating mankind is necessarily irrational? Don't you concur with the (generally accepted here) version of what it means to be rational? Namely, as Rafal put it, "rationality (to use the dictionary meaning) is optimizing behavior to achieve goals". So if your goal is a pristine Earth free of unnatural (i.e. human) effects, then what's irrational about trying to get rid of everyone, including yourself? > Why should we care more about nature than the rest of > nature cares about itself or us for that matter? We > are the ONLY part of nature that cares one bit about > nature. That is more than enough, in my opinion, to > make up for all the damage we might cause. Unlike an > asteroid or a volcano, we will write poems in loving > memory of the trees we kill. Dylan Thomas must be > rolling over in his grave. I agree with your prescriptions! Your goals for humanity overlap with mine. Lee From davidishalom1 at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 20:54:23 2006 From: davidishalom1 at gmail.com (david ish shalom) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 22:54:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working Message-ID: sorry to tell u that several times i have been searching the way u mention here but always got "non found" waisted my time there in vain. it does seem SL is full of bugs and not really functioning in friendly and smooth way and i suggest that before inviting us to waist our time there, check firstly its proper functioning and than spread the word. you suggest that Everyone is welcome in uvvy island! There is a WTA chapter in SL: http://www.transhumanism.com/secondlife/ (in SL, look for World Transhumanist Association in the list of groups, join free). - - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Dec 6 21:02:20 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 22:02:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20061206210220.GI6974@leitl.org> Folks, the quality of several posts lately has not been up to our usual list standards. Particularly, alternative orthography and unfounded accusations are not welcome. Further deviations have been and will be dealt with harshly. On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 10:54:23PM +0200, david ish shalom wrote: > > sorry to tell u that several times i have been searching the way u > mention here but always got "non found" waisted my time there in vain. > it does seem SL is full of bugs and not really functioning in friendly > and smooth way and i suggest that before inviting us to waist our time > there, check firstly its proper functioning and than spread the word. > you suggest that Everyone is welcome in uvvy island! There is a WTA > chapter in SL: [1]http://www.transhumanism.com/secondlife/ (in SL, > look for World Transhumanist Association in the list of groups, join > free). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 00:42:32 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:12:32 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Anti-Bayesian spam In-Reply-To: <33418.72.236.102.107.1165413718.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <33418.72.236.102.107.1165413718.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <710b78fc0612061642j498ebb71qe36686b2cbf687f4@mail.gmail.com> On 07/12/06, MB wrote: > Robert writes: > > > Well, the following got through the gmail filters this morning. I've > > converted it to text and removed the GIF attachment (which was > > presumably the real message). Interesting how it seems to be > > generating relatively coherent text. I wonder if they are picking out > > phrases from popular news items or simply generating semi-proper text > > using phrases that score low on Bayesian filtering methods. > > > > At any rate the battle continues... I've been receiving a lot of that spam. It reminds me of the output of a markov chaining chatbot I wrote a while back called Nigel (Nigel No Friends). I never look at the attachments, but sometimes I read the text, because it's pretty funny. In fact, I had one of these spams the other day that began "Hi Emo Cupcake". Emo Cupcake immediately became my IM tag and will stay that way for a while. Thanks spammers! Emlyn From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 02:14:51 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 18:14:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] FYI- Videos from UCLA nanotech mini-symposium available online. Message-ID: <11326.17264.qm@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Hi people, If you want the latest dirt on nanoscale imaging techniques, check out: http://www.cnsi.ucla.edu/mini-symp/ Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick ____________________________________________________________________________________ Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Dec 7 02:59:06 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:59:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational Irrationality (2) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061206215805.036305d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:42 AM 12/6/2006 -0500, Dan wrote: >"Rational Ignorance vs. Rational Irrationality" (_Kyklos_ 54(1), 2001, >pp.3-26.) > >Abstract: >"Beliefs about politics and religion often have three puzzling >properties: systematic bias, high certainty, and little informational >basis. The theory of rational ignorance (Downs 1957) explains only the >low level of information. The current paper presents a general model of >"rational irrationality," which explains all three stylized facts. >According to the theory of rational irrationality, being irrational - in >the sense of deviating from rational expectations - is a good like any >other; the lower the private cost, the more agents buy. A peculiar >feature of beliefs about politics, religion, etc. is that the private >repercussions of error are virtually nonexistent, setting the private >cost of irrationality at zero; it is therefore in these areas that >irrational views are most apparent. The consumption of irrationality can >be optimal, but it will usually not be when the private and the social >cost of irrationality differ - for example, in elections." It pains me to read such egregious nonsense. "Consumption of irrationality"? "Private cost of irrationality at zero"? Off hand there is little more irrational than blowing yourself up as a suicide bomber. I don't know how anyone could set this cost at zero. At least experiments like the Ultimatum game and finding the actual brain structures active when people refuse an offer they should (if rational) take is starting to inform economics with a bit of evolutionary psychology. The *one* thing for sure is that over evolutionary time genes are rational (1). If you look under human irrationality, you find rational reasons for the genes to induced such behavior, or at least there were such reasons when people lived in small related hunter gatherer bands. Keith Henson (1) The implied goal for genes is to "be there" in future generations. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 09:05:01 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 01:05:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <066301c71944$52824c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <508145.24676.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: >> > http://www.vhemt.org/ > > Why do you think that eliminating mankind is > necessarily > irrational? Oh lets see . . . natural selection, economics, game theory, Utility(Something) >= Utility(null set). Such nonsense is the abyss that Neitzsche warned us about. > Don't you concur with the (generally > accepted > here) version of what it means to be rational? > Namely, > as Rafal put it, "rationality (to use the dictionary > meaning) > is optimizing behavior to achieve goals". So if > your goal > is a pristine Earth free of unnatural (i.e. human) > effects, > then what's irrational about trying to get rid of > everyone, > including yourself? Rational means to an irrational goal is in itself irrational by the simple virtue of GIGO. > > Why should we care more about nature than the rest > of > > nature cares about itself or us for that matter? > We > > are the ONLY part of nature that cares one bit > about > > nature. That is more than enough, in my opinion, > to > > make up for all the damage we might cause. Unlike > an > > asteroid or a volcano, we will write poems in > loving > > memory of the trees we kill. Dylan Thomas must be > > rolling over in his grave. > > I agree with your prescriptions! Your goals for > humanity > overlap with mine. Keep in mind trees are damn important for us obligate oxygen breathers. Kill too many at your peril, unless you are machine or an alien methanogen. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 09:39:48 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 01:39:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Humor In-Reply-To: <508145.24676.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <514765.73339.qm@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Lee Corbin wrote: > > >> > http://www.vhemt.org/ > > > > Why do you think that eliminating mankind is > > necessarily > > irrational? > Rational means to an irrational goal is in itself > irrational by the simple virtue of GIGO. > Keep in mind trees are damn important for us > obligate > oxygen breathers. Kill too many at your peril, > unless > you are a machine or an alien methanogen. P.S. If you ARE either of the above, allow me to offer you a tour of my lab. Come alone. ;) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick ____________________________________________________________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 7 11:18:17 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 03:18:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <066301c71944$52824c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <653898.84758.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <066301c71944$52824c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8274D5C0-D436-46DD-AF0B-F0AEA171FC88@mac.com> On Dec 6, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > The Avanguardian writes > >> Al Brooks wrote: >> >>> The question is: do rational reasons exist for >>> irrational thinking and behavior that enable one to >>> escape irrational reality? >> >> When it comes to rational irrationalism, I think these >> guys take the cake: >> >> http://www.vhemt.org/ > > Why do you think that eliminating mankind is necessarily > irrational? Is rationality a free-floating abstraction disconnected from values, what does the valuing and what is considered valuable? How would that itself be "rational"? > Don't you concur with the (generally accepted > here) version of what it means to be rational? Namely, > as Rafal put it, "rationality (to use the dictionary meaning) > is optimizing behavior to achieve goals". So if your goal > is a pristine Earth free of unnatural (i.e. human) effects, > then what's irrational about trying to get rid of everyone, > including yourself? Arbitrary goals that include one's on destruction and destruction of one's species are not themselves subject to a meta-judgement as to their rationality? Where is the grounding for these abstractions being tossed about? How can it be rational to claim a naturally evolved species is "unnatural"? How can it be rational to destroy the only thing on this rock vaguely capable of rationality? Are we so sickened by our dizzy abstractions? - samantha From davidishalom1 at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 13:24:36 2006 From: davidishalom1 at gmail.com (david ish shalom) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 15:24:36 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] abuse of power Message-ID: I am worried that Eugin Leitl personally chasing me, due to past personal dispute in WTA-chat. He personally without justified reason has put me in the past into moderation list both in WTA chat and Extropy list, Now again, he threatens (see below), avoiding the fact that what i have written about Sl is at least based on hard facts. but if he disagree, a proper answer is the right way not insult and threat. Yes, my English is not as well as some of the participants here, since its not my mother tongue, but this is not a justified reason to threat or expel from the list and especially by someone whose English is often not the best as well. I hope that he will not re abuse his power as moderator and that the Extropy list is still based on open discussions and free speech according to the Extropian principles. Folks, the quality of several posts lately has not been up to our usual list standards. Particularly, alternative orthography and unfounded accusations are not welcome. Further deviations have been and will be dealt with harshly. On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 10:54:23PM +0200, david ish shalom wrote: >uncomprehended > sorry to tell u that several times i have been searching the way u > mention here but always got "non found" waisted my time there in vain. > it does seem SL is full of bugs and not really functioning in friendly > and smooth way and i suggest that before inviting us to waist our time > there, check firstly its proper functioning and than spread the word. > you suggest that Everyone is welcome in uvvy island! There is a WTA > chapter in SL: [1]http://www.transhumanism.com/secondlife/ (in SL, > look for World Transhumanist Association in the list of groups, join > free). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lucioc at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 15:45:31 2006 From: lucioc at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?L=FAcio_de_Souza_Coelho?=) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 13:45:31 -0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <066301c71944$52824c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <653898.84758.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <066301c71944$52824c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 12/6/06, Lee Corbin wrote: (...) > Why do you think that eliminating mankind is necessarily > irrational? Don't you concur with the (generally accepted > here) version of what it means to be rational? Namely, > as Rafal put it, "rationality (to use the dictionary meaning) > is optimizing behavior to achieve goals". So if your goal > is a pristine Earth free of unnatural (i.e. human) effects, > then what's irrational about trying to get rid of everyone, > including yourself? (...) Interesting definition of rationality, and I agree with it. And it seems to me that a consequence of that definition is that rationality (or Reason, for sort) by itself cannot create primary goals. At most it can create (or rather infer) secondary goals necessary to achieve primary goals (one can call them Motivations...) created by... emotions. In the case of those Voluntary Extinction guys, their emotions apparently include some sort of religious reverential feeling about Nature and stuff, and so artificial interferences on Nature should be minimized. And the natural rational consequence of that Motivation is: Humanity should become extinct. I can (and I do :) call them "environmentalist nutjobs", but that is not a critique to their rationality. Rather, it is an indication that *my* emotionally created primary goals are quite different from theirs. From femmechakra at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 02:46:47 2006 From: femmechakra at gmail.com (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 18:46:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] What makes someone more rational than others? Message-ID: <11cc03d50612041846jdc0f1a4n1b7b17ff7a126ce7@mail.gmail.com> If a person goes on a rampage killing many people without so much as a cause, and believes that he is being rational, how can you possibly change that impression? (1) What determines the degree of rationality? What makes a person more rational than others? I can't help but think that rationality has everything to do with the belief system each person holds. If you don't want to understand their beliefs, how can you possibly understand their rationality? Questions on my mind. Just curious Thanks Anna:) 1. I was refering to the 21 year old that walked into a cegep in Montreal and starting shooting for no apparent cause or reason. From neptune at MIT.EDU Wed Dec 6 16:22:07 2006 From: neptune at MIT.EDU (Bo Morgan) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:22:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Criticizing One's Own Goals---Rational? In-Reply-To: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Hello Extropy-Chat, I've been enjoying the recent chats. My thanks to those who have organized this. About canceling goals, Marvin Minsky's new book, The_Emotion_Machine, gives a detailed layout of how a computational system for achieving human goals uses many layers of Critics, whose primary role is to watch for when a subgoal is failing and to quickly either debug or suppress that goal. On the other end of the playing field, Selectors play the role of activating subgoals, and it is the interplay between these two different types of computational agents that results in... a computational model of mind. I'm not sure about how a computational model of mind relates to the more philosophical concern of rationality though. Although, an implemented computational model would have utility. I'm very interested in computational models of goals. Any good A.I. relevant pointers for reading? Thanks! Bo On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Lee Corbin wrote: ) Rafal continued in a way that I couldn't quite connect up with ) what had gone before, but which was nevertheless most interesting: ) ) > If there was a goal "seek happiness" in my then sophomore mind ) > a long time ago, it was erased upon noticing that happiness appears ) > to be the subjective aspect of certain computations within, most ) > notably, the cingulate and insular cortices and the nucleus accumbens. ) > Why bother doing such computations? ) ) What!? How can awareness of the mechanics of a process interfere ) with your appreciation of it? Recall how Dawkins or Sagan would take ) the exactly opposite tack with regard to artistic or aesthetic appreciation ) of our world: just because we know scientifically what is going on beneath ) the surface ought not have any effect on our appreciation, unless it be an ) enhancing one. ) ) Why bother doing *any* computation? That is, suppose that you ) uncovered the precise mechanism responsible for your affections ) towards your family; would this immediately imperil the desirability ) to you of those computations? So what if we know how happiness ) works: I cannot fathom why this would make it any less desirable. ) ) > Somehow ) > that goal didn't have an alarm system that would respond to such an ) > inconoclastic question, and it was suppressed. On the other hand, other ) > goals, like "avoid unhappiness", have a strong direct line in my mind to ) > the cognitive faculties, so these goals are suppressed only mildly. It's ) > dangerous for a goal to mess with itself. ) ) Please explain why "avoiding unhappiness" has a stronger link to ) your cognitive faculties than does seeking happiness? Or, if this ) is simply a fact, do you try to justify it at all? ) ) > If rationality is using cognition to find ways of achieving goals, then ) > using cognition to erase goals would be irrational. ) ) I'm totally baffled here too: suppose X is a goal that you have ) (e.g. you want to kill the sonofabitch that just cut you off in traffic, ) and your .45 magnum you keep under the seat is still loaded), ) surely it is not irrational to hold this goal, or any other goal, ) up to the light of the rest of your memes and instincts and subject ) it to criticism. Why, in many cases, that's the *whole* idea: I ) wish to criticize my goals as much as my conjectures, and, with ) the explicit meta-goal of eliminating certain unsatisfactory goals. ) ) The remainder here seems unproblematical, except for the ) remark about "many-worlds". I would demur from the claim ) that the *urge* for self-preservation is in any way itself ) affected. What is changed for one is the realization that self- ) preservation may be achieved in non-obvious or non-customary ) ways. ) ) Lee ) ) > On the other hand, ) > given the haphazard nature of our goal systems, consisting of a bunch of ) > drives hastily (ca. 500 million years) slapped together by evolution, ) > pruning some goals is almost always necessary to allow other goals to be ) > achieved (I am referring to consciously shaping your goals over long ) > periods of time, not to the simpler process of temporary supression of ) > goals, such as "relieve bladder pressure", under certain circumstances). ) > Therefore, I would hold that self-consideration is an indispensable, if ) > dangerous, part of long-term rationality. ) > ) > Furthermore, it is facinating how the simple emotional images that ) > constitute our initial goals are transformed by cogitation about some of ) > the most advanced concepts in physics or neuroscience. On our list we ) > can observe what happens to the urge for self-preservation after ) > considering the many-worlds interpretation of QM, or the concept of ) > uploading. We have the intellectual means to delve much deeper into what ) > we really want than in the times when self-preservation meant simply ) > running faster then the tiger. ) ) ) _______________________________________________ ) extropy-chat mailing list ) extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org ) http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ) From pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 13:54:46 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 13:54:46 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Criticizing One's Own Goals---Rational? In-Reply-To: References: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 12/6/06, Bo Morgan wrote: > > About canceling goals, Marvin Minsky's new book, The_Emotion_Machine, > gives a detailed layout of how a computational system for achieving human > goals uses many layers of Critics, whose primary role is to watch for when > a subgoal is failing and to quickly either debug or suppress that goal. > On the other end of the playing field, Selectors play the role of > activating subgoals, and it is the interplay between these two different > types of computational agents that results in... a computational model of > mind. I'm not sure about how a computational model of mind relates to the > more philosophical concern of rationality though. Although, an > implemented computational model would have utility. > > I'm very interested in computational models of goals. Any good A.I. > relevant pointers for reading? Thanks! > Minsky has this new book available for free download on his website. See under The Emotion Machine 9/6/2006 ( book) draft ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ) Good read! BillK From ben at goertzel.org Thu Dec 7 14:25:34 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:25:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Criticizing One's Own Goals---Rational? In-Reply-To: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <638d4e150612070625x4e3f26cbs3fa8ac8ce6457e3c@mail.gmail.com> Hi, > > If rationality is using cognition to find ways of achieving goals, then > > using cognition to erase goals would be irrational. The relationship between rationality and goals is fairly subtle, and something I have been thinking about recently.... To address the issue I will introduce a series of concepts related to goals. SUPERGOALS VERSUS SUBGOALS --------------------------------------------------- A supergoal is defined as a goal of a system that is not a subgoal of any other goal of that system, to a significant extent. With this in mind, regarding creation and erasure of goals, there are two aspects which I prefer to separate: 1) optimizing the set of subgoals chosen in pursuit of a given set of supergoals. This is well-studied in computer science and operations research. Not easy computationally or emotionally, but conceptually straightforward to understand. 2) optimizing the set of supergoals. This is a far, far subtler thing. Supergoal optimization must be understood from a perspective of dynamical systems theory, not from a perspective of logic. A strongly self-modifying AI system will be able to alter its own supergoals.... So can a human, to an extent, with a lot of effort.... EXPLICIT VERSUS IMPLICIT GOALS ---------------------------------------------------- Next, I think it is worthwhile to distinguish two kinds of goals -- explicit goals: those that a system believes it is pursuing -- implicit goals: those a system acts like it is pursuing Definition: a "coherent goal achiever" is one whose implicit goals and explicit goals are basically the same What is interesting, then, is the dynamics of coherent goal achievers that are also strongly enough self-modifying to modify their supergoals.... In this case, what properties control the evolution of the supergoal-set over time? This is closely related to Friendly AI, of course.... META-GOALS -------------------- Next, there is the notion of a "meta-goal", a supergoal designed to coexist with other supergoals and to regulate the process of supergoal creation/erasure/modification. For instance, a friend of mine has a metagoal of streamlining and simplifying his set of supergoals. I have a metagoal of making sure my various sometimes-contradictory supergoals all cooperate with each other in an open and friendly way, rather than being competitive and adversarial. RATIONALITY AND GOALS --------------------------------------- To me, rationality has two aspects: 1) how effectively one achieves one's explicit goals, given the constraints imposed by the resources at one's disposal. 2) how coherent one is as a goal-achiever (implicit goals = explicit goals) IMO, revising one's supergoal set is a complex dynamic process that is **orthogonal** to rationality. I suppose that Nietzsche understood this, though he phrased it quite differently. His notion of "revaluation of all values" is certainly closely tied to the notion of supergoal-set refinement/modification.... Refining the goal hierarchy underlying a given set of supergoals is a necessary part of rationality, but IMO that's a different sort of process... In general, it would seem important to be aware of when you are non-rationally revising a supergoal versus "merely" rationally modifying the set of subgoals used to achieve some supergoal. And yet, the two processes are very closely tied together. SUBGOAL PROMOTION AND ALIENATION ------------------------------------------------------------ One very common phenomenon is when a supergoal is erased, but one of its subgoals is promoted to the level of supergoal. For instance, originally one may become interested in science as a subgoal of achieving greatness, but later on one may decide greatness is childish and silly, but retain the goal of being a scientist (now as a supergoal rather than a subgoal). When subgoal promotion happens unintentionally it is called subgoal "alienation." This happens because minds are not fully self-aware. A supergoal may be erased without all subgoals that it spawned being erased along with it. So, e.g. even though you give up your supergoal of drinking yourself to death, you may involuntarily retain your subgoal of drinking (even though you started doing it only out of a desire to drink yourself to death). -- Ben G From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 16:09:47 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:09:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] mathimatical model for the singularity In-Reply-To: <28553f510611251120j567c3132wf17bdb36baa274c0@mail.gmail.com> References: <28553f510611202314j4852b833m8df7eccf99bc8f22@mail.gmail.com> <28553f510611251120j567c3132wf17bdb36baa274c0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11/25/06, ps udoname wrote: > And the entire reason why the singularity is called the singularity is that > is has an asymtope, which is somthing s-curves lack. I think you mean asymtote. But at least among people who understand this problem well one clearly ends up with S curves. You can't exceed the speed of light, you can't get smaller than some of the volumes of space that Anders or Lloyd have dealt with in papers, there is a finite number of atoms in the universe and it requires significantly more energy than is currently available (or likely ever will be) to collect them all into one place where one can dedicate them to something useful, etc. "The Singularity" cannot be represented by an equation such as you propose. It is generally understood that its kind of a "virtual Singularity" that things start growing so fast that mere humans lose ability to grasp or contribute to it in any way -- its a Class 10 rapid, no wait its a Class 100 rapid, nowtitsa Cls1000rpd... But it *does* hit hard limits very shortly after it gets going that will slow it down. At that point it turns into an S curve and your equation breaks. If however one takes progress into the virtual realm and one keeps changing the realm (in some ways like Second Life is doing now...) then one might have the appearence of a continuence of the singularity. But you have to change the criteria being used to measure progress. I suspect the limits will be on how fast progress is will depend upon how fast entities in one realm are willing (or able) to create new realms which are interesting enough to cause significant numbers of entitites to give up their old realm(s). You could compare it to bioinformatics or synthetic biology as well as things like Web 2.0, Web 3.0, Second Life, etc. -- those are examples of "realms" we are currently in the process of creating. Robert From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Dec 7 16:59:04 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 08:59:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <8274D5C0-D436-46DD-AF0B-F0AEA171FC88@mac.com> Message-ID: Samantha Atkins wrote: > Lee Corbin wrote: > Is rationality a free-floating abstraction disconnected > from values, what does the valuing and what is considered > valuable? How would that itself be "rational"? No, the concept of rationality is not free-floating and it is not disconnected from values but it is certainly an abstract concept. The concept of rational decision-making is directly connected to the concept of agency (who makes the decisions) and values (what is important to the agent.) Of course the power of abstract concepts is that they facilitate clear thinking about classes of situations including particular instances we have not (yet) experienced. >> Don't you concur with the (generally accepted here) >> version of what it means to be rational? Namely, as >> Rafal put it, "rationality (to use the dictionary >> meaning)is optimizing behavior to achieve goals". So >> if your goal is a pristine Earth free of unnatural >> (i.e. human) effects, then what's irrational about trying >> to get rid of everyone, including yourself? > > Arbitrary goals that include one's on destruction and > destruction of one's species are not themselves subject to > a meta-judgement as to their rationality? Where is the > grounding for these abstractions being tossed about? To address the moral outrage implicit in this post: YES, most persons would agree that such thinking is obviously WRONG (leads to very undesirable consequences relative to our shared values.) Your use of the term "meta-judgment" highlights the essential difference between rational and moral. Rationality refers to actions promoting values within a specified (limited) context--what is considered effective. Morality refers to actions promoting increasingly shared values within an increasing context--what is considered "right". > > How can it be rational to claim a naturally evolved species > is "unnatural"? How can it be rational to destroy the only > thing on this rock vaguely capable of rationality? Are we > so sickened by our dizzy abstractions? I think we are MORE "sickened" by our attachments to poorly founded biases due to our relatively weak ability to intentionally abstract principles of "truth" from our environment. Of course, recent scientific studies have shown beyond a doubt that half the population is below average intelligence, so it *seems* pragmatically necessary to distill higher level understanding into more applicable heuristics, but doing so risks over-simplification and attendant poorer outcomes. Talking about sick thinking: * How many of us were taught that it is good to be selfless, and that highly moral people care more about others than themselves? "The evidence is all around us, with greedy mean people stomping all over nice people in their hugely self-interested way." * How many of use were taught that what is natural is good? "The evidence is all around us, with the pollution of our natural resources and the perversion and abandonment of values that served our fathers and mothers and their families before them so well." * How many of were taught that every person is absolutely equal, and that inequality means unfairness and is simply wrong? "The evidence is all around us, with powerful politicians and wealthy businesspeople using their powers to keep the common people down in their proper place." * How many of us will be taught that humans can have "rights", but artificial agents can not? "The evidence is all around us, none of their components provides the capability for true feelings like ours." Of course, we on this list can easily see the same abstract principle violated with each of these childishly over-simplified truisms, right? Or can we? - Jef From lucioc at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 17:24:46 2006 From: lucioc at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?L=FAcio_de_Souza_Coelho?=) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 15:24:46 -0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <508145.24676.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> References: <066301c71944$52824c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <508145.24676.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/7/06, The Avantguardian wrote: (...) > Oh lets see . . . natural selection, economics, game > theory, Utility(Something) >= Utility(null set). Such > nonsense is the abyss that Neitzsche warned us about. (...) How do you define "utility" in a way that it is intrinsically rational? "Utility" in the context of natural selection for instance is "stay alive enough time to reproduce". But does that make this utility definition intrinsically "rational" by any means? As I mentioned earlier, I find it difficult to see rationality by itself as a source of supergoals (or Utility()...). From pj at pj-manney.com Thu Dec 7 17:26:16 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:26:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] "My Final Prediction" by Bruce Sterling (Wired 14.12) Message-ID: <6713666.264351165512375981.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> [Jef, could you please forward this to the WTA and let's see if their site is working yet? Has anyone gotten anything from their server lately? Thanks! PJ] http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.12/posts.html?pg=6 "My Final Prediction" by Bruce Sterling (Wired, 14.12) The Internet has a habit of defying expectations. You subscribe to The New York Times and find yourself reading it in a browser window instead. You sign up for Netflix and along comes BitTorrent. You pay for long distance only to discover Skype. What could possibly be next? To gauge the Net's trajectory, the Pew Internet & American Life Project polled 742 experts for its Future of the Internet II study. In some ways, the results reflect standard-issue Net punditry. But between the lines, the poll reveals that the Net is changing in ways that defy and transcend the usual predictions. I'm not personally acquainted with all of the futurists who submitted opinions, but as a sometime tech commentator myself, I know plenty of them. So I'm well aware that, like a lot of hardworking techies, they tend to be wacky geeks with unfettered imaginations. Throw 'em together in one survey, though, and they bell-curve right out. For instance, Pew daintily inquires: In coming decades, are people going to vanish into the Net, permanently absorbed by addictive VR-style experiences? The reaction stretches predictably from "You must be nuts" to "Of course, it's happening already." And what's the centrist opinion? If an innovation works, some people will thrive on it, while others who are screwed up to begin with will face severe new problems. I know this is true because I've lived it. I'm a pre-Internet novelist who became moderately famous online, only to have my paperback writing slow down as I began to spend uncontrollable amounts of time surfing and blogging. This experience is both grand and problematic. It reflects not two extremes but the slider-bar that is my everyday life. And that's what surveys are good at: revealing the spirit of the times rather than delivering keen individual insights. Reading the Pew study, it becomes clear that we're entering a new era, the post-Internet age, a world in which the Net will be everywhere, like the air we breathe, and we'll take it for granted. It will be neither the glossy nirvana of technophilic dreams nor the dystopia of traditionalist nightmares. It will look a lot like today ? but with higher contrast, sharper focus, and a wide-angle lens. The bubble-era vision of a utopian Internet is dented and dirty. The Pew respondents seem to agree that personal privacy is a thing of the past, and they're split nearly 50-50 on whether the costs will outweigh the benefits. Technophobic refuseniks are likely to carry out violent resistance, and they may have good reason: Out-of-control technology is a distinct risk. The Lexus has collided with the olive tree, and its crumpled hulk spins in a ditch as the orchard smolders. The future of the Internet lies not with institutions but with individuals. Low-cost connections will proliferate, encouraging creativity, collaboration, and telecommuting. The Net itself will recede into the background. If you're under 21, you likely don't care much about any supposed difference between virtual and actual, online and off. That's because the two realms are penetrating each other; Google Earth mingles with Google Maps, and daily life shows up on Flickr. Like the real world, the Net will be increasingly international and decreasingly reliant on English. It will be wrapped in a Chinese kung fu outfit, intoned in an Indian accent, oozing Brazilian sex appeal. One upshot is that futurism itself has no future. Once confined to an elite group, the tools and techniques of prognostication are all widely available. As for pundits: The world used to be full of workaday journalists, with just a thin sprinkling of opinion mongers. Now a TypePad account is a license to deliver nose-to-the-pavement perspective with an attitude. The very word futurism is old-fashioned, way too 1960s. Today's Internet-savvy futurist is more likely to describe himself as a strategy consultant or venture capital researcher. That development doesn't surprise me. Frankly, I saw it coming. Another prediction of mine has come true: I've always known that one day I'd write my last column for Wired. You're reading it now. I'll continue to report my peregrinations via my blog at www.wired.com, where I'll continue to focus on harbingers of things to come. As a futurist, I've often licked my chops over rather grim possibilities. But my lasting fondness for the dark side is a personal taste, not an analysis. I'm frequently surprised, and when I consider the biggest surprises, I'm heartened that they were mostly positive. The Internet, for instance, crawled out of a dank atomic fallout shelter to become the Mardi Gras parade of my generation. It was not a bolt of destructive lightning; it was the sun breaking through the clouds. Everything we do has unpredicted consequences. It's good to keep in mind that some outcomes are just fabulous, dumb luck. So mark my last little act of prediction in this space: I don't have a poll or a single shred of evidence to back it up, but I believe more good things are in store, and some are bound to come from the tangled, ubiquitous, personal, and possibly unpredictable Net. Email bruces at well.com. - Bruce Sterling From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 7 18:04:13 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:04:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <065f01c71943$8b810460$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200612071804.kB7I4PAv013124@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin ... > > > aggressive nationalism can mean national survival-- a default > rationalism. > > Duh! Yes! Consider virtually any 18th century American plains Indian > tribe: to fail to be aggressive was to court immediate disaster. And this > has been the normal, usual, even default condition throughout history! Lee History has proven this notion a thousand times: weakness is provocation. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 7 17:54:58 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:54:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] god delusion and simulachron-3 In-Reply-To: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200612071806.kB7I6QMV008285@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin >... Recall how Dawkins or Sagan would take > the exactly opposite tack with regard to artistic or aesthetic > appreciation of our world... In Dawkins' book The God Delusion he quotes an argument that goes like this, in loose paraphrase: 1. God is that which nothing greater can be conceived or imagined. 2. In determining the greatness of any creation, the disability or handicap of the creator must be taken into account. When comparing two paintings, for instance, imagine one was created by a quadriplegic who weilds the brushes in her teeth. That painting is more wonderful and remarkable than the other, all else being equal. 3. Assume the universe is god's wonderful work of creation. 4. No greater handicap can be imagined for any creator than not existing. 5. That god could create such a wonderful universe without actually existing is therefore the greatest conceivable act. At least I cannot imagine anything greater. 6. Therefore god does not exist. {8^D Dawkins rocks. He comments offhandedly on page 73 "...SciFi authors, such as Daniel Galouye in Counterfeit World, have even suggested (and I cannot think how to disprove it) that we live in a computer simulation, set up by some vastly superior civilization." Also known as Simulachron-3, this book was published in 1964. So was Galouye the first to suggest this? spike From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Dec 7 18:16:12 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:16:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Criticizing One's Own Goals---Rational? In-Reply-To: <638d4e150612070625x4e3f26cbs3fa8ac8ce6457e3c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Ben Goertzel wrote: > The relationship between rationality and goals is fairly > subtle, and something I have been thinking about recently.... Ben, as you know, I admire and appreciate your thinking but have always perceived an "inside-outness" with your approach (which we have discussed before) in that your descriptions of mind always seem (to me) to begin from a point of pre-existing awareness. (I can think of immediate specific objections to the preceding statement, but in the interest of expediency in this low-bandwidth discussion medium, I would ask that you suspend immediate objections and look for the general point I am trying to make clear.) It seems to me that discussing AI or human thought in terms of goals and subgoals is a very "narrow-AI" approach and destined to fail in general application. Why? Because to conceive of a goal requires a perspective outside of and encompassing the goal system. We can speak in a valid way about the goals of a system, or the goals of a person, but it is always from a perspective outside of that system. It seems to me that a better functional description is based on "values", more specifically the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of a highly multidimensional model *inside the agent* which drive its behavior in a very simple way: It acts to reduce the difference between the internal model and perceived reality. [The hard part is how to evolve these recursively self-modifying patterns of behavior, without requiring natural evolutionary time scale.] Goals thus emerge as third-party descriptions of behavior, or even as post hoc internal explanations or rationalizations of its own behavior, but don't merit the status of fundamental drivers of the behavior. Does this make sense to you? I've been saying this for years, but have never gotten even a "huh?", let alone a "duh." ;-) - Jef > To address the issue I will introduce a series of concepts > related to goals. > > SUPERGOALS VERSUS SUBGOALS > --------------------------------------------------- > > A supergoal is defined as a goal of a system that is not a > subgoal of any other goal of that system, to a significant extent. > > With this in mind, regarding creation and erasure of goals, > there are two aspects which I prefer to separate: > > 1) optimizing the set of subgoals chosen in pursuit of a > given set of supergoals. This is well-studied in computer > science and operations research. Not easy computationally or > emotionally, but conceptually straightforward to understand. > > 2) optimizing the set of supergoals. This is a far, far > subtler thing. > > Supergoal optimization must be understood from a perspective > of dynamical systems theory, not from a perspective of logic. > > A strongly self-modifying AI system will be able to alter its > own supergoals.... So can a human, to an extent, with a lot > of effort.... > > EXPLICIT VERSUS IMPLICIT GOALS > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Next, I think it is worthwhile to distinguish two kinds of goals > -- explicit goals: those that a system believes it is pursuing > -- implicit goals: those a system acts like it is pursuing > > Definition: a "coherent goal achiever" is one whose implicit > goals and explicit goals are basically the same > > What is interesting, then, is the dynamics of coherent goal > achievers that are also strongly enough self-modifying to > modify their supergoals.... In this case, what properties > control the evolution of the supergoal-set over time? This > is closely related to Friendly AI, of course.... > > META-GOALS > -------------------- > > Next, there is the notion of a "meta-goal", a supergoal > designed to coexist with other supergoals and to regulate the > process of supergoal creation/erasure/modification. > > For instance, a friend of mine has a metagoal of streamlining > and simplifying his set of supergoals. I have a metagoal of > making sure my various sometimes-contradictory supergoals all > cooperate with each other in an open and friendly way, rather > than being competitive and adversarial. > > RATIONALITY AND GOALS > --------------------------------------- > > To me, rationality has two aspects: > > 1) how effectively one achieves one's explicit goals, given > the constraints imposed by the resources at one's disposal. > > 2) how coherent one is as a goal-achiever (implicit goals = > explicit goals) > > IMO, revising one's supergoal set is a complex dynamic process that is > **orthogonal** to rationality. I suppose that Nietzsche > understood this, though he phrased it quite differently. His > notion of "revaluation of all values" is certainly closely > tied to the notion of supergoal-set refinement/modification.... > > Refining the goal hierarchy underlying a given set of > supergoals is a necessary part of rationality, but IMO that's > a different sort of process... > > In general, it would seem important to be aware of when you > are non-rationally revising a supergoal versus "merely" > rationally modifying the set of subgoals used to achieve some > supergoal. And yet, the two processes are very closely tied together. > > SUBGOAL PROMOTION AND ALIENATION > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > One very common phenomenon is when a supergoal is erased, but > one of its subgoals is promoted to the level of supergoal. > For instance, originally one may become interested in science > as a subgoal of achieving greatness, but later on one may > decide greatness is childish and silly, but retain the goal > of being a scientist (now as a supergoal rather than a subgoal). > > When subgoal promotion happens unintentionally it is called > subgoal "alienation." This happens because minds are not > fully self-aware. A supergoal may be erased without all > subgoals that it spawned being erased along with it. So, > e.g. even though you give up your supergoal of drinking > yourself to death, you may involuntarily retain your subgoal > of drinking (even though you started doing it only out of a > desire to drink yourself to death). > > -- Ben G > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From ben at goertzel.org Thu Dec 7 18:58:16 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 13:58:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] [agi] RE: Criticizing One's Own Goals---Rational? In-Reply-To: References: <638d4e150612070625x4e3f26cbs3fa8ac8ce6457e3c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <638d4e150612071058w28d0c27ah1ca5964c92d53f5@mail.gmail.com> Hi, > It seems to me that discussing AI or human thought in terms of goals and > subgoals is a very "narrow-AI" approach and destined to fail in general > application. I think it captures a certain portion of what occurs in the human mind. Not a large portion, perhaps, but an important portion. > Why? Because to conceive of a goal requires a perspective > outside of and encompassing the goal system. We can speak in a valid > way about the goals of a system, or the goals of a person, but it is > always from a perspective outside of that system. But, the essence of human reflective, deliberative awareness is precisely our capability to view ourselves from a "perspective outside ourselves." ... and then use this view to model ourselves and ultimately change ourselves, iteratively... > It seems to me that a better functional description is based on > "values", more specifically the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of a highly > multidimensional model *inside the agent* which drive its behavior in a > very simple way: It acts to reduce the difference between the internal > model and perceived reality. I wouldn't frame it in terms of eigenvectors and eigenvalues, because I don't know how you are defining addition or scalar multiplication on this space of "mental models." But I agree that the operation of "acting to reduce the difference between internal models and perceived reality" is an important part of cognition. It is different from explicit goal-seeking, which IMO is also important. > Goals thus emerge as third-party > descriptions of behavior, or even as post hoc internal explanations or > rationalizations of its own behavior, but don't merit the status of > fundamental drivers of the behavior. I distinguished "explicit goals" from "implicit goals." I believe that in your comments you are using the term "goal" to mean what I term "explicit goal." I think that some human behavior is driven by explicit goals, and some is not. I agree that the identification of the **implicit goals** of a system S (the functions the system S acts like it is seeking to maximize) is often best done by another system outside the system S. Nevertheless, I think that implicit goals are worth talking about, and can meaningfully be placed in a hierarchy. -- Ben From riel at surriel.com Thu Dec 7 19:02:58 2006 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:02:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Anti-Bayesian spam In-Reply-To: <33418.72.236.102.107.1165413718.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <33418.72.236.102.107.1165413718.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <45786562.7040503@surriel.com> MB wrote: > I have occasionally checked out what my spam says, and I'm amazed. Sometimes I > wonder if the spammers are reading my email, or at least the subject lines. I find > keywords that are frequently used on my various email lists - and names, not > necessarily ordinary names like Jim or Bob. > > It's rather uncanny and somewhat unsettling. I am very greateful to have a filter! > And I'm becomming more impressed with it as time goes on. I wonder if the filter simply does not show you the spam that does not match your regular email vocabulary, while letting through some of the spam that does match, giving you a skewed sample of spam to compare against the other email? Or maybe you simply remember the spam that matches your other email better than the spam that doesn't. A brain is a very good pattern finding machine :) -- Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country the best in the world, and those who believe it already is. Each group calls the other unpatriotic. From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 7 20:43:55 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:43:55 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] god delusion and simulachron-3 In-Reply-To: <200612071806.kB7I6QMV008285@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200612071806.kB7I6QMV008285@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061207143541.02659140@satx.rr.com> At 09:54 AM 12/7/2006 -0800, spike wrote: >Daniel Galouye >in Counterfeit World, have even suggested (and I cannot think how to >disprove it) that we live in a computer simulation, set up by some vastly >superior civilization." Also known as Simulachron-3, this book was >published in 1964. So was Galouye the first to suggest this? No. Fred Pohl, "The Tunnel Under the World", Galaxy magazine, Jan 1955 provided a homely version http://www.625.org.uk/ootu/bbcents/bbces208.htm gives a precis (which is closer to Galouye's than to Dawkins' misleadingly cosmic description thereof). See also, for a more mythic version, my "The Sea's Furthest End" (1964); or rather, for the love o' dog, don't see. I was 18 or 19 when I wrote it and it's awful. But also any number of earlier stories such as Heinlein's "Them" and "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag". Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Dec 7 21:22:55 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:22:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism (2) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061207162131.039be118@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:41 PM 12/5/2006 -0800, A; wrote: snip >Aggressive nationalism is irrational however in an aggressively >nationalistic world, aggressive nationalism can mean national survival-- a >default rationalism. "Nationalism" and "nation"--a huge agglomeration of (on average) distantly related peoples usually speaking the same language--are not relevant to human evolution. They happened far to late to have much effect on human genes and the psychological traits they construct. Still, it is my claim that the exact same psychological traits that drove hunter gatherers to wars in the stone age are the cause of wars and related social disruptions. I have recently been discussing this in detail in the comments section here: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060916_sam_harris_rottweiler_barks/ Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 7 23:05:06 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:05:06 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] god delusion In-Reply-To: <200612071806.kB7I6QMV008285@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200612071806.kB7I6QMV008285@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061207170324.02236f98@satx.rr.com> and speaking of which, here's a free sf story I chose for COSMOS. Feel encouraged to pass the url on to anyone who might care to see this one, and the other freebies at the site: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/907 Not Alone by Pamela Sargent From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Dec 7 23:36:54 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:36:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Anti-Bayesian spam In-Reply-To: <45786562.7040503@surriel.com> References: <33418.72.236.102.107.1165413718.squirrel@main.nc.us> <45786562.7040503@surriel.com> Message-ID: <33995.72.236.103.196.1165534614.squirrel@main.nc.us> > I wonder if the filter simply does not show you the spam > that does not match your regular email vocabulary, while > letting through some of the spam that does match, giving > you a skewed sample of spam to compare against the other > email? > I do not look at all the spam, no way! Just every once in a while I'll read one just to see what's there. And sometimes I'm surprised. My filter does not discard *anything* without my explicit sayso. So it's not a matter of letting some through. And sometimes the subject lines are surprisingly close to home for the lists I'm on, or for the websites I visit or webmaster. Perhaps my interests are ordinary. ;) > Or maybe you simply remember the spam that matches your > other email better than the spam that doesn't. A brain > is a very good pattern finding machine :) Indeed we do see patterns, even where none exist! This spam thing is not a big deal, it's just sorta surprising, sometimes amusing, and sometimes a bit worrying. Regards, MB > > -- > Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country > the best in the world, and those who believe it already is. Each group > calls the other unpatriotic. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 8 03:27:39 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:27:39 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational Irrationality (2) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061206215805.036305d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <002601c71a78$d5a24e10$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > Dan wrote: > >> "Rational Ignorance vs. Rational Irrationality" (_Kyklos_ 54(1), 2001, >> pp.3-26.) >> >> Abstract: >> "Beliefs about politics and religion often have three puzzling >> properties: systematic bias, high certainty, and little informational >> basis. The theory of rational ignorance (Downs 1957) explains only the >> low level of information. The current paper presents a general model of >> "rational irrationality," which explains all three stylized facts. >> According to the theory of rational irrationality, being irrational - in >> the sense of deviating from rational expectations - is a good like any >> other; the lower the private cost, the more agents buy. A peculiar >> feature of beliefs about politics, religion, etc. is that the private >> repercussions of error are virtually nonexistent, setting the private >> cost of irrationality at zero; it is therefore in these areas that >> irrational views are most apparent. The consumption of irrationality can >> be optimal, but it will usually not be when the private and the social >> cost of irrationality differ - for example, in elections." > > It pains me to read such egregious nonsense. > "Consumption of irrationality"? "Private cost of irrationality at zero"? Why isn't this just the usual econo-speak? I'm not sure exactly what "consumption of irrationality" is, but I could guess, and I could always read the paper. But the "private cost of irrationality" makes perfect sense---the author is doing no more than attempting to say that you can do all sorts of things, even be totally inconsistent, so long as you're just blowing off steam about world events that you cannot affect at all. > Off hand there is little more irrational than blowing yourself up as a > suicide bomber. I don't know how anyone could set this cost at zero. First, why didn't you demur when a number of us agreed that suicide bombing is not necessarily irrational. If your value system values your own life much less than it does The Cause, it is perfectly rational to accordingly. > At least experiments like the Ultimatum game and finding the actual brain > structures active when people refuse an offer they should (if rational) > take is starting to inform economics with a bit of evolutionary psychology. Again, I disagree. "Declining" in the Ultimatum Game is a form of altruistic punishment. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept, but google for it if not. Again, it may be that in my private value system, really sticking it to the cheap sonavabitch is worth more to me than money. > The *one* thing for sure is that over evolutionary time genes are rational > (The implied goal for genes is to "be there" in future generations.) That's for dead sure. > If you look under human irrationality, you find rational reasons for > the genes to induced such behavior, or at least there were such reasons > when people lived in small related hunter gatherer bands. But allele frequencies have been changing a lot in *historical* times. For example, today those of us with genes that succumb to the cultural fashion of having few children, will obviously be far fewer in the future. And so will those genes. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 8 03:34:22 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:34:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism References: <508145.24676.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002d01c71a79$d53eb4d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart writes From: "The Avantguardian" >> Why do you think that eliminating >> mankind is necessarily irrational? >> Don't you concur with the (generally >> accepted [WELL AT THE TIME OF >> WRITING I THOUGHT WE HAD >> AGREED TO THIS! MAYBY NOT!] >> here) version of what it means to be >> rational? Namely, as Rafal put it, >> "rationality (to use the dictionary >> meaning) is optimizing behavior to >> achieve goals". So if your goal >> is a pristine Earth free of unnatural >> (i.e. human) effects, then what's >> irrational about trying to get rid of >> everyone, including yourself? > > Rational means to an irrational goal is in itself > irrational by the simple virtue of GIGO. Good grief, Stuart! How can a *goal* be innately irrational?? That is, irrational on its own terms? If I'm a Viking and my goal is to slay everyone I can find, and then it gradually morphs into wanting to even kill all my own people, just exactly on what objective basis do you deem this "irrational"? Lee P.S. Please check the line break settings on your email. You seem to be wrapping messages at about column 55 or so, which means a lot of the text you quote from others looks pretty ugly. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 8 03:44:54 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:44:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism References: <653898.84758.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <066301c71944$52824c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8274D5C0-D436-46DD-AF0B-F0AEA171FC88@mac.com> Message-ID: <003101c71a7b$42aafc30$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes---and here I again must confess to the list that we have *far* from settled an issue that I thought was completely settled. Once again everyone, here is the wikipedia usage of *rational*: Rationality is a characteristic which human behaviour or human situations can have, and it normally refers to a means-ends relationship, in which there is a non- arbitrary relationship between a conscious purpose or goal and the means to achieve it. If the chosen means are indeed conducive to achieving the purpose or goal, they are judged rational, if not, they are judged irrational. Get that? It says "if the chosen means are indeed conducive to archieving the purpose or goal, then are judged rational. > Is rationality a free-floating abstraction disconnected from values, yes > what does the valuing and what is considered valuable? > How would that itself be "rational"? Okay, then just what in hell do *you* mean by "rational"? That which is accordance with Samantha's and her friends & neighbors views? > [Are] Arbitrary goals that include one's on destruction and destruction of > one's species are not themselves subject to a meta-judgement as to > their rationality? No, only their desirability from the system of values an entity possesses. > How can it be rational to claim a naturally evolved species is > "unnatural"? I am in total agreement with your sentiment, but not your word usage. To make such a *claim* is neither rational nor rational; it's just right or wrong. It is not irrational for me to assert that Fredrick the Great invaded Russia and lost nearly 600,000 men. > How can it be rational to destroy the only thing on this > rock vaguely capable of rationality? Stuart made a similar point. What if I own a machine that has just evolved into an AI of incredible capabilities, and is vastly more rational than I am or than anyone on Earth is. Of course I should destroy it. Now, yes, for *me* to destroy it could loosely be called "rational" because it would be in accordance with my values. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 8 03:51:08 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:51:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism References: <066301c71944$52824c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><508145.24676.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003e01c71a7c$1d0b5fa0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> L?cio writes at 9:32 AM > As I mentioned earlier, I find it difficult to see rationality by > itself as a source of supergoals (or Utility()...). I totally agree. And I want also to say I agree very strongly with Jef's well thought-out post written just before this one, at 9:12 AM. At least the parts I could understand on a quick reading :-) Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 8 03:56:05 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:56:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism References: <653898.84758.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com><066301c71944$52824c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <004101c71a7c$d3bb8fe0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Oh, missed one: L?cio had earlier written > On 12/6/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > (...) >> Why do you think that eliminating mankind is necessarily >> irrational? Don't you concur with the (generally accepted >> here) version of what it means to be rational? Namely, >> as Rafal put it, "rationality (to use the dictionary meaning) >> is optimizing behavior to achieve goals". So if your goal >> is a pristine Earth free of unnatural (i.e. human) effects, >> then what's irrational about trying to get rid of everyone, >> including yourself? > (...) > > Interesting definition of rationality, and I agree with it. And it > seems to me that a consequence of that definition is that rationality > (or Reason, for sort) by itself cannot create primary goals. Yes! Seems like an egregious violation of the is/ought barrier, the so-called high falutin' "Naturalistic Fallacy". > At most > it can create (or rather infer) secondary goals necessary to achieve > primary goals (one can call them Motivations...) created by... > emotions. In the case of those Voluntary Extinction guys, their > emotions apparently include some sort of religious reverential feeling > about Nature and stuff, and so artificial interferences on Nature > should be minimized. And the natural rational consequence of that > Motivation is: Humanity should become extinct. Quite so! > I can (and I do :) call them "environmentalist nutjobs", but that is > not a critique to their rationality. Rather, it is an indication that > *my* emotionally created primary goals are quite different from > theirs. Excellently put. I happen to concur with (1) that they're nuts (i.e. I disapprove greatly and profoundly disagree with them), and, totally separately (2) it is no critique whatsoever of their rationality. One of them could be, for example, over a four or five week time interval much more rational than I am: he or she never loses his temper, never gets angry at other drivers, never falls in love. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 8 04:02:33 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 20:02:33 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] god delusion and simulachron-3 References: <200612071755.kB7HtAcT057683@mail0.rawbw.com> Message-ID: <004701c71a7d$d1680d80$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> The Spikester writes > In Dawkins' book The God Delusion he quotes an argument that goes like this, > in loose paraphrase: > > 1. God is that which nothing greater can be conceived or imagined. Hmm. This is starting out exactly like St. Anselm's *for* the existence of God. So far, so good! > 2. In determining the greatness of any creation, the disability or handicap > of the creator must be taken into account. When comparing two paintings, > for instance, imagine one was created by a quadriplegic who weilds the > brushes in her teeth. That painting is more wonderful and remarkable than > the other, all else being equal. > > 3. Assume the universe is God's wonderful work of creation. Ah, this is the fatal assumption? Which leads to a contradiction? > 4. No greater handicap can be imagined for any creator than not existing. > > 5. That God could create such a wonderful universe without actually > existing is therefore the greatest conceivable act... > > 6. Therefore god does not exist. > > {8^D > > Dawkins rocks. Great! Thanks much for this. Next time that I want to explain to people why logic cannot always be trusted, I now have two very similar sounding airtight arguments that----lead to opposite conclusions! Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 8 04:22:43 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:22:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] god delusion and simulacron-3 In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061207143541.02659140@satx.rr.com> References: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200612071806.kB7I6QMV008285@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061207143541.02659140@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061207222003.02278d60@satx.rr.com> At 02:43 PM 12/7/2006 -0600, I babbled carelessly: >number of earlier stories such as Heinlein's "Them" and "The >Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag". "They" not "Them." Sorry. In "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag" (Paperback collection). Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 8 05:45:38 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 21:45:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Rational Irrationality" [sic] Message-ID: <007c01c71a8c$25c17ed0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Al writes (in an offline message whose permission to copy I have) > Lee Corbin wrote: > > > First, why didn't you demur when a number of us agreed that suicide > > bombing is not necessarily irrational? If your value system values your > > own life much less than it does The Cause, it is perfectly rational to > > [act] accordingly. > Precisely. One could even say that someone who volunteers and is > sent to Iraq is perhaps taking a greater risk than a suicide bomber > in that they have less control, the suicide bomber's pain is gone in a > flash; GIs face excruciating pain in being injured, and the uncertainty > of not knowing if and when the blow arrives for them. Yes! That's right! Moreover, just think of it! Many of the suicide bombers have a great deal of *personal* incentive too! None of the Allied soldiers anticipates any 72 virgins on reaching paradise after he's killed in these mortal coils. If anyone is being irrational (and I still claim that no one in these examples is), then it's the American and allied soldiers who are, not the suicide bombers. Lee From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Dec 8 12:29:56 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 07:29:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Another review of Moral Minds by Huaser In-Reply-To: <002601c71a78$d5a24e10$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061206215805.036305d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061208072804.0379da08@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> In American Scientist. At the end about the reviewer: "Edward Edsten is a Ph.D. candidate in animal behavior at the University of California, Davis. Peter J. Richerson is Distinguished Professor of Environmental Science at UC Davis. He is coauthor, with Robert Boyd, of Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution (University of Chicago Press, 2005)" Has anyone read this book? Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Dec 8 12:51:25 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 07:51:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational Irrationality (2) In-Reply-To: <002601c71a78$d5a24e10$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061206215805.036305d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061208073146.03923898@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:27 PM 12/7/2006 -0800, Lee wrote: >Keith writes snip > > Off hand there is little more irrational than blowing yourself up as a > > suicide bomber. I don't know how anyone could set this cost at zero. > >First, why didn't you demur when a number of us agreed that suicide >bombing is not necessarily irrational. I did, the post on rational depending on viewpoint. I don't know if the post got through, the (N) on my postings is how many times I had to submit. I might not always get them through the badly configured mailing list software. >If your value system values your >own life much less than it does The Cause, it is perfectly rational to >accordingly. You might note that 20 years ago I coined the word to describe such people and have written extensively on how this trait evolved. > > At least experiments like the Ultimatum game and finding the actual brain > > structures active when people refuse an offer they should (if rational) > > take is starting to inform economics with a bit of evolutionary psychology. > >Again, I disagree. "Declining" in the Ultimatum Game is a form of >altruistic punishment. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept, Very familiar. Also that people play the game differently (more of the way a economist would say is "rational") when part of their brain is disrupted with transcranial magnetic stimulation or if they think they are playing against a computer. >but google for it if not. Again, it may be that in my private value system, >really sticking it to the cheap sonavabitch is worth more to me than >money. An economist is likely to say this behavior is not rational. (You can also bet that he, being human, would play the game the same way everyone else does.) > > The *one* thing for sure is that over evolutionary time genes are rational > > (The implied goal for genes is to "be there" in future generations.) > >That's for dead sure. > > > If you look under human irrationality, you find rational reasons for > > the genes to induced such behavior, or at least there were such reasons > > when people lived in small related hunter gatherer bands. > >But allele frequencies have been changing a lot in *historical* times. >For example, today those of us with genes that succumb to the cultural >fashion of having few children, will obviously be far fewer in the future. >And so will those genes. Unless there is unghodly pressure, genes just don't change that fast. I have cited examples where they did change in historical times in lot of previous posts here, try lactose as a key word. Take the trait behind capture bonding (Stockholm syndrome). Why should that go away? Keith From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 8 14:08:32 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 06:08:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational Irrationality (2) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061206215805.036305d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061208073146.03923898@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <002801c71ad2$6833d470$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > Lee wrote: > >>First, why didn't you demur when a number of us agreed that suicide >>bombing is not necessarily irrational. > > I did, the post on rational depending on viewpoint. Alrighty, then, :-) we can have a juicy disagreement. (Entirely terminological, but in some cases, e.g. abortion's being "murder" it is important) You know that at least about six of us here maintain that a suicide bomber ought not to necessarily be considered irrational, and for various reasons. But your side is hardly underequipped or represented. You can deploy the brain MRI studies, and you too have a fan-base here that considers even very carefully thought-out and deliberate acts as being possibly irrational. > I don't know if the post got through, the (N) on my postings is how > many times I had to submit. I might not always get them through the > badly configured mailing list software. And after a few hundred posts, it could happen that I've forgotten one or two. More later in better organized threads with better subject lines. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 8 14:43:38 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 06:43:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Evolution is Still Going Strong Today Message-ID: <002d01c71ad7$56275ea0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith wrote >> > If you look under human irrationality, you find rational reasons for >> > the genes to induced such behavior, or at least there were such reasons >> > when people lived in small related hunter gatherer bands. to which I replied >> But allele frequencies have been changing a lot in *historical* times. >> For example, today those of us with genes that succumb to the cultural >> fashion of having few children, will obviously be far fewer in the future. >> And so will those genes. > > Unless there is ungodly pressure, genes just don't change that fast. I > have cited examples where they did change in historical times in lot of > previous posts here, try lactose as a key word. We are talking about two different historical intervals, no? You: thousands of years ago, me, mere hundreds or less. To the point: if the Hutterites you often describe---or the Vikings of a previous era who often averaged 10 children apiece---greatly grow in numbers, it stands to reason that human gene frequencies change relatively quickly. Surely you're not talking mutations only? > Take the trait behind capture bonding (Stockholm syndrome). Why should > that go away? Good example, though I wonder if my rationale is the same as yours. I would suggest that since the EP purpose of the Stockholm syndrome is that since women still "want" in the evolutionary sense to keep on having children, then the genes resisting such uncompromising situations (as in the legend of the Sabine women), would tend to die out in women. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 8 14:37:24 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 06:37:24 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hatfields and McCoys: When Rational, when Irrational? Message-ID: <002c01c71ad7$560382f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > Lee wrote > >> If your value system values your own life much less than it does >> The Cause, it is perfectly rational to accordingly. > > You might note that 20 years ago I coined the word to describe such people > and have written extensively on how this trait evolved. Could you be more explicit? You coined (or co-opted) precisely what word to describe precisely what? >> > At least experiments like the Ultimatum game and finding the actual brain >> > structures active when people refuse an offer they should (if rational) >> > take is starting to inform economics with a bit of evolutionary psychology. >> >> Again, I disagree. "Declining" in the Ultimatum Game is a form of >> altruistic punishment. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept, > > Very familiar. Also that people play the game differently (more of the way > a economist would say is "rational") when part of their brain is disrupted > with transcranial magnetic stimulation or if they think they are playing > against a computer. Well, it may be simply a terminological war that you're losing? E.g. the wikipedia article. But still---here---I am interested in *finding* not only the truth, but the most appropriate terms to describe it. And if you are right, I *want* to be persuaded (as I think are Rafal, Jef, and Al and many others here I could name). >> Again, it may be that in my private value system, really sticking it to the >> cheap sonavabitch is worth more to me than money. > > An economist is likely to say this behavior is not rational. (You can also > bet that he, being human, would play the game the same way everyone > else does.) Well, economists are rethinking a lot of their views about the so-called "rational man". And: Actually, economists *don't* play The Ultimatum Game the same as everyone else. [Dixit & Nalebuff, "Strategic Thinking", 1993, for just one source.] Here you are quite right: Either through self-selection or (more likely) training, they're always trying to optimize financial exchanges, even in their make-believe game playing roles. Now mind you, any act of kindness is very likely to be deemed "irrational" by those who interpret the MRI studies aggressively. We can all tell when it's happening---whether engaging in a dig at a coworker at the office who you just can't stand, or suddenly overcome by charitable feelings at Christmas time---one is not using the same "cold-blooded" parts of the brain that one is using while doing his income taxes. Do you agree? The case of suicide bombers is great for the clarity it's able to help bring to this subject. First: we must distinguish on one hand between an entirely selfishly-calculating bomber who wants to help his family (e.g., from Saddam's treasury before someone deposed the bastard) or who wants a quick trip to Paradise and on the other hand, the suicide bomber who's just fed up to here with those blue-helmeted Israeli bullies. We should focus on the latter---not the former. If it's a self-interested calculation where "self-interest" is defined narrowly and does not embrace wide goals, then we would all agree that it is "rational". Where we disagree are in those cases resembling anger or altruistic punishment, right? And here is one breakdown: let's say that X commits an act through anger that he almost immediately regrets, and one that under careful interrogation he admits is not in either his own self interest nor in the interest of his goals. I will agree that such anger is an example, just as is impulsive compassion, of irrationality. Where I disagree is if the behavior is very calmly and very carefully considered: even though it's at huge personal risk and won't help him or his family, Jeb Hatfield will go find a McCoy and kill him. He simply wants to do this very badly, and in total alignment with his values, and no matter how carefully or how long you interview him, he'll never admit to it being anything but what he really and sincerely wants to do. How can you find it appropriate to call his desire "irrational", or the dangerous mission he embarks upon to realize it? Lee From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Dec 8 18:20:07 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:20:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hatfields and McCoys: When Rational, when Irrational? In-Reply-To: <002c01c71ad7$560382f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061208120423.0369f3c0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:37 AM 12/8/2006 -0800, you wrote: >Keith writes > > > Lee wrote > > > >> If your value system values your own life much less than it does > >> The Cause, it is perfectly rational to accordingly. > > > > You might note that 20 years ago I coined the word to describe such people > > and have written extensively on how this trait evolved. > >Could you be more explicit? You coined (or co-opted) precisely what word to >describe precisely what? Memeoid ? is a neologism for people who have been taken over by a meme to the extent that their own survival becomes inconsequential. Examples include kamikazes, suicide bombers and cult members who commit mass suicide. The term was apparently coined by H. Keith Henson in "Memes, L5 and the Religion of the Space Colonies," L5 News, 1985 pp. 5-8, [6] and referenced in the expanded second edition of Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene (p. 330). [You asked. :-) ] > >> > At least experiments like the Ultimatum game and finding the actual > brain > >> > structures active when people refuse an offer they should (if rational) > >> > take is starting to inform economics with a bit of evolutionary > psychology. > >> > >> Again, I disagree. "Declining" in the Ultimatum Game is a form of > >> altruistic punishment. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept, > > > > Very familiar. Also that people play the game differently (more of the > way > > a economist would say is "rational") when part of their brain is disrupted > > with transcranial magnetic stimulation or if they think they are playing > > against a computer. > >Well, it may be simply a terminological war that you're losing? E.g. the >wikipedia >article. People fought over the terminology of memes/memetics for at least a decade. I found it to be pointless, people know what memes ares and a tight technical definition is just a waste of electrons. >But still---here---I am interested in *finding* not only the truth, but the >most appropriate terms to describe it. And if you are right, I *want* to be >persuaded (as I think are Rafal, Jef, and Al and many others here I could >name). Everything having to do with living things has a foundation in evolutionary biology. You have a good point that the terminology may have to shift and either old words acquire specific in context meaning or new words may have to be coined for such things as "mental state induced by lethal memes." > >> Again, it may be that in my private value system, really sticking it > to the > >> cheap sonavabitch is worth more to me than money. > > > > An economist is likely to say this behavior is not rational. (You can > also > > bet that he, being human, would play the game the same way everyone > > else does.) > >Well, economists are rethinking a lot of their views about the so-called >"rational man". And: > >Actually, economists *don't* play The Ultimatum Game the same as >everyone else. [Dixit & Nalebuff, "Strategic Thinking", 1993, for just >one source.] That's amusing. It stirs a faint memory so I might have read that sometime. >Here you are quite right: Either through self-selection or >(more likely) training, they're always trying to optimize financial >exchanges, even in their make-believe game playing roles. > >Now mind you, any act of kindness is very likely to be deemed >"irrational" by those who interpret the MRI studies aggressively. >We can all tell when it's happening---whether engaging in a dig >at a coworker at the office who you just can't stand, or suddenly >overcome by charitable feelings at Christmas time---one is not >using the same "cold-blooded" parts of the brain that one is >using while doing his income taxes. Do you agree? Only partly. I suspect that most charitable acts are done to enhance a person's status. Talk to Bill Gates about that. >The case of suicide bombers is great for the clarity it's able to >help bring to this subject. First: we must distinguish on one >hand between an entirely selfishly-calculating bomber who wants >to help his family (e.g., from Saddam's treasury before someone >deposed the bastard) or who wants a quick trip to Paradise and >on the other hand, the suicide bomber who's just fed up to here >with those blue-helmeted Israeli bullies. > >We should focus on the latter---not the former. If it's a self-interested >calculation where "self-interest" is defined narrowly and does not >embrace wide goals, then we would all agree that it is "rational". This gets into a tangle of levels and what viewpoint you are considering. Plus the fact that we are a long way from the EEA and not living in closely related bands. >Where we disagree are in those cases resembling anger or altruistic >punishment, right? Not from my viewpoint. It all goes back to genes that build humans with psychological traits that are (or were) adaptive--keeping in mind inclusive fitness. >And here is one breakdown: let's say that X commits an act through >anger that he almost immediately regrets, and one that under careful >interrogation he admits is not in either his own self interest nor in the >interest of his goals. I will agree that such anger is an example, >just as is impulsive compassion, of irrationality. Not from the viewpoint of his genes selected in the EEA. Read up on the Yanamano. Lashing out in anger may be an extremely stupid, even fatal thing to do in these times, but it is wired into the way our brains work--which means it must have been adaptive in the past. As an example, rug rat grabs a sleeping dog's balls and yanks, dog bites the kid. Dog gets destroyed. Even the most mellow dogs like Golden Retrievers will do this. It is clear that in doggy/wolf evolution, biting something that yanks on your balls was adaptive. >Where I disagree is if the behavior is very calmly and very carefully >considered: even though it's at huge personal risk and won't help >him or his family, Jeb Hatfield will go find a McCoy and kill him. >He simply wants to do this very badly, and in total alignment with >his values, and no matter how carefully or how long you interview >him, he'll never admit to it being anything but what he really and >sincerely wants to do. > >How can you find it appropriate to call his desire "irrational", or the >dangerous mission he embarks upon to realize it? As an external observer I can call his desire anything I like, including stone crazy. :-) But if I want to *account* for this behavior it (or something related) must have been adaptive in the lawless past. The Yanamano are *most* instructive in this regard. So are the Hatfields and McCoys. The origin of the feud would be completely understandable to the Yanamano. From Wikipedia: "But in truth, the dispute was over land or property lines and the ownership of that land." I am not picky about terms as long as people understand what is going on. If you don't like to use irrational, use "the mental state induced by memes, in turn induced by. . . ." Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 8 22:32:24 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:32:24 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] PBS futurology Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061208163133.02269d08@satx.rr.com> [fwd:] 22nd CENTURY Would you like to know what the world is going to be like 30 years from now? Will human life spans increase to 250 years or more? Will your personal computer become smarter than you? Will machines shrink so small they can make repairs inside a human cell? This series is about these dramatic changes ? expected within our lifetimes ? changes made possible by scientific and technological research being conducted in laboratories across the globe today. Each episode will be driven by three characters viewing these scientific advances from a different perspective. One will be an actor portraying Aldous Huxley, the late author of Brave New World, who worried about the dehumanizing consequences of new technology. The second will be an impartial observer from the present, an everyday person who, like viewers, is affected by the changes taking place. The third will be a character from the future, who presents an optimistic view of all the possibilities these technologies offer. Airdate : 01/17/07 Time : 8:00 - 9:00 pm From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Dec 8 22:45:57 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 16:45:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism References: <653898.84758.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com><066301c71944$52824c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8274D5C0-D436-46DD-AF0B-F0AEA171FC88@mac.com> Message-ID: <1b7101c71b1a$a10be740$660fa8c0@kevin> Is rational reason rational or should we be rationing reason reasonably? Sometimes I think that reasoning should be rationed in a way that is rational and provides a reasonable amount of reason to every reasonable topic. > > On Dec 6, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > The Avanguardian writes > > > >> Al Brooks wrote: > >> > >>> The question is: do rational reasons exist for > >>> irrational thinking and behavior that enable one to > >>> escape irrational reality? > >> > >> When it comes to rational irrationalism, I think these > >> guys take the cake: > >> > >> http://www.vhemt.org/ > > > > Why do you think that eliminating mankind is necessarily > > irrational? > > Is rationality a free-floating abstraction disconnected from values, > what does the valuing and what is considered valuable? How would that > itself be "rational"? > > > > Don't you concur with the (generally accepted > > here) version of what it means to be rational? Namely, > > as Rafal put it, "rationality (to use the dictionary meaning) > > is optimizing behavior to achieve goals". So if your goal > > is a pristine Earth free of unnatural (i.e. human) effects, > > then what's irrational about trying to get rid of everyone, > > including yourself? > > Arbitrary goals that include one's on destruction and destruction of > one's species are not themselves subject to a meta-judgement as to > their rationality? Where is the grounding for these abstractions > being tossed about? > > How can it be rational to claim a naturally evolved species is > "unnatural"? How can it be rational to destroy the only thing on this > rock vaguely capable of rationality? Are we so sickened by our dizzy > abstractions? > > - samantha > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Dec 8 22:40:32 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:40:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RFID hacking In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061208120423.0369f3c0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com> References: <002c01c71ad7$560382f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061208173842.036027d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/rfid.html James Van Bokkelen is about to be robbed. A wealthy software entrepreneur, Van Bokkelen will be the latest victim of some punk with a laptop. But this won't be an email scam or bank account hack. A skinny 23-year-old named Jonathan Westhues plans to use a cheap, homemade USB device to swipe the office key out of Van Bokkelen's back pocket. Excellent article. I missed it when it came out earlier this year. Keith Henson From neptune at superlink.net Sat Dec 9 01:25:44 2006 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 20:25:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Can the Future Do Without Economic Logic? Message-ID: <003201c71b30$f32de580$c3893cd1@pavilion> http://www.mises.org/story/2402 From pj at pj-manney.com Sat Dec 9 02:39:17 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:39:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] PBS futurology Message-ID: <2483904.85641165631957282.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >22nd CENTURY >Would you like to know what the world is going to be like 30 years from >now? Will human life spans increase to 250 years or more? Will your >personal computer become smarter than you? Will machines shrink so >small they can make repairs inside a human cell? This series is about >these dramatic changes ? expected within our lifetimes ? changes made >possible by scientific and technological research being conducted in >laboratories across the globe today. Each episode will be driven by >three characters viewing these scientific advances from a different >perspective. One will be an actor portraying Aldous Huxley, the late >author of Brave New World, who worried about the dehumanizing >consequences of new technology. The second will be an impartial >observer from the present, an everyday person who, like viewers, is >affected by the changes taking place. The third will be a character >from the future, who presents an optimistic view of all the >possibilities these technologies offer. > >Airdate : 01/17/07 Time : 8:00 - 9:00 pm The pilot was written by my buddy Michael Chorost, author of "Rebuilt: How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More Human." Great book, if you haven't read it. The pilot episode is all about humans becoming cyborgs, hence Mike's involvement. Fingers crossed for him! Any of you have Nielsen monitors at home? ;-) PJ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 9 05:27:22 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 21:27:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <333207.6629.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- L?cio de Souza Coelho wrote: > On 12/7/06, The Avantguardian > wrote: > (...) > > Oh lets see . . . natural selection, economics, > game > > theory, Utility(Something) >= Utility(null set). > Such > > nonsense is the abyss that Neitzsche warned us > about. > (...) > > How do you define "utility" in a way that it is > intrinsically > rational? "Utility" in the context of natural > selection for instance > is "stay alive enough time to reproduce". But does > that make this > utility definition intrinsically "rational" by any > means? Well if you are engaged in a game (survival, stock market, tennis, parcheesi, it's all the same), the utility of any particular "move" is generally your "score". A rational player is defined as a player who makes moves to raise ones score and draw closer to winning the game. To make moves intent on lowering ones score and losing the game is thereby irrational, UNLESS the game is a subgame of larger game and in the larger game one can raise ones "score" by "losing" the subgame. I see no other "larger game" for the deathists except for the imaginary one where Allah or Gaia pat them on the head after they die. > As I mentioned earlier, I find it difficult to see > rationality by > itself as a source of supergoals (or Utility()...). Well I think it's seldomly the source of supergoals. But once those supergoals get established, it is certainly the way to get there. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick ____________________________________________________________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. From pgptag at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 08:48:58 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 09:48:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prisco on transhumanism, Lausanne, January 24 Message-ID: <470a3c520612090048y22974158sf2a95c7baf4de0e3@mail.gmail.com> World Transhumanist Association Executive Director Giulio Priscowill debate transhumanism at the University of Lausanne on January 24, 2007. Universit? de Lausanne Cours Public Mercredi 24 janvier 18h00 - Amphimax, auditoire Erna Hamburger L'esp?ce humaine est-elle perfectible? A l'heure de la mont?e du cr?ationnisme aux Etats-Unis, le darwinisme est-il la seule explication de la r?ussite de certaines esp?ces aux d?pens d'autres ? A l'image du mouvement "transhumaniste", peut-on tirer des enseignements de l'?volution pour am?liorer l'esp?ce humaine ? Jusqu'? quelles limites ? Celles qui ont d?j? ?t? explor?es par la science-fiction et la litt?rature ? Autant de questions qui seront notamment abord?es le 24 janvier. Are humans perfectible ? With creationist ideas and "intelligent design" rising in the US, is Darwinism the only explanation of the success of some species against others? Following the "transhumanist" movement, can we draw useful lessons to improve the human species? What are the limits? Those already explored by science fiction and literature? These issues will be explored on january 24. L'esp?ce humaine est-elle perfectible ? A l'heure de la mont?e du cr?ationnisme aux USA, le darwinisme est-il la seule explication de la r?ussite de certaines esp?ces aux d?pens d'autres ? Peut-on en tirer des enseignements pour am?liorer l'esp?ce humaine, comme le pr?conise le transhumanisme ? Jusqu'? quelles limites ? Diffusion en direct sur le Web Diffusion en direct Intervenants *Giulio Prisco, directeur ex?cutif de l' Association mondiale pour le transhumanisme * Giulio Prisco est n? en 1957 ? Naples (Italie). Il dirige la soci?t? de prospective technologique et r?alit? virtuelle metafuturing, bas?e ? Madrid. Il est ?galement engag? au sein de l'Association mondiale pour le transhumanisme, dont il est directeur ex?cutif, et de l'Institut d'?thique et technologies ?mergents. Apr?s ses ?tudes de physique th?orique et computationnelle, G. Prisco a travaill? au CERN et ? l'Agence spatiale europ?enne (ESA) et dispose d'un champ d'expertises ?tendu en mati?re de calcul informatique, sur la r?alit? virtuelle et les technologies pour la d?fense et l'espace. *Daniela Cerqui, ma?tre assistante ? l'Institut d'anthropologie et de sociologie de la Facult? des sciences sociales et politique (UNIL)* Daniela Cerqui est une anthropologue sp?cialis?e dans l'?tude des rapports entre technologie et soci?t? et, plus fondamentalement, humanit?. Ses recherches de terrain portent principalement sur les ing?nieurs qui pensent, fabriquent et promeuvent des technologies, dans des domaines li?s ? la robotique, l'intellligence artificielle, et plus g?n?ralement l'informatique et les nouvelles technologies de l'information (Internet, t?l?phone portable, etc.). Elle a ainsi r?cemment pass? deux ans dans le laboratoire du premier humain ? s'?tre fait implanter une puce ?lectronique directement reli?e ? son syst?me nerveux, et continue ? collaborer ?troitement avec lui. Elle s'int?resse aux enjeux sociaux et ?thiques li?s ? de telles pratiques qui, sous pr?texte de sans cesse am?liorer l'humain, pourraient conduire ? sa modification radicale, voire ? sa disparition. *Prof. Laurent Keller, professeur et directeur du D?partement d'?cologie et d'?volution de la Facult? de biologie et m?decine (UNIL)* Biologiste suisse, Laurent Keller est n? en 1961 ? Lausanne. Apr?s des ?tudes de biologie ? l`Universit? de Lausanne, il effectue ses recherches ? Toulouse, au Mus?e de zoologie de Lausanne et poursuivra sa formation ? Harvard. Il est professeur en ?cologie ?volutive et m?ne des travaux sur la vie sociale et la g?n?tique des fourmis pour ?tudier par exemple comment les reines vivent jusqu`? 50 fois plus longtemps que les ouvri?res, tout en poss?dant le m?me g?nome. Ses travaux sont reconnus mondialement et il a re?u de nombreux prix pour ses d?couvertes. Il a aussi r?cemment ?crit un livre sur la vie des fourmis avec la journaliste Elisabeth Gordon. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Sat Dec 9 15:02:16 2006 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 10:02:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Can the Future Do Without Economic Logic? References: <002c01c71ad7$560382f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <003901c71ba3$05148ac0$ad893cd1@pavilion> http://www.mises.org/story/2402 From pj at pj-manney.com Sat Dec 9 16:25:06 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:25:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] PBS futurology - RESEND Message-ID: <25541701.109391165681506099.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >22nd CENTURY >Would you like to know what the world is going to be like 30 years from >now? Will human life spans increase to 250 years or more? Will your >personal computer become smarter than you? Will machines shrink so >small they can make repairs inside a human cell? This series is about >these dramatic changes ? expected within our lifetimes ? changes made >possible by scientific and technological research being conducted in >laboratories across the globe today. Each episode will be driven by >three characters viewing these scientific advances from a different >perspective. One will be an actor portraying Aldous Huxley, the late >author of Brave New World, who worried about the dehumanizing >consequences of new technology. The second will be an impartial >observer from the present, an everyday person who, like viewers, is >affected by the changes taking place. The third will be a character >from the future, who presents an optimistic view of all the >possibilities these technologies offer. > >Airdate : 01/17/07 Time : 8:00 - 9:00 pm The pilot was written by my buddy Michael Chorost, author of "Rebuilt: How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More Human." It's about his experiences with his a cochlear implant. Great book, if you haven't read it. The pilot episode is all about humans becoming cyborgs, hence Mike's involvement. Fingers crossed for him! Any of you have Nielsen meters hooked up to your televisions at home? ;-) PJ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Dec 9 17:16:07 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 09:16:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Another review of Moral Minds by Huaser References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061206215805.036305d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061208072804.0379da08@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <005201c71bb6$27ca0fa0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > In American Scientist. > > At the end about the reviewer: > > "Edward Edsten is a Ph.D. candidate in animal behavior at the University of > California, Davis. Peter J. Richerson is Distinguished Professor of > Environmental Science at UC Davis. He is coauthor, with Robert Boyd, of Not > By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution (University of > Chicago Press, 2005)" > > Has anyone read this book? Not I. But as early as 1981 Wilson and Lumsden wrote a famous book (whose title eludes me at the moment) on the interplay between genes and culture. They went so far as to fill up appendices with a lot of math about their new "culturgens", a sort of gene that influences culture and vice-versa. But these guys probably have a lot to say that's new. Thanks for the tip. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Dec 9 17:21:08 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 09:21:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Evolution is Still Going Strong Today References: <002d01c71ad7$56275ea0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <49410.86.130.30.41.1165618175.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <005301c71bb6$70f8f470$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Anders writes > Lee Corbin wrote: >> >>> Take the trait behind capture bonding (Stockholm syndrome). Why should >>> that go away? >> >> Good example, though I wonder if my rationale is the same as [whoever >> wrote that]. >> >> I would suggest that [the] EP purpose of the Stockholm >> syndrome is that since women still "want" in the evolutionary >> sense to keep on having children, then the genes resisting >> such uncompromising situations (as in the legend of the >> Sabine women), would tend to die out in women. > > Do you need to assume this kind of adaptive explanation? A simpler one > might be that the combination of a very stressful situation (releasing > learning-inducing catecholamines) and isolation with a highly salient > person would lead to imprinting. As you hint next, a key question is, "does this happen to men also?". > It might be possible to check this, since this accidental imprinting > model doesn't tell whether the emotional valence would be positive > or negative. You mean that the captives may come to *hate* their captors even more over time, rather than gradually come to sympathize with them? Well :-) that too would have a lot of simpler explanations! Lee > It should just be intense. If capture bonding is going on it should > just be positive and gender specific, I guess. > > Lima syndrome (where captors become sympathetic to their hostages) appears > to be hard to explain using capture bonding. Maybe it is just the ordinary > group dynamics of becoming a "we" group together with a lot of extra > stress that produces the syndromes. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 9 18:26:28 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:26:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] chat list screwups? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061208163133.02269d08@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061208163133.02269d08@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061209122309.0231cc20@satx.rr.com> I haven't had any Exi chat messages last night or today, although I find a few in the archives that never got here--including one by Lee 2 hours ago replying to a message from Anders (about capture bonding etc) that doesn't even show up on the archive listing. What's up? Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 9 18:30:06 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:30:06 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] 5 seconds later... References: <002c01c71ad7$560382f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061209122732.02257ab0@satx.rr.com> Almost immediately after my latest post, 9 exi-chat posts came bursting in together. Maybe it's just roadrunner, maybe it's satx, maybe the net is getting old and sclerotic (seems to be screwing up/slowing down more and more lately). Hmm. Damien Broderick From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 18:56:17 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 18:56:17 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <333207.6629.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <333207.6629.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0612091056s318b8d6dk1f1ed96cf964e7ce@mail.gmail.com> On 12/9/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > > A rational player is defined as a player who makes > moves to raise ones score and draw closer to winning > the game. To make moves intent on lowering ones score > and losing the game is thereby irrational, UNLESS the > game is a subgame of larger game and in the larger > game one can raise ones "score" by "losing" the > subgame. Which in turn can be taken as an alternative wording of Jef Allbright's perspective in terms of increasing scope (if I understand him correctly). I see no other "larger game" for the deathists except > for the imaginary one where Allah or Gaia pat them on > the head after they die. Yep. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Dec 9 19:52:34 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:52:34 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism References: <653898.84758.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com><066301c71944$52824c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8274D5C0-D436-46DD-AF0B-F0AEA171FC88@mac.com> <1b7101c71b1a$a10be740$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <007801c71bcc$46a8bb90$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Kevin writes > Is rational reason rational or should we be rationing reason reasonably? > Sometimes I think that reasoning should be rationed in a way that is > rational and provides a reasonable amount of reason to every reasonable > topic. Good point. This discussion has gotten clearly out of hand. Lee P.S. Rationed irrational reason might be preferable to irrationed rational unreason; although perhaps rationed but unreasonable rational irrationality might be rationally more rationed yet! :-) From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Dec 9 19:49:18 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:49:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hatfields and McCoys: When Rational, when Irrational? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061208120423.0369f3c0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <007701c71bcc$468750e0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes >>But still---here---I am interested in *finding* not only the truth, but the >>most appropriate terms to describe it. And if you are right, I *want* to be >>persuaded (as I think are Rafal, Jef, and Al and many others here I could >>name). > > Everything having to do with living things has a foundation in evolutionary > biology. You have a good point that the terminology may have to shift and > either old words acquire specific in context meaning or new words may have > to be coined for such things as "mental state induced by lethal memes." >From here on out, I'm dropping the term "rational" as descriptive of people's behavior or decisions. The term has caused too much trouble; and when that happens, people *must* stop using it or just waste their time. >>Now mind you, any act of kindness is very likely to be deemed >>"irrational" by those who interpret the MRI studies aggressively. >>We can all tell when it's happening---whether engaging in a dig >>at a coworker at the office who you just can't stand, or suddenly >>overcome by charitable feelings at Christmas time---one is not >>using the same "cold-blooded" parts of the brain that one is >>using while doing his income taxes. Do you agree? > > Only partly. I suspect that most charitable acts are done to enhance a > person's status. Talk to Bill Gates about that. And many uncharitable acts are done to enhance a person's status! Threats, for example. And angry behavior also serves as a warning to others not to mess with one. Even dogs and monkeys act as if they knew this. >>And here is one breakdown: let's say that X commits an act through >>anger that he almost immediately regrets, and one that under careful >>interrogation he admits is not in either his own self interest nor in the >>interest of his goals. I will agree that such anger is an example, >>just as is impulsive compassion, of irrationality. > > Not from the viewpoint of his genes selected in the EEA. We were talking about "rational" as an adjective describing behavior, or decisions, no? Hence it doesn't matter how it obtained back in the EEA. But as I say, I'm giving up the term, and anybody I hear using it is going to be asked for a definition! > Read up on the Yanamano. Who're they? (Just joking, for God's sake. They're everybody's favorite example of how extreme agression pays off in some environments.) > Lashing out in anger may be an extremely stupid, even fatal > thing to do in these times, but it is wired into the way our brains > work--which means it must have been adaptive in the past. Yes, exactly so. Good point. And it is easy to see why it is/was adaptive. Animals lash out in anger, and in many cases this helps them. (But probably not around humans, who are prone to seek Final Solutions beyond the ken of lower animals.) >>Where I disagree is if the behavior is very calmly and very carefully >>considered: even though it's at huge personal risk and won't help >>him or his family, Jeb Hatfield will go find a McCoy and kill him. >>He simply wants to do this very badly, and in total alignment with >>his values, and no matter how carefully or how long you interview >>him, he'll never admit to it being anything but what he really and >>sincerely wants to do. >> >>How can you find it appropriate to call his desire "irrational", or the >>dangerous mission he embarks upon to realize it? > > As an external observer I can call his desire anything I like, including > stone crazy. :-) Well, this is further proof that we need to abandon these terms in our discussions. We know all the facts here. We know what is going on in the minds of the Hatfields and McCoys, what their goals are, and how effective their solutions are. (Not that we are without advice---one nice thing about living comfortably ourselves is that we have plenty of advice to dispense.) > But if I want to *account* for this behavior it (or something related) must > have been adaptive in the lawless past. Of course. It could not be otherwise. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Dec 9 19:57:31 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:57:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism References: <333207.6629.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007901c71bcc$46cee130$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart writes > Well if you are engaged in a game (survival, stock > market, tennis, parcheesi, it's all the same), the > utility of any particular "move" is generally your > "score". > > A rational player is defined as a player who makes > moves to raise ones score and draw closer to winning > the game. To make moves intent on lowering ones score > and losing the game is thereby irrational I concur. But too many people on this list refuse to use our meanings of the word "rational", as in the good example you've provided. I'm afraid it's time to abandon ship. Words are like ball-bearings on a skating rink: to get anywhere, you have to tread carefully and be especially wary of putting too much weight on any one of them. Lee > UNLESS the > game is a subgame of larger game and in the larger > game one can raise ones "score" by "losing" the > subgame. > > I see no other "larger game" for the deathists except > for the imaginary one where Allah or Gaia pat them on > the head after they die. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 9 20:20:11 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:20:11 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Can the Future Do Without Economic Logic? In-Reply-To: <003201c71b30$f32de580$c3893cd1@pavilion> References: <003201c71b30$f32de580$c3893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061209141624.0232db08@satx.rr.com> At 08:25 PM 12/8/2006 -0500, Dan wrote: >http://www.mises.org/story/2402 "Goods that are in superabundance are not subject to the study of praxeology, and certainly not within the scope of catallactics." An interesting observation/admission. It suggests that if true nano-abundance arrives on schedule, the future *must* do without Misean (Misetian?) economic logic, no? Damien Broderick From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Dec 9 20:23:02 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 12:23:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0612091056s318b8d6dk1f1ed96cf964e7ce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell Wallace wrote: > The Avantguardian wrote: >> A rational player is defined as a player who makes >> moves to raise ones score and draw closer to winning >> the game. To make moves intent on lowering ones score >> and losing the game is thereby irrational, UNLESS the >> Game is a subgame of larger game and in the larger >> game one can raise ones "score" by "losing" the >> subgame. > > Which in turn can be taken as an alternative wording > of Jef Allbright's perspective in terms of increasing > scope (if I understand him correctly). Yes, although I prefer to use the phrase "increasing context" with regard to awareness, interpretation, meaning and decision-making, and "increasing scope" with regard to interactions, effects, consequences, etc. Once you get familiar with the idea that assessment of rationality necessarily implies a context, and that assessment of morality necessary implies an increasing context and scope, then you come to the interesting observation that all subjective contexts are necessarily incomplete, i.e. subsumed within a greater context of potential (future) awareness, leading to the idea of an arrow of increasing -- what? -- similar to the statistical arrow of time observed in classical thermodynamics. For those who are interested enough to think through the preceding, the next likely stumbling block in the train of thought has to do with remembering that all assessments are necessarily subjective, but that they tend toward increasing objectivity as they are tested via interaction within increasing scope of reality. A result of such thinking is clear resolution of such so-called paradoxes as "free-will" and "meaning of life", but you give up any belief in an intrinsic Self in the process. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Dec 9 20:29:00 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 12:29:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <007901c71bcc$46cee130$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Lee Corbin wrote: > Stuart writes > >> Well if you are engaged in a game (survival, stock market, >> tennis, parcheesi, it's all the same), the utility of any >> particular "move" is generally your "score". >> >> A rational player is defined as a player who makes moves >> to raise ones score and draw closer to winning the game. >> To make moves intent on lowering ones score and losing the >> game is thereby irrational > > I concur. But too many people on this list refuse to use > our meanings of the word "rational", as in the good example > you've provided. > > I'm afraid it's time to abandon ship. Words are like > ball-bearings on a skating rink: to get anywhere, you have > to tread carefully and be especially wary of putting too much > weight on any one of them. Words are like a scaffolding, allowing one to climb higher and See farther than before -- IF the scaffolding is sound. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Dec 9 20:41:35 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 12:41:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Can the Future Do Without Economic Logic? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061209141624.0232db08@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:25 PM 12/8/2006 -0500, Dan wrote: > > >http://www.mises.org/story/2402 > > "Goods that are in superabundance are not subject to the > study of praxeology, and certainly not within the scope of > catallactics." > > An interesting observation/admission. It suggests that if > true nano-abundance arrives on schedule, the future *must* do > without Misean (Misetian?) economic logic, no? The statement was correct, but keep in mind the qualifier referring only to those goods that are in superabundance. While we may gain a superabundance of the material goods necessary to meet our basic needs and more, in the bigger picture this will likely lead to economics driven by even larger gradients in the realm of new designs and associated demand. Not by those acting mainly on monkey motivations, but by agents operating at higher levels of organization, no? - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Dec 9 20:46:49 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 12:46:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <007901c71bcc$46cee130$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Resend, due to some errors in my wording about sound usage of words. Lee Corbin wrote: > Stuart writes > >> Well if you are engaged in a game (survival, stock market, >> tennis, parcheesi, it's all the same), the utility of any >> particular "move" is generally your "score". >> >> A rational player is defined as a player who makes moves >> to raise ones score and draw closer to winning the game. >> To make moves intent on lowering ones score and losing the >> game is thereby irrational > > I concur. But too many people on this list refuse to use > our meanings of the word "rational", as in the good example > you've provided. > > I'm afraid it's time to abandon ship. Words are like > ball-bearings on a skating rink: to get anywhere, you have > to tread carefully and be especially wary of putting too much > weight on any one of them. Words are like a scaffolding, allowing one to climb higher and see further than before--IF the scaffolding is sound. - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 9 21:07:15 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:07:15 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Can the Future Do Without Economic Logic? References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061209141624.0232db08@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061209150453.021ed4a0@satx.rr.com> At 12:41 PM 12/9/2006 -0800, Jef wrote: >Not by those acting mainly on monkey motivations, >but by agents operating at higher levels of organization, no? Which Charlie Stross was playfully hinting at in his projections of whuffie incentives and hypercalculational planning mocked by these economics students (quite possibly with good cause, but maybe not). Damien Broderick From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 22:38:38 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 17:38:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/6/06, david ish shalom wrote: > > [snip] it does seem SL is full of bugs and not really functioning in > friendly and smooth way and i suggest that before inviting us to waist our > time there, check firstly its proper functioning and than spread the word. I must concur with David's points. Because there are a group of people pushing SecondLife to the ExICh community without perhaps providing sufficient "due diligence". I thought I would relate my experiences. When Second Life was first mentioned here I believe it was only available for Windows. So I waited (having finally transitioned from Windows to Linux on my desktop I'm not about to go back). It became available in an "alpha" state sometime late this summer. I downloaded it and it did not work (complained about not being able to open a window). Hours of googling, reconfiguring X windows, rebuilding and rebooting Linux (several days spent over several months) later I did finally get it to bring up the main SL window. Conclusion: 1) SL as distributed can only work under Linux for people who are either (a) lucky or (b) really know what they are doing and want to spend the time to make it work. 2) Linden Labs has little or no interest in active support for Linux users. [1]. If you look at the documentation [2] you will see that it requires a Cable or DSL internet connection is only supposed to run on high end nVidia GeForce or ATI Radeon graphics cards. So that excludes dialup users and users with any older hardware or "common" systems (from HP, DELL, IBM, etc. which do not have "fancy" 3D graphics capabilities). This gives rise to people's comments that Second Life is an adventure only for "Uber Geeks from Mars" [3]. However, if one understands graphics processing and CPU processing tradeoffs it is fairly clear that Second Life should be able to run reasonably well on Intel 810 and greater graphics chips without the need for a separate 3D tailored graphics card. It runs on my HP machine under Linux with an I915 chip (under Linux) and on my cousin's Dell machine under windows with an I845 chip (both of these having mid-range Pentium 4 processors). (So the Linden Labs system requirements documentation is completely misleading.) However, for machines older than circa 2003 and most laptops one is probably going to have a difficult time using it. [So the undercurrent behind the SL juggernaut is similar to the Windows Vista juggernaut -- go spend hundreds to thousands of $$ to upgrade you hardware]. Now because I have been upgrading my Linux system to the latest versions of the graphics drivers (OpenGL, Xorg, etc.) and because Second Life isn't generally following "open" standards, esp. under Linux, I was not surprised when I went to start Second Life today and it refused to start (surprised no, pissed yes). Three hours later after some more googling and looking at debug logs and fiddling with some environment settings regarding library location and load orders I can once again get Second Life to start (I guess that makes me an Uber Geek). But *NOT* everyone on the ExICh list *is* an Uber Geek and presumably the people who want to promote transhumanist discussions should be trying to make it easier for non Uber Geek's to participate! [4] Now, that is *just* the process of getting Second Life installed and running on your hardware and operating system. If you attempt to register for Second Life using the Linden Labs web interface, as I tried to do at one point when I got tired of wrestling with making the software work, one may easily run into problems. I ran into significant problems with their Captcha interface (the type in what you see software which is supposed to verify you as a "human"). They apparently require that one either use IE and/or have Javascript enabled (Things only "dummies" would do). If this is not the case one gets hang up during the registration process. So not only do they overly complicate using their software but the can't even get "open" web form applications to work right. Now, this is all *before* I even get into the Second Life virtual world. I ran into Mike Lorrey at David Lubkin's party a few weeks ago and we had a brief discussion about Second Life. He has been playing with it fairly extensively and has a good understanding of various aspects of it. He mentioned the problems that Second Life was having with "grey goo". Subsequently Slashdot (and even the public press) has had discussions about "grey goo" running amok [5] and Linden Labs having a big problem with people stealing designs [6] (potentially violating both real world copyright laws as well as the intellectual property protections that allow an "economy" to work in SL). This annoyed a segment of their user community sufficiently enough that they started shutting down their stores and boycotting the game. So, I disagree strongly with Eugen's comment on David's post regarding "unfounded accusations". If anything David was understating the case of problems that currently exist with Second Life. My short list would be: 1) There focus on high end hardware and high speed data connections (quite exclusionary). 2) Good support only on closed source operating systems (Windows). 3) A large proprietary closed source system when there may be alternatives available [7]. 4) Problems with users running amok within the game creating problems and questions as to whether Linden Labs will act aggressively except in the worst cases to eliminate this. 5) Private, profit driven company behind the software (are the founders looking to "pump" and "dump" the user community?) [8] 6) A world running on "private" servers where nobody but the private corporation has ultimate control over the "law of the land" (as compared with say an open source, open server multi-peer virtual world). Now you can critique these points in various ways but I find it disappointing that people who should be most in favor of open systems (and thus opposed to much of SL architecture and implementation) are criticizing "unfounded accusations" when my personal experience *and* that of some who have been participants in this list in the past *and* public news sources *and* even the Linden Labs blogs seem to suggest that such criticisms deserve serious consideration. I would *stress* that Second Life is a closed source system and because Linden Labs is a relatively young company (I haven't bothered to investigate who the founders are or what their reputations are). Second life is one of the single largest programs I have ever encountered [9] and it would be extremely easy given the amount of file I/O that has to be done to the local SL disk cache and the amount of network I/O the program requires for either a corrupted version of SL or "evil" programmers at Linden Labs to "piggy back" disk scanning, personal information harvesting functions, keystroke loggers, etc. within Second Life. You are installing software on your machine which is inherently untrustable [you don't have the source code] [10]. On top of that you are giving them your name and a credit card number so using whatever information any trojans might harvest from your disk or keyboard would be very simple if people within Linden Labs are not completely trustable (ot if their security and/or implementations cannot be trusted -- which history to date would suggest might well be the case). As the saying goes, "If you do not change the direction in which you are headed you are likely to end up where you are going." I strongly question whether SL should be the destination and would suggest that those involved may be leaping (and trying to convince others to do so as well) before they look. Robert 1. For example from the Second Life blog -- "Linux users: We'll get a Linux viewer up as soon as we can." (this was over a month ago...). http://blog.secondlife.com/2006/11/04/preview-of-second-life-11241-on-the-beta-test-grid/ 2. http://secondlife.com/corporate/sysreqs.php 3. http://blog.secondlife.com/2006/11/23/how-i-got-second-life-running-on-a-8800gtx-under-windows-xp-x64/ 4. Didn't the last attempt to promote a Transhumanist event in Second Life end up having more than just a few problems?!? 5. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/20/0218221 6. http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/15/1714241 7. http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000133 8. Orkut may be a good example of this. Build up a large user base, dump the software and user community on Google and end up with minimal support and improvements since that time. 9. The executable itself without libraries is 41MB, the resident program after start up is 56MB with 194MB of virtual memory. The resident program size is about 70% of that of a full java implementation running a P2P file sharing application to many more systems than SL is handling (and Java is a notorious pig in terms of system resources). 10. I would be extremely surprised if the individuals who run the SPAM botnets around the world did not currently have people trying to disassemble Second Life and determine whether the security could be breached to allow them to use SL as an agent to collect private personal information. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 22:57:55 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 22:57:55 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <007901c71bcc$46cee130$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <333207.6629.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <007901c71bcc$46cee130$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 12/9/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stuart writes > > > Well if you are engaged in a game (survival, stock > > market, tennis, parcheesi, it's all the same), the > > utility of any particular "move" is generally your > > "score". > > > > A rational player is defined as a player who makes > > moves to raise ones score and draw closer to winning > > the game. To make moves intent on lowering ones score > > and losing the game is thereby irrational > > I concur. But too many people on this list refuse to use > our meanings of the word "rational", as in the good > example you've provided. > > I'm afraid it's time to abandon ship. Words are like ball-bearings > on a skating rink: to get anywhere, you have to tread carefully and > be especially wary of putting too much weight on any one of them. > We are not allowed to have our own personal meanings for words. Not if you wish to communicate with speakers of the same language. 'Define your terms' is always a good idea when confusion arises. The web gives everybody access to many dictionaries, thesauri and encyclopaedias. If someone finds that none of these references include the meaning that they wish to attach to 'rational', then they are in trouble. They will be unable to argue for their version of 'rational', because nobody else will know what they are talking about. If the dictionaries disagree with you, the solution is for you to use a different word for your concept. ------------- There are four recognised usages of rational. 1. Rational - Consistent with or based upon or using reason. Similar to: coherent, lucid: capable of thinking and expressing yourself in a clear and consistent manner intelligent, reasoning, thinking: endowed with the capacity to reason. reasonable, sane: marked by sound judgement. demythologised: having mythical elements removed. e.g. rational behaviour, rational thought. 2. Rational - Having its source in or being guided by the intellect. (Distinguished from experience or emotion). e.g. a rational analysis. 3. Rational - Of or associated with, or requiring the use of the mind. e.g. The triumph of the rational over the animal side of man. 4.Rational - In maths - Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers. e.g. rational numbers. ------------------- The point from the above that seems to have been omitted from the discussions is that for the thinking to be called 'rational' it must be demythologised. Thus, when myths become involved in the thinking or behaviour, it stops being 'rational'. The same applies to emotion or experience. When these distort the reasoning or behaviour, it stops being rational 'Irrational' is the word for these distorted results. In some circumstances, it might be a good idea to drive yourself into a berserker rage and start killing as many people as you can. e.g. In an ancient hand-to-hand battle. But you would not be behaving rationally while you were fighting. It is a misuse of the word to call such behaviour 'rational'. Call it 'animal survival instinct', 'fight for life', 'desperation' 'kill or be killed', but it is not the cool, clear, logical analysis called 'rational', beyond the influence of myths, religion, emotions, past experiences, etc. BillK From neptune at superlink.net Sat Dec 9 23:04:38 2006 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 18:04:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Can the Future Do Without Economic Logic? References: <003201c71b30$f32de580$c3893cd1@pavilion> <7.0.1.0.2.20061209141624.0232db08@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <003b01c71be6$67e46d80$a0893cd1@pavilion> On Saturday, December 09, 2006 3:20 PM Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com wrote: >> http://www.mises.org/story/2402 > > "Goods that are in superabundance are > not subject to the study of praxeology, and > certainly not within the scope of catallactics." > > An interesting observation/admission. Not so much an admission. This is part of the basics of the subject -- in the difference between economic and non-economic goods. Moreover, this difference is relative. E.g., the classic example of a non-economic good is air. However, there are case where air becomes an economic good -- as in space, underwater, or, given the allowed violation of property rights in lungs, in heavily polluted areas or what have you. The question to ask is always: Is this good so plentiful that it no longer needs to be economized -- or that it can be thought of as part of the context of action? If you have all the chocolate you could ever want, then chocolate ceases to be a concern -- as far as economizing goes. (Well, to be sure, it might be a concern of finding time to consume it all.:) > It suggests that if true nano-abundance arrives > on schedule, the future *must* do without > Misean (Misetian?) The preferred term is "Misesean" (meez-ess-ee-ahn). > economic logic, no? Not the whole future. Superabundance will never apply to everything, no? There will just be other areas where praxeological methods would in those areas.* Given that wants will likely always exceed current capabilities and present stockpiles, so it's likely that nanotech will just shift economizing to other things. Granted, this will likely be something that should be pursued, but that nanotech (or any other technology) delivers lots of goodies doesn't nullify economics -- any more than more efficient means of extracting and using energy nullifies thermodynamics. In other words, having all the chocolate you can ever want does not mean you've eliminate all other current or future wants you might have. (And let's not limit this to purely material, sensual wants. You might want world peace or everyone to agree with you on how utterly useless praxeology will be in the future you envision.) I'm only responding to your remarks. I haven't read the novel they critique, so I can't say if their criticisms are relevant or correct. Regards, Dan * It's also open to question that Mises' or their view of praxeology or of its relation to economics is correct. From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 23:18:38 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 23:18:38 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/9/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Conclusion: > 1) SL as distributed can only work under Linux for people who are either (a) > lucky or (b) really know what they are doing and want to spend the time to > make it work. > 2) Linden Labs has little or no interest in active support for Linux users. > [1]. > > If you look at the documentation [2] you will see that it requires a Cable > or DSL internet connection is only supposed to run on high end nVidia > GeForce or ATI Radeon graphics cards. So that excludes dialup users and > users with any older hardware or "common" systems (from HP, DELL, IBM, etc. > which do not have "fancy" 3D graphics capabilities). This gives rise to > people's comments that Second Life is an adventure only for "Uber Geeks from > Mars" [3]. > Yup. When I saw the system requirements and the lack of Linux support, I didn't even bother trying the Linux alpha version. Even if you eventually managed to get into SL, it could crash at any time. SL and Linden labs are a business. In common with many computer businesses they don't spend their money on Linux development and support because a) There aren't enough Linux users to pay back their costs. Linux gamers are even rarer. b) Linux users are notorious cheapskates. They don't like paying for *any* software. ;) c) Windows users are trained to pay through the nose for everything, so obviously businesses go for the low-hanging fruit. BillK From neptune at superlink.net Sat Dec 9 23:19:47 2006 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 18:19:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Can the Future Do Without Economic Logic? References: Message-ID: <004101c71be8$85406120$a0893cd1@pavilion> On Saturday, December 09, 2006 3:41 PM Jef Allbright jef at jefallbright.net wrote: >>> http://www.mises.org/story/2402 >> >> "Goods that are in superabundance are not >> subject to the study of praxeology, and >> certainly not within the scope of catallactics." >> >> An interesting observation/admission. It >> suggests that if true nano-abundance arrives >> on schedule, the future *must* do without >> Misean (Misetian?) economic logic, no? > > The statement was correct, but keep in mind > the qualifier referring only to those goods that > are in superabundance. While we may gain a > superabundance of the material goods > necessary to meet our basic needs and more, Of course, what those "basic needs" are is relative. Someone living in the Stone Age might have thought the basic needs were a nice cave or hut, some simple tools, some food, fire, and a small band of companions. Last century, literacy, a decent job, a telephone, and good education were considered among the basic necessities. Some overzealous people today think a gaming console, flat panel TV, iPod nano, and high-speed internet connection are basic needs. > in the bigger picture this will likely lead to > economics driven by even larger gradients in > the realm of new designs and associated > demand. And certainly the biggest money is not usually made in mining raw materials or even in manufactures, but in coming with newer designs or newer ways of doing these things. > Not by those acting mainly on monkey > motivations, but by agents operating at higher > levels of organization, no? I suspect the "monkey motivations" won't go away. Even in advanced societies today, people still want for all those things. People can eat for pennies a day, yet often choose more expensive means of satisfy those "primitive" cravings. :) But your point seems correct: that something becomes a non-economic good* -- either because it's superabundant or because it's no longer viewed as scarce -- new things find their way into the mix. Once one's belly is full, one can focus on many other things -- the wants for which seem more abundant than any possibility of fulfilling all. I do see, too, a problem with some enthusiasts in claiming any or all problems will be eliminated with . Isn't that a meme to watch out for? Doesn't it often come across as an infomercial mentality? I'm not saying this because I've somehow transcended this. I'm not just a critic, I'm one of the criticized. And if you act now... :) Regards, Dan * By no means a permanent state and always relative to the person, time, and wider context. Notice how people's actions and motivations change over their life times or depending on their circumstances. Katrina victims were, before Katrina, not too worried about clean water, sanitation, and the usual, oft ignored pleasantries of modern American life. Right after the disaster, this changed. Suddenly, many of them were thrown into a state similar to that Stone Aged character above. From neptune at superlink.net Sat Dec 9 23:32:23 2006 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 18:32:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Can the Future Do Without Economic Logic? References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061209141624.0232db08@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061209150453.021ed4a0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <026901c71bea$47ec1560$a0893cd1@pavilion> On Saturday, December 09, 2006 4:07 PM Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com wrote: >> Not by those acting mainly on monkey >> motivations, but by agents operating at >> higher levels of organization, no? > > Which Charlie Stross was playfully hinting > at in his projections of whuffie incentives > and hypercalculational planning mocked by > these economics students (quite possibly > with good cause, but maybe not). Not having read his novel, I can't say. :) Heck, I'm still trying to polish off the Kristin Lavransdatter trilogy, so it'll be a while. :/ Understand, too, that the mises.org crowd are going to focus on their favorite subjects, so when they come to any work of fiction, I expect them to be more sensitive to economics -- maybe to the point that they miss some wider issue. (This is not to say they're, to a man, myopic to the point that they can't see anything but economics in any work. In fact, I offer up Paul Cantor as an interesting counterexample. See, especially, his work on esthetics, such as _Gilligan Unbound_ and his lectures.*) Regards, Dan * The description for his online lectures reads: "Paul Cantor, Clifton Waller Barrett Professor of English at the University of Virginia, is a pioneer in literary criticism from an Austrian perspective. Having studied with Ludwig von Mises, he is working to counter the Marxist understanding of culture that dominates in the humanities today." Link: http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=91 I highly recommend them. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 00:02:54 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 16:02:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism Message-ID: <197029.61876.qm@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> This is a resend. Marcello apparently chased the gremlin out of his server and into ExI-chat's. --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Jef Allbright wrote: > > > Once you get familiar with the idea that > assessment > > of rationality > > necessarily implies a context, and that assessment > > of morality necessary > > implies an increasing context and scope, then you > > come to the > > interesting observation that all subjective > contexts > > are necessarily > > incomplete, i.e. subsumed within a greater context > > of potential (future) > > awareness, leading to the idea of an arrow of > > increasing -- what? -- > > I believe the word you are looking for is extropy or > the more cumbersome negentropy. > > > > For those who are interested enough to think > through > > the preceding, the > > next likely stumbling block in the train of > thought > > has to do with > > remembering that all assessments are necessarily > > subjective, but that > > they tend toward increasing objectivity as they > are > > tested via > > interaction within increasing scope of reality. > > I agree. This is where a second opinion, or peer > review, comes into play as a test of the objectivity > of an idea. > > > A result of such thinking is clear resolution of > > such so-called > > paradoxes as "free-will" and "meaning of life", > but > > you give up any > > belief in an intrinsic Self in the process. > > This is the sound of one hand clapping. > > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in > it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail > beta. > http://new.mail.yahoo.com > Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Dec 10 00:06:10 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:06:10 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Can the Future Do Without Economic Logic? In-Reply-To: <026901c71bea$47ec1560$a0893cd1@pavilion> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061209141624.0232db08@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061209150453.021ed4a0@satx.rr.com> <026901c71bea$47ec1560$a0893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <64166.86.130.18.17.1165709170.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Technotranscendence wrote: > Understand, too, that the mises.org crowd are going to focus on their > favorite subjects, so when they come to any work of fiction, I expect > them to be more sensitive to economics -- maybe to the point that they > miss some wider issue. A bit like how we science nerds groan when we see science errors. But I think they did a fair picking apart of some points that they disagree with, a bit like how some analyse Ringworld stability or the ecological impact of exploding Death Stars. Here is my response to the Mieses piece: http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/12/should_economics_be_part_of_hard_sf.html I think they underestimate the potential for turbulence in posthuman economies and that we should think about reputation markets more. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From neptune at superlink.net Sun Dec 10 00:15:14 2006 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 19:15:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Can the Future Do Without Economic Logic? Message-ID: <02f401c71bf0$4aae8200$a0893cd1@pavilion> Charlie Stross reponds... While I disagree with his attitude toward the article (which is not to say he's completely off base; as a widely published author, I'm sure he has to weed out which criticisms of his work he'll bother attending to), I'm happy to see Charlie responded to me and wish him well on his move. Regards, Dan Charlie Stross wrote: On 8 Dec 2006, at 21:52, you [meaning Dan Ust] wrote: > If you haven't already, see http://www.mises.org/story/2402 > > Thought you might be interested. I couldn't care less. Being denounced as a "second-hander intellectual mountebank" makes it fairly clear where the author of the hatchet job is coming from. Why should I waste my time on him? (Feel free to pass that comment on the Extropians list. I'm busy gearing up to move house next week, so I won't be following the discussion.) -- Charlie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Dec 10 00:58:13 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:58:13 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <007901c71bcc$46cee130$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <333207.6629.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <007901c71bcc$46cee130$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0612091658n36a1f135x6cffa9c3d922123e@mail.gmail.com> On 12/9/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I'm afraid it's time to abandon ship. Words are like ball-bearings > on a skating rink: to get anywhere, you have to tread carefully and > be especially wary of putting too much weight on any one of them. Yeah, in this case some people were using "rational" to include normative connotations and some weren't (the dictionary and common use both provide support for both usages, so neither side is clearly right). For the latter usage, some phrase including the words "logically consistent" might be more unambiguous? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Dec 10 01:13:27 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 17:13:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism References: <333207.6629.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com><007901c71bcc$46cee130$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <00c701c71bf8$9d869230$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes > On 12/9/06, Lee Corbin wrote: >> I'm afraid it's time to abandon ship [with regard to the word "rationality"]. >> Words are like ball-bearings on a skating rink: to get anywhere, you have >> to tread carefully and be especially wary of putting too much weight on >> any one of them. What I meant by that is that *no* word is indispensible. We all have fine vocabularies, and if we're not understanding each other's usage of a particular word, then we can express ourselves more clearly by rephrasing. > We are not allowed to have our own personal meanings for words. > Not if you wish to communicate with speakers of the same language. Exactly! > 'Define your terms' is always a good idea when confusion arises. No, it is an utterly terrible idea. If you've been using a word for many years to mean a certain thing, just how long do you expect to remember that person X means Y by the word? It *never* helps to define words, except perhaps as a follow-up explanation for what sounded like nonsense to someone. Moreover, it makes discussion impossible if everyone sticks to their own meaning---which you note---which they will. So just stop using the word. In this case person after person: The Avantgardian, me, Ben G., Rafal, Jef, and several others I could name (if I took several minutes to fish through some emails) have repeatedly said that, as Ben put it To me, rationality has two aspects: 1) how effectively one achieves one's explicit goals, given the constraints imposed by the resources at one's disposal. 2) how coherent one is as a goal-achiever (implicit goals = explicit goals) and this, and the others, pretty much agree with the opening paragraphs in the wikipedia article on rationality. All to no avial, Bill. Because an almost equally numerous group continues to insist that suicide bombing is intrinsically irrational, and they have their own definitions which they are not about to stop using. You just have to recognize this. (I omit commenting on the rest of your interesting post due to shortage of time.) Lee From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 10 01:12:22 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 17:12:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200612100127.kBA1RsDQ018961@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working >...Because there are a group of people pushing SecondLife to the ExICh community without perhaps providing sufficient "due diligence".? I thought I would relate my experiences... Robert Interesting observations by Robert, thanks man. {8-] I had one to add and one of Robert's with which I disagree. First the disagreement, his point number 5: 5) Private, profit driven company behind the software (are the founders looking to "pump" and "dump" the user community?) I see that as a good thing. I would think that all such efforts should be operated by private, profit driven companies. If the company makes money, it helps insure the longevity of the sim world. But for the time being, let us move on, since there are legitimate alternative views on that point. I see it as a major shortcoming in SL design that the character can suspend physics. Being able to fly by hitting page-up is cool in a way, but it can be very limiting to a sim world. I looove motorcycles, too much actually, a character flaw I fear, love them to the point of actually considering them sexual aids. I say this not just because my own son was conceived on a cross country motorcycle trip, but rather that I can actually get turned on (yes in *that* way) by some motorcycles, oy. As much as I love bikes, if I could fly by merely hitting a key, I would give up bikes in a heartbeat, far too limiting they would be. I was in SL a few days ago, saw some guy with a nicely rendered motorcycle. I walked toward the biker to get a closer look, but before I got there, he picked it up and walked off with the machine under his arm. Hmmm. I can imagine someone inventing something extremely similar to SL with a very important difference: one must walk around in the usual meat-world way, or may buy a boat, car or bike, or possibly even a flying machine, but everything should at least approximate the physical world as we know it. It is a wonderful enough fantasy that we may create ourselves to be beautiful, healthy and young, with the social advantages inherent in an online fantasy world to those of us who scored well on the verbal SATs. spike From pj at pj-manney.com Sun Dec 10 01:43:12 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:43:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Powers of Breast Milk Message-ID: <13635871.135801165714992347.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Buried in one of Eugen's >Htech posts is an article on the newfound curative powers of breast milk: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061209/bob8.asp It describes the multitude of ways breast milk, or its components, may be used in the future as cures of ills from MS to cancer. I always love it when science claims to have discovered something completely new and unheard of, when it isn't. Breast milk is a very old cure and one that was usually reserved for the wealthy, who could afford their own wet nurses. John Jacob Astor and John D. Rockefeller both lived to remarkable ages for their times (Astor to age 84, died in 1848 and Rockefeller to age 97, died in 1937). Both men were active (at least in their businesses) to the end and both lived in their later years on breast milk. It was a known restorative and commonly prescribed as a dietary replacement for those who could not hold down solid food. Rockefeller swore he would not have lived as long as he did without it. Sure beats those little cans of meal replacement drinks they hand out on the hospital trays... but what would they call it when they marketed it? (Damien? Spike? Robert? Anders? I'm handing this one to you on a silver-plated hospital tray.) PJ From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 10 02:28:53 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:28:53 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Powers of Breast Milk In-Reply-To: <13635871.135801165714992347.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <13635871.135801165714992347.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061209202154.022d8690@satx.rr.com> At 08:43 PM 12/9/2006 -0500, pj wrote: >Sure beats those little cans of meal replacement drinks they hand >out on the hospital trays... but what would they call it when they >marketed it? (Damien? Spike? Robert? Anders? I'm handing this >one to you on a silver-plated hospital tray.) Mammie's Own? Titpple? ("Your Nightly Nipple Tipple!") Moo? Red Cow? Mum & Coke? Best o' the Breast? ("You've Tried the Rest, Return to the Breast!") Cleaverage? ("The Udderly Delicious and Healthy Beverage!") Or the tried and true: Mother's Milk. Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 10 02:37:19 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 18:37:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Powers of Breast Milk In-Reply-To: <13635871.135801165714992347.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <200612100250.kBA2oEQV013741@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of pjmanney > Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 5:43 PM ... > > http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061209/bob8.asp > > It describes the multitude of ways breast milk, or its components, may be > used in the future as cures of ills from MS to cancer... "Honest Honey, I have no interest whatsoever in this half-naked young lady! I am doing this strictly for my health..." Or look at it this way. Even if it didn't actually extend life, at least one would die a happy man. {8^D >...but what would they call it when they marketed it? > (Damien? Spike? Robert? Anders? I'm handing this one to you on a > silver-plated hospital tray.) > > PJ Thanks PJ, you are too kind. I was in the mood for playfulness. {8^D Marketing breast milk, hmm, let's see, the imagination reels. How about: MMMMMMMMMMMMilk! It does a body even more good. or perhaps MMMMMilk! It's not just for babies anymore. or MMilk! As suggested in the last paragraph of Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath. or Mix it with vodka, call it Boob-n-lube: or Good back then, even better now. or MMilk: Calves would love this stuff. or Breast Milk: It's the real thing. or Tit-tea: Good the last drop. We need a name and a pitch for the product, but we will also of course need a name for the company that provides the product: Boob-R-Us Lactation Station, best milk in the nation. {8^D spike PJ, do let us hope that Science Incorporated proves this notion true, and that corporate America follows thru as we know very well it will. {8-] spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 10 02:50:07 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:50:07 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Powers of Breast Milk In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061209202154.022d8690@satx.rr.com> References: <13635871.135801165714992347.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20061209202154.022d8690@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061209204722.021f3f78@satx.rr.com> I considered Hooterade, but Barbara suggests the much superior Materade. Hey, if we can use Latin and Greek and Urdu and all, this could go on for weeks. For those who regard this healthful draught as the swig of Satan: Tarnation Milk. Damien Broderick From pj at pj-manney.com Sun Dec 10 03:35:35 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 22:35:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Michael Crichton's big question Message-ID: <15832632.139991165721734985.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Michael Crichton has asked the following on Yahoo Answers: "What will be the biggest benefit for human beings from mapping the human genome?" http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AirO9Bdr1beewKiHGU1w3f_sy6IX?qid=20061204091713AAOIgyF Approximately 2000 people have answered already. Usually I find Yahoo Answers to be the very worst of the Vox Populi. There is no wisdom to be found in any of their crowds -- usually. But in answering this question, there appear to be a surprising number of people who might call themselves transhumanists or H+ers if they knew the concepts existed. Obviously, the way the question is phrased will bring out a larger number of positive answers than would "Is there a benefit from mapping the human genome?" which would bring out more people who could answer the question with "No." But it bears taking a look at. PJ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 03:25:10 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 19:25:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Powers of Breast Milk In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061209204722.021f3f78@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20061210032510.16968.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > I considered Hooterade, but Barbara suggests the > much superior > Materade. Hey, if we can use Latin and Greek and > Urdu and all, this > could go on for weeks. For those who regard this > healthful draught as > the swig of Satan: Tarnation Milk. Perhaps a bit too Madison Avenue: "Nanny Nectar" since the target market is not liable to be mothers that can nurse their children but those that, for whatever reason, can't or choose not too. Fathers too just naturally fall into that category. Although men can apparently practice "lactation" through a variety of methods, I for one would rather not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick ____________________________________________________________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. From pj at pj-manney.com Sun Dec 10 04:30:02 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 23:30:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Can the Future Do Without Economic Logic? Message-ID: <20978094.141391165725002266.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Charlie Stross?wrote: >On 8 Dec 2006, at 21:52, you [meaning Dan Ust] wrote: >I couldn't care less. Being denounced as a "second-hander >intellectual mountebank" makes it fairly clear where the author of >the hatchet job is coming from. >Why should I waste my time on him? Good on ya, Charlie. And as Anders said in his blog: >Maybe a true hard sf author in 2020 will have to master not just >physics, biology, computer science, economics, sociology, psychology - >and write well, of course. We better invent brain enhancements quickly >if we are to get anybody with that kind of expertise. Darn tootin'. I'll be first in line. My personal reaction to their ridiculous intellectual expectations and pedantic overreading of a novel was a replay of the brilliant William Shatner skit on Saturday Night Live, where he mounted the stage in front of a cheering crowd of Trek conventioneers and exhorted them to "Get a Life!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMgBPogArbw It's just a novel, folks. And a mighty clever one, at that. Thanks for that, Charlie. They should be so lucky... PJ From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 10 11:36:05 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 11:36:05 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <00c701c71bf8$9d869230$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <333207.6629.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <007901c71bcc$46cee130$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00c701c71bf8$9d869230$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 12/10/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > BillK writes > > > We are not allowed to have our own personal meanings for words. > > Not if you wish to communicate with speakers of the same language. > > Exactly! > > > 'Define your terms' is always a good idea when confusion arises. > > No, it is an utterly terrible idea. If you've been using a word for many years > to mean a certain thing, just how long do you expect to remember that person > X means Y by the word? It *never* helps to define words, except perhaps > as a follow-up explanation for what sounded like nonsense to someone. > We are not allowed to have our own personal meanings for words. 'Define your terms' doesn't mean that everyone gets to make up their own definition. It means that everyone has to be able to find their favorite meaning in some recognised language reference book that describes the usage of language. If your usage is not recognised, then you should stop using the word with your unique meaning because you will just cause confusion for everyone else. The wikipedia article admits that common usage leads to much confusion in the use of 'rational'. They say that 'rational' is generally used for intelligent goal-seeking behaviour (i.e. non-random behaviour). But admit that values must judge whether the goal is rational or not. So you can have rational behaviour seeking to achieve non-rational goals (and vice-versa). The discussion should seek to achieve 'rational' in both behaviour and goal. BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Dec 10 11:57:51 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 03:57:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <78E2C2B7-ABE2-40AB-A062-99A9BE260A4B@mac.com> On Dec 7, 2006, at 8:59 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: >> Lee Corbin wrote: >> Is rationality a free-floating abstraction disconnected >> from values, what does the valuing and what is considered >> valuable? How would that itself be "rational"? > > No, the concept of rationality is not free-floating and it is not > disconnected from values but it is certainly an abstract concept. It was also being used in more than one sense. Is it rational to do X can only be answered by knowing what ones goals (including value type goals) are and what the choices are and by the accuracy of one's model of the situation and likely outcome of doing X. To cut off any of these aspects is to miss what Is mean when I agree a particular action or decision is "rational". The conversation seems to have devolved to where there was no real working notion of what rationality means. > > The concept of rational decision-making is directly connected to the > concept of agency (who makes the decisions) and values (what is > important to the agent.) > > Of course the power of abstract concepts is that they facilitate clear > thinking about classes of situations including particular instances we > have not (yet) experienced. > Sure, if they are properly grounded. > >>> Don't you concur with the (generally accepted here) >>> version of what it means to be rational? Namely, as >>> Rafal put it, "rationality (to use the dictionary >>> meaning)is optimizing behavior to achieve goals". So >>> if your goal is a pristine Earth free of unnatural >>> (i.e. human) effects, then what's irrational about trying >>> to get rid of everyone, including yourself? >> >> Arbitrary goals that include one's on destruction and >> destruction of one's species are not themselves subject to >> a meta-judgement as to their rationality? Where is the >> grounding for these abstractions being tossed about? > > To address the moral outrage implicit in this post: YES, most persons > would agree that such thinking is obviously WRONG (leads to very > undesirable consequences relative to our shared values.) > Thus it is irrational in the contexts of the relevant goals and likely outcomes. > Your use of the term "meta-judgment" highlights the essential > difference > between rational and moral. Rationality refers to actions promoting > values within a specified (limited) context--what is considered > effective. Morality refers to actions promoting increasingly shared > values within an increasing context--what is considered "right". > Effective as measured how? Surely in terms of these goals, available choices, situation model etc. previously mentioned. I see no clear separation between the rational and the moral. > >> >> How can it be rational to claim a naturally evolved species >> is "unnatural"? How can it be rational to destroy the only >> thing on this rock vaguely capable of rationality? Are we >> so sickened by our dizzy abstractions? > > I think we are MORE "sickened" by our attachments to poorly founded > biases due to our relatively weak ability to intentionally abstract > principles of "truth" from our environment. > Of course, recent scientific > studies have shown beyond a doubt that half the population is below > average intelligence, so it *seems* pragmatically necessary to distill > higher level understanding into more applicable heuristics, but > doing so > risks over-simplification and attendant poorer outcomes. > This seem a bit of a mouthful. Of course half the population is below average intelligence and surely we know that without any studies being necessary as it is logically necessary this is the case. But I don't see what this has to do with the discussion at hand. - samantha From velvethum at hotmail.com Sun Dec 10 14:43:01 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:43:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism References: <333207.6629.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com><007901c71bcc$46cee130$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677><00c701c71bf8$9d869230$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: BillK: > The discussion should seek to achieve 'rational' in both behaviour and goal. That would certainly be a step in the right direction. However, it's much easier to determine levels of rationality of means to an end rather than levels of rationality of ends. If series of actions X has led to fulfillment of goal Y in less time and at smaller cost than series of actions W achieving goal Y, then X would be more rational than W. This is more or less quantifiable. What we need next is some method of assigning rationality to supergoals. A religious fanatic's action to blow himself up would be rational if it helped him achieve his supergoal of reaching paradise in afterlife. My supergoal is different so from my POV suicide bombing is irrational because I don't believe in any form of afterlife. Now, how could I go about showing a potential suicide bomber that his supergoal is irrational in itself? It's all about supergoals. People often disagree not because they pick different flavors of rationality (there's only one) but because for some mysterious reasons they pick different supergoals. The worst part is that not many people are even consciously aware of their "final" choice which makes it that much harder to have a productive debate, let alone to reach agreement. Those who choose to go to church at least know what they want. Yet still, I lack a convincing argument that would show them why going to church is "objectively" irrational. Slawomir From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Dec 10 16:36:16 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 08:36:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <78E2C2B7-ABE2-40AB-A062-99A9BE260A4B@mac.com> Message-ID: Samantha Atkins wrote: > Is it rational to do X can only be answered by > knowing what ones goals (including value type > goals) are and what the choices are and by the > accuracy of one's model of the situation and > likely outcome of doing X. To cut off any of > these aspects is to miss what Is mean when I > agree a particular action or decision is > "rational". > I see no clear separation between the rational and the moral. I think many people would agree with you that the factors you mentioned above are key when a person is trying to get or convey a feeling for whether some other person (or group) is acting "rationally." I think your usage and understanding of the term must generally work quite well for you in conversations with other like-minded persons about the "rationality" (actually the "rightness" or "wrongness") of various actions in the world. The irrationality of war, the government's irrational approach to perceived threats, the irrationality of businesses polluting the environment in their single-minded quest for profit; these are all topics of discussion that appear to be a good match with your usage of the term. Evidence of the effectiveness of your usage of the term "rationality" is how well many people "get" what you mean in such discussions; that such conversation proceeds effectively with no one stopping to ask "um, what exactly did you mean by 'rational', in the context of people killing other people for oil?" This understanding of "rational" is similar to the popular understanding of "car". People commonly think of a car as essentially a mechanical object that you get into, and by operating certain controls you're able to go places. Of course you have to feed it gasoline and other fluids at certain times which you know from indicators or maintenance schedules in the manual, etc. This kind of definition is nearly complete for many people. On another level, outside today's mainstream, a "car" is much more complex, comprised of a complex system including chassis, suspension, motor, drive train, etc., and each of these systems comprised of subsystems of complex interacting components. For thinking at this level, the previous common understanding of "car" is terribly incomplete. Whereas people at the preceding level could say "My car is running wrong" and others would nod in understanding, a mechanic will consider this a nearly meaningless statement unless one begins to break it down into engine versus running gear, and so on. So in a similar fashion, a person might say to her companion, "war is wrong" and the companion would nod in perfect understanding and agreement, not even thinking to ask whether the statement meant that war is ineffective, war is irrational, or that war is immoral. If pressed, she might say that she really sees no significant difference. On a different level, a bit further outside today's mainstream, a "car" is an instance of vehicular technology capable of moving humans and their cargo under individual operator control. To a person thinking in this mode, most relevant factors may include the ratio of vehicle mass to cargo capacity,... but I think you get the point. I'm going to remove myself from this discussion at this time due to diminishing returns, potential burnout by the participants, and to avoid abuse of the common forum. Oh, how I wish we had a an effective system of concept mapping for these discussions. - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Dec 10 17:20:42 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:20:42 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Must We Absolutely Rely Upon Certain Words? References: <333207.6629.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com><007901c71bcc$46cee130$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677><00c701c71bf8$9d869230$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <000301c71c7f$87854170$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes >> > 'Define your terms' is always a good idea when confusion arises. >> >> No, it is an utterly terrible idea. If you've been using a word for many years >> to mean a certain thing, just how long do you expect to remember that person >> X means Y by the word? It *never* helps to define words, except perhaps >> as a follow-up explanation for what sounded like nonsense to someone. >> > > We are not allowed to have our own personal meanings for words. Well, I'm sorry---but that's the reality. Yes, people *should* abide by a common definition, but the simple fact is that they do not. And even when they do, the nuances can never be expected to line up perfectly. You simply have to be fast and maybe even loose with words; it's the meaning that's to be conveyed after all and which is important. > 'Define your terms' doesn't mean that everyone gets to make up their > own definition. > It means that everyone has to be able to find their favorite meaning > in some recognised language reference book that describes the usage of > language. This is impractical. There are far too many words, and far too little time. We simply cannot afford to be hung up on any particular word, ever. The nearest to that (which is feasible indeed) is to allow a word to help bring to mind notions that we can focus on. But we must abhor dependence on any particular word for the reasons given. > If your usage is not recognised, then you should stop using > the word with your unique meaning because you will just cause > confusion for everyone else. Very nice in principle, but listen---people won't even take 15 seconds to change a subject line. And NOW you're asking them to single themselves out and unilaterally restrict their vocabulary, and bow down to other people's usage without complaint? Ain't going to happen! > The wikipedia article admits that common usage leads to much confusion > in the use of 'rational'. They say that 'rational' is generally used > for intelligent goal-seeking behaviour (i.e. non-random behaviour). > But admit that values must judge whether the goal is rational or not. > So you can have rational behaviour seeking to achieve non-rational > goals (and vice-versa). It depends on context, and usage, and a host of factors. People simply are *not* going to comply with your commendable advice. As a *practical* matter, why don't you simply stop---in a particular discussion with particular people---using a term if it's clearly causing trouble? Why are you married to any particular word? Are you not perfectly capable of rephrasing? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Dec 10 17:26:18 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:26:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism References: Message-ID: <000701c71c80$5008e3e0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes (in small part) > So in a similar fashion, a person might say to her companion, "war is > wrong" and the companion would nod in perfect understanding and > agreement, That's right---because the listener is trying to *understand* what is being conveyed, and not focusing on the meaning of any particular word. > ...not even thinking to ask whether the statement meant that war > is ineffective, war is irrational, or that war is immoral. If pressed, > she might say that she really sees no significant difference. > > On a different level, a bit further outside today's mainstream, a "car" > is an instance of vehicular technology capable of moving humans and > their cargo under individual operator control. To a person thinking in > this mode, most relevant factors may include the ratio of vehicle mass > to cargo capacity,... but I think you get the point. Yes, good point. > I'm going to remove myself from this discussion at this time due to > diminishing returns, potential burnout by the participants, and to avoid > abuse of the common forum. Oh, I've heard that threat from you many times before? Why is it necessary in each case to announce it? A simple noiseless exit, my friend, would do as well, without the grandstanding, because actions speak louder than words. Lee From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Dec 10 17:50:33 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:50:33 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism In-Reply-To: <000701c71c80$5008e3e0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Lee Corbin wrote: >> I'm going to remove myself from this discussion at this time due to >> diminishing returns, potential burnout by the participants, and to >> avoid abuse of the common forum. > > Oh, I've heard that threat from you many times before? Why > is it necessary in each case to announce it? A simple > noiseless exit, my friend, would do as well, without the > grandstanding, because actions speak louder than words. "threat"??? Lee, after all these years it seems you still keep getting your buttons pushed by my actions. I announced that I'm leaving this particular discussion as a courtesy to Samantha and Stuart with whom I had open threads, and to others (including you) who might otherwise expect my response. - Jef From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 10 18:51:40 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:51:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20061210185140.GF6974@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 05:38:38PM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > I must concur with David's points. Because there are a group of > people pushing SecondLife to the ExICh community without perhaps > providing sufficient "due diligence". I thought I would relate my Pushing is putting it way too strongly. My only point with SL is that's it's an *arrived* (Total Residents: 1916105, logged in last 60 days: 690800, Online Now: 14941) and *rapidly growing* (the one million mark was just 18th October 2006) medium, which is frequented by mostly young people, some of which are even aware of transhumanism and have been actively looking for transhumanist communities. Bugger technology, it's a communication and outreach thing. > experiences. > When Second Life was first mentioned here I believe it was only > available for Windows. So I waited (having finally transitioned from Nothing wrong with supporting Windows, it's what most people use. However, SL supports Windows, OS X and Linux (alpha): https://secondlife.com/corporate/sysreqs.php > Windows to Linux on my desktop I'm not about to go back). It became Technically, I've never been a major Windows user, but since Ubuntu 6.06 LTS there's arguably a desktop distribution most people can live with (there's still some minor I-need-32bit-Firefox-because-of-Java-and-Flash beef, and printing support sucks as ever, but these warts I personally can live with). > available in an "alpha" state sometime late this summer. I downloaded > it and it did not work (complained about not being able to open a The missing libuuid.so.1 and libuuid.so.1.2 have been well-documented, and since the last build a couple of days ago (there seems to be a new SL Linux build every second day, or so) not even that is necessary. > window). Hours of googling, reconfiguring X windows, rebuilding and If you're running accelerated drivers (the only option for Linux is nVidia) there should be no reconfiguration required. SL runs fine in dual-head mode, which is about the only way to run it (triple-head is arguably even better, though I'm still lusting after that 30" Dell). > rebooting Linux (several days spent over several months) later I did > finally get it to bring up the main SL window. > Conclusion: > 1) SL as distributed can only work under Linux for people who are > either (a) lucky or (b) really know what they are doing and want to > spend the time to make it work. If you run a mainstream distribution (Fedora, Ubuntu) you should be reasonably safe. > 2) Linden Labs has little or no interest in active support for Linux > users. [1]. I disagree. De facto, SL is a proprietary platform, but if you look at the walk and talk, Linden Labs seems to be rather open http://www.secretlair.com/index.php?/clickableculture/entry/second_life_to_go_open_source_eventually/ http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000133 etc. More importantly, nobody will give a damn whether in another decade SL still exists, or become an open standard, or something even better has come along. Clearly VR has landed, at least in gamer circles, and given presence of nongaming platforms in SL, perhaps a bit beyond that. Whatever the next platform might be, it will have core features which will be a lot like current SL, only better. So there's no point in not getting used to such an environment, and build communities (which might or might not move elsewhere), particularly since membership is free (I decided to go with a year's worth of commercial membership, and 512 m^2 of land, which is still tax-free). > If you look at the documentation [2] you will see that it requires a > Cable or DSL internet connection is only supposed to run on high end Of course you can't do this with modem, you no longer can do anything online much below 1 MBit/s downstream, and some 128 kBit/s upstream. Is that much of a handicap? Not really. When I look outside the window, I see a gray box on the street corner, wherein optical GBit Ethernet terminates. Should I really want it, I could have 5/25 MBit or 10/50 MBit connection, and similiar or better bandwidth is available to people in Korea, Japan, Sweden, Iceland, parts of the U.S., etc. > nVidia GeForce or ATI Radeon graphics cards. So that excludes dialup That's just not true. I run 2560x1024 SL on dual-head setup on a passively cooled AGP nVidia 7600 GS and a distinctly anaemic Athlon64, which still runs great. According to https://secondlife.com/corporate/sysreqs.php your gfx hardware requirements are nVidia GeForce 2, GeForce 4mx, or better ATI Radeon 8500, 9250, or better (Windows), nVidia GeForce 2, GeForce 4mx, or better OR ATI Radeon 8500, 9250, or better (Mac) which is a joke in gamer circles. This is high-end, only of 3-4 years ago. > users and users with any older hardware or "common" systems (from HP, > DELL, IBM, etc. which do not have "fancy" 3D graphics capabilities). I would consider a current $600 card fancy. I would consider a $1200 current card very fancy. Luckily, you can do great with a current $100 card -- passively cooled current card, to be precise. > This gives rise to people's comments that Second Life is an adventure > only for "Uber Geeks from Mars" [3]. > However, if one understands graphics processing and CPU processing > tradeoffs it is fairly clear that Second Life should be able to run > reasonably well on Intel 810 and greater graphics chips without the > need for a separate 3D tailored graphics card. It runs on my HP Come on, Computer Processor: 800MHz Pentium III or Athlon, or better, Computer Memory: 256MB or better and nVidia GeForce 2, GeForce 4mx, or better OR ATI Radeon 8500, 9250, or better is something you buy on the flea market. "need for a separate 3D tailored graphics card" is not quite correct, because you a) you can't buy a 2D-only graphics accelerator today b) any onboard graphic of a modern system is already a massive overkill for SL, and ditto the CPU (single-core 64 bit is some 350 EUR, and dual-core is entry level with Dell & Co). > machine under Linux with an I915 chip (under Linux) and on my cousin's > Dell machine under windows with an I845 chip (both of these having > mid-range Pentium 4 processors). (So the Linden Labs system > requirements documentation is completely misleading.) However, for > machines older than circa 2003 and most laptops one is probably going > to have a difficult time using it. [So the undercurrent behind the SL I very much doubt it. If you happen to have a doornail of a machine, a $100 AGP card will still make SL run like a fox. > juggernaut is similar to the Windows Vista juggernaut -- go spend > hundreds to thousands of $$ to upgrade you hardware]. Hardware requirements for Vista are much overrated. > Now because I have been upgrading my Linux system to the latest > versions of the graphics drivers (OpenGL, Xorg, etc.) and because If you're running an open source environment, and not willing to do the work yourself (the amount of which is, frankly prohibitive but for young males with no life) you need to stick with mainstream distributions (Ubuntu is a particularly painless choice), and use hardware that is reasonably mainstream. In Linux, you have to do nVidia, and you have to bite the wax tadpole, and go binary-only. If you insist on open-source drivers, and have the (shrewdly picked) hardware to match, you shouldn't be really complaining about lack of 3d performance. It's that simple. Less masochistic people should just buy a Mac mini, or some random Windows box, and have it over with it. > Second Life isn't generally following "open" standards, esp. under > Linux, I was not surprised when I went to start Second Life today and > it refused to start (surprised no, pissed yes). Three hours later It won't start because there's a new upgrade available, and Linden Labs won't let you run vulnerable clients with known bugs. I can't blame them, because griefers are already a major pain as it is. > after some more googling and looking at debug logs and fiddling with > some environment settings regarding library location and load orders I > can once again get Second Life to start (I guess that makes me an Uber You seem to be running a bleeding edge, highly dynamics environment, which is just asking for bloodstains on the ceiling. It is *meant* to break. It comes with boldly lettered warning to that respect. It is frankly for turboubergeeks and BDSM folks only. I personally, don't have the stomach for that much pain, and stick to stable mainstream distributions like the aforementioned Ubutu 6.06 LTS, with AMD64 flavor being already almost more than I can stomach (I used to do Fedora, which just self-destroyed upon update one time too many, and which I gave up in disgust). > Geek). But *NOT* everyone on the ExICh list *is* an Uber Geek and > presumably the people who want to promote transhumanist discussions > should be trying to make it easier for non Uber Geek's to participate! Most people run Windows. If they're feeling to need to Feel Really Different, they run OS X. Everything else is for ubergeeks. > [4] > Now, that is *just* the process of getting Second Life installed and > running on your hardware and operating system. SL on Windows does auto-updates. On Linux, I need to drop the tarball, extract it, and click on a single icon. That is typical for a mainstream distro Linux users. The other two (all both of you) SL users not on those platforms: I'm really impressed, and would know how you managed to pull it off. > If you attempt to register for Second Life using the Linden Labs web > interface, as I tried to do at one point when I got tired of wrestling > with making the software work, one may easily run into problems. I > ran into significant problems with their Captcha interface (the type > in what you see software which is supposed to verify you as a > "human"). They apparently require that one either use IE and/or have I had no such problems. > Javascript enabled (Things only "dummies" would do). If this is not You definitely, absolutely need the NoScript extension for Firefox, or equivalent for Safari. Another handy list of extensions: DOM Inspector, SessionSaver (or SessionManager), BugMeNot, Adblock, Flashblock, NoScript, del.icio.us, Torbutton, Adblock Filterset.G Updater. There are others, but these make still stick with Firefox, despite all the warts. > the case one gets hang up during the registration process. So not > only do they overly complicate using their software but the can't even > get "open" web form applications to work right. I agree this has been painful for you. However, it's painless for >99% of all other SL starters. > Now, this is all *before* I even get into the Second Life virtual > world. > I ran into Mike Lorrey at David Lubkin's party a few weeks ago and we > had a brief discussion about Second Life. He has been playing with it > fairly extensively and has a good understanding of various aspects of > it. He mentioned the problems that Second Life was having with "grey > goo". Subsequently Slashdot (and even the public press) has had There are built-in countermeasures, and that particular brief infestation has been an on-off event. I don't think we will see many of those. Yes, right now teleporting needs workaround, and search is currently mostly down. These are splashes in the pool, probably gone in a week, or two. The CopyBot incident was of a similiar nature (in fact, I suspect the current difficulties we're seeing are due to anti-CopyBot countermeasure rollout). > discussions about "grey goo" running amok [5] and Linden Labs having a > big problem with people stealing designs [6] (potentially violating > both real world copyright laws as well as the intellectual property > protections that allow an "economy" to work in SL). This annoyed a > segment of their user community sufficiently enough that they started > shutting down their stores and boycotting the game. You should check back. You might be surprised. > So, I disagree strongly with Eugen's comment on David's post regarding > "unfounded accusations". If anything David was understating the case I don't disagree that SL has problems, at times. The reason I booted David Ish Shalom (who is very welcome back, provided his posts are on topic) were personal attacks, and a history of poor content, which got him an moderated status on both exi-chat and wta-talk. Incidentally, many people (and all new subscribers) on both wta-talk and exi-chat are moderated, and have not seen that as much of an issue. > of problems that currently exist with Second Life. My short list > would be: > 1) There focus on high end hardware and high speed data connections > (quite exclusionary). I wouldn't say high end, but I don't disagree that for VR you will need a system and a network connection this side of the 2000s. > 2) Good support only on closed source operating systems (Windows). More or less disagree. I consider the Linux alpha client support (don't know about OS X) exceptional, and for this Linden Labs deserve major kudos. > 3) A large proprietary closed source system when there may be > alternatives available [7]. There is no alterantive with this user base. > 4) Problems with users running amok within the game creating problems > and questions as to whether Linden Labs will act aggressively except > in the worst cases to eliminate this. Griefers are an ubiquitios problem. It's a social problem, and occurs in all powerful environments, so there's not much Linden Labs can do about it, apart from buiding a griefer report infrastructure, which is tolerant to abuse. > 5) Private, profit driven company behind the software (are the > founders looking to "pump" and "dump" the user community?) [8] It doesn't matter. OpenCroquet and that other project which name I forget are there to pick up the disgruntled in case the original environment turns sour. > 6) A world running on "private" servers where nobody but the private > corporation has ultimate control over the "law of the land" (as You can't give server operators full control over the environment. If you thought that the current griefer issue is bad, and people are abusing their land ownership rights by denial of area weapons, you have no idea what happens if there's an open server client and a large community running it. It would not be enjoyable for the majority of people. > compared with say an open source, open server multi-peer virtual > world). How many users has OpenCroquet? Is there a public network is noticeable size? > Now you can critique these points in various ways but I find it > disappointing that people who should be most in favor of open systems > (and thus opposed to much of SL architecture and implementation) are > criticizing "unfounded accusations" when my personal experience *and* Unfounded accusations were on part of ad hominem. > that of some who have been participants in this list in the past *and* > public news sources *and* even the Linden Labs blogs seem to suggest > that such criticisms deserve serious consideration. Second Life has some problems. I never denied that, and in fact, you will not see me push SL unreflectively. > I would *stress* that Second Life is a closed source system and > because Linden Labs is a relatively young company (I haven't bothered > to investigate who the founders are or what their reputations are). > Second life is one of the single largest programs I have ever > encountered [9] and it would be extremely easy given the amount of > file I/O that has to be done to the local SL disk cache and the amount > of network I/O the program requires for either a corrupted version of > SL or "evil" programmers at Linden Labs to "piggy back" disk scanning, > personal information harvesting functions, keystroke loggers, etc. Welcome to proprietary software world. Anyone who's running closed-source drivers (whether Skype, or nVidia binary-only drivers, or somesuch) is completely opening up their white underbelly to that sort of attack. In fact, anyone who's not peer-reviewed *all the source* in their system running right now is doing something very much the same. Let's face it, whenever we're running a modern information ecology we call personal computers, we're *way out of control*, if you're anyone like 99.99% of all users. It would take a cutting-edge security professional in order to audit and monitor such systems for potential intrusions. Few people but those with the skills bother (above-mentioned 0.001% of all computer users). > within Second Life. You are installing software on your machine which > is inherently untrustable [you don't have the source code] [10]. On I have many thousands packages installed on this system. I have not read their source, and I have not reviewed every single line of them. In fact, I can't. I lack the skills, and the time. In fact, I know that there are enough bugs in the whole assembly that any adversary significantly above script kiddie level can just walk in, take a look, and walk out with anything they need, without me being the wiser (or, at least, let them think that). > top of that you are giving them your name and a credit card number so > using whatever information any trojans might harvest from your disk or > keyboard would be very simple if people within Linden Labs are not > completely trustable (ot if their security and/or implementations > cannot be trusted -- which history to date would suggest might well be > the case). Come on. Whenever you're going to the restaurant, and pay with credit card you're running a vastly greater risk of getting your card swiped. Whenever you're buying things online you're running an equal, or worse risk. > As the saying goes, "If you do not change the direction in which you > are headed you are likely to end up where you are going." I strongly > question whether SL should be the destination and would suggest that > those involved may be leaping (and trying to convince others to do so > as well) before they look. Don't think about SL as SL. Think of it as an instance of a future environment, and given the time required to build skills and communities, consider it a worthwhile investment. Or not. > Robert > 1. For example from the Second Life blog -- "Linux users: We'll get a > Linux viewer up as soon as we can." (this was over a month ago...). > [2]http://blog.secondlife.com/2006/11/04/preview-of-second-life-11241- > on-the-beta-test-grid/ > 2. [3]http://secondlife.com/corporate/sysreqs.php > 3. > [4]http://blog.secondlife.com/2006/11/23/how-i-got-second-life-running > -on-a-8800gtx-under-windows-xp-x64/ > 4. Didn't the last attempt to promote a Transhumanist event in Second > Life end up having more than just a few problems?!? > 5. [5]http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/20/0218221 > 6. [6]http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/15/1714241 > 7. [7]http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000133 > 8. Orkut may be a good example of this. Build up a large user base, > dump the software and user community on Google and end up with minimal > support and improvements since that time. > 9. The executable itself without libraries is 41MB, the resident > program after start up is 56MB with 194MB of virtual memory. The > resident program size is about 70% of that of a full java > implementation running a P2P file sharing application to many more > systems than SL is handling (and Java is a notorious pig in terms of > system resources). > 10. I would be extremely surprised if the individuals who run the SPAM > botnets around the world did not currently have people trying to > disassemble Second Life and determine whether the security could be > breached to allow them to use SL as an agent to collect private > personal information. > > References > > 1. mailto:davidishalom1 at gmail.com > 2. http://blog.secondlife.com/2006/11/04/preview-of-second-life-11241-on-the-beta-test-grid/ > 3. http://secondlife.com/corporate/sysreqs.php > 4. http://blog.secondlife.com/2006/11/23/how-i-got-second-life-running-on-a-8800gtx-under-windows-xp-x64 > 5. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/20/0218221 > 6. http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/15/1714241 > 7. http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000133 Interesting thoughts. Sorry for the length of it, I just has to disagree verbosely. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From thomas at thomasoliver.net Sun Dec 10 18:20:15 2006 From: thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 11:20:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is the Golden Rule rational? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45A5752C-2B0C-4F57-A248-CD41A89C5F50@thomasoliver.net> On Dec 2, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > I would point out, again, that the context of rational decision- > making, > including the scope of expected consequences (including interactees > and > interactions over time), is what distinguishes "what works" from "what > is moral" and that this distinction is of vital importance to > implementing future systems of rational collaborative social > decision-making. I think we can either implement these systems > intentionally, or they will emerge from the marketplace via > selection of > what works--if we don't self-destruct before then. > > Strict libertarians will say that a free market is the pure, > correct and > complete solution to this problem, but they tend to see growth as > originating from within, rather than emerging from effective > interaction > between self and the adjacent possible. Deeper thinkers see that > intentionally cultivating a cooperative environment is just as > important > as exploiting that environment. Thus my poetical exhortation to come > down from the pristine peaks to the more fecund mountain valleys. I haven't had time lately to participate in this discussion, but you're tugging my attention here. Perhaps you could comment on a personal problem: I was once told by a Rational Emotive therapist that I held an irrational belief that was causing me problems. It was the golden rule. Do "effective interaction" and "cultivating a cooperative environment" imply a need for empathy and/or a ban on aggression? Is the golden rule consistent with a rational society or a free market? -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thomas at thomasoliver.net Sun Dec 10 19:15:06 2006 From: thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:15:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Words cause effects In-Reply-To: <252410.66529.qm@web51614.mail.yahoo.com> References: <252410.66529.qm@web51614.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45B62741-41C7-4699-86D7-56531B7D3798@thomasoliver.net> On Dec 1, 2006, at 7:27 PM, Al Brooks wrote: > Tom, men and alpha dogs are one and the same; in fact > a man by definition is a hog, with few exceptions. > Maybe in the UK it's a little different, but American > men are swine, that's a fact-- how do you think > America got to be top dog? You know how bloodyminded > American guys are? That's why sex is so important, if > men weren't balling they'd be committing more acts of > violence. > I tolerate Dubya, he is a swine but Jimmy Carter > didn't cut it because he was considered a > "girly-man"... as governor of our most important state > would say. Besides, Nietszche had a point: the weak > are often jealous of the strong. > > It's all business-- even religion is business!! > The Catholic Church is big business and that's > alright, if wasn't them it might very well be someone > worse. Al: I believe that all words contribute to setting up causes and can bring effects back to the speaker or the spoken-of. I do not intend men to be dogs, bloody minded or prone to violence. I would reverse any such effect rather than tolerate it. The strong often admire the virtues of the less strong. I don't mind business when it's trade for mutual benefit. Let's omit political pull from the market beyond protecting individual (property) rights. -- Thomas From thomas at thomasoliver.net Sun Dec 10 19:27:06 2006 From: thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:27:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? In-Reply-To: <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> On Dec 1, 2006, at 7:58 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > I may not choose to dispute that the Bush/neocon position is what > you'd call evil. But I would suggest that it may be expedient, and > that failing to take a strong stand against enemies is, in the long > run, suicide. Lee: If we're so smart, why must we revert to brutality in dealing with brutes? -- Thomas From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun Dec 10 19:00:27 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:00:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Logical or rational? Message-ID: <829560.87951.qm@web37212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I apologize for my previous post. I was confusing the word "rational" with the word "logical". The example given regarding the suicide bombers was tricky. As Bill mentionned the definition of rational is: They say that 'rational' is generally used for intelligent goal-seeking behaviour (i.e. non-random behaviour). But admit that values must judge whether the goal is rational or not. So you can have rational behaviour seeking to achieve non-rational goals (and vice-versa). My first response was that suicide bombers are irrational. I now think that they are being rational based upon what they believe. Such as religious points of view, life after death, etc. Whether I believe that their religious points of view, etc, are wrong or not, is irrelevant. Now the definition for logical is: capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning - Princeton I don't think suicide bombers are very logical. Their thoughts are based on their own perspectives (or perspectives within their surroundings.) No matter the reasoning (religion, pride, after life reward), the effect outways the cause. Logical is knowing that a life is worth close to zero compared to a 1000 lives, that's why the bombers are rational but not logical. On a side note, I did wonder, if the bombers knew personaly the 1000 people they where killing, would the bombers be more logical? Then I wondered, what really makes someone irrational? I'm not sure about this one but I think that irrational is knowing logic and choosing not to apply it. Ex: Knowing that eating fast food is bad for you but choosing to do it anyway. Anyway, I hope I have at least begun to grasp some of the discussion, all I can do is try:) Thanks Anna:) A single conversation with a wise man is better than ten years of study. ~Chinese Proverb __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sun Dec 10 20:41:27 2006 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:41:27 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] REQ: Newtonmas Charities Message-ID: <5366105b0612101241m1437cf03i1cd207590012ebf9@mail.gmail.com> This Newtonmas I'll make out my list of charities for donations in 2007. Foresight Institute, SIAI, and WTA all make the list. I'd like suggestions from the lists on what others deserve consideration. I do have certain criteria, but those will remain private to encourage a wide variety of responses. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From ps.udoname at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 18:20:29 2006 From: ps.udoname at gmail.com (ps udoname) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 18:20:29 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] mathimatical model for the singularity In-Reply-To: References: <28553f510611202314j4852b833m8df7eccf99bc8f22@mail.gmail.com> <28553f510611251120j567c3132wf17bdb36baa274c0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <28553f510612091020s4cad65acpcc18c8b8dbdf15bf@mail.gmail.com> On 07/12/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > > I think you mean asymtote. Yes, I do need to spellcheak my posts. > But at least among people who understand > this problem well one clearly ends up with S curves. You can't exceed > the speed of light, you can't get smaller than some of the volumes of > space that Anders or Lloyd have dealt with in papers, Is this the planck volume? there is a > finite number of atoms in the universe and it requires significantly > more energy than is currently available (or likely ever will be) to > collect them all into one place where one can dedicate them to > something useful, etc. There are extreamly speculative idears about omega point compution, alpha point compution, reality engenering etc which would allow us to surpass your limits. However if we limit ourselves to what we know is possible then I agree. "The Singularity" cannot be represented by an > equation such as you propose. It can surly be approximated by equations to some extent? It is generally understood that its > kind of a "virtual Singularity" that things start growing so fast that > mere humans lose ability to grasp or contribute to it in any way -- > its a Class 10 rapid, no wait its a Class 100 rapid, nowtitsa > Cls1000rpd... But it *does* hit hard limits very shortly after it > gets going that will slow it down. At that point it turns into an S > curve and your equation breaks. My equation was just intended to be an improvement on e^kt which I have oftern seen used as an exact model of human progress. It's based on an exponential, but takes into account technology increacing intelligence, so by basing it on an S-curve or a collection of S-curves I imagine I could get an equation which has a section of near asptotic growth and then levels out. Of course since it can be argued that any prediction about what hapens after the singularity is speculative at best, perhaps the model shouldn't try to predict anything after a certain point. If however one takes progress into > the virtual realm and one keeps changing the realm (in some ways like > Second Life is doing now...) then one might have the appearence of a > continuence of the singularity. But you have to change the criteria > being used to measure progress. A singularity of artistic creativity? I suspect the limits will be on how fast progress is will depend upon > how fast entities in one realm are willing (or able) to create new > realms which are interesting enough to cause significant numbers of > entitites to give up their old realm(s). > Well, intead of entities giving up their own relm you could create new entities, so I doubt this would be a limiting factor. You could compare it to > bioinformatics or synthetic biology as well as things like Web 2.0, > Web 3.0, Second Life, etc. -- those are examples of "realms" we are > currently in the process of creating. > > Robert > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 03:24:13 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 19:24:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] reproductive delusions In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061209204722.021f3f78@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <595325.8690.qm@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> Until such time as someone can make copies of themself, thinking one can live on through one's children makes sense, though we know otherwise. Families are often if not usually built on fairy tales: love lasting forever, living happily ever after; so why ought thinking having children leads to immortality be any more delusive? According to one source, we have a one in 1,755 chance of dying from an injury, not to mention sickness. Unless your DNA is frozen and utilized, a fatal accident means extinction. However having 10 or more children means your DNA has a quite good chance of being immortalized in some way. Catholics who have double digit numbers of children may sense this no matter what they may say about their spiritual beliefs; they may-- depending on the individual-- be having it both ways: if divine immortality fails then having lots of kids does not hurt their chances of what they might consider immortality. Having large broods can be an insurance policy for the spiritually-oriented. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Dec 10 21:53:34 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:53:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? In-Reply-To: <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> On 12/10/06, Thomas wrote: > > Lee: If we're so smart, why must we revert to brutality in dealing > with brutes? -- Thomas > Perhaps because brutes fail to be swayed by marketing? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Sun Dec 10 21:34:01 2006 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:34:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism References: Message-ID: <457C7D49.6080700@thomasoliver.net> Jef Allbright wrote: >[ . . . ] although I prefer to use the phrase "increasing context" with >regard to awareness, interpretation, meaning and decision-making, and >"increasing scope" with regard to interactions, effects, consequences, >etc. > >Once you get familiar with the idea that assessment of rationality >necessarily implies a context, and that assessment of morality necessary >implies an increasing context and scope, then you come to the >interesting observation that all subjective contexts are necessarily >incomplete, i.e. subsumed within a greater context of potential (future) >awareness, leading to the idea of an arrow of increasing -- what? -- >similar to the statistical arrow of time observed in classical >thermodynamics. > > >For those who are interested enough to think through the preceding, the >next likely stumbling block in the train of thought has to do with >remembering that all assessments are necessarily subjective, but that >they tend toward increasing objectivity as they are tested via >interaction within increasing scope of reality. > >A result of such thinking is clear resolution of such so-called >paradoxes as "free-will" and "meaning of life", but you give up any >belief in an intrinsic Self in the process. > > >- Jef > > I suppose your " -- what? -- " could be consciousness. In the stillness of meditation I've allowed assessment and a lot of other rational games to very nearly cease. The "arrow of time" became more of a sphere, an expanded point, a big moment, where causes and effects were hardly dislocated. Sidestepping meaning, decision and judgment weakened the sense of self, but greatly expanded the objective scope of reality. Coming back to subjective assessment felt like a flood of insults, but my sense of free will and responsibility was boosted. It seems to me some things go beyond the rational, but are yet consistent with it, only in a larger paradigm. -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Dec 10 22:11:39 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:11:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] mathimatical model for the singularity In-Reply-To: <28553f510612091020s4cad65acpcc18c8b8dbdf15bf@mail.gmail.com> References: <28553f510611202314j4852b833m8df7eccf99bc8f22@mail.gmail.com> <28553f510611251120j567c3132wf17bdb36baa274c0@mail.gmail.com> <28553f510612091020s4cad65acpcc18c8b8dbdf15bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/9/06, ps udoname wrote: > Is this the planck volume? > I believe so. But the transition from nm to fm is one of those difficult limits I was outlining. Though we can deal with electrons and photons, it is questionable whether we will be able to eliminate atoms from the picture. That will place constraints on things. > There are extreamly speculative idears about omega point compution, alpha > point compution, reality engenering etc which would allow us to surpass your > limits. However if we limit ourselves to what we know is possible then I > agree. Yes, those and $1.25 will get you a ride on the Boston MBTA at this time. It can surly be approximated by equations to some extent? > You can approximate the ramp up to it and how fast it may change but unless your equations actually look like an S in the long run -- something like slowly growing from 2006 through ~2020, speeding up significantly and going through the roof from ~2030-2050 and then slowing down signifcantly into something relatively flat from ~2060-70 for the next few hundred years (at least) they don't capture the essence. This assumes of course one is measuring things in ways relatively similar to the way we measure them now (physical units of mass, physical quanta of energy, etc.). If you go virtual then the conversions become difficult (as the recent discussion of post-singularity economics points out). > A singularity of artistic creativity? Something like that. People are going to have an interesting time deciding what is really important after all the "classical" guides (derived from classical resource limits, selfish genes, etc.) have to be thrown out. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Sun Dec 10 21:53:55 2006 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:53:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism References: Message-ID: <457C81F3.8070705@thomasoliver.net> Jef Allbright wrote: >Lee Corbin wrote: > > >>I'm afraid it's time to abandon ship. Words are like >>ball-bearings on a skating rink: to get anywhere, you have >>to tread carefully and be especially wary of putting too much >>weight on any one of them. >> >> > >Words are like a scaffolding, allowing one to climb higher and >See farther than before -- IF the scaffolding is sound. > >- Jef > > I appreciate careful choice of words. It reflects mindfulness of their effects. Yes, the better one articulates the vision, the sooner one gets the next glimpse. --aphoristically, Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Sun Dec 10 22:16:58 2006 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:16:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] examples of rational irrationalism References: Message-ID: <457C875A.4050006@thomasoliver.net> Jef Allbright wrote: >Words are like a scaffolding, allowing one to climb higher and >See farther than before -- IF the scaffolding is sound. > >- Jef > > I think both further and farther are good scaffolding. According to my usage dictionary farther "is often used where physical distance is referred to." Since further is also used as a verb meaning to advance, I think I like it a little better here. I'm enjoying my free time today! : ) -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Dec 11 04:33:52 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:33:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com><456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net><007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike writes > [Thomas wrote] > > > Lee Corbin wrote: > > > > > I may not choose to dispute that the Bush/neocon position is what > > > you'd call evil. But I would suggest that it may be expedient, and > > > that failing to take a strong stand against enemies is, in the long > > > run, suicide. > > > > Lee: If we're so smart, why must we revert to brutality in dealing > > with brutes? -- Thomas > > Perhaps because brutes fail to be swayed by marketing? Right, Mike, but your "brutes" not swayed by either marketing or *any* other civilized expedient. Woe be unto him who tries negotiating in any civilized fashion with them. The Geneva Convention, for example, was expressedly designed to rely upon the civilized conventions of modern advanced nations. It's the ultimate in foolhardiness for highly civilized nations to abide by it when the brutes are cutting people's heads off in the most painful, barbaric, and horrific manner that they can devise. This has always been a fatal flaw in the Western psyche and in Western traditions. Barbaric mobsters were able to take over many neighborhoods in Chicago and New York in the 1920s and 30s simply because the civilized law-abiding people of Illinois and New York State could not understand that the circumstances were no longer as the American founders assumed. San Francisco, on the other hand, behaved much more appropriately in 1850 when lawless and uncivilized men subborned the legal process, bribing officials, judges, juries and so on in a manner to be reenacted by Al Capone and his ilk. But the people of San Francisco would have none of it, and mounted the finest vigilante effort I know of. They arose en masse, rounded up the perpetrators, gave them quick but fair trials with no appeal, and hung most of them forthwith. And civilization was restored. The "brutes" had to be hanged or shot, you understand. And if Thomas thinks that this is "brutal", then let him cheer as society crumbles in south central Los Angeles and other places---all quite legally. Let the gangs rule: many people, probably including Thomas, prefer gangs like those of Al Capone or the Cribs to be in control, to the "brutal" repression of such that is necessary by civlized men. All that seems to matter to some people is that their own government play by all the niceties, no matter what ultimate loathsome consequences obtain, and that their own hands remain lily-white. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Dec 11 04:47:23 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:47:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Logical or rational? References: <829560.87951.qm@web37212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004301c71cdf$89671f30$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Anna writes > I apologize for my previous post. > I was confusing the word "rational" with the word > "logical". > The example given regarding the suicide bombers was > tricky. Yes, they are, because the human mind wants to employ against them every negative term. Admitting that suicide bombers might be rational (given their goals) or that the men who flew aircraft into the twin towers were very brave, just sticks in people's craws. But people have to make an effort to discourse logically, and be unafraid if some flattering things need to be said even about Hitler or Stalin. > As Bill mentionned the definition of rational is: > > They say that 'rational' is generally used for > intelligent goal-seeking behaviour (i.e. non-random > behaviour). But admit that values must judge whether > the goal is rational or not. So you can have rational > behaviour seeking to achieve non-rational > goals (and vice-versa). That's how most of us were using the term. But understand that many here do *not* approve of this usage, and will continue to mean something quite different by the term. > My first response was that suicide bombers are > irrational. I now think that they are being rational > based upon what they believe. Such as religious > points of view, life after death, etc. > Whether I believe that their religious points of view, > etc, are wrong or not, is irrelevant. Quite right, in my opinion. > Now the definition for logical is: capable of or reflecting > the capability for correct and valid reasoning - Princeton > > I don't think suicide bombers are very logical. Their > thoughts are based on their own perspectives (or > perspectives within their surroundings.) What's wrong with having one's thoughts based upon one's perspective? More to the point, how can one possibly avoid doing so? > No matter the reasoning (religion, pride, after life reward), > the effect outweighs the cause. Logical is knowing that a > life is worth close to zero compared to a 1000 lives, > that's why the bombers are rational but not logical. I believe that they *were* and *are* being most logical, given their goals. As you wrote, being logical amounts to using valid reasoning. And if your goal is jihad, then what could be illogical about killing non-believers? > Then I wondered, what really makes someone irrational? > I'm not sure about this one but I think that > irrational is knowing logic and choosing not to apply > it. > Ex: Knowing that eating fast food is bad for you but > choosing to do it anyway. Yes, it seems to me that you are right about this. In fact, "irrational" is far easier to use with confidence than is "rational". I like your characterization: being irrational is knowing at some level what you really most want to do, but not being able to do it. > Anyway, I hope I have at least begun to grasp some of > the discussion, all I can do is try:) Hey, don't kid yourself. We're all in the same boat! I'd quit apologizing for it if I were you :-) Your genuine concern for speaking, appreciating, and getting to the truth comes through loud and clear. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Dec 11 06:18:38 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:18:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wrong word (was Re: examples of rational irrationalism) References: Message-ID: <000301c71cec$62a37e90$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > Lee Corbin wrote: >>> I'm going to remove myself from this discussion at this time due to >>> diminishing returns, potential burnout by the participants, and to >>> avoid abuse of the common forum. >> >> Oh, I've heard that threat from you many times before? Why >> is it necessary in each case to announce it? A simple >> noiseless exit, my friend, would do as well, without the >> grandstanding, because actions speak louder than words. > > "threat"??? Sorry---wrong word, and I apologize. "Announcement" would have been perfectly suitable. Lee From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 11 07:44:55 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:44:55 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? In-Reply-To: <003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> <003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1165823095.12825.7.camel@localhost> On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 20:33 -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: > Right, Mike, but your "brutes" not swayed by either marketing or *any* > other civilized expedient. Woe be unto him who tries negotiating in any > civilized fashion with them. > > The Geneva Convention, for example, was expressedly designed to > rely upon the civilized conventions of modern advanced nations. It's > the ultimate in foolhardiness for highly civilized nations to abide by it > when the brutes are cutting people's heads off in the most painful, > barbaric, and horrific manner that they can devise. > Do you then find common cause with those in the US who justify torture, detention without charges, arraignment or trial of all we simply call "enemy combatand" or "suspected terrorist" with no burden of proof required? > This has always been a fatal flaw in the Western psyche and in Western > traditions. Barbaric mobsters were able to take over many neighborhoods > in Chicago and New York in the 1920s and 30s simply because the > civilized law-abiding people of Illinois and New York State could not > understand that the circumstances were no longer as the American founders > assumed. > You mean back when the government was so barbaric as to foist the Prohibition on the people? This notion that liberty and rights should disappear because somehow things are like in the times of the founders shows a singular lack of understanding of liberty imho. > San Francisco, on the other hand, behaved much more appropriately in > 1850 when lawless and uncivilized men subborned the legal process, > bribing officials, judges, juries and so on in a manner to be reenacted by > Al Capone and his ilk. But the people of San Francisco would have none > of it, and mounted the finest vigilante effort I know of. They arose en masse, > rounded up the perpetrators, gave them quick but fair trials with no appeal, > and hung most of them forthwith. And civilization was restored. > I would be damn careful what I call good if I were you. You could someday end up on the wrong end of such means. > The "brutes" had to be hanged or shot, you understand. And if Thomas thinks > that this is "brutal", then let him cheer as society crumbles in south central Los > Angeles and other places---all quite legally. Let the gangs rule: many > people, probably including Thomas, prefer gangs like those of Al Capone > or the Cribs to be in control, to the "brutal" repression of such that is > necessary by civlized men. > Stop the War on some drugs and much of the problem will lessen considerably. > All that seems to matter to some people is that their own government play > by all the niceties, no matter what ultimate loathsome consequences obtain, > and that their own hands remain lily-white. > It is our own freedoms from unfettered government evils that we protect not the lily whiteness of our hands. Do you not understand that? > Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. > Evil triumphs when people forget about freedom from fear of government power and consider freedom and civil rights as optional niceties. - samantha > Lee > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Dec 11 06:45:35 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:45:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Logical or rational? References: <20061211062341.19285.qmail@web37215.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000a01c71cf0$9d5dd6d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Anna writes >> What's wrong with having one's thoughts based upon >> one's perspective? > > What makes one own's personal belief better than > another? One will simply prefer it, I admit---that's all. When one *can* indeed criticize one's own views rationally and logically, we all should. Alas, some succeed better than others, and the former we praise. >> More to the point, how can one possibly avoid doing >> so? > > Using logic:) I meant in the choice of goals. Suppose that you love golf and wish to build as many golf courses as possible. So long as this does not conflict with any of your other goals, one simply cannot say that this is logical or illogical. Likewise with wanting to murder all Jews or all non-believers of your religion. If it doesn't conflict with your other goals, it cannot be said to be "irrational" or "illogical". It may be cruel, barbarous, unjust, etc., but hardly illogical. > No matter the reasoning (religion, pride, after life > reward), the effect outweighs the cause. Logical is > knowing that a life is worth close to zero compared to > a 1000 lives, that's why the bombers are rational but > not logical. But they don't *value* those thousand lives, don't you see? To them it's as if you refused to step foot through a forest because you might destroy a thousand ants. You do walk the forest, and when it really comes down to it, you don't value the ants. That's why values are fundamental (as Jef liked to say). They determine one's goals. All that logic can do is to attempt to make one's goals consistent with each other. >>being irrational is knowing at some level what you >>really most want to do, but not being able to do it. > > No. I believe rational is knowing what it is to be > irrational and choosing to be irrational. What? I think that you meant "I believe irrational is knowing what it is to be irrational and choosing to be irrational", right? >>I'd quit apologizing for it if I were you :-) > > Why? If I feel I screwed up, why should I hesitate to > apologize? Because being wrong in the sense of entertaining incorrect conjectures is not screwing up! Screwing up is when you make a mistake that harms someone. Instead of apologizing for having been wrong about something, just admit you were wrong. That's entirely adequate. To say "I'm sorry because I thought that the moon was made of green cheese" is overkill. In my opinion, of course. You are entitled to yours! > I have nothing to prove and a lot to learn, sorry you > don't feel the same. But I do feel the same about that. I did say that we were in the same boat: and that includes trying to learn and trying to have an open mind. I don't know where you inferred that I think I don't have a lot to learn. Lee P.S. The quality of your writing and quoting and so on is really improving! Thanks for the effort! From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Dec 11 06:59:36 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:59:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> <003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1165823095.12825.7.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <000b01c71cf2$04f7f1d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes > On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 20:33 -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: >> The Geneva Convention, for example, was expressedly designed to >> rely upon the civilized conventions of modern advanced nations. It's >> the ultimate in foolhardiness for highly civilized nations to abide by it >> when the brutes are cutting people's heads off in the most painful, >> barbaric, and horrific manner that they can devise. > > Do you then find common cause with those in the US who justify torture, > detention without charges, arraignment or trial of all we simply call > "enemy combatant" or "suspected terrorist" with no burden of proof > required? No, in general: I agree with you that we must abhor torture, keep it illegal, and abstain from detaining our citizens without charges. But those caught on the battlefield under the flag of no country have, in my opinion, none of the legal rights of American civilians. >> This has always been a fatal flaw in the Western psyche and in Western >> traditions. Barbaric mobsters were able to take over many neighborhoods >> in Chicago and New York in the 1920s and 30s simply because the >> civilized law-abiding people of Illinois and New York State could not >> understand that the circumstances were no longer as the American founders >> assumed. > > You mean back when the government was so barbaric as to foist the > Prohibition on the people? That's the time period in question, yes. "Barbaric"? Prohibition was "barbaric"? Shortsighted it was, but enacted in the most civilized way realistic. > This notion that liberty and rights should disappear because somehow > things are like in the times of the founders shows a singular lack of > understanding of liberty imho. Yes, there are risks whenever orderly due process is suspended. But if the alternative is to be ruled by gangsters and criminals---well, then, you see you've lost your exalted controls anyway, haven't you? Think of it as a revolution. After the criminals have taken over San Francisco (say it's 1850), or Al Capone's and rival mobs have taken over Chicago, think of it as revolutionary activity against an illegal government: and, as you know, as as the founders knew, you cannot hope to win in the King's courts or depend upon a syndicate meeting of gangsters to redress your grievances. > Stop the War on some drugs and much of the problem will lessen > considerably. Quite true. But there is no guarantee that south central LA will be reclaimed to civilization simply by outlawing drugs. The National Guard needs to surround the entire area, and drive all suspected gang members into concentration camps and restore order. Then one by one, those found not guilty of belonging to gangs can be released. The alternative is to wait until slowly all of society looks the way it does there. >> All that seems to matter to some people is that their own government play >> by all the niceties, no matter what ultimate loathsome consequences obtain, >> and that their own hands remain lily-white. > > It is our own freedoms from unfettered government evils that we protect > not the lily whiteness of our hands. Do you not understand that? I do understand that government poses a spectacular threat, don't misunderstand me. Indeed, the people must occasionally rise up by force every once in a while (Thomas Jefferson recommended every fifty years or so.) Meanwhile, we *must* recognize an even greater evil that the probably (but not certainly!) temporary suspension of a few civil rights for some people; Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt understood this--- why can't you? >> Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. > > Evil triumphs when people forget about freedom from fear of government > power and consider freedom and civil rights as optional niceties. Yes, I agree totally. But not all evils are "government power", Samantha. You have to keep the other evils also from triumphing. Lee From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 08:07:04 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:07:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working In-Reply-To: <20061210185140.GF6974@leitl.org> References: <20061210185140.GF6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <470a3c520612110007t68ce6275jff47f7d4fa664a1@mail.gmail.com> The two points quoted below are, I think, the key points. Mass market online VR is a technology whose moment has come (yes we were already discussing VR 15 years ago, but nobody had sufficient processing power and bandwidth then). I think building a transhumanist community in SL is a very effective outreach tool (the WTA SL chapter has already 100 members and growing). Then when SL is replaced by something else we can simply move the community there. G. On 12/10/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Pushing is putting it way too strongly. My only point with SL is > that's it's an *arrived* (Total Residents: 1916105, logged in last > 60 days: 690800, Online Now: 14941) and *rapidly growing* (the one > million mark was just 18th October 2006) medium, which is > frequented by mostly young people, some of which are even aware of > transhumanism and have been actively looking for transhumanist > communities. Bugger technology, it's a communication and outreach > thing. > More importantly, nobody will give a damn whether in another decade SL > still exists, or become an open standard, or something even better has come > along. Clearly VR has landed, at least in gamer circles, and given presence > of nongaming platforms in SL, perhaps a bit beyond that. Whatever the > next platform might be, it will have core features which will be a lot > like current SL, only better. From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon Dec 11 06:23:41 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:23:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Logical or rational? In-Reply-To: <004301c71cdf$89671f30$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20061211062341.19285.qmail@web37215.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > What's wrong with having one's thoughts based upon > one's perspective? What makes one own's personal belief better than another? > More to the point, how can one possibly avoid doing > so? Using logic:) No matter the reasoning (religion, pride, after life reward), the effect outweighs the cause. Logical is knowing that a life is worth close to zero compared to a 1000 lives, that's why the bombers are rational but not logical. >I believe that they *were* and *are* being most >logical, given their goals. As you wrote, being >logical amounts to using valid reasoning. And if >your goal is jihad, then what could be illogical >about killing non-believers? I would assume that a 1000 followers are better than a 1001 dead. >being irrational is knowing at some level what you >really most want to do, but not being able to do it. No. I believe rational is knowing what it is to be irrational and choosing to be irrational. >I'd quit apologizing for it if I were you :-) Why? If I feel I screwed up, why should I hesitate to apologize? I have nothing to prove and a lot to learn, sorry you don't feel the same. Happy holidays Anna:) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From randall at randallsquared.com Mon Dec 11 08:30:45 2006 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 03:30:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working In-Reply-To: <20061210185140.GF6974@leitl.org> References: <20061210185140.GF6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <3280AAEA-0622-431B-9672-8F1B7969569F@randallsquared.com> On Dec 10, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 05:38:38PM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > >> I must concur with David's points. Because there are a group of >> people pushing SecondLife to the ExICh community without perhaps >> providing sufficient "due diligence". I thought I would relate my > > Pushing is putting it way too strongly. My only point with SL is > that's it's an *arrived* (Total Residents: 1916105, logged in last > 60 days: 690800, Online Now: 14941) and *rapidly growing* (the one > million mark was just 18th October 2006) medium, which is > frequented by mostly young people, some of which are even aware of > transhumanism and have been actively looking for transhumanist > communities. Bugger technology, it's a communication and outreach > thing. > >> experiences. >> When Second Life was first mentioned here I believe it was only >> available for Windows. So I waited (having finally >> transitioned from > > Nothing wrong with supporting Windows, it's what most people use. > However, SL supports Windows, OS X and Linux (alpha): > https://secondlife.com/corporate/sysreqs.php > >> Windows to Linux on my desktop I'm not about to go back). It >> became > > Technically, I've never been a major Windows user, but since Ubuntu > 6.06 LTS > there's arguably a desktop distribution most people can live with > (there's > still some minor I-need-32bit-Firefox-because-of-Java-and-Flash > beef, and printing > support sucks as ever, but these warts I personally can live with). > >> available in an "alpha" state sometime late this summer. I >> downloaded >> it and it did not work (complained about not being able to open a > > The missing libuuid.so.1 and libuuid.so.1.2 have been well- > documented, and > since the last build a couple of days ago (there seems to be a new > SL Linux > build every second day, or so) not even that is necessary. > >> window). Hours of googling, reconfiguring X windows, >> rebuilding and > > If you're running accelerated drivers (the only option for Linux is > nVidia) > there should be no reconfiguration required. SL runs fine in dual- > head mode, > which is about the only way to run it (triple-head is arguably even > better, > though I'm still lusting after that 30" Dell). > >> rebooting Linux (several days spent over several months) later >> I did >> finally get it to bring up the main SL window. >> Conclusion: >> 1) SL as distributed can only work under Linux for people who are >> either (a) lucky or (b) really know what they are doing and >> want to >> spend the time to make it work. > > If you run a mainstream distribution (Fedora, Ubuntu) you should be > reasonably > safe. > >> 2) Linden Labs has little or no interest in active support for >> Linux >> users. [1]. > > I disagree. De facto, SL is a proprietary platform, but if you look > at the > walk and talk, Linden Labs seems to be rather open > http://www.secretlair.com/index.php?/clickableculture/entry/ > second_life_to_go_open_source_eventually/ > http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000133 > etc. > > More importantly, nobody will give a damn whether in another decade SL > still exists, or become an open standard, or something even better > has come > along. Clearly VR has landed, at least in gamer circles, and given > presence > of nongaming platforms in SL, perhaps a bit beyond that. Whatever the > next platform might be, it will have core features which will be a lot > like current SL, only better. So there's no point in not getting > used to > such an environment, and build communities (which might or might not > move elsewhere), particularly since membership is free (I decided to > go with a year's worth of commercial membership, and 512 m^2 of > land, which > is still tax-free). > >> If you look at the documentation [2] you will see that it >> requires a >> Cable or DSL internet connection is only supposed to run on >> high end > > Of course you can't do this with modem, you no longer can do anything > online much below 1 MBit/s downstream, and some 128 kBit/s upstream. > Is that much of a handicap? Not really. When I look outside the > window, > I see a gray box on the street corner, wherein optical GBit Ethernet > terminates. Should I really want it, I could have 5/25 MBit or > 10/50 MBit > connection, and similiar or better bandwidth is available to people > in Korea, > Japan, Sweden, Iceland, parts of the U.S., etc. > >> nVidia GeForce or ATI Radeon graphics cards. So that excludes >> dialup > > That's just not true. I run 2560x1024 SL on dual-head setup on a > passively > cooled AGP nVidia 7600 GS and a distinctly anaemic Athlon64, which > still runs > great. According to https://secondlife.com/corporate/sysreqs.php > your gfx > hardware requirements are nVidia GeForce 2, GeForce 4mx, or better > ATI Radeon 8500, 9250, or better (Windows), nVidia GeForce 2, > GeForce 4mx, or better > OR ATI Radeon 8500, 9250, or better (Mac) which is a joke in gamer > circles. This is high-end, only of 3-4 years ago. > >> users and users with any older hardware or "common" systems >> (from HP, >> DELL, IBM, etc. which do not have "fancy" 3D graphics >> capabilities). > > I would consider a current $600 card fancy. I would consider a > $1200 current > card very fancy. Luckily, you can do great with a current $100 card > -- passively > cooled current card, to be precise. > >> This gives rise to people's comments that Second Life is an >> adventure >> only for "Uber Geeks from Mars" [3]. >> However, if one understands graphics processing and CPU processing >> tradeoffs it is fairly clear that Second Life should be able to >> run >> reasonably well on Intel 810 and greater graphics chips without >> the >> need for a separate 3D tailored graphics card. It runs on my HP > > Come on, Computer Processor: 800MHz Pentium III or Athlon, or better, > Computer Memory: 256MB or better and nVidia GeForce 2, GeForce 4mx, > or better > OR ATI Radeon 8500, 9250, or better is something you buy on the > flea market. > "need for a separate 3D tailored graphics card" is not quite > correct, because > you a) you can't buy a 2D-only graphics accelerator today b) any > onboard > graphic of a modern system is already a massive overkill for SL, > and ditto > the CPU (single-core 64 bit is some 350 EUR, and dual-core is entry > level with > Dell & Co). > >> machine under Linux with an I915 chip (under Linux) and on my >> cousin's >> Dell machine under windows with an I845 chip (both of these having >> mid-range Pentium 4 processors). (So the Linden Labs system >> requirements documentation is completely misleading.) However, >> for >> machines older than circa 2003 and most laptops one is probably >> going >> to have a difficult time using it. [So the undercurrent behind >> the SL > > I very much doubt it. If you happen to have a doornail of a machine, a > $100 AGP card will still make SL run like a fox. I'll chime in here that SL runs slowly enough that movement was an exercise in waiting for things to appear last I tried it, several months ago. Maybe all that's changed now. For reference, I have a 1.9Ghz G5 with 1.5GB Mac, and a 3MB cable network connection. After being quite unimpressed with SL's blink-blink-blink virtual world, I was convinced to buy World of Warcraft and *totally* blown away by the difference in smoothness and apparent solidity of the world. This suggests that it's entirely possible to do a virtual world right, but at least through May or so of this year, they hadn't managed it (on Mac, at least). Since I had already seen stuff about meetings in SL here by then, I, too, assumed that those using it must have top-end gaming machines to get anything more than 3 frames per second out of it. -- Randall Randall "You don't help someone by looking at their list of options and eliminating the one they chose!" -- David Henderson From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 11 11:09:22 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:09:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working In-Reply-To: <3280AAEA-0622-431B-9672-8F1B7969569F@randallsquared.com> References: <20061210185140.GF6974@leitl.org> <3280AAEA-0622-431B-9672-8F1B7969569F@randallsquared.com> Message-ID: <20061211110922.GO6974@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 03:30:45AM -0500, Randall Randall wrote: > I'll chime in here that SL runs slowly enough that movement was an > exercise > in waiting for things to appear last I tried it, several months ago. > Maybe > all that's changed now. For reference, I have a 1.9Ghz G5 with 1.5GB > Mac, > and a 3MB cable network connection. This hardware should run great. Which graphics accelerator card do you have? > After being quite unimpressed with SL's blink-blink-blink virtual > world, I > was convinced to buy World of Warcraft and *totally* blown away by the > difference in smoothness and apparent solidity of the world. This > suggests > that it's entirely possible to do a virtual world right, but at least > through > May or so of this year, they hadn't managed it (on Mac, at least). I need to check back with that, I've never tried the OS X SL client. Can't see to find online reports about poor Mac performance. > Since I had already seen stuff about meetings in SL here by then, I, > too, > assumed that those using it must have top-end gaming machines to get > anything > more than 3 frames per second out of it. You should be getting 25 fps with that hardware without breaking a sweat. http://www.versiontracker.com/php/feedback/article.php?story=20050618061835830 seems to indicate there are some light performance problems, but nowhere as bad as the 3 fps you've cited. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 13:36:45 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:36:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working In-Reply-To: <20061211110922.GO6974@leitl.org> References: <20061210185140.GF6974@leitl.org> <3280AAEA-0622-431B-9672-8F1B7969569F@randallsquared.com> <20061211110922.GO6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 12/11/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > This hardware should run great. Which graphics accelerator card do > you have? A better question might be whether you have glxgears and can run it? Its a very useful benchmarking tool to get a feel for what the hardware + software can do. And it isn't as simple as "what the hardware can do" as its a combination of the hardware and software combined. There are at least four levels of this: a) What will the hardware do? b) What will the operating system drivers do? c) What will the user mode graphics drivers do? (esp. do they support "Direct Rendering" (DRI)) d) What does the application program (e.g. Second Life) do? Glxgears tests a+b+c. If it isn't on your naive O.S. you can test it by booting up one of the Linux LiveCDs which is supposed to support Xorg 7.0and the latest release of OpenGL (and the fancy rotating cube desktop via Xgl or Aiglx). [1] If you can get glxgears to run at 800 FPS or above you probably have "direct rendering" which lets the user mode graphics drivers get relatively direct control over the hardware and push on it. Alternatively if the fancy cube rotates fast, the fancy window effects are slick, etc. then you probably have a VR capable system. If not, then as Eugen points out you need a graphics card upgrade. If you know what to buy you can probably get a gamers 2nd hand discard on eBay relatively cheap. The hardware I've got (a) is fairly decent. Once one gets (b+c) right you can get 800-850 FPS in glxgears. I've seen it as high as 1200 using some older drivers that don't support the latest variants of (c). I would suspect that Eugen and some others are probably in the 1500 to 2500 range (I'd be curious to know). You should be getting 25 fps with that hardware without breaking a sweat. > > http://www.versiontracker.com/php/feedback/article.php?story=20050618061835830 > seems to indicate there are some light performance problems, but nowhere > as bad as the 3 fps you've cited. It is worth noting that the machines I've seen SL run on are mid -range 2.3-2.8 GHz Pentium 4s. And that the FPS numbers I cite above are for the "standard" glxgears window size (which is perhaps 1/8 of a 15" screen size). If resized to almost a full 15" screen it slows down to ~180 FPS. If one doesn't have (b+c) using DRI as outlined above then the standard glxgears slows down to ~400-500 FPS *and* drives the main CPU to 100% utilization. If you do anything else on the machine that uses the main CPU (as would be the case in SL) the FPS numbers go through the floor. The question for Randall really is *what* is the graphics hardware in the machine? The G5 isn't what talks to the display. On Eugen's machine its and add-in graphics card. On the machines I was discussing it is the Intel "Northbridge" chip on the motherboard that has the integrated graphics controller than handles the display. I suspect the same is true for Randall's machine. Most of the more recent systems (< 3 y.o.) can handle it *if* the software can. Robert 1. It is important to run "glxinfo" before running "glxgears" to see if you have "direct rendering" vs. "indirect rendering" (hardware vs. software). Your hardware might support direct rendering but if the software isn't setup to take advantage of it you are screwed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 14:35:01 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:35:01 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? In-Reply-To: <000b01c71cf2$04f7f1d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> <003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1165823095.12825.7.camel@localhost> <000b01c71cf2$04f7f1d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0612110635o2e7e9039n5c5674ca03e84e4e@mail.gmail.com> On 12/11/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > Quite true. But there is no guarantee that south central LA will be > reclaimed > to civilization simply by outlawing drugs. ("by legalizing drugs", I assume you meant?) The National Guard needs to surround > the entire area, and drive all suspected gang members into concentration > camps > and restore order. Then one by one, those found not guilty of belonging > to > gangs can be released. Lee, I agree with much of what you say, and I certainly think treating terrorists as if they were soldiers of a civilized nation is wrong. If a man is found _after fair trial_ to be a terrorist, by all means let him be hanged forthwith. But suspending due process of law for your own citizens isn't just more of the same idea - it's a completely different kind of thing, and far more dangerous. The alternative is to wait until slowly all of society looks the way it does > there. I don't think that's the only alternative. I think there are better approaches. I think if: the drug laws were repealed, the labor and business laws that make it illegal for large numbers of people to find work were relaxed enough so that everyone regardless of age, social status, academic background etc who wanted to earn an honest living could do so, the ghastly tower blocks were demolished and the government got out of the housing business, existing laws against violent crime were enforced in a fair and unbiased manner, things would improve enough that the perceived need for concentration camps would disappear. If all the above is tried and found to be insufficient, then by all means bring up the idea of concentration camps again, but I don't think they should be advocated until that time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 16:28:13 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:28:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Neural Internet:Web Surfing with Brain Potentials Message-ID: <470a3c520612110828w626334h28ae5d021c2a8ced@mail.gmail.com> The full title of this Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair article is "Neural Internet: Web Surfing with Brain Potentials for the Completely Paralyzed", but it is clear this same technology, once fully developed, will be more generally applicable and permit operating the worldwide datasphere by thinking. Neural Internet is a new technological advancement in brain-computer interface research, which enables locked-in patients to operate a Web browser directly with their brain potentials. Neural Internet was successfully tested with a locked-in patient diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis rendering him the first paralyzed person to surf the Internet solely by regulating his electrical brain activity. [The performance of the brain-computer communication systems is still very limited - even trained patients still need a very long time to surf the web and write emails. However, research is ongoing and it is evident where this R&D process will lead: operating the worldwide datasphere by thought]. In general, it can be assumed that if a patient can achieve reliable control of any brain signal, which can be used as a binary or even as a multidimensional input signal for a BCI system, Neural Internet can be implemented based on this signal. If future BCI research can overcome the mentioned constraints of the current brain-computer communication systems, then the following scenario could be reality in the not too distant future: is sitting paralyzed in his wheelchair but can chat with a relative in another city, play chess with a friend in another country, search the World Wide Web for information, and even buy or sell articles. And all that without any voluntary muscle control, solely by the power of his thoughts. Cogito ergo sum. Source -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Mon Dec 11 16:22:49 2006 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:22:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <457D85D9.2050207@thomasoliver.net> Mike Dougherty wrote: > On 12/10/06, Thomas > wrote: > > Lee: If we're so smart, why must we revert to brutality in dealing > with brutes? -- Thomas > > > Perhaps because brutes fail to be swayed by marketing? So maybe we could offer package deal memes like "dominate through cooperation." -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Mon Dec 11 17:01:20 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:01:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working Message-ID: I've been too busy the last 8 months to do anything regarding Second Life, other than register (I'm "Amara Hayek" in SL life). But last night I downloaded the latest version and installed it and ran it. No problems. Even got as far as changing my avatar default shirt color to RED and giving her a haircut like mine. :-) And I was approached by a guy in SL space while I was editing myself who wanted to chat, so I guess my fine editing job was working! (kidding...) SL used a 1 Gb of virtual memory right off the top, but it released the memory when I exited. For hardware: I have a 4 year old G4 Mac laptop, in the absolute minimum configuration (1Gb RAM, System 10.3.9) that they say is necessary. So was I lucky? Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Mon Dec 11 17:29:39 2006 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:29:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com><456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net><007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> <003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <457D9583.1090506@thomasoliver.net> Lee Corbin wrote: >Mike writes > > > >>[Thomas wrote] >> >> >> >>>Lee Corbin wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I may not choose to dispute that the Bush/neocon position is what >>>>you'd call evil. But I would suggest that it may be expedient, and >>>>that failing to take a strong stand against enemies is, in the long >>>>run, suicide. >>>> >>>> >>>Lee: If we're so smart, why must we revert to brutality in dealing >>>with brutes? -- Thomas >>> >>> >>Perhaps because brutes fail to be swayed by marketing? >> >> > >Right, Mike, but your "brutes" not swayed by either marketing or *any* >other civilized expedient. Woe be unto him who tries negotiating in any >civilized fashion with them. > In any contest between the rational and the irrational (Rand pointed out), the irrational has dominated unless the terms of the contest were clearly defined, in which case the rational wins. >The Geneva Convention, for example, was expressedly designed to >rely upon the civilized conventions of modern advanced nations. It's >the ultimate in foolhardiness for highly civilized nations to abide by it when the brutes are cutting people's heads off in the most painful, >barbaric, and horrific manner that they can devise. > Sacrificing the clearly defined terms has guaranteed the victory of brutality. Without conventions, constitutions, objective laws it was the more consistently irrational that won. >This has always been a fatal flaw in the Western psyche and in Western >traditions. Barbaric mobsters were able to take over many neighborhoods >in Chicago and New York in the 1920s and 30s simply because the >civilized law-abiding people of Illinois and New York State could not >understand that the circumstances were no longer as the American founders assumed. > I agree with Samantha. Government interference with free trade created a market for barbarism. >San Francisco, on the other hand, behaved much more appropriately in >1850 when lawless and uncivilized men subborned the legal process, >bribing officials, judges, juries and so on in a manner to be reenacted by Al Capone and his ilk. But the people of San Francisco would have none of it, and mounted the finest vigilante effort I know of. They arose en masse, rounded up the perpetrators, gave them quick but fair trials with no appeal, and hung most of them forthwith. And civilization was restored. > I admire that sort of initiative and applaud the establishment of justice. If our protectors fail us let us protect ourselves. But how? As a lynch mob? Can't we do a little better? Were the judges and juries hanged too? What caused them to take bribes? With foresight we can choose the path that doesn't lead to barbarism. >The "brutes" had to be hanged or shot, you understand. And if Thomas thinks that this is "brutal", then let him cheer as society crumbles in south central Los Angeles and other places---all quite legally. Let the gangs rule: many people, probably including Thomas, prefer gangs like those of Al Capone or the Cribs to be in control, to the "brutal" repression of such that is necessary by civlized men. > I would characterize this as an irrational belief in the efficacy of violent justice. I understand that "big brother" is supposed to keep us safe from all the "little brothers," but as we approach the singularity, I feel it's time we got serious about establishing a non coercive society. >All that seems to matter to some people is that their own government play by all the niceties, no matter what ultimate loathsome consequences obtain, and that their own hands remain lily-white. > : ) Lee, when's the last time you gunned down a mobster? I don't think government niceties are the answer, but I'm not willing to toss out the Bill of Rights just because a crime was committed. >Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. > Evil doesn't triumph. It defeats itself. So don't be evil. Do something good! -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Mon Dec 11 17:41:34 2006 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:41:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> <003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1165823095.12825.7.camel@localhost> <000b01c71cf2$04f7f1d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0612110635o2e7e9039n5c5674ca03e84e4e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <457D984E.4020707@thomasoliver.net> Russell Wallace wrote: > On 12/11/06, Lee Corbin > > wrote: > > Quite true. But there is no guarantee that south central LA will > be reclaimed > to civilization simply by outlawing drugs. > > > ("by legalizing drugs", I assume you meant?) > > The National Guard needs to surround > the entire area, and drive all suspected gang members into > concentration camps > and restore order. Then one by one, those found not guilty of > belonging to > gangs can be released. > > > Lee, I agree with much of what you say, and I certainly think treating > terrorists as if they were soldiers of a civilized nation is wrong. If > a man is found _after fair trial_ to be a terrorist, by all means let > him be hanged forthwith. > > But suspending due process of law for your own citizens isn't just > more of the same idea - it's a completely different kind of thing, and > far more dangerous. > > The alternative is to wait until slowly all of society looks the > way it does there. > > > I don't think that's the only alternative. I think there are better > approaches. I think if: > > the drug laws were repealed, > the labor and business laws that make it illegal for large numbers of > people to find work were relaxed enough so that everyone regardless of > age, social status, academic background etc who wanted to earn an > honest living could do so, > the ghastly tower blocks were demolished and the government got out of > the housing business, > existing laws against violent crime were enforced in a fair and > unbiased manner, > > things would improve enough that the perceived need for concentration > camps would disappear. > > If all the above is tried and found to be insufficient, then by all > means bring up the idea of concentration camps again, but I don't > think they should be advocated until that time. Russell, I'm so glad someone can see the rational chain of events and come up with alternatives to the irrational chains. Doesn't the "by all means" leave us open to fascism? Let's remember that ends are consistent with means and choose rationally. -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 17:44:23 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:44:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c520612110944o20a19465tb19fe298a64cc35e@mail.gmail.com> So can we look fwd to seeing you there for Anders' talk? http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/andersinsecondlife/ G. On 12/11/06, Amara Graps wrote: > > > I've been too busy the last 8 months to do anything regarding Second > Life, other than register (I'm "Amara Hayek" in SL life). But last night > I downloaded the latest version and installed it and ran it. No > problems. Even got as far as changing my avatar default shirt color to > RED and giving her a haircut like mine. :-) And I was approached by > a guy in SL space while I was editing myself who wanted to chat, so > I guess my fine editing job was working! (kidding...) > > SL used a 1 Gb of virtual memory right off the top, but it released the > memory when I exited. For hardware: I have a 4 year old G4 Mac laptop, > in the absolute minimum configuration (1Gb RAM, System 10.3.9) that they > say is necessary. So was I lucky? > > > Amara > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com > Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA > Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randall at randallsquared.com Mon Dec 11 17:51:01 2006 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:51:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working In-Reply-To: <20061211110922.GO6974@leitl.org> References: <20061210185140.GF6974@leitl.org> <3280AAEA-0622-431B-9672-8F1B7969569F@randallsquared.com> <20061211110922.GO6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <0332D8EA-DDC7-4A59-A798-C7237A9BC101@randallsquared.com> On Dec 11, 2006, at 6:09 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 03:30:45AM -0500, Randall Randall wrote: >> Maybe >> all that's changed now. For reference, I have a 1.9Ghz G5 with 1.5GB >> Mac, >> and a 3MB cable network connection. > > This hardware should run great. Which graphics accelerator card do > you have? ATI Radeon X600 Pro >> that it's entirely possible to do a virtual world right, but at least >> through >> May or so of this year, they hadn't managed it (on Mac, at least). > > I need to check back with that, I've never tried the OS X SL client. > Can't see to find online reports about poor Mac performance. > >> more than 3 frames per second out of it. > > You should be getting 25 fps with that hardware without breaking a > sweat. > http://www.versiontracker.com/php/feedback/article.php? > story=20050618061835830 > seems to indicate there are some light performance problems, but > nowhere > as bad as the 3 fps you've cited. The frames per second, although low, may not have been quite as low as 3. The biggest problem, for me, was that it took so long for objects (like buildings, etc) to fill in that I would have to stop and wait to see what I was near. After some more thought about this, I think this might well have been due to having to download everything, in contrast to WoW, which has the static parts of the world already in the application folder. I'm going to try SL again later today, and report whether it seems to have improved. -- Randall Randall Software isn't really a product; it's a service: the service of arranging bits on a customer's computer. Trying to pound software into a 'product' niche is the fount of many licenses. From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Dec 11 18:36:58 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:36:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is the Golden Rule rational? In-Reply-To: <45A5752C-2B0C-4F57-A248-CD41A89C5F50@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: Thomas wrote: > Perhaps you could comment on a personal > problem: I was once told by a Rational > Emotive therapist that I held an irrational > belief that was causing me problems. It > was the golden rule. Do "effective > interaction" and "cultivating a cooperative > environment" imply a need for empathy > and/or a ban on aggression? What a powerful question! I assume you are referring to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The short answer is that following the Golden Rule is not rational, in the same narrow sense that altruism is not rational. You can easily see this if you consider in terms of game theory, where for each play you must cooperate, but the other player may sometimes cooperate and sometimes defect, tending to your net detriment. Note that as traditionally stated, the Golden Rule is not a positive-sum game. The best you can do is to receive as good as you gave. But, decisions, actions and consequences in real life are never actually contained within an isolated context, and this makes all the difference in the world. Real life is, for all practical purposes, a positive-sum game where the subjective context of decision-making and the objective scope of interaction both tend to increase. So the name of the game is Growth, and any longer-term winning strategy involves effectively discovering and exploiting synergies. Regarding "empathy": As this game of Growth is all about effective interaction over increasing scope between Self and Other (the adjacent possible), "empathy" is important in the broad sense of deeply understanding Other, but not necessarily in the narrower popular sense of feeling the other's emotions. In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, empathy as mirrored feelings was a useful adaptation, just as instinctive feelings of fear of outsiders was a useful adaptation, but in the expanded context of contemporary decision-making we require awareness broader than our instinctive feelings. Regarding "ban on aggression": As morality is all about promoting one's increasingly shared values over increasing scope, there is a moral imperative to defend one's interests. Further, since all decision-making is necessarily within a subjective context, disputes between agents will arise, and resolution will involve one party "winning" and other party "losing" in the near term. However, when conducted rationally, such conflict actually strengthens the broader system within which all the parties interact. When conducted irrationally, conflict can unreasonable damage and destroy Other resulting in detriment to the larger system. So "aggression" is to some extent an inherent part of the process, and moral to the extent that it promotes *increasingly shared* values over *increasing scope*. Careful reading of the above should reassure those who on first glance might take it as justifying wanton destruction of one's opponent or justifying "might makes right". It most certainly does not. As an aside, I very much appreciate the Japanese word for opponent, ?? , "aite" in roman characters, which has all the following connotations: partner, companion, competitor, opponent, rival. > Is the golden rule consistent with > a rational society or a free market? >From the foregoing, I think you can see that the Golden Rule, when understood in the broader sense of ethical reciprocity within a positive sum game of increasingly shared values that work over increasing scope, is consistent with a rational society and a free market. - Jef From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 11 18:40:34 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:40:34 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? In-Reply-To: <000b01c71cf2$04f7f1d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> <003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1165823095.12825.7.camel@localhost> <000b01c71cf2$04f7f1d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <252F866E-F3D1-4D7E-93D6-72D09086A02F@mac.com> On Dec 10, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Samantha writes > >> On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 20:33 -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: >>> The Geneva Convention, for example, was expressedly designed to >>> rely upon the civilized conventions of modern advanced nations. It's >>> the ultimate in foolhardiness for highly civilized nations to >>> abide by it >>> when the brutes are cutting people's heads off in the most painful, >>> barbaric, and horrific manner that they can devise. >> >> Do you then find common cause with those in the US who justify >> torture, >> detention without charges, arraignment or trial of all we simply call >> "enemy combatant" or "suspected terrorist" with no burden of proof >> required? > > No, in general: I agree with you that we must abhor torture, keep it > illegal, and abstain from detaining our citizens without charges. But > those caught on the battlefield under the flag of no country have, in > my opinion, none of the legal rights of American civilians. They have all the rights of human beings since that is what they are. Our founding documents make explicit that rights are not a matter of citizenship in this or that country. There are also international conventions on such matters that we are signatories to despite this administration's insistence it can ignore such at its sole discretion. > >>> This has always been a fatal flaw in the Western psyche and in >>> Western >>> traditions. Barbaric mobsters were able to take over many >>> neighborhoods >>> in Chicago and New York in the 1920s and 30s simply because the >>> civilized law-abiding people of Illinois and New York State could >>> not >>> understand that the circumstances were no longer as the American >>> founders >>> assumed. >> >> You mean back when the government was so barbaric as to foist the >> Prohibition on the people? > > That's the time period in question, yes. "Barbaric"? Prohibition > was "barbaric"? > Shortsighted it was, but enacted in the most civilized way realistic. > It was a barbaric blow against liberty in a supposedly free country. It was barbaric just as the War on Some Drugs is. >> This notion that liberty and rights should disappear because somehow >> things are like in the times of the founders shows a singular lack of >> understanding of liberty imho. > > Yes, there are risks whenever orderly due process is suspended. But if > the alternative is to be ruled by gangsters and criminals---well, > then, you > see you've lost your exalted controls anyway, haven't you? > That is not the alternative. It is a false dichotomy. What 'exalted controls' are you speaking of? > Think of it as a revolution. After the criminals have taken over > San Francisco > (say it's 1850), or Al Capone's and rival mobs have taken over > Chicago, > think of it as revolutionary activity against an illegal > government: and, as you > know, as as the founders knew, you cannot hope to win in the King's > courts > or depend upon a syndicate meeting of gangsters to redress your > grievances. > A revolution today to lynch many in our government might be worthwhile. :-) >> Stop the War on some drugs and much of the problem will lessen >> considerably. > > Quite true. But there is no guarantee that south central LA will be > reclaimed > to civilization simply by outlawing drugs. The National Guard needs > to surround > the entire area, and drive all suspected gang members into > concentration camps > and restore order. Then one by one, those found not guilty of > belonging to > gangs can be released. > A good start would be getting government out of the business of determining what people consume and out of the racket of running up drug prices and profitability. You want to put people in concentration camps on mere suspicion? You may find yourself on the end of the rope you brandish if you implement such a thing. > The alternative is to wait until slowly all of society looks the way > it does there. Another false dichotomy and scare-mongering. > >>> All that seems to matter to some people is that their own >>> government play >>> by all the niceties, no matter what ultimate loathsome >>> consequences obtain, >>> and that their own hands remain lily-white. >> >> It is our own freedoms from unfettered government evils that we >> protect >> not the lily whiteness of our hands. Do you not understand that? > > I do understand that government poses a spectacular threat, don't > misunderstand > me. Indeed, the people must occasionally rise up by force every > once in a while > (Thomas Jefferson recommended every fifty years or so.) > > Meanwhile, we *must* recognize an even greater evil that the probably > (but not certainly!) temporary suspension of a few civil rights for > some > people; Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt understood this--- > why can't you? > Gangs are a greater evil than what our government has become? No way. >>> Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. >> >> Evil triumphs when people forget about freedom from fear of >> government >> power and consider freedom and civil rights as optional niceties. > > Yes, I agree totally. But not all evils are "government power", > Samantha. > You have to keep the other evils also from triumphing. Not by forgetting about liberty and human rights in order to fight over-inflated bogeymen. - samantha From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 18:45:19 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:45:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Criticizing One's Own Goals---Rational? In-Reply-To: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7641ddc60612111045w1007b8e1j2f476f96de654755@mail.gmail.com> On 12/6/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > Rafal continued in a way that I couldn't quite connect up with > what had gone before, but which was nevertheless most interesting: > > > If there was a goal "seek happiness" in my then sophomore mind > > a long time ago, it was erased upon noticing that happiness appears > > to be the subjective aspect of certain computations within, most > > notably, the cingulate and insular cortices and the nucleus accumbens. > > Why bother doing such computations? > > What!? How can awareness of the mechanics of a process interfere > with your appreciation of it? Recall how Dawkins or Sagan would take > the exactly opposite tack with regard to artistic or aesthetic appreciation > of our world: just because we know scientifically what is going on beneath > the surface ought not have any effect on our appreciation, unless it be an > enhancing one. > > Why bother doing *any* computation? That is, suppose that you > uncovered the precise mechanism responsible for your affections > towards your family; would this immediately imperil the desirability > to you of those computations? So what if we know how happiness > works: I cannot fathom why this would make it any less desirable. and > Please explain why "avoiding unhappiness" has a stronger link to > your cognitive faculties than does seeking happiness? Or, if this > is simply a fact, do you try to justify it at all? ### As to your second question, I remember the time when dentists would drill your teeth without anestesia, and there was a trade-off between the pleasure of chocolate and the suffering of the molar. For every few hundred minutes of chocolate, a minute of drilling. I would swear off chocolate in a heartbeat if the trade-off was 1:1. So as a simple observation, I find it much easier to forgo happiness. As you may know, the neural structures responsible for the many shades of suffering (amygdala, some frontal cortical areas) are to a large extent distinct from the structures responsible for blissful raptures. It is just the result of my genetic makeup that the former are stronger than the latter. As to your first question, let me give you a brief summary of how my goal system evolved, leading to the invalidation of some initial high-level goals: In the beginning there were some simple goals, such as "seek sweet food", "gain predictive understanding of the motions of physical objects in the environment", "avoid pain". Then more complex goals emerged, accompanied by the process of myelinization of my frontal cortex, and still under the direction of inborn mechanisms - such as "seek approval of mother", "become a member of ingroup", "achieve dominance over others", "avoid rejection", "understand the thinking of others", "avoid death". Then self-consideration emerged, cataloguing the goals, and their interactions. A loose hierarchy emerged, ordering goals by strength, discount rates and their interdependencies. Certain more abstract goals were formulated, e.g. transforming "avoid death" (i.e "avoid irreversible termination of mental and bodily funtions") into a more complex concept of self-preservation. My goal of self-preservation is interpreted by my higher cognitive faculties as continued existence of a conscious agent sharing a large fraction of my memories and a certain very small number of select goals (this is my idea of the Rafal-identity). I score very low on self-transcendence, that is, I belong to the category of humans who did not develop almost any significant goals that would be independent on self-preservation. Given this fact it is not surprising that the systemizing faculty placed self-preservation in the position of the ultimate supergoal, valid under almost any but the most esoteric hypothetical situations. At the same time there is a number of legacy goals that are leftovers of previous high-level goals from my younger self. I cannot easily stop myself from eating chocolate even if this may at times conflict with the supergoal. I find it even harder to subject myself to pain or unhappiness even in situations when this may further the supergoal. The systemizing tendency in my mind is so strong that most goals in principle dispensable for the purpose of Rafal-preservation are placed very low in the goal hierarchy. I think I should be able to survive and maintain goal-driven activity without the need to be happy, although further research may change this opinion. Legacy goals like this are therefore not a part of my abstract definition of self, and may be subject to erasure if there is any conflict with the supergoal, including a conflict over allocation of computational resources - if running the happiness-cortex costs money needed for survival, happiness goes out the window. This of course only once I gain access to my source code and finish some courses in autopsychoengineering. I hope this explains my current thinking. No doubt, YMMV. --------------- > The remainder here seems unproblematical, except for the > remark about "many-worlds". I would demur from the claim > that the *urge* for self-preservation is in any way itself > affected. What is changed for one is the realization that self- > preservation may be achieved in non-obvious or non-customary > ways. ### Well, there are some changes to the real-world meaning of self-preservation as soon as you start messing with your definition of self. If you decide that your copy is still self, the behavioral correlates of self-preservation may change dramatically. In certain hypothetical situations you may use your .45 to destroy the instantiation of self that is directly controlling the movements of the arm holding the gun, that is, you may blow your brains out, if necessary to preserve yourself, instantiated in your copies. You and I would do it, but people with other definitions of self would not. Rafal From scerir at libero.it Mon Dec 11 18:39:33 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:39:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Music and Science References: <31074321.2412691164914847390.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <01e601c71d53$b4c48ea0$59ba1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> pjmanney > Are you aware of any scientists who > have had specific scientific inspiration > from music? http://wohba.com/pages/ruben1006.html :-) From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Mon Dec 11 22:42:05 2006 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:42:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is the Golden Rule rational? References: Message-ID: <457DDEBD.9060900@thomasoliver.net> Jef Allbright wrote: >Thomas wrote: > > > >>Perhaps you could comment on a personal >>problem: I was once told by a Rational >>Emotive therapist that I held an irrational >>belief that was causing me problems. It >>was the golden rule. Do "effective >>interaction" and "cultivating a cooperative >>environment" imply a need for empathy >>and/or a ban on aggression? >> >> > >What a powerful question! I assume you are referring to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." > >The short answer is that following the Golden Rule is not rational, in the same narrow sense that altruism is not rational. > >You can easily see this if you consider in terms of game theory, where for each play you must cooperate, but the other player may sometimes cooperate and sometimes defect, tending to your net detriment. Note that as traditionally stated, the Golden Rule is not a positive-sum game. The best you can do is to receive as good as you gave. > >But, decisions, actions and consequences in real life are never actually contained within an isolated context, and this makes all the difference in the world. > >Real life is, for all practical purposes, a positive-sum game where the subjective context of decision-making and the objective scope of interaction both tend to increase. So the name of the game is Growth, and any longer-term winning strategy involves effectively discovering and exploiting synergies. > >Regarding "empathy": >As this game of Growth is all about effective interaction over increasing scope between Self and Other (the adjacent possible), "empathy" is important in the broad sense of deeply understanding Other, but not necessarily in the narrower popular sense of feeling the other's emotions. In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, empathy as mirrored feelings was a useful adaptation, just as instinctive feelings of fear of outsiders was a useful adaptation, but in the expanded context of contemporary decision-making we require awareness broader than our instinctive feelings. > >Regarding "ban on aggression": >As morality is all about promoting one's increasingly shared values over increasing scope, there is a moral imperative to defend one's interests. Further, since all decision-making is necessarily within a subjective context, disputes between agents will arise, and resolution will involve one party "winning" and other party "losing" in the near term. However, when conducted rationally, such conflict actually strengthens the broader system within which all the parties interact. When conducted irrationally, conflict can unreasonable damage and destroy Other resulting in detriment to the larger system. So "aggression" is to some extent an inherent part of the process, and moral to the extent that it promotes *increasingly shared* values over *increasing scope*. Careful reading of the above should reassure those who on first glance might take it as justifying wanton destruction of one's opponent or justifying "might makes right". It most certainly does not. As an aside, I very! > much appreciate the Japanese word for opponent, ?? , "aite" in roman characters, which has all the following connotations: partner, companion, competitor, opponent, rival. > > > >>Is the golden rule consistent with >>a rational society or a free market? >> >> > >>From the foregoing, I think you can see that the Golden Rule, when understood in the broader sense of ethical reciprocity within a positive sum game of increasingly shared values that work over increasing scope, is consistent with a rational society and a free market. > >- Jef > Thank you for an illuminating and fairly comprehensive response. I wonder how an extropic Golden Rule would read. I think its essence is equal justice. What little I know of systems theory seems to favor sacrificing smaller systems (individuals) to the good of larger systems. As an individual I'm interested in avoiding the "tyranny of the majority" and in contributing to an expanding "cooperative environment." The break point between these two goals seems to be the willingness to use coercion. I've been struggling to conceive a society of unanimous spheres wherein each individual can fully identify with the larger sphere-system and where the variety of spheres could interact sans coercion. Paul Wafker's Natural Social Contract is an example of a tool that might help establish safe social spheres. I like the idea of citizenship by agreement rather than by default. I think I would like to live in a sphere with no collective property title and, thus, no public treasury, no corporate veil nor community property disputes. Our brainstems' territorial impulses might be muted to a sub violent level when each of us is solely responsible (and liable) for what we have and what we do with it. I've moved in this direction in my personal life and thereby distanced myself from some infantile impulses (mine and others'). Now, how do I expand the scope of my interactions in a sphere that seems to oscillate between altruism and solipsism with little in between? -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Dec 11 22:57:02 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:57:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Yahoo Confab on Prediction Markets Message-ID: This may be of interest to many here. Note that our very own Robin Hanson is among the presenters. An online video is promised for those of us who can't attend in person. - Jef http://upcoming.org/event/130004 "Prediction Markets: Tapping the Wisdom of Crowds" Wed Dec 13, 5:30-8:00pm Yahoo! Headquarters, Building C, Classroom 5 Join us for a public "how to" session on prediction markets** moderated by James Surowiecki, New Yorker columnist and best-selling author of The Wisdom of Crowds. Speakers from Google, HP, Microsoft, and Yahoo! will describe how they are using prediction markets to aid corporate forecasting and decision making. Other speakers include the developer of Zocalo, an open source prediction market platform; the co-founder of InklingMarkets.com, a Paul Graham yCombinator startup; and Robin Hanson, the visionary economist and inventor whose pioneering work paved the way. The event is open to the public and will emphasize practical lessons and hands-on advice. After brief presentations from each speaker, Surowiecki will open up the session for discussion with the audience. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Dec 12 02:52:31 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:52:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Urge for Self Preservation (was Criticizing One's Own Goals---Rational?) References: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60612111045w1007b8e1j2f476f96de654755@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <011701c71d99$313c36a0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> I had written > > The remainder here seems unproblematical, except for the > > remark about "many-worlds". I would demur from the claim > > that the *urge* for self-preservation is in any way itself > > affected. What is changed for one is the realization that self- > > preservation may be achieved in non-obvious or non-customary > > ways. and Rafal responds > ### Well, there are some changes to the real-world meaning of > self-preservation as soon as you start messing with your definition of > self. If you decide that your copy is still self, the behavioral > correlates of self-preservation may change dramatically. In certain > hypothetical situations you may use your .45 to destroy the > instantiation of self that is directly controlling the movements of > the arm holding the gun, that is, you may blow your brains out, if > necessary to preserve yourself, instantiated in your copies. You and I > would do it, but people with other definitions of self would not. Thank you for the cogent description: yes indeed, the raw behavioral correlates, as you call them, indeed do change just as you say. An instance of someone who has suddenly become convinced that copies are selves may blow its brains out for suitable reward to himself in the other instances. But my point above was that the *urge* to self-preservation does not seem to be affected by whether there are copies or not, or whether MWI is considered true. It might only appear to the uninitiated that a person seemed to value his life less; that bystander would simply be failing to realize that the instance itself---in the view of that person---was hardly all there was to that person. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Dec 12 03:09:16 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:09:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Criticizing One's Own Goals---Rational? References: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60612111045w1007b8e1j2f476f96de654755@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <012a01c71d9b$4f86a8f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Rafal writes > On 12/6/06, Lee Corbin wrote: >> Rafal wrote >> > If there was a goal "seek happiness" in my then sophomore mind >> > a long time ago, it was erased upon noticing that happiness appears >> > to be the subjective aspect of certain computations within, most >> > notably, the cingulate and insular cortices and the nucleus accumbens. >> > Why bother doing such computations? >> >> What!? How can awareness of the mechanics of a process interfere >> with your appreciation of it? >> >> [Moreover] Why bother doing *any* computation? That is, suppose >> that you uncovered the precise mechanism responsible for your affections >> towards your family; would this immediately imperil the desirability >> to you of those computations? So what if we know how happiness >> works: I cannot fathom why this would make it any less desirable. > > ...let me give you a brief summary of how my goal system evolved, > leading to the invalidation of some initial high-level goals: > > In the beginning there were some simple goals, such as "seek sweet > food", "gain predictive understanding of the motions of physical > objects in the environment", "avoid pain". Then more complex goals > emerged, accompanied by the process of myelinization of my frontal > cortex, and still under the direction of inborn mechanisms - such as > "seek approval of mother", "become a member of ingroup", "achieve > dominance over others", "avoid rejection", "understand the thinking of > others", "avoid death". Then self-consideration emerged, cataloguing > the goals, and their interactions. A loose hierarchy emerged, ordering > goals by strength, discount rates and their interdependencies. Certain > more abstract goals were formulated, e.g. transforming "avoid death" > (i.e "avoid irreversible termination of mental and bodily funtions") > into a more complex concept of self-preservation. My goal of > self-preservation is interpreted by my higher cognitive faculties as > continued existence of a conscious agent sharing a large fraction of > my memories and a certain very small number of select goals (this is > my idea of the Rafal-identity). All that seems very logical and very well described. > I score very low on self-transcendence, that is, I belong to the category > of humans who did not develop almost any significant goals that would > be independent on [of] self-preservation. Given this fact it is not > surprising that the systemizing faculty placed self-preservation in the > position of the ultimate supergoal, valid under almost any but the most > esoteric hypothetical situations. Again, well put. Different people are indeed prone to sign-on to causes for which they might forfeit their lives, sacred honor etc. Very likely you would not be a signer of a revolutionary document when that activity is punishable by death, and I myself would sign only with great trepidation. I would, it sounds, be a lot more likely to wager my life on the chance of sufficient benefit---either benefit directly to me or towards those I love, or perhaps even towards some cause or other. I infer that I am to describe this as "self-transcendence" :-) > The systemizing tendency in my mind is so strong that most goals in > principle dispensable for the purpose of Rafal-preservation are placed > very low in the goal hierarchy. I think I should be able to survive > and maintain goal-driven activity without the need to be happy, Fine. That cogently explains why happiness itself is a rather low-order goal. So this is why your claim above: "Why bother doing such computations?" that are the brain-mechanical equivalents of being happy. Whereas for the reasons you also give it *is* worthwhile for your brain to engage in painless behavior. (Avoiding pain is behaviorally evidently higher on in your goal hierarchy even if we didn't have your claim that it is.) > although further research may change this opinion. Legacy goals like > this are therefore not a part of my abstract definition of self, and > may be subject to erasure if there is any conflict with the > supergoal, including a conflict over allocation of computational > resources - if running the happiness-cortex costs money needed for > survival, happiness goes out the window. This of course only once I > gain access to my source code and finish some courses in > autopsychoengineering. > > I hope this explains my current thinking. No doubt, YMMV. Yes, I think it does. Thanks. And yes, being happy continues to be one of *my* higher goals, right up there with self-preservation. In fact, self-preservation though extended times when there would be no happiness is justified in my own mental calculus only by the fact that so long as I live, there is still the hope for more (and maybe vastly greater) benefit to me eventually. If I knew that I was never again to be happy, and that my passing would not affect anyone I care for, then I'd check out post haste. Lee From randall at randallsquared.com Mon Dec 11 22:53:51 2006 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:53:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working In-Reply-To: <0332D8EA-DDC7-4A59-A798-C7237A9BC101@randallsquared.com> References: <20061210185140.GF6974@leitl.org> <3280AAEA-0622-431B-9672-8F1B7969569F@randallsquared.com> <20061211110922.GO6974@leitl.org> <0332D8EA-DDC7-4A59-A798-C7237A9BC101@randallsquared.com> Message-ID: <1725A7AD-F6C4-4EA6-B923-B80CEB22602B@randallsquared.com> On Dec 11, 2006, at 12:51 PM, Randall Randall wrote: > On Dec 11, 2006, at 6:09 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 03:30:45AM -0500, Randall Randall wrote: >>> more than 3 frames per second out of it. >> >> You should be getting 25 fps with that hardware without breaking a >> sweat. >> http://www.versiontracker.com/php/feedback/article.php? >> story=20050618061835830 >> seems to indicate there are some light performance problems, but >> nowhere >> as bad as the 3 fps you've cited. > > The frames per second, although low, may not have been quite as low > as 3. The biggest problem, for me, was that it took so long for > objects > (like buildings, etc) to fill in that I would have to stop and wait to > see what I was near. > > After some more thought about this, I think this might well have been > due to having to download everything, in contrast to WoW, which has > the > static parts of the world already in the application folder. I'm > going > to try SL again later today, and report whether it seems to have > improved. Okay, I've done that. The answer is "No, there's no noticeable improvement." I used SL's built-in movie maker to take a movie of just walking around in SL: http://randallsquared.com/download/movies/slmovie.mov Please note that this is a 36M file! For a control case, I downloaded a third party screencaster and used it to make a similar walking-around video from WoW, on the same machine less than an hour apart. http://randallsquared.com/download/movies/wowmovie.mov Please note that this is a 56M file! Interestingly, the SL video is almost exactly the same in speed as the actual SL environment, while the third party screencaster slowed down WoW significantly, cutting its apparent framerate in half or so (and causing me to misjudge in the first few seconds and fall off a staircase). Even with this slowdown, though, WoW is screamingly fast in comparison to SL. I'm sure there are lots of reasons why SL can't be expected to be as fast as WoW, yet, including having to download most of the world through the internet, while WoW has the basic world already on one's hard drive. That said, on a fairly recent iMac, SL is essentially unusable so far. Or maybe my standards are too high. :) -- Randall Randall "If we have matter duplicators, will each of us be a sovereign and possess a hydrogen bomb?" -- Jerry Pournelle From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Dec 12 03:19:48 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:19:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com><007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net><62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com><003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677><1165823095.12825.7.camel@localhost><000b01c71cf2$04f7f1d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0612110635o2e7e9039n5c5674ca03e84e4e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <013401c71d9c$bc939240$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell writes > Lee ... wrote: > > > But there is no guarantee that south central LA will be reclaimed > > to civilization simply by outlawing drugs. > ("by legalizing drugs", I assume you meant?) Yes, thank you. > > The National Guard needs to surround the entire area, > > and drive all suspected gang members into concentration > > camps and restore order. Then one by one, those found > > not guilty of belonging to gangs can be released. > Lee, I agree with much of what you say, and I certainly think > treating terrorists as if they were soldiers of a civilized nation > is wrong. If a man is found _after fair trial_ to be a terrorist, > by all means let him be hanged forthwith. Yes. > But suspending due process of law for your own citizens isn't > just more of the same idea - it's a completely different kind of > thing, and far more dangerous. It is indeed dangerous. Life does not proceed without risks. A governor of a state could declare a certain area to be a "lawless disaster zone", and the district could be razed in the manner I've suggested. This wouldn't have to happen more than once or twice before the message went out; and the destruction of so many gangs would be worth it. > > The alternative is to wait until slowly all of society looks the way it does there. > I don't think that's the only alternative. I think there are better > approaches. I think if: the drug laws were repealed, the labor > and business laws that make it illegal for large numbers of > people to find work were relaxed enough so that everyone > regardless of age, social status, academic background etc who > wanted to earn an honest living could do so, the ghastly tower > blocks were demolished and the government got out of the > housing business, existing laws against violent crime were enforced > in a fair and unbiased manner, things would improve enough that > the perceived need for concentration camps would disappear. Maybe. And yes, if the will existed to implement my draconian approach, then the will would certainly exist to try your step-by-small-step approach. Either way, sadly, I'm afraid it's moot. I'll just say that since your approach isn't being tried at all, I would be very happy if a sea-change occurred among the populace and it lost its temper and did as I suggested above. And to those who say "it's better to let a thousand guilty men go free than harm an innocent person", I refer them to the recidivism rates and just what they mean to yet other innocent persons. > If all the above is tried and found to be insufficient, then by all > means bring up the idea of concentration camps again, but I > don't think they should be advocated until that time. Okay. Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 12 04:12:10 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:12:10 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear winter's back Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061211221129.02214078@satx.rr.com> http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/916 SYDNEY: Even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more, U.S. researchers have found. "With the exchange of 100 [hiroshima-sized] weapons as posed in this scenario, the estimated quantities of smoke generated could lead to global climate anomalies exceeding any changes experienced in recorded history," said co-author Alan Robock, of Rutgers Univeristy in New Jersey. "And that's just 0.03 per cent of the total explosive power of the current world nuclear arsenal." From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Dec 12 04:02:51 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:02:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] oldest person dead In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200612120414.kBC4E6dW002320@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Doh! Dead at 116: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/11/oldest.woman.ap/index.html They don't say what she died of. How do we find out who is now the oldest living person? spike From artillo at comcast.net Tue Dec 12 04:01:10 2006 From: artillo at comcast.net (artillo at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:01:10 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE info from a seasoned veteran Message-ID: <121220060401.10439.457E298600052DCD000028C72205886442010404079B9D0E@comcast.net> Dear fellow Extropians, I've been a user in Second Life since June of 2004 and I have seen a lot of changes and improvements over the years. Frame rate and "lag" are very dependent on a number of factors, including what graphics card you have, how much video ram and system ram you have, processor speed, internet connection speed, certain settings within the SL configuration itself, and also client and server side lag induced by "traffic" in the sim you are walking around in. The more avatars, active scripts, objects, and texture files in a sim, the worse the lag may get. There are many things one can do to reduce lag/frame rates to an acceptable level, in the preferences menu some of the largest culprits are having local lighting turned on, having draw distance set very high (I leave mine between 64 and 128m and it's usually a very manageable 20-30fps with my system), having certain detail levels set very high versus what your gpu can handle, and also having particle effects set high (I usually have my particles set to less than 1024). There are lots and lots of useful suggestions by longtime users about how to reduce lag and what are it's causes if you look in the SL forums. http://forums.secondlife.com . Unfortunately, a sim that has 35 people in it will DEFINITELY run much slower than a sim that has 3 people in it, and also private islands tend to be run on slightly better servers so they also perform better even with a lot of people around, primarily because they dont have to bring in data from adjacent servers that comes within draw distanc e. My system is about 3 years old and handles SL very well, even when I am running several other programs at the same time. My system is an ASUS P4P800 motherboard (800mhz bus) with a Pentium 4 2.4GHz processor, 1GB of PC3200 RAM, an ATI Radeon 9600 pro 128mb AGP graphics card and a 5 megabit cable connection. SL supposedly runs better with Nvidia based cards, but other than not rendering waves on water correctly for my ATI card, I don't see much difference. When it comes to the SL community, my experience is that people judge SL differently depending on the types of people they initially meet in the world. If someone is new and happens to run across a blatantly "adult" location (and there are, admittedly, many), they might tend to paint the entire community as such. It doesn't take much effort to find people with similar interests that DON'T revolve around sex/gambling/violence. There are tons of groups about that discuss philosophy, politics, music, community, education, etc., all you have to do is look for them and ask around. In a community of over 1.5 million estimated users, SL obviously will always have a segment of the community that is only interested in the more "base" uses of the software. The beauty of SL is that it's completely up to the user to decide what they want to make of their Second Lives! :D As far as comparing SL to a game such as WoW... that's not comparing apples to apples at all. The entire world of Warcraft is prerendered and resides in the client's computer. A relatively small amount of data is actually exchanged between the player's client machine and the game servers (such as avatar location, combat stats, IM's, etc.) as compared with Second Life which is streaming in an enormous amount of data to be rendered/handled by the client. SL does some little tricks to help things along, such as having all of it's prims as parametrically created objects that are generated by the client's computer rather than having large polygon meshes downloaded. The fact that you can BUILD in realtime and create all of your own unique content in SL (scripts, animations, textures, guestures, sounds, and composite objects etc.) even further separates it from the MMO gaming world, which uses preexisting libraries of objects and predetermined animation sequences for its characters. Also, the SL economy is a real economy, not a game economy. YES sure you can buy and sell WoW gold from various websites here and there, but all that allows you to do is be able to buy or sell preexisting stuff in the game, whereas in SL, the cash goes directly to the creators of the items and can be pulled out of the world as real currency. I am Artillo Fredericks in SL... I am primarily online as an internet DJ specializing in heavy metal, punk rock, industrial, and old school rap. I DJ live 3 nights a week at a few different locations in SL. Give me a holler some time! Peace and Happy Building! Artillo -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Randall Randall > On Dec 11, 2006, at 12:51 PM, Randall Randall wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2006, at 6:09 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 03:30:45AM -0500, Randall Randall wrote: > >>> more than 3 frames per second out of it. > >> > >> You should be getting 25 fps with that hardware without breaking a > >> sweat. > >> http://www.versiontracker.com/php/feedback/article.php? > >> story=20050618061835830 > >> seems to indicate there are some light performance problems, but > >> nowhere > >> as bad as the 3 fps you've cited. > > > > The frames per second, although low, may not have been quite as low > > as 3. The biggest problem, for me, was that it took so long for > > objects > > (like buildings, etc) to fill in that I would have to stop and wait to > > see what I was near. > > > > After some more thought about this, I think this might well have been > > due to having to download everything, in contrast to WoW, which has > > the > > static parts of the world already in the application folder. I'm > > going > > to try SL again later today, and report whether it seems to have > > improved. > > Okay, I've done that. The answer is "No, there's no > noticeable improvement." > > I used SL's built-in movie maker to take a movie of just > walking around in SL: > > http://randallsquared.com/download/movies/slmovie.mov > > Please note that this is a 36M file! > > For a control case, I downloaded a third party screencaster > and used it to make a similar walking-around video from WoW, > on the same machine less than an hour apart. > > http://randallsquared.com/download/movies/wowmovie.mov > > Please note that this is a 56M file! > > Interestingly, the SL video is almost exactly the same in > speed as the actual SL environment, while the third party > screencaster slowed down WoW significantly, cutting its > apparent framerate in half or so (and causing me to misjudge > in the first few seconds and fall off a staircase). Even > with this slowdown, though, WoW is screamingly fast in > comparison to SL. > > I'm sure there are lots of reasons why SL can't be expected > to be as fast as WoW, yet, including having to download most > of the world through the internet, while WoW has the basic > world already on one's hard drive. That said, on a fairly > recent iMac, SL is essentially unusable so far. > > Or maybe my standards are too high. :) > > -- > Randall Randall > "If we have matter duplicators, will each of us be a sovereign > and possess a hydrogen bomb?" -- Jerry Pournelle > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From randall at randallsquared.com Tue Dec 12 04:44:56 2006 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:44:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE info from a seasoned veteran In-Reply-To: <121220060401.10439.457E298600052DCD000028C72205886442010404079B9D0E@comcast.net> References: <121220060401.10439.457E298600052DCD000028C72205886442010404079B9D0E@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2006, at 11:01 PM, artillo at comcast.net wrote: > There are many things one can do to reduce lag/frame rates to an > acceptable level, in the preferences menu some of the largest > culprits are having local lighting turned on, having draw distance > set very high (I leave mine between 64 and 128m and it's usually a > very manageable 20-30fps with my system), having certain detail > levels set very high versus what your gpu can handle, and also > having particle effects set high (I usually have my particles set > to less than 1024). There are lots and lots of useful suggestions > by longtime users about how to reduce lag and what are it's causes > if you look in the SL forums. http://forums.secondlife.com . > Unfortunately, a sim that has 35 people in it will DEFINITELY run > much slower than a sim that has 3 people in it, and also private > islands tend to be run on slightly better servers so they also > perform better even with a lot of people around, primarily because > they dont have to bring in data from adjacent servers that comes > within draw ! > distanc > e. > > My system is about 3 years old and handles SL very well, even when > I am running several other programs at the same time. My system is > an ASUS P4P800 motherboard (800mhz bus) with a Pentium 4 2.4GHz > processor, 1GB of PC3200 RAM, an ATI Radeon 9600 pro 128mb AGP > graphics card and a 5 megabit cable connection. SL supposedly runs > better with Nvidia based cards, but other than not rendering waves > on water correctly for my ATI card, I don't see much difference. I wonder if that 2MB difference in our connections can really be so important? I suppose it could be. > As far as comparing SL to a game such as WoW... that's not > comparing apples to apples at all. The entire world of Warcraft is > prerendered and resides in the client's computer. A relatively > small amount of data is actually exchanged between the player's > client machine and the game servers (such as avatar location, > combat stats, IM's, etc.) as compared with Second Life which is > streaming in an enormous amount of data to be rendered/handled by > the client. SL does some little tricks to help things along, such > as having all of it's prims as parametrically created objects that > are generated by the client's computer rather than having large > polygon meshes downloaded. > > The fact that you can BUILD in realtime and create all of your own > unique content in SL (scripts, animations, textures, guestures, > sounds, and composite objects etc.) even further separates it from > the MMO gaming world, which uses preexisting libraries of objects > and predetermined animation sequences for its characters. I agree that SL is far more ambitious in scope than games like WoW, and I'm not seriously comparing SL as a whole to WoW. Rather, I'm just saying that WoW is *so* much smoother and faster than SL (on my computer; I guess this is really uncommon), that it points out how well SL could run on this hardware. If you watched the movie I made, you'll note that the textures of everything are already pretty basic. However, I just logged in again to look, and sure enough, I had many of the graphics settings in the upper range. Turning them all down didn't seem to have much effect. Maybe what I'm seeing is a really crappy video card in this iMac model. -- Randall Randall "You don't help someone by looking at their list of options and eliminating the one they chose!" -- David Henderson From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 12 05:26:10 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:26:10 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] oldest person dead In-Reply-To: <200612120414.kBC4E6dW002320@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200612120414.kBC4E6dW002320@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061211232402.0230fc28@satx.rr.com> >How do we find out who is now the oldest living person? I'm glad you asked that question, Spike. It's me! No, wait, just feels that way. Actually-- "Emiliano Mercado Del Toro, 115, becomes the first male "world's oldest person" in 20 years...and to see how unusual that is, the second-oldest male currently listed is 39th in this list (now 38th sine Bolden's passing): http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM " From the GRG longevity list. Damien Broderick From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 05:26:25 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:26:25 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? In-Reply-To: <013401c71d9c$bc939240$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> <003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1165823095.12825.7.camel@localhost> <000b01c71cf2$04f7f1d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0612110635o2e7e9039n5c5674ca03e84e4e@mail.gmail.com> <013401c71d9c$bc939240$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0612112126h32adc932nd0dc570dee70a1f0@mail.gmail.com> On 12/12/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > It is indeed dangerous. Life does not proceed without risks. To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late; only our genes and works might be immortal. But here's why I think our current time is such a desperate crisis: we're floating, gasping in a void, tech-wise. As Rome crumbled, people did not forget how to smelt iron or plough fields - for those things could be sustained by a village. They forgot how to build roads and aqueducts - for those things could only be sustained by a great civilization. As the West crumbles, people will not forget how to make tractors and rifles - for those things can be sustained by a small community, perhaps towns and their surrounding fields and villages, machine tools and workshops, early 20th century tech. They will forget how to make 65 nanometer chips, for those things can only be sustained by a great civilization, economically viable in the field of a billion consumers with wealth and leisure time to spare for video games and $5 billion factories. Must we resign ourselves to H.P. Lovecraft's idea that man's last civilization will be "the cruel empire of Tsan Chan, five thousand years from now", before man disappears into the fossil record and the cutting edge of terrestrial biology tracks geology into the planet's "horror-filled core" to fade to the end? I think not. There is a reachable edge. With sufficiently advanced hardware technology, factories can be made on the scale of a town - or a Kalpana One. With sufficiently advanced software technology, machines can be programmed by a small team rather than requiring man-millennia of labor. The current desperate void is a passing stage. If I fail to figure out the software half in time, it won't be for lack of trying; but let's try to not actively cut the available time please? If we can't create, then not destroy? If we can't defeat the enemy called Death now, then not do his work, nor yet surrender, but hold back the tide as long as we can - nor dynamite the dykes. "Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder's eye on the last Day." - Robert Jordan, 'The Wheel of Time' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Dec 12 05:37:24 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:37:24 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear spring? In-Reply-To: <20978094.141391165725002266.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <200612120537.kBC5bY9r017754@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I recall years ago Carl Sagan making the case that if the US and the commies nuke each other, the dust particles kicked into the air would increase the albedo of the earth and cause a nuclear winter, a new ice age. But what if Iran and Israel go at each other with nukes? They have only a fraction of the numbers Sagan was assuming, so what happens then? Is there a relatively small cooling effect that offsets global warming? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061211/ap_on_sc/nuclear_winter A grim scenario is this. Israel has now admitted that they have nukes, and the world is standing by as Ahmadinijehad leads Iran into the club. We can see this coming as clearly as if it has already happened: those two guys are going to get into it, possibly soon. Any speculation on which effect is greater, a small nuclear winter or global warming? spike From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Dec 12 05:41:10 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:41:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is the Golden Rule rational? In-Reply-To: <457DDEBD.9060900@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: Thomas wrote: > I wonder how an extropic Golden Rule > would read. I think its essence is > equal justice. Could you describe and/or provide some examples of how "equal justice" might work? I'm aware of a great deal of injustice in the world, but I suppose I think of it as a symptom of more fundamental problems, rather than as a problem that could be solved in any way direct way. As a father I never treated my children equally, but tried to nurture each of them differently according to their particular character, strengths, weaknesses, and needs. Of course they didn't have the necessary context to appreciate this and would sometimes claim that I wasn't being fair. Harrison Bergeron comes to mind. > What little I know of systems theory > seems to favor sacrificing smaller systems > (individuals) to the good of larger systems. Well, what I know of systems theory never included the idea of "sacrificing" as you seem to be using it, and I don't think you're referring to fuses or other such frangible components. My understanding of systems theory involves ideas of optimization within constraints with each subsystem or component playing an essential role. I don't find any injustice in tires wearing out before the engine, nor of privates being shot at while the general works in an office. Going along with an apparent underdog theme in some of your posts, there certainly is a gradient of power and attendant abuses in society, but I don't see that as a result of systems thinking--seems (to me) more like the result of dimly aware slightly evolved primates who really could use some systems thinking. Maybe I'm missing your point, or maybe we're exploring some biases here. Can you provide some examples? > As an individual I'm interested in avoiding > the "tyranny of the majority" and in > contributing to an expanding > "cooperative environment." You have my full agreement and support here. > The break point > between these two goals seems to be the > willingness to use coercion. I fail to grasp your point here. Please elaborate? > I've been > struggling to conceive a society of > unanimous spheres Did you perhaps intend to say autonomous spheres? > wherein each individual > can fully identify with the larger > sphere-system and where the variety of > spheres could interact sans coercion. I think I'm with you here. It sounds similar to my dream of positive-sum social decision-making replacing today's predominate system of competition over scarcity. > Paul Wafker's Natural Social Contract > > is an example of a tool that might help > establish safe social spheres. I like > the idea of citizenship by agreement > rather than by default. I spent over an hour reading this web site but what did I get from it? Only that it appeared to be nearly a stream of consciousness dump from someone who had apparently spent many years reading and rereading Ayn Rand, Libertarian, and Austrian School material until it wore ruts in his brain. There are probably people on this list who know him personally; I'm sorry if I've offended anyone. He uses many of the same phrases I do so it was a bit scary. > I think I would like to live in a sphere > with no collective property title and, > thus, no public treasury, no corporate > veil nor community property disputes. > Our brainstems' territorial impulses > might be muted to a sub violent level > when each of us is solely responsible > (and liable) for what we have and what > we do with it. I've moved in this > direction in my personal life and > thereby distanced myself from some > infantile impulses (mine and others'). Sounds like you're taking the first steps... > Now, how do I expand the scope of my > interactions in a sphere that seems > to oscillate between altruism and > solipsism with little in between? Well, what skills do you have and what do you like to do? - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Dec 12 05:47:35 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:47:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> <003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1165823095.12825.7.camel@localhost> <000b01c71cf2$04f7f1d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <252F866E-F3D1-4D7E-93D6-72D09086A02F@mac.com> Message-ID: <014701c71db2$cb76e760$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes > On Dec 10, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> I agree with you that we must abhor torture, keep it >> illegal, and abstain from detaining our citizens without charges. But >> those caught on the battlefield under the flag of no country have, in >> my opinion, none of the legal rights of American civilians. > > They have all the rights of human beings since that is what they are. Rights in the abstract again, I suppose. There aren't any such things. There are legal rights established by custom or law. The rest are merely things you happen to approve of. They have *no* legal rights, I repeat. Those caught on the battlefield under the flag of no enemy should be captured and dealt with summarily. > Our founding documents make explicit that rights are not a matter of > citizenship in this or that country. There are also international > conventions on such matters that we are signatories to despite this > administration's insistence it can ignore such at its sole discretion. Those conventions were---so far as I know---established as rules of appropriate conduct between civilized nations. The "nations" the West is fighting against---or I should say, trying to fight against--- are not at all civilized. Their barbarism knows no bounds. Why don't you and some of the other idealists here go into the tough parts of town and see how far you get rendering niceties to the gangs you encounter there? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Dec 12 05:41:01 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:41:01 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com><456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net><007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> <003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <457D9583.1090506@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: <014601c71db2$cb4c06d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Thomas writes > [Lee wrote] > > > The Geneva Convention, for example, was expressedly designed to > > rely upon the civilized conventions of modern advanced nations. It's > > the ultimate in foolhardiness for highly civilized nations to abide by it > > when the brutes are cutting people's heads off in the most painful, > > barbaric, and horrific manner that they can devise. > Sacrificing the clearly defined terms has guaranteed the victory of brutality. > Without conventions, constitutions, objective laws it was the more > consistently irrational that won. Oh, I don't agree, unless you entertain an idealistic notion of what "rational" is. To say that "irrationality consistenty won" in human history is an error, I think. I fear that once again, idealism has struck. Instead of comparing the ideal against the real---as any sensible realist would---I suspect you of comparing the real against the ideal, and (as always) finding the real to be unacceptable. Often times in history the *more* civilized and *less* barbaric won. For example, the Spanish defeated the Aztecs. Of course, today, with idealism reigning supreme, all we remember is the brutality of the Spanish. But what they replaced was far, far worse: ritual torture and human sacrifice were an integral part of both the Aztec and Mayan religions. > > This has always been a fatal flaw in the Western psyche and in Western > > traditions. Barbaric mobsters were able to take over many neighborhoods > > in Chicago and New York in the 1920s and 30s simply because the > > civilized law-abiding people of Illinois and New York State could not > > understand that the circumstances were no longer as the American founders > > [knew]. > > San Francisco, on the other hand...., rounded up the perpetrators, gave them > > quick but fair trials with no appeal, and hung most of them forthwith. And > > civilization was restored. > > I admire that sort of initiative and applaud the establishment of justice. If our > protectors fail us let us protect ourselves. But how? As a lynch mob? > Can't we do a little better? Please stay within the confines of what is realistic. We may *try* always to do the best we can, but let not the good become the enemy of the perfect. > Were the judges and juries hanged too? No. > What caused them to take bribes? This conversation is getting ridiculous. But just what I'd expect from an idealist! I suppose. > With foresight we can choose the path that doesn't lead to barbarism. Try telling that to Romulus Augustus, the last emperor, or any of a dozen of his predecessors. Sometimes you're lucky to just stay alive. Again, we can *try*, but there is no guarantee of success, as you know, and often we must settle for something far from perfect. > > The "brutes" had to be hanged or shot, you understand. And if > > Thomas thinks that this is "brutal", then let him cheer as society > > crumbles in south central Los Angeles and other places---all > > quite legally. Let the gangs rule: many people, probably including > > Thomas, prefer gangs like those of Al Capone or the Cribs to be > > in control, to the "brutal" repression of such that is necessary by > > civlized men. > > I would characterize this as an irrational belief in the efficacy of > violent justice. I understand that "big brother" is supposed to keep > us safe from all the "little brothers," but as we approach the > singularity, I feel it's time we got serious about establishing a > non coercive society. Oh, good grief. What a dreamer. Here we have the acme of non-coercive societies in all of human history, and you want to put to deadly risk what we have achieved, all for the illusion of perfection. "We" will never have any "non-coercive society" that will meet your idealistic standards. Until human nature changes there will be brutal cops to deal with brutal criminals. And the fact that more of those brutal criminals are not behind bars is entirely due to the bloody idealists who grant them stay after stay after stay of judicial niceties. > > Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. > Evil doesn't triumph. It defeats itself. What a load of crap, pardon my english. I suppose that the Nazis defeated themselves? I suppose that the hewing and slaughtering Vikings defeated themselves? This is so typical. What rubbish. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Dec 12 06:09:47 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:09:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] How Dangerous Our Times? (was Rational force?) References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com><00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net><62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com><003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677><1165823095.12825.7.camel@localhost><000b01c71cf2$04f7f1d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0612110635o2e7e9039n5c5674ca03e84e4e@mail.gmail.com><013401c71d9c$bc939240$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0612112126h32adc932nd0dc570dee70a1f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <015701c71db4$354631e0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell writes > On 12/12/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > It is indeed dangerous. Life does not proceed without risks. > > To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late; Already you're displaying unhealthy pessimism. Are you *totally* sure that there is zero percent chance that cryonics will work? Whence such certainty? > But here's why I think our current time is such a desperate crisis: > we're floating, gasping in a void, tech-wise. *Our* times are desperate? I humbly suggest you read more history, and put yourselves in the invariably precarious position of our ancestors. Now *those* times were desperate, at least for each individual. True: there may be greater global risks than in 1820, but six plus billion people are not going to just vanish from the face of the Earth as you suggest below. > As the West crumbles, people will not forget how to make > tractors and rifles - for those things can be sustained by a > small community, perhaps towns and their surrounding fields > and villages, machine tools and workshops, early 20th > century tech. Are you worrying here mostly about Moslem takeovers or AI getting out of hand? Or just global warming? > They will forget how to make 65 nanometer chips, for those > things can only be sustained by a great civilization, > economically viable in the field of a billion consumers with > wealth and leisure time to spare for video games and $5 > billion factories. There have been setbacks before. If a huge war had taken place between the USSR and the USA, then progress would have been set back perhaps 100 years. I consider greatly exaggerated all the projections of world wide apocalypse. > filled core" to fade to the end? > I think not. There is a reachable edge. With sufficiently advanced > hardware technology, factories can be made on the scale of a town > - or a Kalpana One. With sufficiently advanced software technology, > machines can be programmed by a small team rather than requiring > man-millennia of labor. The current desperate void is a passing stage. That's the spirit! > If I fail to figure out the software half in time, it won't be for lack of > trying; but let's try to not actively cut the available time please? Okay! > If we can't create, then not destroy? If we can't defeat the enemy > called Death now, then not do his work, nor yet surrender, but > hold back the tide as long as we can - nor dynamite the dykes. Right on. Let's keep our economies humming, above all else. Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 06:17:39 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:17:39 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] How Dangerous Our Times? (was Rational force?) In-Reply-To: <015701c71db4$354631e0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> <003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1165823095.12825.7.camel@localhost> <000b01c71cf2$04f7f1d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0612110635o2e7e9039n5c5674ca03e84e4e@mail.gmail.com> <013401c71d9c$bc939240$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0612112126h32adc932nd0dc570dee70a1f0@mail.gmail.com> <015701c71db4$354631e0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0612112217w148efc99t4e30759000f79738@mail.gmail.com> On 12/12/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Already you're displaying unhealthy pessimism. Are you *totally* > sure that there is zero percent chance that cryonics will work? > Whence such certainty? No certainty at all - have you read my post on SL4, "Donaldson, Tegmark and AGI"? *Our* times are desperate? I humbly suggest you read more > history, and put yourselves in the invariably precarious position > of our ancestors. Now *those* times were desperate, at least > for each individual. And, fair point; I have done just as you suggest and I try to keep this in mind. I'm a pragmatic pessimist, but hey, the bright side of being a pessimist is your surprises are more likely to be good ones. That's the spirit! > Good, we're on the same page! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 12 08:18:31 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:18:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] How Dangerous Our Times? (was Rational force?) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0612112217w148efc99t4e30759000f79738@mail.gmail.com> References: <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> <003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1165823095.12825.7.camel@localhost> <000b01c71cf2$04f7f1d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0612110635o2e7e9039n5c5674ca03e84e4e@mail.gmail.com> <013401c71d9c$bc939240$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0612112126h32adc932nd0dc570dee70a1f0@mail.gmail.com> <015701c71db4$354631e0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0612112217w148efc99t4e30759000f79738@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061212081831.GK6974@leitl.org> On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 06:17:39AM +0000, Russell Wallace wrote: > Already you're displaying unhealthy pessimism. Are you *totally* > sure that there is zero percent chance that cryonics will work? > Whence such certainty? > > No certainty at all - have you read my post on SL4, "Donaldson, > Tegmark and AGI"? I don't see any relevance of Tegmark and AGI to whether cryonics can work. Your bottleneck is information erasure through structure denaturation during suspension, and this is purely empirical. If you don't know, no amount of rumination will give you that information. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 08:20:40 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:20:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? In-Reply-To: <014701c71db2$cb76e760$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <26370.49071.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > Samantha writes > > > On Dec 10, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > >> I agree with you that we must abhor torture, keep > it > >> illegal, and abstain from detaining our citizens > without charges. But > >> those caught on the battlefield under the flag of > no country have, in > >> my opinion, none of the legal rights of American > civilians. > > > > They have all the rights of human beings since > that is what they are. > > Rights in the abstract again, I suppose. There > aren't any such things. > There are legal rights established by custom or law. > The rest are > merely things you happen to approve of. > They have *no* legal rights, I repeat. Those caught > on the battlefield > under the flag of no enemy should be captured and > dealt with summarily. Beware, Lee, you tread a slippery slope. If you are dispensing with all abstractions as being "unreal" then why not dispense with your money? Its value is after all abstract and you can't eat a banknote nor could you barter another day of life from nature with it. Then while you are at it then why not start disbelieving in the laws of the state? After all every shred of law from the U.S. Constitution down to the rules of chess are but abstract constraints that have no physical reality. Those lines on the street are just paint, after all, and not walls. Then if you truly must rid yourself of all abstraction then you must dispense with math, reason, all your favorite stories, and in the end your very memories and identity. After all Lee Corbin is but an abstraction and the physical reality is a hairless ape huddled against the ineffable abyss. > > Our founding documents make explicit that rights > are not a matter of > > citizenship in this or that country. There are > also international > > conventions on such matters that we are > signatories to despite this > > administration's insistence it can ignore such at > its sole discretion. > Those conventions were---so far as I > know---established as rules > of appropriate conduct between civilized nations. Contrary to what you seem to suggest Lee, governments have never served to "give" people rights. At best, governments can protect the rights you already have. At worst, they attempt to steal or work around your rights. I love the Constitution as much as any American, but I know that mouldering document can't protect me. I was a fool to think that it could ever shield me from a water balloon let alone the stormtroopers of tyranny. At best the Constitution serves to REMIND you and I that we have those rights. It also serves to remind us that the government was supposed to have limits. Limits it has already overstepped. We Americans must stop relying on the ghosts of well-intentioned dead men, whose bones have long turned to dust, to protect us. This is every bit as foolish as any superstition. We must instead learn to fight our own battles once again. The consequences if we do not is that the never-ending "war on terror" will slowly by degrees morph itself into the "reign of terror". You have been warned. > The "nations" > the West is fighting against---or I should say, > trying to fight against--- > are not at all civilized. Their barbarism knows no > bounds. Yet for all their unbounded barbarism, has their death toll in the 1500 years since Muhammed equaled the death toll of one night of our "civilized" bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki? How is that you protest so at them cutting the head off a man with a knife. Yet you and millions of other Americans will pay good money to walk into a theater and watch the simulation of a man doing the same to dozens of people with a chainsaw? Do not be so fast to dispense judgement upon forces you do not comprehend. > Why don't you and some of the other idealists here > go into the tough > parts of town and see how far you get rendering > niceties to the gangs > you encounter there? I have, Lee. I have gone into such neighborhoods many times in the past and I am sure I will again in the future. For her part, Samantha would probably fare much better than you in those parts of town too. Your fear is so glaringly evident, its like a spiritual beacon for violence. You seem like a "bully-magnet". If I can sense it over the Internet, you will look irresistable to the desperate souls in any "tough" neighborhood. Where you see "gangs", I see the poorly-armed but nonetheless ARMED "last hope of America". Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From thomas at thomasoliver.net Tue Dec 12 09:31:41 2006 From: thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:31:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is the Golden Rule rational? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67B00C98-E638-4AAC-A3DA-34341D3E4DCF@thomasoliver.net> On Dec 11, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > Thomas wrote: > > >> I wonder how an extropic Golden Rule >> would read. I think its essence is >> equal justice. >> > > Could you describe and/or provide some examples of how "equal justice" > might work? I'm aware of a great deal of injustice in the world, > but I > suppose I think of it as a symptom of more fundamental problems, > rather > than as a problem that could be solved in any way direct way. As a > father I never treated my children equally, but tried to nurture > each of > them differently according to their particular character, strengths, > weaknesses, and needs. Of course they didn't have the necessary > context > to appreciate this and would sometimes claim that I wasn't being fair. > Harrison Bergeron comes to mind. I'm really not reaching for the unattainable here. I didn't appreciate having my case dismissed because I named the real humans who wronged me instead of the statutory agent for their stinking little corporation. They outnumbered me and had a little more money to buy into a system of dodging the responsibility of keeping their agreement. Equal justice works to give every citizen (no favored classes) recourse, as direct as possible, with due process. I'm not speaking of coerced equality. That's a ghastly thought! > >> What little I know of systems theory >> seems to favor sacrificing smaller systems >> (individuals) to the good of larger systems. >> > > Well, what I know of systems theory never included the idea of > "sacrificing" as you seem to be using it, and I don't think you're > referring to fuses or other such frangible components. My > understanding > of systems theory involves ideas of optimization within constraints > with > each subsystem or component playing an essential role. I don't find > any > injustice in tires wearing out before the engine, nor of privates > being > shot at while the general works in an office. > > Going along with an apparent underdog theme in some of your posts, > there > certainly is a gradient of power and attendant abuses in society, > but I > don't see that as a result of systems thinking--seems (to me) more > like > the result of dimly aware slightly evolved primates who really > could use > some systems thinking. So how do such beings get to be president? Is there no direct way to prevent that? > > Maybe I'm missing your point, or maybe we're exploring some biases > here. > Can you provide some examples? I think if the private were drafted, that would be an injustice. There's a difference between a natural hierarchy based on strength or intelligence (ability) and a contrived and manipulated systematic hierarchy based on intimidation just as there is a difference between natural consequences for actions and contrived added punishments. If you run a red light you have a collision (naturally) or you may get a citation (contrived). I do not favor any system that ramps up the level of compulsion in society. >> As an individual I'm interested in avoiding >> the "tyranny of the majority" and in >> contributing to an expanding >> "cooperative environment." >> > > You have my full agreement and support here. > > >> The break point >> between these two goals seems to be the >> willingness to use coercion. >> > > I fail to grasp your point here. Please elaborate? Sorry, that was confusing. On the one hand I'm individuating from society and on the other I'm merging. Facing the possibility of being coerced furthers withdrawal and discourages contribution. Otherwise the two goals are compatible. >> I've been >> struggling to conceive a society of >> unanimous spheres >> > > Did you perhaps intend to say autonomous spheres? No, but lets include that. I'm afraid I over economized with my words. To rephrase: I've been struggling to conceive a society of autonomous spheres comprised of individuals in unanimous accord. > >> wherein each individual >> can fully identify with the larger >> sphere-system and where the variety of >> spheres could interact sans coercion. >> > > I think I'm with you here. It sounds similar to my dream of > positive-sum > social decision-making replacing today's predominate system of > competition over scarcity. I'd definitely like to hear more on this! >> Paul Wafker's Natural Social Contract >> >> is an example of a tool that might help >> establish safe social spheres. I like >> the idea of citizenship by agreement >> rather than by default. >> > > I spent over an hour reading this web site but what did I get from it? > Only that it appeared to be nearly a stream of consciousness dump from > someone who had apparently spent many years reading and rereading Ayn > Rand, Libertarian, and Austrian School material until it wore ruts in > his brain. There are probably people on this list who know him > personally; I'm sorry if I've offended anyone. He uses many of the > same > phrases I do so it was a bit scary. I don't think I'd sign that contract, but I would subscribe to the extropian Golden Rule sphere. > >> I think I would like to live in a sphere >> with no collective property title and, >> thus, no public treasury, no corporate >> veil nor community property disputes. >> Our brainstems' territorial impulses >> might be muted to a sub violent level >> when each of us is solely responsible >> (and liable) for what we have and what >> we do with it. I've moved in this >> direction in my personal life and >> thereby distanced myself from some >> infantile impulses (mine and others'). > > Sounds like you're taking the first steps... > >> Now, how do I expand the scope of my >> interactions in a sphere that seems >> to oscillate between altruism and >> solipsism with little in between? > > Well, what skills do you have and what do you like to do? I'm a musician and I enjoy performing and producing recordings. > > - Jef From amara at amara.com Tue Dec 12 09:56:53 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:56:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear spring Message-ID: Dear Spike, >I recall years ago Carl Sagan making the case that if the US and the >commies nuke each other, the dust particles kicked into the air would >increase the albedo of the earth and cause a nuclear winter, a new ice >age. Those are the famous TTAPS papers: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&qform=AST&sim_query=YES&ned_query=YES&aut_logic=OR&obj_logic=OR&author=Turco%2C+R.P.%2C%0D%0AToon%2C+O.B.%2C%0D%0AAckerman%2C+T.P.%2C%0D%0APollack%2C+J.B.%0D%0ASagan%2C+C.&object=&start_mon=01&start_year=1980&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=OR&title=&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=100&start_nr=1&jou_pick=ALL&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&end_entry_day=&end_entry_mon=&end_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE&data_type=SHORT&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&obj_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1 With an update here: Nuclear Winter: Physics and Physical Mechanisms R.P.Turco, O.B. Toon, T.P. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack, C. Sagan Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. (1991) 19, 282-422. It's a dense paper, well-written, and I expect you will find what you are looking for there. I purchased the paper last summer, thinking about the Antarctica volcano: Erebus' strombolian eruptions, and what might be the transport mechanisms of dust into the upper atmosphere. I'll email it to you. Amara -- *********************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario, CNR - ARTOV, Via del Fosso del Cavaliere, 100, I-00133 Roma, ITALIA tel: +39-06-4993-4375 | fax: +39-06-4993-4383 Amara.Graps at ifsi-roma.inaf.it http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/dustgroup/~graps/ ************************************************************************ "We came whirling out of Nothingness scattering stars like dust." --Rumi From pharos at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 10:56:08 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:56:08 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear spring? In-Reply-To: <200612120537.kBC5bY9r017754@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20978094.141391165725002266.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <200612120537.kBC5bY9r017754@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 12/12/06, spike wrote: > > I recall years ago Carl Sagan making the case that if the US and the commies > nuke each other, the dust particles kicked into the air would increase the > albedo of the earth and cause a nuclear winter, a new ice age. But what if > Iran and Israel go at each other with nukes? They have only a fraction of > the numbers Sagan was assuming, so what happens then? > > Is there a relatively small cooling effect that offsets global warming? > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061211/ap_on_sc/nuclear_winter > > A grim scenario is this. Israel has now admitted that they have nukes, and > the world is standing by as Ahmadinijehad leads Iran into the club. We can > see this coming as clearly as if it has already happened: those two guys are > going to get into it, possibly soon. Any speculation on which effect is > greater, a small nuclear winter or global warming? > Remember Carl Sagan makes errors just like everybody else. :) The nuclear winter scenario generally assumed that half of the worlds nuclear weapons would be used, ~5000 Mt, destroying approximately 1,000 cities, and creating large quantities of carbonaceous smoke. But a small nuclear exchange would not have such severe effects. Quote: The burning of 526 Kuwaiti oil wells during the Persian Gulf War showed the effects of vast emissions of particulate matter into the atmosphere in a geographically limited area; directly underneath the smoke plume constrained model calculations suggested that daytime temperature may have dropped by ~10?C within ~200 km of the source. [5] Cornell Professor Carl Sagan, of the TTAPS study, predicted on ABC's Nightline that the smoky oil fires could cause a worldwide ecological disaster of black clouds resulting in global cooling. Retired atmospheric physicist and climate change skeptic Fred Singer dismissed Sagan's prediction as nonsense, predicting that the smoke would dissipate in a matter of days. In his book The Demon-Haunted World, Sagan gave a list of errors he had made (including his predictions about the effects of the Kuwaiti oil fires) as an example of how science is a learning process. -------------------------- A new study, as discussed in the Yahoo news article predicts: We use a modern climate model and new estimates of smoke generated by fires in contemporary cities to calculate the response of the climate system to a regional nuclear war between emerging third world nuclear powers using 100 Hiroshima-size bombs (less than 0.03% of the explosive yield of the current global nuclear arsenal) on cities in the subtropics. We find significant cooling and reductions of precipitation lasting years, which would impact the global food supply. --------------------------- So 100 nuclear bombs on *cities* would still have severe effects lasting for years. So it depends on how many nuclear bombs (and conventional bombs) the US plans to use on Iran to destroy their underground nuclear facilities and ensure their army is no longer a threat. It must be very tempting for the military to use nuclear weapons, rather than have night after night of conventional bombing for a period of months. (The bombing might be done via Israel, of course, to give the US plausible deniability). BillK From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Dec 12 12:04:22 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:04:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] (offlist) Re: How Dangerous Our Times? (was Rational force?) References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com><4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net><62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com><003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677><1165823095.12825.7.camel@localhost><000b01c71cf2$04f7f1d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0612110635o2e7e9039n5c5674ca03e84e4e@mail.gmail.com><013401c71d9c$bc939240$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0612112126h32adc932nd0dc570dee70a1f0@mail.gmail.com><015701c71db4$354631e0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0612112217w148efc99t4e30759000f79738@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <019001c71de5$ad08f470$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> No, your message on Thomas Donaldson, who I knew personally, R.I.P. in a frozen dewar, hopefully, no, I haven't see it show up in the SL4 list that I subscribe to. When was it posted? Thanks, Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: Russell Wallace To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] How Dangerous Our Times? (was Rational force?) On 12/12/06, Lee Corbin wrote: Already you're displaying unhealthy pessimism. Are you *totally* sure that there is zero percent chance that cryonics will work? Whence such certainty? No certainty at all - have you read my post on SL4, "Donaldson, Tegmark and AGI"? *Our* times are desperate? I humbly suggest you read more history, and put yourselves in the invariably precarious position of our ancestors. Now *those* times were desperate, at least for each individual. And, fair point; I have done just as you suggest and I try to keep this in mind. I'm a pragmatic pessimist, but hey, the bright side of being a pessimist is your surprises are more likely to be good ones. That's the spirit! Good, we're on the same page! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ps.udoname at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 21:03:02 2006 From: ps.udoname at gmail.com (ps udoname) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:03:02 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] mathimatical model for the singularity In-Reply-To: References: <28553f510611202314j4852b833m8df7eccf99bc8f22@mail.gmail.com> <28553f510611251120j567c3132wf17bdb36baa274c0@mail.gmail.com> <28553f510612091020s4cad65acpcc18c8b8dbdf15bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <28553f510612111303o2f0d9102u8be3aca0337b2d3b@mail.gmail.com> > > > I believe so. But the transition from nm to fm is one of those difficult > limits I was outlining. Though we can deal with electrons and photons, it > is questionable whether we will be able to eliminate atoms from the > picture. That will place constraints on things. > Indeed, atoms could be the linit of how small we can go. > Yes, those and $1.25 will get you a ride on the Boston MBTA at this time. > What is this Boston MBTA ? >You can approximate the ramp up to it and how fast it may change but unless your equations actually look like an S in the long run -- something like slowly growing from 2006 through ~2020, speeding up significantly and going through the roof from ~2030-2050 and then slowing down signifcantly into something relatively flat from ~2060-70 for the next few hundred years (at least) they don't capture the essence. As I said, I'm sure my model could be based on an S-curve and would then flatten out, and after the change goes through the roof I don't know that we can really mae any predictions. Something like that. People are going to have an interesting time deciding > what is really important after all the "classical" guides (derived from > classical resource limits, selfish genes, etc.) have to be thrown out. > Well, you have been saying that there will still be resource limits, and there will still be selfish memes. Robert > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Dec 12 02:47:12 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:47:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Logical or rational? In-Reply-To: <000a01c71cf0$9d5dd6d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20061212024712.88611.qmail@web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: >I meant in the choice of goals. Suppose that you love >golf and wish to build as many golf courses as >possible. So long as this does not conflict with any >of your other goals, one simply cannot say that this >is logical or illogical. That depends. I think someone wanting to build as many golf courses as possible is a logical goal. I wouldn't think it logical if someone wanted to build as many golf courses as possible and in the process put 300 to 400 families in the street to achieve that goal. It would appear rational for the rich and greedy person that really didn't care. It's not logical because the effect outways the cause. The families that are put on the street will eventually retaliate, you'll have the golf green lanes looking like bonfires, there will be legal problems, harassment, etc. This will eventually lead to conflict with your other goals. Instead, keep the goal, look for the place that doesn't put 300 to 400 families in the street, and everybody wins. That's logical. >> No matter the reasoning (religion, pride, after >>life reward), the effect outweighs the cause. >>Logical is knowing that a life is worth close to >>zero compared to a 1000 lives, that's why the >>bombers are rational but not logical. >But they don't *value* those thousand lives, don't >you see? To them it's as if you refused to step foot >through a forest because you might destroy a thousand >ants. You do walk the forest, and when it really >comes down to it, you don't value the ants. I can sympathize with the suicide bombers to the extent that they are doing what they believe is right. If I woke up every single day and was brainwashed with lies and false accusations, I could very well have been born that same suicide bomber. They where just not taught to be logical. That's why I wondered if the suicide bombers did know the 1000 people personaly, would they have the capability to perform the same goal? >being irrational is knowing at some level what you >really most want to do, but not being able to do >it. >>No. I believe rational is knowing what it is to be >>irrational and choosing to be irrational. No, I was wrong:) I believe for now, that rational is based on belief. Irrational is knowing logic and choosing to be irrational anyway. Your saying: I want to eat fast food but I can't do it. I'm saying: Although I know fast food is not good for my health, i'm going to order a pizza:) Again, I just wanted to know if I was grasping some of the ideas, I hope I have. Happy Holidays Anna:) PS. >To say "I'm sorry because I thought that the moon was >made of green cheese" is overkill. Maybe. It's just the way I am. >>I have nothing to prove and a lot to learn, sorry >>you don't feel the same. What I meant is that I can't help being me. I apologize when I believe i'm wrong. >But I do feel the same about that. I did say that we >were in the same boat: and that includes trying to >learn and trying to have an open mind. I don't know >where you inferred that I think I don't have a lot to >learn. My apology if I gave you that impression:) It wasn't what I meant. > P.S. The quality of your writing and quoting and so > on is really improving! Thanks for the effort! Thanks for noticing. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Dec 12 12:39:41 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:39:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rights and Moral Indignation References: <26370.49071.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <019901c71deb$4c8d7ed0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart writes in an incredible post >> >> But those caught on the battlefield >> >> under the flag of no country have, in >> >> my opinion, none of the legal rights >> >> of American civilians. >> > >> > They have all the rights of human >> > beings since that is what they are. >> >> Rights in the abstract again, I suppose. >> There aren't any such things. There are >> legal rights established by custom or law. >> The rest are merely things you happen >> to approve of. They have *no* legal >> rights, I repeat. Those caught on the >> battlefield under the flag of no enemy >> should be captured and >> dealt with summarily. > > Beware, Lee, you tread a slippery slope. Yes, that is true. But beware of "slippery slope" arguments. Just because you want to move a little in some direction does not mean that a total slide to the end in that direction becomes inevitable. > If you are dispensing with all abstractions as being > "unreal" then why not dispense with your money? Sorry for giving the wrong impression--- it happens that I strongly believe in the reality of abstractions. They are actually existing patterns in the universe. I'm neo- Platonist, you might say. But the "rights" argument is an old one on this list. I have an open mind, but I still think that all the "Natural rights" stuff is wrong. There are many things wrong with it. One is cultural: it's just a side- effect of Western values; in China and Japan such a concept would seems downright peculiar and totally arbitrary. Secondly, *these* particular abstractions ---"rights"---I do claim to not really exist. (Unlike money, or the the number 17, or *democracy*, or other abstractions that have value and which do exist.) Show me an argument that rights exist, oh, say, before the advent of civilization. Or, say, before the Magna Carta, or whatever. > ... > Then while you are at it then why not start > Then if you truly must rid yourself of all abstraction > then you must dispense with math, reason, all your > favorite stories, Not at all! I do believe in abstractions, I do believe, I do believe! I do believe in abstractions! (But not in fairies, if you get my Peter Pan drift.) > and in the end your very memories and > identity. After all Lee Corbin is but an > abstraction Am not!! > Contrary to what you seem to suggest Lee, governments > have never served to "give" people rights. I TOTALLY agree! Absolutely! Especially as I contend that rights in the abstract don't exist. It's people who should *assert* legal rights; legal rights---as you write---are *not* to be dispensed by any stupid governments from on-high. > I love the Constitution as much as any American, but I > know that moldering document can't protect me. I was > a fool to think that it could ever shield me from a > water balloon let alone the stormtroopers of tyranny. Well, as James Madison wrote "Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks -- no form of government can render us secure. To suppose liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them." In other words, if the people don't have enough character, then the game's up anyway. Don't *expect* a piece of paper to protect you. But sorry, that's your point, not mine :-) > We Americans must stop relying on the ghosts of > well-intentioned dead men, whose bones have long > turned to dust, to protect us. This is every bit as > foolish as any superstition. We must instead learn to > fight our own battles once again. Yes, the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance. > The consequences if we do not is that the > never-ending "war on terror" will slowly > by degrees morph itself into the "reign of > terror". You have been warned. Yes, we had this argument not long ago. I agree that it is a real risk. But there is also a risk letting more and more nations get nuclear weapons, and a risk of letting more and more infiltrators into Western countries. These risks must be balanced. >> The "nations" the West is fighting >> against---or I should say, trying >> to fight against---are not at all civilized. >> Their barbarism knows no bounds. > > Yet for all their unbounded barbarism, has their death > toll in the 1500 years since Mohammed equaled the > death toll of one night of our "civilized" bombings of > Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki? Well that's, duh, *only* because they didn't have H-bombs! What do you think would have happened to the enemies of Islam if they did have such weapons? Do you think a bunch of them would suddenly convene under a tent somewhere and say "Oh but these new weapons are too terrible to use!". Come now. > How is that you protest so at them cutting > the head off a man with a knife. Yet you > and millions of other Americans will pay > good money to walk into a theater and > watch the simulation of a man doing the > same to dozens of people with a chainsaw? Maybe because the audience knows the difference between fantasy and reality? > I have, Lee. I have gone into such neighborhoods many > times in the past and I am sure I will again in the > future. For her part, Samantha would probably fare > much better than you in those parts of town too. Your > fear is so glaringly evident, its like a spiritual > beacon for violence. You seem like a "bully-magnet". Oh, so now it's *my* fault if I get roughed up while you and Samantha were to look on? This is one of the most egregious defenses of evil I've ever seen of evil. Just because they don't pick on you, that makes them okay? > Where you see "gangs", I see the poorly > armed but nonetheless ARMED "last hope > of America". My God. We are truly doomed, when you and people like you look to the vicious urban gangs as the last hope of America. Was Al Capone one of your heroes too? How about those in the gangs who kill hundreds of their fellow wonderful hoodlums each year in the big cities? Your heroes? The last best hope of America?? What do you want me to do? Get a gun and start selling drugs (as should be my right)? Form my own gang? Is that how I'll get any respect from you? Then if I kill enough people and show how tough I am and that I can resist the cops, will I become one of your heroes too? People who act (as though you sound) and who passively watch the law-abiding get beaten down by criminals and toughs because the law-abiding were openly critical of the gangsters and hoodlums really give me a pain. I saw the same thing in Junior High school. Some people I knew didn't hate the bullies at all, but just blamed those who got in their way, or were nerds, or wore the wrong clothes and got picked on as a result. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Dec 12 13:24:38 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:24:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets References: <26370.49071.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <019d01c71df0$e8b2d8a0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> I am still so upset and inflamed at The Avantguardian's post that I must say more. Stuart wrote > [Lee wrote] >> Why don't you and some of the >> other idealists here go into the tough >> parts of town and see how far you >> get rendering niceties to the gangs >> you encounter there? > > I have, Lee. I have gone into such neighborhoods many > times in the past and I am sure I will again in the > future. For her part, Samantha would probably fare > much better than you in those parts of town too. And you think it's acceptable that people "those parts of town" can get away with beating up, mugging and robbing people? > Your fear is so glaringly evident, its like a spiritual > beacon for violence. You seem like a "bully-magnet". It's not fear. It's my utter contempt and hatred of bullies that does it. Yes, I was a "bully magnet", as you put it, in school, and I suppose I still am. Yes, I was afraid of them. But I always stood my ground, too, and I did get beat up a couple of times. > If I can sense it over the Internet, you will look > irresistable to the desperate souls in any "tough" > neighborhood. [DESPERATE SOULS, he > calls them!!] And that will be *my* fault, I suppose! How in God's name can you blame the victims the way you're doing? I despair at the moral cowardice of not standing up to bullies and hoodlums. But I absolutely HATE those who in any way defend the hoodlums and bullies because their victims were "bully magnets" or were "asking for it". "Desperate souls", you call them. Oh, the poor things. They drag people out of cars and beat them to death, or merely rob them. The poor things! And who's to really blame? Let me guess: our society that does not meet their "needs". Oh, no. I misspoke. It's the people in the cars who go into the wrong neighborhoods who are to blame because they are "bully magnets". In like manner, the women who dress wrong are just "asking for it", and deserve to be raped? Just wondering. This really pushes my buttons because I do very much remember the way it was in high school, and how my "friends" would blame *me* because I got picked on. I now see what I should have done. I was pretty strong myself, and I should have balled up my fist and punched out my so-called friends. Then they'd see that I was really one of the good guys, one of the bullies who cannot be blamed. I guess. > Where you see "gangs", I see the poorly-armed but > nonetheless ARMED "last hope of America". Well---have you thought of sending in your contributions to some of the tougher gangs in L.A.? I'm sure that they would appreciate the support. Oh---I forgot---you probably already support the ACLU, and they surely lean over backwards to make sure that inner city gangs are not overly bothered by the police or anyone, and are probably working as hard as they can to see that inner city criminals qualify for welfare programs. These animals---and that is the mildest term I have for them---these animals who thrive on crime and a repudiation of everything that is good or noble in our civilization all deserve to be rounded up and executed. And those like you who fail to recognize evil are in my eyes little short of evil themselves. Lee From artillo at comcast.net Tue Dec 12 13:26:15 2006 From: artillo at comcast.net (artillo at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:26:15 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE info from a seasoned veteran Message-ID: <121220061326.6641.457EADF700093C8B000019F12206424613010404079B9D0E@comcast.net> Yeah, Mac users have been fairly poorly supported in the past with the SL client, but it has been improving from what some of my Mac using buddies tell me. As far as overall connection speed to the net, my Comcast cable used to be 3 megabit and SL still ran pretty good even with that. My guess is that it's your graphics card most of all that's the slowest part of things, but again, depends on where you are in-world as well. :D -------------- Original message -------------- From: Randall Randall > On Dec 11, 2006, at 11:01 PM, artillo at comcast.net wrote: > > There are many things one can do to reduce lag/frame rates to an > > acceptable level, in the preferences menu some of the largest > > culprits are having local lighting turned on, having draw distance > > set very high (I leave mine between 64 and 128m and it's usually a > > very manageable 20-30fps with my system), having certain detail > > levels set very high versus what your gpu can handle, and also > > having particle effects set high (I usually have my particles set > > to less than 1024). There are lots and lots of useful suggestions > > by longtime users about how to reduce lag and what are it's causes > > if you look in the SL forums. http://forums.secondlife.com . > > Unfortunately, a sim that has 35 people in it will DEFINITELY run > > much slower than a sim that has 3 people in it, and also private > > islands tend to be run on slightly better servers so they also > > perform better even with a lot of people around, primarily because > > they dont have to bring in data from adjacent servers that comes > > within draw ! > > distanc > > e. > > > > My system is about 3 years old and handles SL very well, even when > > I am running several other programs at the same time. My system is > > an ASUS P4P800 motherboard (800mhz bus) with a Pentium 4 2.4GHz > > processor, 1GB of PC3200 RAM, an ATI Radeon 9600 pro 128mb AGP > > graphics card and a 5 megabit cable connection. SL supposedly runs > > better with Nvidia based cards, but other than not rendering waves > > on water correctly for my ATI card, I don't see much difference. > > I wonder if that 2MB difference in our connections can really be > so important? I suppose it could be. > > > As far as comparing SL to a game such as WoW... that's not > > comparing apples to apples at all. The entire world of Warcraft is > > prerendered and resides in the client's computer. A relatively > > small amount of data is actually exchanged between the player's > > client machine and the game servers (such as avatar location, > > combat stats, IM's, etc.) as compared with Second Life which is > > streaming in an enormous amount of data to be rendered/handled by > > the client. SL does some little tricks to help things along, such > > as having all of it's prims as parametrically created objects that > > are generated by the client's computer rather than having large > > polygon meshes downloaded. > > > > The fact that you can BUILD in realtime and create all of your own > > unique content in SL (scripts, animations, textures, guestures, > > sounds, and composite objects etc.) even further separates it from > > the MMO gaming world, which uses preexisting libraries of objects > > and predetermined animation sequences for its characters. > > I agree that SL is far more ambitious in scope than games > like WoW, and I'm not seriously comparing SL as a whole to > WoW. Rather, I'm just saying that WoW is *so* much smoother > and faster than SL (on my computer; I guess this is really > uncommon), that it points out how well SL could run on this > hardware. > > If you watched the movie I made, you'll note that the textures > of everything are already pretty basic. However, I just logged > in again to look, and sure enough, I had many of the graphics > settings in the upper range. Turning them all down didn't > seem to have much effect. > > Maybe what I'm seeing is a really crappy video card in this > iMac model. > > > > -- > Randall Randall > "You don't help someone by looking at their list of options and > eliminating the one they chose!" -- David Henderson > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 14:24:51 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:24:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working In-Reply-To: <1725A7AD-F6C4-4EA6-B923-B80CEB22602B@randallsquared.com> References: <20061210185140.GF6974@leitl.org> <3280AAEA-0622-431B-9672-8F1B7969569F@randallsquared.com> <20061211110922.GO6974@leitl.org> <0332D8EA-DDC7-4A59-A798-C7237A9BC101@randallsquared.com> <1725A7AD-F6C4-4EA6-B923-B80CEB22602B@randallsquared.com> Message-ID: On 12/11/06, Randall Randall wrote: > I'm sure there are lots of reasons why SL can't be expected > to be as fast as WoW, yet, including having to download most > of the world through the internet, while WoW has the basic > world already on one's hard drive. That said, on a fairly > recent iMac, SL is essentially unusable so far. Randall, have you any idea how large you disk cache size is in SL? And are you constantly exploring new scenes or revisiting old ones? The question is is there a difference between when you are looking at new data vs. cached data? I don't know if the Mac has it (though I suspect it easily could) but I find the gnome-system-monitor (or "top" or "vmstat") to be highly useful in such situations. I can watch in "real-time" the CPU vs. Memory Use vs. Network vs. Disk activity which in complex cases like this is what one needs to diagnose the problem. For example I can tell whether I'm using Direct Rendering of graphics (taking advantage of the hardware) or using Indirect Rendering simply by watching the CPU load of the program. Windows also has a "System Monitor" program but it goes a little bit over the deep end with regard to how much information it gives you (I've nearly got a degree in Comp Sci and presumably understand all of the information it can give you but I find dealing with it a royal pain in the a**). The Linux tools strike a relatively good balance to allow you to get a good feel for what the machine is actually doing. Oh, and for those not following the thread, Eugen is running a glxgears FPS rate 7x faster than I am which in turn is 2-3x faster than one would get using indirect rendering (this is on mid-range 2.3+GHz P4 & above machines). For a lark I might try glxgears on the 75MHz Pentium downstairs that is about a decade old.... And "they" say the singularity isn't coming... Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Tue Dec 12 14:31:42 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:31:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear spring Message-ID: Bill K >Remember Carl Sagan makes errors just like everybody else. :) That's a misleading statement. Qualitatively, the TTAPS studies were correct. Quantitatively, the models improved as the data and the dimensionality and the grid resolution on the models improved. (I don't think that the original computer models were 3D, for example.) to sum up: Yes, the initial predictions were probably wrong. Yes, the physics was/is probably right. Amara From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 15:12:50 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:12:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] mathimatical model for the singularity In-Reply-To: <28553f510612111303o2f0d9102u8be3aca0337b2d3b@mail.gmail.com> References: <28553f510611202314j4852b833m8df7eccf99bc8f22@mail.gmail.com> <28553f510611251120j567c3132wf17bdb36baa274c0@mail.gmail.com> <28553f510612091020s4cad65acpcc18c8b8dbdf15bf@mail.gmail.com> <28553f510612111303o2f0d9102u8be3aca0337b2d3b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/11/06, ps udoname wrote: > > > Indeed, atoms could be the linit of how small we can go. > We can deal with smaller individual entities such as single electrons or single photons the problem is that it generally requires a fair number of atoms to manipulate them [1]. The atoms/quantities manipulated becomes the constraint because that determines how closely one can pack the computronium subunits. It will be interesting to see whether the speed of light or the waste heat removal limits become the ultimate constraint on computational throughput. Yes, those and $1.25 will get you a ride on the Boston MBTA at this time. > > > > What is this Boston MBTA ? > The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. $1.25 gets you on the subway, $0.90 on the bus, but the prices go up in January. 1. One might observe that the power sources, air conditioners and radiators for many high capacity computing centers could well be larger than the compuntronium itself (in terms of volume and surface area) at this time. When "everything" is computronium one no longer has this luxury. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 14:53:50 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:53:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Cable Speeds and delays [was: related to SecondLife] Message-ID: One thing I have started to notice lately on our Comcast Cable with the Digital Box (as vs. the analog feeds for channels 2-99) is that it is taking *much* longer to change TV channels (it is easy to skip through 5 channels and have to wait 5-10 seconds for the box to catch up). The digital cable box output is also delayed N seconds (~30?) relative to the analog broadcasts (on the *same* channel over the same cable). Now Comcast (and presumably the other cable companies) are adding more and more internet & voice connections (there advertising in this area is very aggressive) to their existing cable base. I am beginning to wonder whether the delays observed in channel switching and/or broadcast channel presentation are in part due to them starting to hit the limits of the data capacity on the cables themselves. I also wonder if they aren't turning a necessity (the cable bandwidth limitations) into a marketing selling point (their "SpeedBoost"(?) claims where you get faster than your "paid for" bandwidth). By shoving more data to single customers in shorter periods one frees up the cable bandwidth to feed more data to other customers. But I have to wonder if taking on the internet & voice customers (voice particularly has to have "real time" response) is not ultimately going to result in the degradation of "normal" cable service (as seems to be the case with channel switching delays). They've got 999 channels worth of bandwidth (maybe) but they don't have 1 channel of full time bandwidth to 9999 customers [1]. There are ways to handle this (higher speed fiber to local cable distribution "hubs") but that isn't infrastructure that the CableCos typically have installed. So I'm wondering if the customer is going to get screwed in their efforts to milk the consumer of more $$$? If anyone really understands how cable "data" really works or has some good references on it I'd like to know about them [2]. Robert 1. I'd have to go do some research but I think the data requirements for 1 TV channel are ~= 1-5 Mbit data service (particularly if one is opting for HDTV cable on some channels). 2. Sitting in a town using DSL surrounded by towns that have FIOS (fiber) availability. :-( -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 16:10:23 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:10:23 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] How Dangerous Our Times? (was Rational force?) In-Reply-To: <20061212081831.GK6974@leitl.org> References: <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1165823095.12825.7.camel@localhost> <000b01c71cf2$04f7f1d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0612110635o2e7e9039n5c5674ca03e84e4e@mail.gmail.com> <013401c71d9c$bc939240$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0612112126h32adc932nd0dc570dee70a1f0@mail.gmail.com> <015701c71db4$354631e0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0612112217w148efc99t4e30759000f79738@mail.gmail.com> <20061212081831.GK6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0612120810w4c0fab20p4251636f9ec631ec@mail.gmail.com> On 12/12/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > I don't see any relevance of Tegmark and AGI to whether cryonics can > work. Your bottleneck is information erasure through structure > denaturation > during suspension, and this is purely empirical. If you don't know, no amount of rumination will give you that information. Yep, I don't know whether cryonics will work or not but it's rational to try - if it doesn't, you're no deader than you already were. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 16:11:05 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:11:05 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rights and Moral Indignation In-Reply-To: <019901c71deb$4c8d7ed0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <26370.49071.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> <019901c71deb$4c8d7ed0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0612120811t460d6fe3h1056f6564b3cdf60@mail.gmail.com> I'm with Lee on this one, Stuart - are you really counting on muggers and rapists as defenders of your liberty? If you are, I think you'll be disappointed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Dec 12 16:38:21 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:38:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is the Golden Rule rational? In-Reply-To: <67B00C98-E638-4AAC-A3DA-34341D3E4DCF@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: Thomas wrote: > On Dec 11, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: >> Thomas wrote: >>> I wonder how an extropic Golden Rule >>> would read. I think its essence is >>> equal justice. >> >> Could you describe and/or provide some >> examples of how "equal justice" might >> work? I'm aware of a great deal of >> injustice in the world, but I suppose >> I think of it as a symptom of more >> fundamental problems, rather than as >> a problem that could be solved in any >> direct way. > > I'm really not reaching for the unattainable here. I didn't > appreciate having my case dismissed because I named the real > humans who wronged me instead of the statutory agent for > their stinking little corporation. They outnumbered me and > had a little more money to buy into a system of dodging the > responsibility of keeping their agreement. Equal justice > works to give every citizen (no favored classes) recourse, > as direct as possible, with due process. >> Going along with an apparent underdog >> theme in some of your posts, there >> certainly is a gradient of power and >> attendant abuses in society, but I >> don't see that as a result of systems >> thinking--seems (to me) more like the >> result of dimly aware slightly evolved >> primates who really could use some >> systems thinking. > > So how do such beings get to be president? Is there no > direct way to prevent that? Correct. Power works, by definition. So if you want to change things, you need to develop a powerful alternative, preferably one that is seen as moral by working well over an increasing scope of people and interactions. > There's a difference between a natural hierarchy based on > strength or intelligence (ability) and a contrived and > manipulated systematic hierarchy based on intimidation just > as there is a difference between natural consequences for > actions and contrived added punishments. If you run a red > light you have a collision (naturally) or you may get a > citation (contrived). I could argue that getting the traffic citation follows just as naturally as all the other consequences, but it's becoming clear that you're responding from a sense of being a victim, so the key points here for you are (1) understand and accept that things got the way there are because they worked effectively within some past and possibly current context, and (2) see yourself as a force, promoting your values into the future (to the extent that they work (within the scope of reality (to the extent that you understand it.))) You already have everything you could possibly need to begin this project. >>> As an individual I'm interested in avoiding the "tyranny of the >>> majority" and in contributing to an expanding "cooperative >>> environment." > On the one hand I'm individuating from society and on the > other I'm merging. >>> I've been struggling to conceive a society of autonomous >>> spheres comprised of individuals in unanimous accord. >>> wherein each individual can fully identify with the larger >>> sphere-system and where the variety of spheres could interact >>> sans coercion. > I'm a musician and I enjoy performing and producing recordings. Seems to me you're asking questions that will lead you in the direction of growth. It seems also that you will want to integrate the concept of taking reasonable risks in order to create a world that is ever closer to your ideal. Best wishes, - Jef From lucioc at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 17:00:19 2006 From: lucioc at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?L=FAcio_de_Souza_Coelho?=) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:00:19 -0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear winter's back In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061211221129.02214078@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061211221129.02214078@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 12/12/06, Damien Broderick wrote: (...) > "With the exchange of 100 [hiroshima-sized] weapons as posed in this > scenario, the estimated quantities of smoke generated could lead to > global climate anomalies exceeding any changes experienced in > recorded history," said co-author Alan Robock, of Rutgers Univeristy > in New Jersey. "And that's just 0.03 per cent of the total explosive > power of the current world nuclear arsenal." (...) I wouldn't say that an exchange of 100 hiroshima-class bombs is "small". It is small only if you compare that number with the total amount of the world arsenal, but since the vast majority of that arsenal is still in the hands of US and Russia (which have near-zero risk of conflict nowadays), that comparison seems kind of pointless. The nations in considerable risk of nuclear conflict (say, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India) don't have that many bombs (a few dozens each country, I guess) and I would think that only a handful of them would be used. Some of the countries don't even have that much strategic targets for bombs. As far as I understand, Israel for instance has just Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem - if you destroy those two cities, in a way you destroy the whole country. (And the destruction of Jerusalem is particularly troublesome in the sense that it is a holy city for three major religions...) From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 17:01:12 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:01:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Urge for Self Preservation (was Criticizing One's Own Goals---Rational?) In-Reply-To: <011701c71d99$313c36a0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60612111045w1007b8e1j2f476f96de654755@mail.gmail.com> <011701c71d99$313c36a0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7641ddc60612120901he0ce9d8h3d3328ea2f3762ce@mail.gmail.com> On 12/11/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > I had written > > > > The remainder here seems unproblematical, except for the > > > remark about "many-worlds". I would demur from the claim > > > that the *urge* for self-preservation is in any way itself > > > affected. What is changed for one is the realization that self- > > > preservation may be achieved in non-obvious or non-customary > > > ways. > > and Rafal responds > > > ### Well, there are some changes to the real-world meaning of > > self-preservation as soon as you start messing with your definition of > > self. If you decide that your copy is still self, the behavioral > > correlates of self-preservation may change dramatically. In certain > > hypothetical situations you may use your .45 to destroy the > > instantiation of self that is directly controlling the movements of > > the arm holding the gun, that is, you may blow your brains out, if > > necessary to preserve yourself, instantiated in your copies. You and I > > would do it, but people with other definitions of self would not. > > Thank you for the cogent description: yes indeed, the raw behavioral > correlates, as you call them, indeed do change just as you say. An instance > of someone who has suddenly become convinced that copies are selves > may blow its brains out for suitable reward to himself in the other instances. > > But my point above was that the *urge* to self-preservation does not > seem to be affected by whether there are copies or not, or whether MWI > is considered true. It might only appear to the uninitiated that a person > seemed to value his life less; that bystander would simply be failing to > realize that the instance itself---in the view of that person---was hardly > all there was to that person. ### But what if somebody changes his definition of self to include not only reasonably similar copies but also copies that diverged significantly? What if this leads to a situation where you can't anymore tell who is a copy and who is just another guy, even in principle, so you are willing to blow your brains out to save anybody? If your operational concept of self (i.e. all that you treat as self) is sufficiently modified, bystanders who do not share your concept of self may say you no longer have the urge for self-preservation, and that you are perhaps crazy, or worse, an altruist :) Rafal From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Dec 12 17:15:59 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:15:59 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: What is consciousness? Message-ID: I don't normally forward such lengthy material to the list, but I think this isn't generally available on-line. It's relevant to much of the discussion on this list and the best brief exposition of these ideas that I've seen. - Jef > Paul Broks: What is consciousness? > > New Scientist tackles eight of the deepest challenges faced by > science - from reality and consciousness, to free will and death, > in The Big Questions special features. > > On this special day, my 121st birthday, it is good to be surrounded > by those I love. There's no denying I feel old, but in body, not > spirit. Oh dear, there I go, slipping into the old ways of > thinking: mind and body, spirit and substance. There's no excuse. > The ghost in the machine was exorcised long ago - and here's > Celeste, my sweet, uploaded daughter: the living proof. > > She kisses my aged forehead. Chronologically, Celeste is 90 years > old. Physically she's a genetically re-engineered woman of 30. > Psychologically, well, these days you have to keep an open mind > about psychological ways of being. But one never stops worrying > about one's children, and the uploading - the transfer of > information from old brain to new - was, I confess, a little > troubling. I have always felt some responsibility for the current > popularity of mind transposition. I helped create a climate of > acceptance. Forgive me if I reminisce. > > WHAT was that I wrote? "The laser beams of cognitive neuroscience > are beginning to penetrate the philosophical fog of centuries"? > Tosh! The real philosophical fog was just beginning to roll in. But > that wasn't how it felt at the time. Mind science was coming of > age. Traditional methods of correlating brain damage and behaviour > combined with neuroimaging and computational science to produce > ever more refined models of the working brain and, by 2012, the > microarchitectures of cognitive function were rapidly unfolding. > Writing in 2005, the inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil had > predicted that the brain would be fully "reverse engineered" by the > mid-2020s, with hardware and software available for the > implementation of human intelligence in a non-biological substrate. > He was not far wrong, and "consciousness" went the way of > phlogiston, the theoretical substance that scientists once used to > explain fire. Strange we ever thought the problem hard. > > But as our post-millennial neuroscientists marvelled at the > sparkling, dare I say spectral, patterns cascading from their > high-resolution brain scanners, they were nagged by a mischievous > question: who's running the show? How does the brain, with its > diverse and distributed functions, come to arrive at a unified > sense of identity? "Soul" doesn't figure in the lexicon of > neuroscience, but what about the soul's secular cousin, "self"? > Could we speak of a person's brain without, ultimately, speaking of > the person? Was the self merely the sum of its cerebral parts? The > illusion of the ghost in the machine was compelling - the natural > intuition that somewhere in the shadows of the brain there lurks an > observing "I", an experiencer of experiences, thinker of thoughts > and controller of actions. > > This was hard to reconcile with the material facts (the vacant > machinery that actually packs the skull) and it was plain to see > that the mental operations underlying our sense of self - feelings, > thoughts, memories - were dispersed throughout the brain. There was > no homuncular assembly point where a little soul-pilot sat watching > the dials of experience and pulling the levers of action. We were, > neuropsychologically speaking, all over the place. And anyway, who > did we think was pulling the levers in the little soul-pilot's > head? If we found a ghost in the machine we'd have to start looking > for the machine in the ghost. > > Belief in an inner essence, or central core, of personhood, was > called "ego theory". The alternative, "bundle theory", made more > neurological sense but offended our deepest intuitions. Too bad, I > thought. We should learn to face facts. The philosopher Derek > Parfit put it starkly: we are not what we believe ourselves to be. > Actions and experiences are interconnected but ownerless. A human > life consists of a long series - or bundle - of enmeshed mental > states rolling like tumbleweed down the days and years, but with no > one (no thing) at the centre. An embodied brain acts, thinks, has > certain experiences, and that's all. There is no deeper fact about > being a person. The enchanted loom of the brain does not require a > weaver. > > Parfit devised a famous thought experiment. Imagine being > teleported. A special scanner records the state of every cell in > your brain and body and digitally encodes the information for radio > transmission. Your body is destroyed in the process but > reconstructed as soon as the signals are received and decoded at > your destination. You "arrive" in precisely the same condition that > you "left", identical in body, brain and patterns of mental > activity. Your memories, beliefs, plans, skills and emotions are > perfectly intact and you go about your business feeling and > believing that nothing about you has changed in the slightest. It's > just like waking from a dreamless sleep and getting on with the > day. > > If you are comfortable with this scenario then you should be > comfortable with bundle theory. You appreciate that the observing > "I" is no more than patterns of energy and information, which can > be disrupted and reconstituted without destroying the self - > because there is no self to destroy. The patterns are all. If, on > the other hand, you believe that some essential "you" would be lost > in the process then you are an irredeemable ego theorist. You > believe that the reconstituted body is not "you" but a mere > replica. Although the replica will know in its bones that it is the > very person who stepped into the scanner at the start of the > journey, and friends and loved ones will agree, you insist it could > not be you because your body and brain would have been destroyed. > > Incidentally, we see here a neat inversion of conventional > thinking. Those who believe in an essence, or soul, suddenly become > materialists, dreading the loss of the "original" body. But those > of us who don't hold such beliefs are prepared to countenance a > life after bodily death. > > The philosophical speculations were intriguing, but the science of > selfhood also had more practical concerns. This was the dawn of a > new age in neuropsychiatry. The idea that certain forms of insanity > were "disorders of the self" had been around for two centuries and > more, but now the concept was being refined. The core deficits of > autism and schizophrenia, for example, were revealed as faults in > the brain circuits underlying personal awareness. This > confederation of networks - frontal, limbic, temporal and > cerebellar - orchestrated social cognition, from the analysis of > gaze direction and facial expression to the deciphering of beliefs, > attitudes, and intentions. In the process, it gave definition to > that fundamental unit of social intercourse: the person. Just as > the brain had evolved systems for guiding interaction with the > physical world so, we rather belatedly realised, it had also > evolved specialised mechanisms for enabling the interaction of > "self" and "other". > > The discovery of "mirror neurons" in the 1990s was a breakthrough > in this regard. According to Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, one of the > leading neuroscientists of the era, it was a discovery as > significant in its way as Crick and Watson's decoding of the > structure of DNA. Mirror neurons were activated not only in > response to self-generated behaviour (reaching for an object, say) > but also in response to actions performed by other individuals. > Pain and emotional behaviour were similarly mirrored. The > implication - that minds were neurologically "bridged" - was > far-reaching, and mirror neurons rapidly took their place in > theories of developmental psychology and moral behaviour. > > The self had entered the neurobiological laboratory. Around this > time it also became evident that, rather than being a single "ghost > in the machine", we were a composite of two phantoms. The self of > the present moment - the so-called "minimal" or "core" self - was, > in the words of the neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, "a transient > entity, recreated for each and every object with which the brain > interacts". It was bound to brain systems involved in mapping and > regulating body states. The other phantom was the "extended" self: > a unified, continuous being journeying from a remembered past to an > anticipated future, with a repertoire of skills, stores of > knowledge and dispositions to act in certain ways. This > "autobiographical" self emerged from language and long-term memory > networks. Michael Gazzaniga, one of the great pioneers of cognitive > neuroscience, pointed to a specialised left-hemisphere system - he > called it "the Interpreter" - whose function was to wind disparate > strands of brain function into a single thread of subjective > experience. It worked by identifying patterns of activity across > different brain modules and correlating these with events in the > external world: it was a teller of tales. > > The minimal self gave us our sense of location and boundary, and > our intuitions of agency - the feeling that we exercise control > over our actions. But these fundamentals of self-awareness were > rather fragile constructs. Disturbances of temporal and parietal > lobe function could cause profound dislocations of perception such > as out-of-body experiences and autoscopic hallucinations (seeing > one's body in extrapersonal space). Damage to the frontal lobes > could disturb the sense of agency, with limbs developing a > recalcitrant will of their own. > > The extended self, too, was neurologically fragile. It could be > gradually dismantled by dementia, or shattered by a sudden viral > attack, the story of the self dissolved with the dissolution of > memory. In contrast, a deep-brain stroke or injury to the frontal > lobes could leave memory unaffected but recalibrate the machineries > of emotion and temperament. The story continued, but the central > character had changed beyond recognition. Sometimes the brain's > story-telling mechanism itself broke down, resulting in the > confabulation of fictional, often fantastical, autobiographical > distortions. As science writer John McCrone put it, we are all just > a stumble or burst blood vessel away from being someone else. > Selfhood is malleable. That was the message. > > The neurological diseases that were then still prevalent tended to > carve human nature at its joints in such ways, and one occasionally > saw what appeared to be clear dissociations of the two "selves". I > remember an epileptic patient telling me of her intermittent loss > of identity, a condition known as transient epileptic amnesia. Her > surroundings would suddenly feel unfamiliar, and then she would > begin to feel unfamiliar to herself. Soon she had no idea who she > was, where she was or what she was doing. She was stripped to the > minimal self: a floating point of subjective awareness untethered > by identity. > > In other, rare, cases I saw the opposite: the minimal self > dissolving, leaving only the story of the extended self. One > patient had a strong sense of identity and autobiography but > believed that she had ceased to exist. "Am I dead?" she asked. This > condition, Cotard's syndrome, was due to a neurological decoupling > of feelings and thoughts. Thinking that one exists was not enough: > the notion had also to be felt - "I feel I think, therefore I am." > > Another Cotard's patient believed that her voice was all that was > left of her. She was "just a voice, and if that goes, I won't be > anything". We all have an inner voice, a stream of sub-vocal > speech. It keeps the story going and helps sustain the illusion > there's "someone home". One man, recovering from a stroke that had > virtually abolished his capacity for speech, including self-talk, > described the condition of total wordlessness as being like > confinement to a continuous present. > > But these words you are now reading, whose are they? Yours or mine? > The point of writing is to take charge of the voice in someone > else's head. This is what I am doing. My words have taken > possession of the language circuits of your brain. I have become, > if only transiently, your inner voice. Doesn't that mean, in a > certain sense, that I have become you (or you me)? It's a serious > question. Written text is a primitive but powerful form of virtual > reality. In the beginning was the word. > > And in the end? A liberating truth. There are no souls, only > stories. I have witnessed a Copernican revolution of the self; a > historical shift from the age of solipsism, when we were all at the > centre of the universe - self-loving, self-loathing, self-absorbed > - to an era of self-dispersion when ego is deemed constrictive. I > saw the science of selfhood figure increasingly in the great social > and moral debates of the century, from age-old wrangles about > euthanasia and free will to disputes over brain enhancement, > cyberethics, and the fusion, fission and transposition of minds. > > But if once we worried about euthanasia, now it was the rights of > intelligent, self-aware machines that came to exercise the minds of > the politicians and ethicists. The golden rule - treat others as > you want to be treated - had been almost universally endorsed as a > moral Polaris, but depended on a fixed understanding of the terms > "you" and "other". Now it is not so clear where one person ends and > another begins. Neural implants, followed by nanobot > brain-extension technologies, have increased the > information-processing capacity of the human brain a billionfold. > Biological modes of empathy (dear old mirror neurons) have long > been superseded. It is now possible to share the experiences of > others directly; to be someone else. Reliance on the biological > brain is discouraged, of course. Who wants to die? > > And so Celeste, my sweet, uploaded daughter, takes my hand and > leads me to the chamber where my gift awaits. I see my > re-engineered body, which sits motionless: the limp corpse of a > young man prepared for resurrection. Its carbon nanotube brain > circuitry lies dormant, but will soon be infused with my digital > ghost. Like Celeste, I chose 30. That was a good age. Unlike her, I > resisted the temptation to tinker with cosmetic details. Take me or > leave me. And I'm opting for a conservative, level 1 transposition: > my new brain will run, like the old one, as a stand-alone unit with > unenhanced software. Celeste is level 3 - enhanced and hive-mind > compatible. She is fully immersible - and these days mostly > immersed - in the web of awareness, a.k.a. the hive. > > "What's it like?" I ask her. > > "Inconceivable," she says, her eyes mocking my nostalgia for puny > individualism. Then she tells me that the time has come. I sit in > the chair adjacent to the corpse, wishing that it didn't have to be > quite so ceremonial. > > "When did I realise I was God?" says the psychotic aristocrat in > the old film The Ruling Class. "Well, I was praying and I suddenly > realised I was talking to myself." My epiphany was less grandiose. > It was quite the opposite. I realised I was talking to myself, but > no one was listening. > > "Happy birthday, Dad." > > Goodbye, Celeste. > > ++++++++++++++++++++ From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 16:52:28 2006 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:52:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets In-Reply-To: <019d01c71df0$e8b2d8a0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20061212165229.85015.qmail@web56501.mail.re3.yahoo.com> I agree with Lee -- it does indeed seem like "moral cowardice" that discourages people from standing up to bullies. I had similar school experiences, particularly with being told I was an "easy target". This sometimes escalated to physical abuse, including one episode in which I was chased and pelted with sticks and rocks -- by people who supposedly had better social skills than I did. The only reason to side with a bully is so the bully doesn't see you as a target, but the problem with that mentality is that it enables the bullies to continue to hurt those who refuse to explicitly or tacitly approve of bullying behavior. - Anne --------------------------------- Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From riel at surriel.com Tue Dec 12 17:19:25 2006 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:19:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Cable Speeds and delays [was: related to SecondLife] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <457EE49D.9050108@surriel.com> Robert Bradbury wrote: > One thing I have started to notice lately on our Comcast Cable with the > Digital Box (as vs. the analog feeds for channels 2-99) is that it is > taking *much* longer to change TV channels The same is true for digital TV over the air (ATSC here in the US). Presumably this is due to time-spread forward error correction code in the signal, meaning that a few lost packets (due to eg. pulse noise or lightning) do not mean you lose frames and audio in the stream. -- Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country the best in the world, and those who believe it already is. Each group calls the other unpatriotic. From brian at posthuman.com Tue Dec 12 17:37:07 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:37:07 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Cable Speeds and delays [was: related to SecondLife] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <457EE8C3.1060909@posthuman.com> Hi Robert, Interesting hypothesis, but I do know a little more and that isn't how it works currently. In the case of "regular" channels, either analog or digital, the signal is semi-permanently assigned a slot in Comcast's available frequencies, and broadcast continuously to all subscribers at once. It's just a one way fixed feed, and is not interacting or competing with the internet service or video-on-demand that run on completely separate frequencies. The initial lag you see in tuning channels is mostly an artifact of the MPEG-2 compression used for the digital version of the channels. You'll see the same delays (compared to flipping analog channels) if you've ever had satellite tv service which also uses MPEG-2. It takes time when "tuning" to an MPEG-2 feed to build up the picture. Also HDTV over-the-air uses similar encoding, and also has a tuning delay. The moral of the story is: rent a DVR from Comcast, and stop watching live tv. Not only do you not waste a ton of time looking for something good to watch, you can skip all the commercials. In the next few months in addition to Comcast's standard DVR, they will have a Tivo service offering available on that same box, and also will be coming out with a new 3-tuner box so you can record 3 things at once if you need even more capacity. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Dec 12 17:53:27 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:53:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Recent evolution In-Reply-To: <457D85D9.2050207@thomasoliver.net> References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212114952.03e90578@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> There have been comments here about recent evolution. Below is a most interesting study of the evolution of lactose-tolerant mutation--several of them it seems. Another example is the several genes conferring malaria resistance (malaria seems to have become a problem only after people started farming). Another possible example is the "famine" genes being weeded out (some researchers claim the genes cause people to die early when they are well fed). But the thing that is common to all these is high pressure. As mentioned in the article, "Genetic evidence shows that the mutations conferred an enormous selective advantage on their owners, enabling them to leave almost 10 times as many descendants as people without them." Behaviors are biased by gene-constructed brain mechanisms. I have no doubt that the genes behind behavior bias would undergo rapid evolution if some of them gave the kind of selective advantage in a new situation the lactose tolerant gene did. I can think of one example. Behavior genes for sex would undergo heavy selection if HIV was a problem for many generations. It is *possible* we are less susceptible to fatal cult memes than our European ancestors were if the most susceptible of them died in crusades and other such disruptions in historical times. But I kind of doubt the weeding was intense enough to change gene frequencies to a significant extent. Any other examples you can think of? Keith ******** Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution Does the EEA extend right into the neolithic? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/science/10cnd-evolve.html?ex=1323406800&en=6576a01a1bb4ce31&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution By NICHOLAS WADE Published: December 10, 2006 A surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of East Africa. It is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found. The finding is a striking example of a cultural practice -- the raising of dairy cattle -- feeding back into the human genome. It also seems to be one of the first instances of convergent human evolution to be documented at the genetic level. Convergent evolution refers to two or more populations acquiring the same trait independently. Throughout most of human history, the ability to digest lactose, the principal sugar of milk, has been switched off after weaning because there is no further need for the lactase enzyme that breaks the sugar apart. But when cattle were first domesticated 9,000 years ago and people later started to consume their milk as well as their meat, natural selection would have favored anyone with a mutation that kept the lactase gene switched on. Such a mutation is known to have arisen among an early cattle-raising people, the Funnel Beaker culture, which flourished some 5,000 to 6,000 years ago in north-central Europe. People with a persistently active lactase gene have no problem digesting milk and are said to be lactose tolerant. Almost all Dutch people and 99 percent of Swedes are lactose-tolerant, but the mutation becomes progressively less common in Europeans who live at increasing distance from the ancient Funnel Beaker region. Geneticists wondered if the lactose tolerance mutation in Europeans, first identified in 2002, had arisen among pastoral peoples elsewhere. But it seemed to be largely absent from Africa, even though pastoral peoples there generally have some degree of tolerance. A research team led by Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Maryland has now resolved much of the puzzle. After testing for lactose tolerance and genetic makeup among 43 ethnic groups of East Africa, she and her colleagues have found three new mutations, all independent of each other and of the European mutation, which keep the lactase gene permanently switched on. The principal mutation, found among Nilo-Saharan-speaking ethnic groups of Kenya and Tanzania, arose 2,700 to 6,800 years ago, according to genetic estimates, Dr. Tishkoff's group is to report in the journal Nature Genetics on Monday. This fits well with archaeological evidence suggesting that pastoral peoples from the north reached northern Kenya about 4,500 years ago and southern Kenya and Tanzania 3,300 years ago. Two other mutations were found, among the Beja people of northeastern Sudan and tribes of the same language family, Afro-Asiatic, in northern Kenya. Genetic evidence shows that the mutations conferred an enormous selective advantage on their owners, enabling them to leave almost 10 times as many descendants as people without them. The mutations have created "one of the strongest genetic signatures of natural selection yet reported in humans," the researchers write. The survival advantage was so powerful perhaps because those with the mutations not only gained extra energy from lactose but also, in drought conditions, would have benefited from the water in milk. People who were lactose-intolerant could have risked losing water from diarrhea, Dr. Tishkoff said. Diane Gifford-Gonzalez, an archaeologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said the new findings were "very exciting" because they "showed the speed with which a genetic mutation can be favored under conditions of strong natural selection, demonstrating the possible rate of evolutionary change in humans." The genetic data fitted in well, she said, with archaeological and linguistic evidence about the spread of pastoralism in Africa. The first clear evidence of cattle in Africa is from a site 8,000 years old in northwestern Sudan. Cattle there were domesticated independently from two other domestications, in the Near East and the Indus valley of India. Both Nilo-Saharan speakers in Sudan and their Cushitic-speaking neighbors in the Red Sea hills probably domesticated cattle at the same time, since each has an independent vocabulary for cattle items, said Dr. Christopher Ehret, an expert on African languages and history at the University of California, Los Angeles. Descendants of each group moved southward and would have met again in Kenya, Dr. Ehret said. Dr. Tishkoff detected lactose tolerance among both Cushitic speakers and Nilo-Saharan groups in Kenya. Cushitic is a branch of Afro-Asiatic, the language family that includes Arabic, Hebrew and ancient Egyptian. Dr. Jonathan Pritchard, a statistical geneticist at the University of Chicago and the co-author of the new article, said that there were many signals of natural selection in the human genome, but that it was usually hard to know what was being selected for. In this case Dr. Tishkoff had clearly defined the driving force, he said. The mutations Dr. Tishkoff detected are not in the lactase gene itself but a nearby region of the DNA that controls the activation of the gene. The finding that different ethnic groups in East Africa have different mutations is one instance of their varied evolutionary history and their exposure to many different selective pressures, Dr. Tishkoff said. "There is a lot of genetic variation between groups in Africa, reflecting the different environments in which they live, from deserts to tropics, and their exposure to very different selective forces," she said. People in different regions of the world have evolved independently since dispersing from the ancestral human population in northeast Africa 50,000 years ago, a process that has led to the emergence of different races. But much of this differentiation at the level of DNA may have led to the same physical result. As Dr. Tishkoff has found in the case of lactose tolerance, evolution may use the different mutations available to it in each population to reach the same goal when each is subjected to the same selective pressure. "I think it's reasonable to assume this will be a more general paradigm," Dr. Pritchard said. ---------------------- Related Web Link Convergent Adaptation of Human Lactase Persistence in Africa and Europe (Nature Genetics) http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ng1946.html ----- ---------- --------------- -------------------- ------------------------- "The end of cheap oil and the collapse of empire are not problems to be solved, they are solutions to be savored." -- Me. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 17:50:25 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:50:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets In-Reply-To: <019d01c71df0$e8b2d8a0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <26370.49071.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> <019d01c71df0$e8b2d8a0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7641ddc60612120950i3f81d7c4w5504844f06b368cb@mail.gmail.com> I am with you, Lee. Rafal On 12/12/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > I am still so upset and inflamed at The Avantguardian's post > that I must say more. From pharos at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 18:34:13 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:34:13 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear spring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/12/06, Amara Graps wrote: > Bill K > >Remember Carl Sagan makes errors just like everybody else. :) > > That's a misleading statement. > > Qualitatively, the TTAPS studies were correct. Quantitatively, the > models improved as the data and the dimensionality and the grid resolution > on the models improved. (I don't think that the original computer > models were 3D, for example.) > > to sum up: > > Yes, the initial predictions were probably wrong. > Yes, the physics was/is probably right. > Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the following paragraphs in my post where Sagan over-estimated the effect of the burning Kuwaiti oil wells and admitted his mistake. I have no quarrel at all with the TTAPS studies or with Sagan's normal brilliance as a scientist. BillK From fm1 at amug.org Tue Dec 12 18:52:36 2006 From: fm1 at amug.org (Frederick Mann) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:52:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fatal Cult Memes (was: Recent evolution) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212114952.03e90578@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061212114952.03e90578@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5562D19A75679FC592F58848@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> --On Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:53:27 PM -0500 Keith Henson wrote: > > It is *possible* we are less susceptible to fatal cult memes than our > European ancestors were if the most susceptible of them died in crusades > and other such disruptions in historical times. But I kind of doubt the > weeding was intense enough to change gene frequencies to a significant extent. > > Any other examples you can think of? Most "modern" humans (and I suspect this includes many libertarians, anarchists, extropians, etc.) may still be extremely "susceptible to fatal cult memes" -- like "state," "government," "country," "nation," "law," "king," "queen," "president," "god," "allah," etc. -- it's a long, deadly list. What if at the bottom of most of the killing in the Middle East there are "fatal cult memes." See #TL07D: DEEP ANARCHY -- AN ELIMINATIVIST VIEW OF "THE STATE" by Max T. O'Connor (aka Max More) #TL07: The Constitution of No Authority #TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak #TL07B: The Nature of Government Frederick Mann From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 19:09:44 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:09:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Cable Speeds and delays [was: related to SecondLife] In-Reply-To: <457EE8C3.1060909@posthuman.com> References: <457EE8C3.1060909@posthuman.com> Message-ID: Ok, I'm satisfied with the MPEG-2/frame/ECC build-up answers (and requirements) [1] but what I'm *really* complaining about is that it now seems to take significantly longer to build up and display the frame after switching channels (other family members have noticed this as well). >From time to time one also encounters "Channel temporarily unavailable, please wait" (or something to that effect), particularly on the 3 channels allocated to local town services, but I think I've seen it on some other channels as well. This makes me think that Comcast may have reprogrammed the digital tuner [2] to select one out of "many" active channels (where # active << the 400-600 "available") and if one is switching to channels not currently "active" then one has 2 delays (a) wait for it to queue and get fed into the live data stream and (b) wait for that data stream to be subsequently decoded from the MPEG-2 into something the TV can display. Another question might be *how* are the cable companies going to handle "movies on demand" if 9999 customers request 9999 different movies all at the same time? Obviously if I've got digital HDTV TV + 3 Channel Tivo + ultra high speed internet on the same cable to a few hundred homes something has to give someplace. I'm speculating that it is already giving and the perceived "new" delays I'm seeing are due to the fact that they are pushing the limits and not compensating sufficiently. The moral of the story is: rent a DVR from Comcast, and stop watching live > tv. For DVR/Tivo to work you have to *program* the box [3]. Given how frequently broadcasters are changing time slots on programs one might well have to do this once a month at this point. It becomes an open question as to whether one loses more time to trying to make sure you record the programs or having to watch the commercials. And only a real dumbass is going to *rent* anything like this. An Uber-Geek (like moi?) is going to turn a spare PC into an Monster-Tivo able to record 6 or 9 channels continuously onto 750GB hard drives for an entire week. The spare CPU cycles will be spent identifying the commercials which run over and over and over again and remove them from the recorded sequences. Then they spend all day Sunday watching the most interesting programs commecial free. I suspect that one might also be able to speed up the viewing rate by a factor of 2 or so and not lose a lot. But the question remains -- if we are headed towards "anything for anyone anytime" that means you may need 2-6 hours of video bandwidth per person per day. That can probably be supplied even by DSL if one has anticipatory data availability but once you allow commercial skipping you blow the classical marketing model entirely out of the water. Indeed -- I don't need 999 channels or even 99 -- I need maybe 6 but I want to pick those six and not have to pay for the rest. Ideally I'd like to pay for just the programs I'm interested in. That is what is making the people in the media crazy right now is that the "eyeballs" are finding lots available for a flat fee each month which is more interesting than what the studios are supplying. If this ultimately expands into distributed WiMax networks that are effectively "free" then both the suppliers (TV-cos) and the distributors (Phone & CableCos) have very large problems. Of course this isn't going to happen overnight. Robert 1. I had satellite many years ago and am familiar with both the delays and partial picture loss due to poor weather conditions. 2. The digital tuner is a Motorola DCT 2224/1661. 3. I've been through my "program the VCR to accumulate lots of tapes so you can watch whatever you want when you want it" phase. It doesn't interest me very much. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Tue Dec 12 19:47:16 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:47:16 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Cable Speeds and delays [was: related to SecondLife] In-Reply-To: References: <457EE8C3.1060909@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <457F0744.3040206@posthuman.com> "Channel temporarily unavailable" means the box can't lock onto the channel properly. This would likely be caused by a noise or other problem in your cable wiring. Also taking longer to build the display, or occasional bursts of digital garbage in the video, or occasional video dropouts. If you have only recently begun using the digital version of the channels then you may be running into long-existing cable wiring problems that either you didn't see in the past (because the digital version of the channel is sent on a different frequency than the analog channel) or represented middling analog quality you were putting up with. Bottom line if you see "Channel temporarily unavailable" often, or video dropouts then call a tech to your house to diagnose. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Dec 12 17:59:16 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:59:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Neural Internet:Web Surfing with Brain Potentials In-Reply-To: <470a3c520612110828w626334h28ae5d021c2a8ced@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212125613.03de00b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:28 PM 12/11/2006 +0100, Giu1i0 wrote: snip >If future BCI research can overcome the mentioned constraints of the >current brain-computer communication systems, then the following scenario >could be reality in the not too distant future: is sitting paralyzed in >his wheelchair but can chat with a relative in another city, play chess >with a friend in another country, search the World Wide Web for >information, and even buy or sell articles. And all that without any >voluntary muscle control, solely by the power of his thoughts. Cogito ergo >sum. Probably. But in the slightly longer range, people will look back on this time with wonder because the underlying biological problems will be repairable. Neat stuff, thanks for finding. Keith From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Tue Dec 12 20:12:34 2006 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:12:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear winter's back References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061211221129.02214078@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <457F0D32.5040007@thomasoliver.net> Damien Broderick wrote: >http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/916 > > >SYDNEY: Even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as >many fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate >for a decade or more, U.S. researchers have found. > >"With the exchange of 100 [hiroshima-sized] weapons as posed in this >scenario, the estimated quantities of smoke generated could lead to >global climate anomalies exceeding any changes experienced in >recorded history," said co-author Alan Robock, of Rutgers Univeristy >in New Jersey. "And that's just 0.03 per cent of the total explosive >power of the current world nuclear arsenal." > Kucinich's knuckles hit the podium like a drumroll as he says he will "cause the U.S. to work toward total nuclear disarmament...." http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/11/ma_562_01.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 12 20:22:45 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:22:45 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Neural Internet:Web Surfing with Brain Potentials In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212125613.03de00b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <470a3c520612110828w626334h28ae5d021c2a8ced@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061212125613.03de00b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20061212202245.GW6974@leitl.org> On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 12:59:16PM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > Probably. But in the slightly longer range, people will look back on this > time with wonder because the underlying biological problems will be repairable. There are some dormant regeneration tricks hidden in our genome which can be reactivated, and similiar applies to external means (stem cells & Co). But anything beyond that, and I have a hunch it may require that, to mend e.g. a severed spinal cord would need nanosurgery, and if you can do that, you might want do a lot more than just repair. Isofunctional substitution (aka incremental or gradual in situ uploading) is within touching distance then. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From lucioc at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 20:36:03 2006 From: lucioc at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?L=FAcio_de_Souza_Coelho?=) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:36:03 -0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Neural Internet:Web Surfing with Brain Potentials In-Reply-To: <20061212202245.GW6974@leitl.org> References: <470a3c520612110828w626334h28ae5d021c2a8ced@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061212125613.03de00b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20061212202245.GW6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 12/12/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: (...) > But anything beyond that, and I have a hunch it may require that, to mend > e.g. a severed spinal cord would need nanosurgery, and if you can do that, > you might want do a lot more than just repair. Isofunctional substitution > (aka incremental or gradual in situ uploading) is within touching distance > then. (...) I don't think that a severed spinal cord would need nanosurgery. Years ago severed spinal cords of rats where regenerated using a much simpler biochemical treatment ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1919621.stm ), and that hints at the possibility of doing the same on humans in a not-so-distant future. From pharos at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 21:10:23 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:10:23 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Anti-Bayesian spam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/6/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Well, the following got through the gmail filters this morning. I've > converted it to text and removed the GIF attachment (which was > presumably the real message). Interesting how it seems to be > generating relatively coherent text. I wonder if they are picking out > phrases from popular news items or simply generating semi-proper text > using phrases that score low on Bayesian filtering methods. > > At any rate the battle continues... > Just read an article on ZDNet that reports that many other people are noticing this new type of spam. December 11th, 2006 If this "personalized spam" can scale, we and the Net are in very big trouble Posted by David Berlind @ 11:55 am So, why write about spam again now? Because I've noticed a new kind of spam that's quite amazing in how it can probably beat most anti-spam systems and I'm wondering if robots are doing the work or if some human is doing this by hand. I suspect it's robots which is why it has me worried because it looks like there are humans at work (not a scalable system). This new form of spam appears to be very personalized to me. For example, the subject lines in a lot of the spam I've been getting appears extremely targeted to my interests. ---------------------- One talkback post on this article suggested "David, the first example you gave is intended to ruin the utility of Bayesian filters. Most likely, the scraper put together "sightings" of your address and correlated it with others found nearby, then generated word salad with words or phrases common to those locations." --------------------------------- The good news is that the gmail spam filters are still very good at stopping almost all spam. The other good news is that gmail blocks all images unless you click on 'Always allow images from this sender'. Even more good news is that gmail attachments have to be deliberately downloaded by you. So thumbs up to gmail! BillK From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Tue Dec 12 22:54:39 2006 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:54:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com><456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net><007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> <003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <457D9583.1090506@thomasoliver.net> <014601c71db2$cb4c06d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <018f01c71de5$ac72cef0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <457F2DAD.2070903@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: <457F332F.8010408@thomasoliver.net> Thomas wrote: > Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Hi Thomas, > >> Well---no, I don't think that it is too likely >> that we will or can do better. We already >> have achieved history's highest behavior >> to date as a superpower. Why don't you >> agitate instead that our enemies "do a little >> (or a lot) better?" instead of always >> criticizing our side? > My criticism applies to both sides. > >> "Violence is sub-human". There you go again. You have >> far too exalted idea of what "human" is. Human is as human >> does. > > You're probably right. Unreasoned violence is sub-human. I'm calling > for something better than purely brutal reaction. I understand that > retaliation may be considered just. I doubt that it's wise in most > cases. Yes, deal with brutes as brutes, but don't become one. I > didn't have to bite my dog. He understood when I said "no biting." > You can train people to be human when they're not being violent. It's > up to the less beastly among us to encourage improvements. I > certainly don't favor them killing us off while we try to educate > them! I wouldn't even want an occupation in rehab, but it's a better > way than escalating evil for evil. > >> Humans are by far the least violent primate---the >> ethologists will confirm this per thousand hours of observation >> ---but naturally, by your standards (as compared to what?) >> people are unacceptably violent, and nations that are only >> a little violent are just as bad to you as those whose violence is >> thoroughgoing---or so it would appear. > > Yeah, how about those house cats? Good thing they don't have nukes! > > Some people are unacceptably violent. Lee, it's amazing that you know > my standards when I don't. I had trouble deciding whether to shoot > the pigeons that defecate on my car but I know I would not hesitate to > throttle anyone who posed a threat to the life of a loved one. I'm > very suspicious of the idea that superior force is the only way to > deal with force. > >> >>> For example: Some said Iraq might turn out like Viet Nam. >> >> Yes, it did. Thanks in part to Rumsfeld not using >> enough force, and thanks to the Left that has kept >> pounding away just as they did during Vietnam. > > I agree that both sides were wrong. One for pursuing immoral war and > the other for permitting it. > >>>> [ . . . ] >>> >>> Hardly pardonable when you persist with the venom. -- Thomas >> >> >> [ More "strongly put" off list statements] > > [ . . . ] > I think your fear of evil outweighed your respect for reason. > > I appreciate the challenges that encouraged me to clarify. I think > the puerile gives way to maturity in time. -- Gently, Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Dec 13 00:40:15 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:40:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fatal Cult Memes References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com><5.1.0.14.0.20061212114952.03e90578@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5562D19A75679FC592F58848@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> Message-ID: <01d201c71e4f$c1202ef0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Frederick Mann writes >> It is *possible* we are less susceptible to fatal cult memes than our >> European ancestors were if the most susceptible of them died in crusades >> and other such disruptions in historical times. But I kind of doubt the >> weeding was intense enough to change gene frequencies to a significant extent. >> >> Any other examples you can think of? > > Most "modern" humans (and I suspect this includes > many libertarians, anarchists, extropians, etc.) > may still be extremely "susceptible to fatal cult > memes" -- like "state," "government," "country," > "nation," "law," "king," "queen," "president," > "god," "allah," etc. -- it's a long, deadly list. > What if at the bottom of most of the killing in > the Middle East there are "fatal cult memes." A problem is what is meant by *fatal*. To me, a fatal meme is one that either kills you, or kills off (perhaps over time) people like you. So far as I can see, most of the memes listed above seldom kill their owners. And of the few that do, it's very likely that they confer fitness on the genes. For example, if someone strongly believes that God has decreed that he go forth and multiply, then there will be more people like him after a while. So even if his own survival is infinitesimally negatively affected, it hardly matters in the march of history. Now "eating the brains of the deceased" was a fatal meme in all senses. So also was the Ghost Dance. Allegiance to king and country, on the other hand, is highly dependent on what the others around you believe; if you live in a youthful, healthy period of a country's history, then most around you will also be all for "king and country", and won't refuse oaths affirming it (as happened in 1936). Moreover, they'll make life easier on you if you are patriot too. Later---during a nations senescence, it won't matter one way or the other: in fact, it no longer matters at all what someone says. If anything, the above "libertarians and anarchists" have *reduced* fitness, for the simply reason that they're liable to be unhappy living among all the toadies of the state, and go off all on their own. If so, then "anarchy" or "libertarianism" may be closer to being fatal than their converses. Ah, what we lovers of truth are willing to sacrifice.... :-) Lee > See #TL07D: DEEP ANARCHY -- > AN ELIMINATIVIST VIEW OF "THE STATE" > by Max T. O'Connor (aka Max More) > > > #TL07: The Constitution of No Authority > > > #TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak > > > #TL07B: The Nature of Government > > > Frederick Mann > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Dec 13 01:07:36 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:07:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully magnets In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212114952.03e90578@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061212114952.03e90578@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <35455.72.236.103.58.1165972056.squirrel@main.nc.us> > I am with you, Lee. > For what it's worth, I am also. Regards, MB From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 23:29:20 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:29:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational force? In-Reply-To: <457F332F.8010408@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: <500407.929.qm@web51602.mail.yahoo.com> [c'mon, moderator, post this one] Putting aside the war, why is it so many of the opposition think the Bush administration is an anomaly? The administration has causes which can be traced way back; we can first trace it back to Bush's father who was vice president under the Great Gipper, who among many things, represented latent 50's nostalgia. We can examine America's agrarian Jeffersonian legacy involving a mistrust of cities and modernity. The great religious 'awakenings' influencing for just one example anti-abortion sentiment, plus a streak of mistrust of medical science. Bush isn't my president however he is president to tens of millions of those I consider rubes but who consider themselves solid conservative citizens. In our fairly decentralized 'system' they might not exactly control, yet IMO they technically own this country-- we're stuck with them for a long time. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 16:09:17 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:09:17 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] (offlist) Re: How Dangerous Our Times? (was Rational force?) In-Reply-To: <019001c71de5$ad08f470$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <003f01c71cdd$96cf59f0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1165823095.12825.7.camel@localhost> <000b01c71cf2$04f7f1d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0612110635o2e7e9039n5c5674ca03e84e4e@mail.gmail.com> <013401c71d9c$bc939240$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0612112126h32adc932nd0dc570dee70a1f0@mail.gmail.com> <015701c71db4$354631e0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0612112217w148efc99t4e30759000f79738@mail.gmail.com> <019001c71de5$ad08f470$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0612120809x4a29435al313b1c7b18130be7@mail.gmail.com> On 12/12/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > No, your message on Thomas Donaldson, who I knew personally, > R.I.P. in a frozen dewar, hopefully, no, I haven't see it > show up in the SL4 list that I subscribe to. When was it > posted? > Different Donaldson I think? *rummage*... http://sl4.org/archive/0608/15606.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Dec 13 02:45:22 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:45:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212214517.03ed1ec0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:24 AM 12/12/2006 -0800, Lee wrote: big snip >These animals---and that is the mildest term I >have for them---these animals who thrive on >crime and a repudiation of everything that is >good or noble in our civilization all deserve >to be rounded up and executed. > >And those like you who fail to recognize evil >are in my eyes little short of evil themselves. Lee is providing a good example of the evolved-in-the-stone-age mechanisms that kept the population more or less in balance with the ability of the ecosystem to feed them. When people perceive a bleak future--and at this point a fairly high percentage of the populations in the world do--then dehumanizing memes such as "these people are animals and should be rounded up and executed" become more widespread in the population. One of the classic examples of this I quoted in one of my earliest meme papers, the correlation in the 70s and 80s between bad economic times and expansion of neo-nazi groups in the US. Now virtually all the reasons in the stone age that people perceive a bleak future was because of other people--too many of them. So evolved mechanisms that turn up the gain on dehumanizing memes against various out groups make sense (other tribes or just a different sub group like Jews or Tutsis). The end result of this process is a population reduction, war, concentration camps, slaughter like Rwanda or Cambodia. If you think western peoples are different in this respect from Rwandans, you are sadly forgetting your history. When the chips are down, the Western Tribes (and include Japan adopted into this culture block) are bloody vicious. This isn't good or bad, no more than having 5 fingers or being subject to capture bonding. It just is, a legacy from our hunter gatherer past. Now what we might be able to do about it--that's another story and I could really use help with some ideas here. Keith Henson From aiguy at comcast.net Wed Dec 13 03:15:32 2006 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:15:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear winter's back In-Reply-To: <457F0D32.5040007@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: <02b901c71e64$fc7509c0$6501a8c0@ZANDRA2> Hey now here's an thought. What about using nuclear weapons nuclear winter effect to offset global warming? We could probably set them off far enough out under the middle of the ocean that that significant fallout wouldn't even reach land. Radical perhaps but using one environmental disaster to counter another sounds crazy enough to work. Who says two wrongs can't make a right? _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:13 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] nuclear winter's back Damien Broderick wrote: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/916 SYDNEY: Even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more, U.S. researchers have found. "With the exchange of 100 [hiroshima-sized] weapons as posed in this scenario, the estimated quantities of smoke generated could lead to global climate anomalies exceeding any changes experienced in recorded history," said co-author Alan Robock, of Rutgers Univeristy in New Jersey. "And that's just 0.03 per cent of the total explosive power of the current world nuclear arsenal." Kucinich's knuckles hit the podium like a drumroll as he says he will "cause the U.S. to work toward total nuclear disarmament...." http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/11/ma_562_01.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Dec 13 03:56:05 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:56:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Urge for Self Preservation References: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60612111045w1007b8e1j2f476f96de654755@mail.gmail.com> <011701c71d99$313c36a0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60612120901he0ce9d8h3d3328ea2f3762ce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <01dc01c71e6a$a073aa90$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Rafal writes > On 12/11/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > ... >> But my point was that the *urge* to self-preservation does not >> seem to be affected by whether there are copies or not, or whether MWI >> is considered true. It might only appear to the uninitiated that a person >> seemed to value his life less; that bystander would simply be failing to >> realize that the instance itself---in the view of that person---was hardly >> all there was to that person. > > ### But what if somebody changes his definition of self to include not > only reasonably similar copies but also copies that diverged > significantly? What if this leads to a situation where you can't > anymore tell who is a copy and who is just another guy, even in > principle, so you are willing to blow your brains out to save anybody? People are still free :-) to have whatever notion of self they would like. In many cases I believe they are objectively wrong. > If your operational concept of self (i.e. all that you treat as self) > is sufficiently modified, bystanders who do not share your concept of > self may say you no longer have the urge for self-preservation, and > that you are perhaps crazy, or worse, an altruist :) If a person is crazy enough to seriously suppose that he is other, quite distinct people, and he has no objective evidence whatsoever for the striking claim, then yes, people---including you and me and scientific apparatuses---will deem that he appears no longer to have the urge for self preservation. But on *his* terms, he may argue that this is simply not true. Because he believes that he is also President Bush, then taking his own life in California doesn't affect his other instance in Texas or Washington. Thus, again, the urge for self-preservation still seems to be there ---all that we can dispute a fact of the matter as to whether or not he himself actually survives various transformations. Quite a few of us on this list maintain that unless similarity of structure is maintained somewhere or other in the solar system, then the person has died. And though he go out to the end maintaining that he was surviving in other people, and that his instinct for self-preservation was in full force, we conclude that he did not survive. But maybe his instinct did, and was undone only by his faulty notion of what he was. Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 03:51:56 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:51:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rights and Moral Indignation In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0612120811t460d6fe3h1056f6564b3cdf60@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <353004.82753.qm@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > I'm with Lee on this one, Stuart - are you really > counting on muggers and > rapists as defenders of your liberty? Well Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld seem to have made that decision for me. Or do you not consider being stripped, blindfolded, and photographed atop a "manpile" of your naked colleagues at gunpoint a form of rape? And for every picture that was taken, imagine those that were not. In answer to your question, no I don't. I was trying to make it clear in my post that nobody, not the founding fathers, not the government, not the army, and certainly not the hoodlums in the hood can be relied upon to defend my liberty. Only I can. But I CAN rely on the gangsters to defend their own liberty, which helps the cause of liberty a little. > If you are, I > think you'll be > disappointed. Well disappointment seems to be the rule of the day when it comes to the U.S. foreign and domestic policy lately. There is a fine line between a brutish thug and a honorable soldier. The difference is not the sophistication of the weaponry, but is instead training, discipline, and espirit de corp. These are all things that are SUPPOSED to emanate from the chain of command. So the blame, if any, is to fall squarely on the shoulders of the "leadership" and certainly not on the troops. Therefore imagine my disgust when a few privates and a sergeant took the rap for that one. Although I suppose that Rummy getting fired recently did my heart good in a "too little too late" sort of way. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick ____________________________________________________________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Dec 13 04:26:25 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:26:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212214517.03ed1ec0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <01eb01c71e6f$8867b6d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > Now virtually all the reasons in the stone age that people perceive a bleak > future was because of other people--too many of them. Harsh winters and lack of food sometimes contribute to bleakness too, you know. > So evolved mechanisms that turn up the gain on dehumanizing memes > against various out groups make sense. The unfortunate words "dehumanizing" and "inhuman" sadly relate to a huge blindspot many modern people seem to have regarding human nature. Was what Genghis Khan did "inhuman"? Was what the Romans did, or Mayans, or Vikings, or Greeks did "inhuman"? Do we really want to call the Athenian treatment of the people of Melos "dehumanized"? The truth is that these behaviors are all *too* human. It is only with agonizingly slow progress that we climbed up and away from barbarism, and only by maintaining utter intolerance for those among us who would revert, can we cling to something better. The old-time religions realized this when they presumed that the devil was in everyone, and that a close eye on everyone had to be kept. Unfortunately, this awareness has been lost, especially in modern America. When did your family begin locking its doors at night? This is, in my opinion, an extremely important sociological question, and I have only very limited data. (Any input, on-list or off-list, would be greatly appreciated.) Most people I know relate that their folks began locking their doors at night around 1960. (But it's also true that in a few very small towns, people, who Al would refer to as "rubes", manage somehow to feel so little fear that they still to this day leave their doors unlocked! Now *that's* trust! Who're the true rubes, us or them?) > If you think western peoples are different in this respect from Rwandans, > you are sadly forgetting your history. When the chips are down, the > Western Tribes (and include Japan adopted into this culture block) are > bloody vicious. Yes, but the chips have to be down (as you say). We, especially in the west, have made no small improvement on what is human *normal*. >>And those like you who fail to recognize evil >>are in my eyes little short of evil themselves. > > Lee is providing a good example of the evolved-in-the-stone-age > mechanisms that kept the population more or less in balance with > the ability of the ecosystem to feed them. It's true that aggression against other societies was good for survival: Those groups which lost the ability to have a strong concept of self and a strong willingness to defend it went by the wayside. I'm not sure that this potential hostility against other tribes accounts, however, for the strong sense of internal social justice I and many other people have---an instinct that acts to block and deter slips within our own society towards the barbaric. Many of us find it nearly incomprehensible that large portions of our inner cities have been handed over to barbarians. > When people perceive a bleak future--and at this point a fairly high > percentage of the populations in the world do--then dehumanizing > memes such as "these people are animals and should be rounded > up and executed" become more widespread in the population. That may be true---but it's a side-benefit when compared with the value of constant vigilence against criminal behavior *within* one's own group, quite independent of population density. The frontier, for example, was lightly populated, but they knew what to do with horse thieves, and, truth be told, they had no alternative. Altruistic punishment also evolved for excellent reasons, and it's a shame when some people can't remember any longer why hating criminals is a good idea. Lee From neomorphy at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 04:33:10 2006 From: neomorphy at gmail.com (Olie Lamb) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:33:10 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212214517.03ed1ec0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212214517.03ed1ec0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 12/13/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > At 05:24 AM 12/12/2006 -0800, Lee wrote: > > Now what we might be able to do about it--that's another story and I could > really use help with some ideas here. Learn to separate the act from the actor, maybe... Or, if looking for a non-culturo-educational solution, "Take a chill pill" :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 04:43:40 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:43:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rights and Moral Indignation In-Reply-To: <019901c71deb$4c8d7ed0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20061213044340.20423.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > Secondly, *these* particular abstractions > ---"rights"---I do claim to not really exist. > (Unlike money, or the the number 17, or > *democracy*, or other abstractions that > have value and which do exist.) > > Show me an argument that rights exist, > oh, say, before the advent of civilization. > Or, say, before the Magna Carta, or > whatever. Well I guess that all depends on how you define "natural rights". To me natural rights means that if a man tries to snatch a dog's dinner away from it, and it growls at him, the dog is asserting its natural rights. If the man smacks the dog on the nose with the newspaper and takes the dog's dinner away from it, the man is asserting his ownership rights over both the dog and the dog-food. My conclusion is that anyone only has those rights that they are willing to assert so long as others allow them to assert them. See why I am calling for self-reliance and bringing the Bush administration to account? Otherwise we are saying that the President is above the highest law of the land. > Well, as James Madison wrote > > "Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, > we are in a > wretched situation. No theoretical checks -- no > form of > government can render us secure. To suppose > liberty or > happiness without any virtue in the people, is a > chimerical > idea. If there be sufficient virtue and > intelligence in the > community, it will be exercised in the selection > of these > men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, > or put > confidence in our rulers, but in the people who > are to > choose them." > > In other words, if the people don't have enough > character, then the game's up anyway. Don't > *expect* a piece of paper to protect you. But > sorry, that's your point, not mine :-) Great quote. > Yes, we had this argument not long ago. I > agree that it is a real risk. But there is also > a risk letting more and more nations get > nuclear weapons, and a risk of letting > more and more infiltrators into Western > countries. These risks must be balanced. For a country like the U.S. to be so unhealthily OBSESSED over one known risk is to let a thousand other risks go completely unprepared for. Witness hurricane Katrina. > > How is that you protest so at them cutting > > the head off a man with a knife. Yet you > > and millions of other Americans will pay > > good money to walk into a theater and > > watch the simulation of a man doing the > > same to dozens of people with a chainsaw? > > Maybe because the audience knows the > difference between fantasy and reality? Do they? What about Columbine? How is that a child must be accompanied by a parent to see a woman's breasts at the theater but not to watch that woman get stabbed in those breasts? > > > I have, Lee. I have gone into such neighborhoods > many > > times in the past and I am sure I will again in > the > > future. For her part, Samantha would probably fare > > much better than you in those parts of town too. > Your > > fear is so glaringly evident, its like a spiritual > > beacon for violence. You seem like a > "bully-magnet". > > Oh, so now it's *my* fault if I get roughed up > while you and Samantha were to look on? > This is one of the most egregious defenses > of evil I've ever seen of evil. Just because > they don't pick on you, that makes them okay? Again with this ascribing attitudes and actions to others that are just not true. Why on earth would you, on the basis of anything I or Samantha have said, assume that either of us would stand idly by and let you or anyone else we know get roughed up? And yes, for you to be smart enough to know that we live in a Darwinian world and to have never learned martial arts of any kind is irrational. You could have taken a couple of hours per week to train in boxing, wrestling, karate, savate, krav-maga, anything that would have given you an edge in a confrontation. Then even if you had lost the fight, the effort the bully would have had to take to do so would have disouraged him from ever doing it again. That you did not do any of these things was your decision and not the bully's. And what on earth makes you think that you becoming a monster would earn my respect or that you don't already have my respect? Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Dec 13 02:30:44 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:30:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Neural Internet:Web Surfing with Brain Potentials Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212211846.03ea2bd8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:22 PM 12/12/2006 +0100, Eugen wrote: snip >But anything beyond that, and I have a hunch it may require that, to mend >e.g. a severed spinal cord would need nanosurgery, and if you can do that, >you might want do a lot more than just repair. Isofunctional substitution >(aka incremental or gradual in situ uploading) is within touching distance >then. Just for fun . . . . Early in the second wet season Suskulan received a major system upgrade. The upgrade went swiftly because Suskulan had stockpiled tens of thousands of liters of parts and fuel--most of it in the form of methyl alcohol--that he also was keeping in stock to be converted to fat if needed. Suskulan's first serious patient after the upgrade was Zaba, a 12 year old who had been shot through her spine while working in a garden. She was near death, and far beyond help by pre clinic standards, when she was placed in Suskulan's "hands." As the nanotech mist enveloped her still body, Suskulan quickly evaluated her than told her parents: "I can heal Zaba but it will take at least a week, perhaps as many as ten days. She will not be able to move or speak at first, but you can talk to her spirit at noon tomorrow." After they left Suskulan moved Zaba's body underground for better cooling and shorter connections to the mass of repair devices. With a small amount of his attention he constructed an image of the repair table and Zaba out of utility fog including the ghastly wounds This time the nanomachines didn't infiltrate her brain just to shut it down, though they did that and reversed the mild damage from shock and low blood flow. The nanomachines mapped out all her neural circuits and cell connections. Shortly before her parents entered the clinic the next day they tentatively restored consciousness, partly in her brain--which was far below the temperature needed to run on its own--and partly in the haze of nanomachines that were also simulating input in place of her eyes and ears. "What happened to me? Where am I? Where is my body?" Zaba asked as she became conscious. She was calm because the nanomachines were acting as tranquilizers. Suskulan was listening to an interface to her mostly simulated motor cortex. To give Zaba orientation Suskulan imposed on her visual cortex a wire frame image of the human form he usually presented then explained: "You were shot, you are in the clinic Suskulan at the tata, and your body is under the clinic being repaired. The clinic recently gained new powers to speak to spirits while their bodies are being healed. The healing will take some time, even I do not know exactly how many days," he added, "You were badly injured." "My mother and father," Zaba started and then stopped. "They brought you to me yesterday and are very concerned. Your mother is holding the hand of an image of your body in the clinic. Suskulan switched her vision to one in the clinic looking at the repair table and Zaba's parents. "I can extend my power and let you use it to talk to them as if you were speaking through a telephone." When her parents had entered the clinic Suskulan told them that Zaba could not move or feel anything yet, but if they wanted to speak to her spirit, it was nearby and he would try to invoke it. Tomorrow her spirit would be back in her body. Zaba had never used a telephone, the tata being well out of range of a cell tower but she knew what they were like. Suskulan's wire frame image handed Zaba a cell phone image. She reached out with her wire frame body and took it from him. "Mother?" Her voice came out of the speaker Suskulan used. "Zaba!" "Are you going to be all right Zaba?" "Suskulan says I will be, but he doesn't know how many days it will take. Can you get Tanko to finish weeding? "I will do it myself." Her mother said. She did not want to risk her other daughter. After a strange hour of visiting with Zaba's spirit through a speaker and holding the warm but still hand of Zaba's utility fog image her mother and father left promising to come back the next day. When they left, Suskulan told Zaba that tomorrow she would be able to talk to her mother and feel her through the image. He offered to let her sleep till the next day, but Zaba was curious about what had happened to her. "Who shot me?" "That I do not know. However, the bullet fragments can be matched with the gun if someone else is shot or the gun is found. It was an AK-47 or similar. The bullet went through your spine." Sensing that she wanted to know more, Suskulan generated a wire frame of her body and fed it to her visual circuits. "The bullet entered the outer edge of your right nipple between ribs, passed through your right lung just missing your heart. It hit the 4th thoracic vertebrae, shattering it and severing your spinal cord." Since butchering animals was a common (but not common enough!) practice at the tata Zaba understood the picture she was seeing. "That takes a lot of fixing. Your body is being kept very cold so my healing spirits can work fast without burning up." "How do they work?" "Ah. Such a simple question; such a *hard* answer. The problem is you don't have the words; they don't exist in your language. To understand how healing spirits work would require that you learn to read and learn another language." Zaba, like 99% of the Tamberma, was illiterate. Not that learning to read in her language would have been much help. The only literature in the language was a translation of the Bible, not terribly useful to people with traditional religions. "Can you teach me this language and how to read?" Zaba asked. There was a short pause, which was really a very long pause for Suskulan as he projected what would happen and the unstated (though obvious) reason he had been given the upgrade. "Yes" Suskulan said at last inflecting his voice to a sigh. "But it will change you and the rest of the people of the tata in ways you cannot foresee and may not like. You can sleep through the nine or ten days it will take to finish healing you. Are you sure you want to do this? "Yes," said Zaba firmly, "I want to learn." And thus was the fate of this particular tata determined, though in truth something like this had been ordained since Lothar and Mabo traded the clinic seed that became Suskulan for a fetish and before that when the Foundation organized the distribution of clinic seeds, and before that when an early clinic design was released under a creative commons license, and before that . . . leading back and back in time to when proto humans first discovered that a broken stone's sharp edge was just the thing to get at the meat under a hide. Subjectively Zaba talked to her parents every ten days. By the next day Suskulan had animated her image on the healing table so Zaba was able to speak through it and to feel her mother holding her utility fog image when she visited. Zaba's real body was near freezing and 30 meters under the tata. Her biological memory was being mechanically updated in her very cold brain and her consciousness was running in a swarm of fast nano computers. Suskulan could have let her experience run even faster but he didn't want Zaba to get too far out of synch with her family and the rest of the tata. Mechanically constructed memory is a very efficient way to learn. With Suskulan's help Zaba learned to read her own language in a few hours, to be fluent in English in 15 days (subjective), to an eighth-grade equivalent education in 30 days and to a rough understanding of the physical and chemical background for nanotechnology by 60 days subjective. Toward the end of her stay in the clinic, Zaba had an understanding of what the swarms of repair devices were doing to restore her spinal cord, patiently teasing out where the nerves should be reconnected across the gap, replacing cell walls and myelin in the destroyed section, rebuilding the shattered bone, muscle and connective tissue and fishing out the bullet fragments down to single atoms of lead. She even had some understanding of how her mind was being supported in the nano computers that were acting in place of her very cold brain. A few hours before her parents were to come on the last day, Zaba warmed up her body under Suskulan's guidance. Her consciousness was continuous as the reactivated brain cells took over from the slowed down swarm of nano computers that had been simulating them. The support and information umbilical connections withdrew and the holes in her skin closed seamlessly as Zaba started breathing for the first time in 9 days. She sat up and coughed a few times. Her physical body was different from what she had experienced for the past subjective 90 days. Better? Worse? She could not decide. Zaba was delighted that there was no sign she had been shot. She walked around the huge underground space, which had become familiar to her in the past 3 months as she shifted her virtual viewpoint among clouds of utility fog. Zaba detected a few misconnected sensation nerves in one foot. Suskulan said if her brain did not adjust to them in a few days she should come back and the clinic would fix them. She was mildly distressed that she now had to voice talk to Suskulan, who appeared as a projection, instead of "talking" directly to his spirit in the spirit world she had inhabited. Then she realized from her new knowledge there was a way she could if she took a bit of the clinic with her. However, there wasn't much time to before her parents came. "Can I come back to visit even if I am not hurt?" she asked. "Yes. Anytime I don't have another patient." "May I take the clinic's interface with me?" "There is nothing so addictive . . ." thought Suskulan. "You may." Part of the cloud of nanomachines that had just left Zaba's brain returned as a momentary haze. Since they retained their memory of where they had been it was a matter of a few minutes before the machines reestablished their monitoring posts in Zaba's brain. "I missed not being able to talk to you in the spirit world." Zaba said without voicing. A wire frame image in Zaba's visual cortex overlaid the physical projected image of Suskulan. "Spirit talk does not reach as far as your garden." Suskulan warned her. Zaba lay down on the repair table that was now at the bottom of the elevator shaft. The elevator lifted it into its place in the clinic. Zaba was treated to seeing the rapidly thinning utility fog image of her body that had comforted her family for the last ten days before she merged into her image. The nanomachine haze that had fogged her image and now her real body withdrew into the low table. . . . Keith Henson From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Dec 13 05:55:49 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:55:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rights and Moral Indignation In-Reply-To: <20061213044340.20423.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200612130608.kBD684gR006559@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian ... > > ... is that a child > must be accompanied by a parent to see a woman's > breasts at the theater but not to watch that woman get > stabbed in those breasts?... Stuart LaForge I miss the 70s in some ways. Sex was safe and violence was dangerous. I don't know how it was switched. Or why it has stayed switched. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Dec 13 06:15:01 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:15:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212214517.03ed1ec0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061212214517.03ed1ec0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061213010518.03e9fed8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:33 PM 12/13/2006 +1100, Olie wrote: >On 12/13/06, Keith Henson ><hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote: >At 05:24 AM 12/12/2006 -0800, Lee wrote: > >Now what we might be able to do about it--that's another story and I could >really use help with some ideas here. > >Learn to separate the act from the actor, maybe... > >Or, if looking for a non-culturo-educational solution, "Take a chill pill" :) I think you might have missed the point. The model here indicates vast numbers of people will die in wars and related social disruptions. Including, if we are unlucky, some or perhaps even many of us. My personal optimal solution would be to leave the whole solar system behind, preferable many light years behind. But just as a tribe very seldom had the option to move out of contact with other tribes here on earth, I can't get out of the way of the unfriendly, no, crazed, tribes that are about to duke it out. Keith Henson From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 05:45:18 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:45:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets In-Reply-To: <019d01c71df0$e8b2d8a0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <765205.89231.qm@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > I am still so upset and inflamed at The > Avantguardian's post > that I must say more. I hope you take what I said in the spirit it was intended. I meant not to offend you, just to get you to examine yourself. One can shore up a weakness, reinforce it, and make it strong but only if you are self-honest in seeing it for what it is. To simply deny the weakness does not make it go away. It just makes it a permanent vulnerability. > Stuart wrote > > > [Lee wrote] > >> Why don't you and some of the > >> other idealists here go into the tough > >> parts of town and see how far you > >> get rendering niceties to the gangs > >> you encounter there? > > > > I have, Lee. I have gone into such neighborhoods > many > > times in the past and I am sure I will again in > the > > future. For her part, Samantha would probably fare > > much better than you in those parts of town too. > > And you think it's acceptable that people "those > parts > of town" can get away with beating up, mugging and > robbing people? No. But neither do I think it's acceptable that our military is torturing people, putting civilians at risk (even if they are not OUR civilians), and doing idiotic things like shooting Iraqi shepherds' flocks for sport. Nor is it acceptable that the government is spying, detaining, and possibly torturing, American citizens without a trial. You talk about how wrong it is to stand idly by while bullies victimize others? George W. Bush is the biggest bully of them all. He is beyond a bully, he is practically an incarnation of fear and death. He has killed over 500,000 people including the American troops lost in Iraq and the American criminals he executed as governor of Texas. Furthermore he has left us in debt, over-extended, and vulnerable. In short, I would rather walk the inner city any day than to trust Bush, or Cheney for that matter, anywhere but in maximum security prison. And the democrats? Spineless fools they are. > It's not fear. It's my utter contempt and hatred > of bullies that does it. Yes, I was a "bully > magnet", > as you put it, in school, and I suppose I still am. > Yes, I was afraid of them. But I always stood my > ground, too, and I did get beat up a couple of > times. A wise little green man who never existed once said, "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering." If you give in to hating, you will have slipped even further to the "dark side" and the bullies will not have been diminished one iota. In fact, they may increase because you might have become one of them. > > If I can sense it over the Internet, you will look > > irresistable to the desperate souls in any "tough" > > neighborhood. [DESPERATE SOULS, he > > calls them!!] > > And that will be *my* fault, I suppose! > > How in God's name can you blame the victims > the way you're doing? I despair at the moral > cowardice of not standing up to bullies and > hoodlums. Victimizer-victim is an evolved social dynamic, just like any other. As such it is reciprocal and not unilateral. Victimizers could not exist in a world that did not have people that allowed themselves to be victims. Why allow yourself to be a victim? > But I absolutely HATE those who in any way > defend the hoodlums and bullies because their > victims were "bully magnets" or were "asking > for it". There you go hating again. Do you still not see the innate weakness and ultimate futility of hate? I am not defending bullies at all. I am urging you to take responsibility for your own situation and not blame "bullies" for your victim status. I am urging you to refuse to be a victim. NOT by graduating to victimizer, mind you. But instead by leaving the cycle of fear and violence completely. > "Desperate souls", you call them. Oh, the poor > things. They drag people out of cars and beat > them to death, or merely rob them. The poor > things! And who's to really blame? Let me > guess: our society that does not meet their > "needs". No. Most have but themselves to blame. Growing up in "tough" neighborhoods, getting robbed and beaten up all the time. Being vicitized time and time again until that magic day when they get their dark epiphany of power, and graduate from victim to victimizer. Lo and behold, a thug is born. > Oh, no. I misspoke. It's the people in the cars > who go into the wrong neighborhoods who are > to blame because they are "bully magnets". In > like manner, the women who dress wrong are just > "asking for it", and deserve to be raped? Just > wondering. When your decisions (or indecision) put you in harms way, you cannot shift the culpability to others. Ultimate responsibility for the self lies with the self. Maybe in the eyes of the law you can pin blame on others, but not in the eyes of natural selection or karma. > This really pushes my buttons because I do very > much remember the way it was in high school, > and how my "friends" would blame *me* because > I got picked on. If there was no truth to it then why does it bother you so much? > I now see what I should have done. I was pretty > strong myself, and I should have balled up my > fist and punched out my so-called friends. Then > they'd see that I was really one of the good guys, > one of the bullies who cannot be blamed. I guess. No. You would have merely changed partners in the "dance of death" and become the victimizer instead of the victim. > Oh---I forgot---you probably already support > the ACLU, and they surely lean over backwards > to make sure that inner city gangs are not overly > bothered by the police or anyone, and are > probably working as hard as they can to see > that inner city criminals qualify for welfare > programs. Well its not the ACLU's or the gangster's fault that police officers would rather bust some kids for smoking pot than get into the gun battles to clear out the inner-city. Some of the gangs probably even have connections inside the police department. > These animals---and that is the mildest term I > have for them---these animals who thrive on > crime and a repudiation of everything that is > good or noble in our civilization all deserve > to be rounded up and executed. Shall we tatoo numbers on them and throw them into concetration camps first? Animals? Hitler called the jews rats to convince people it was politically correct to do precisely what you advocate. > And those like you who fail to recognize evil > are in my eyes little short of evil themselves. Hate is evil, no matter who you hate or why. Love is more powerful anyways. I could not have hurt you so much with "bully-magnet" remark had I not loved you enough to know it to be true. It is too easy, almost unsportingly so, to hurt those you love. For this reason above all others, you should always love your enemies and tread carefully amongst your friends. I am sorry I had to hurt you to teach you that lesson, but maybe it will stick with you because of it. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Dec 13 06:04:57 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:04:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets In-Reply-To: <01eb01c71e6f$8867b6d0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200612130618.kBD6I1Bt014631@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin ... > > Unfortunately, this awareness has been lost, especially in modern > America. When did your family begin locking its doors at night? ... This is something I have wondered about. My conclusion is that door locking does not start at a particular time in history, so much as it starts in families when certain milestones are reached, such as 1) when the children are old enough to be responsible with keys, and 2) when the home attains something of actual value. In my case that happened around 1974. My brother and I could keep up with house keys before that time, but our house contained exactly nothing that would be worth the effort to haul away. In 74, we bought a color TV, so the door had to be locked after that. > Most people I know relate that their > folks began locking their doors at night around 1960... Lee Lee perhaps many of those people were in their teens in 1960? spike From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Wed Dec 13 06:55:40 2006 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:55:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fatal Cult Memes (was: Recent evolution) References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061212114952.03e90578@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5562D19A75679FC592F58848@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> Message-ID: <457FA3EC.2060209@thomasoliver.net> Frederick Mann wrote: >--On Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:53:27 PM -0500 Keith Henson wrote: > > > > >>It is *possible* we are less susceptible to fatal cult memes than our >>European ancestors were if the most susceptible of them died in crusades >>and other such disruptions in historical times. But I kind of doubt the >>weeding was intense enough to change gene frequencies to a significant extent. >> >>Any other examples you can think of? >> >> > >Most "modern" humans (and I suspect this includes >many libertarians, anarchists, extropians, etc.) >may still be extremely "susceptible to fatal cult >memes" -- like "state," "government," "country," >"nation," "law," "king," "queen," "president," >"god," "allah," etc. -- it's a long, deadly list. >What if at the bottom of most of the killing in >the Middle East there are "fatal cult memes." > >See #TL07D: DEEP ANARCHY -- >AN ELIMINATIVIST VIEW OF "THE STATE" >by Max T. O'Connor (aka Max More) > > >#TL07: The Constitution of No Authority > > >#TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak > > >#TL07B: The Nature of Government > > >Frederick Mann > Mr. Mann, After reading these articles I see I may have been preaching to the choir on this list. I thank you for the wealth of information. -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Dec 13 07:03:38 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:03:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rights and Moral Indignation References: <20061213044340.20423.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <020801c71e85$4dac2740$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart, our Avantguardian, writes > --- Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Secondly, *these* particular abstractions >> ---"rights"---I do claim to not really exist. >> (Unlike money, or the the number 17, or >> *democracy*, or other abstractions that >> have value and which do exist.) > > Well I guess that all depends on how you define > "natural rights". There is, I concede, a long and noble tradition of "natural rights". But it means nothing more than "liberty" or "liberties". The language is simply confusing. By default, we all should be free. We should all agree to that. Unfortunately, in history it didn't often turn out that way, and even now, our liberties become less over time. And don't blame it *all* on Bush! > To me natural rights means that if a > man tries to snatch a dog's dinner away from it, and > it growls at him, the dog is asserting its natural rights. > If the man smacks the dog on the nose with the > newspaper and takes the dog's dinner away from it, the > man is asserting his ownership rights over both the > dog and the dog-food. > > My conclusion is that anyone only has those rights > that they are willing to assert so long as others > allow them to assert them. Your notion has a peculiar "might makes rights" ring to it. > For a country like the U.S. to be so unhealthily > OBSESSED over one known risk is to let a thousand > other risks go completely unprepared for. Witness > hurricane Katrina. You also seem to believe in "natural rights for governments"! Imagine 1906, and that a terrible hurricane or earthquake has staggered California, instead of Louisiana. It would never have occurred to anyone that the Sacramento government was to blame for the distress of the San Franciscans, much less Washington D.C. How times have changed. How sad. It is the responsibility of a free people to look out for themselves, not the responsibility of a far-away government to hold their hands. >> > How is that you protest so at them cutting >> > the head off a man with a knife. Yet you >> > and millions of other Americans will pay >> > good money to walk into a theater and >> > watch the simulation of a man doing the >> > same to dozens of people with a chainsaw? >> >> Maybe because the audience knows the >> difference between fantasy and reality? > > Do they? What about Columbine? Statistically ignorable. Totally. Could be twice as many totally nutty and lawless things like that happened in 1906, and hardly anyone noticed. It certainly would not have been national news. Lee From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Wed Dec 13 07:51:41 2006 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:51:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212214517.03ed1ec0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <457FB10D.3070408@thomasoliver.net> Keith Henson wrote: >At 05:24 AM 12/12/2006 -0800, Lee wrote: > >big snip > > > >>These animals---and that is the mildest term I >>have for them---these animals who thrive on >>crime and a repudiation of everything that is >>good or noble in our civilization all deserve >>to be rounded up and executed. >> >>And those like you who fail to recognize evil >>are in my eyes little short of evil themselves. >> >> > >Lee is providing a good example of the evolved-in-the-stone-age mechanisms >that kept the population more or less in balance with the ability of the >ecosystem to feed them. > >When people perceive a bleak future--and at this point a fairly high >percentage of the populations in the world do--then dehumanizing memes such >as "these people are animals and should be rounded up and executed" become >more widespread in the population. One of the classic examples of this I >quoted in one of my earliest meme papers, the correlation in the 70s and >80s between bad economic times and expansion of neo-nazi groups in the US. > >Now virtually all the reasons in the stone age that people perceive a bleak >future was because of other people--too many of them. So evolved >mechanisms that turn up the gain on dehumanizing memes against various out >groups make sense (other tribes or just a different sub group like Jews or >Tutsis). The end result of this process is a population reduction, war, >concentration camps, slaughter like Rwanda or Cambodia. > >If you think western peoples are different in this respect from Rwandans, >you are sadly forgetting your history. When the chips are down, the >Western Tribes (and include Japan adopted into this culture block) are >bloody vicious. > >This isn't good or bad, no more than having 5 fingers or being subject to >capture bonding. It just is, a legacy from our hunter gatherer past. > >Now what we might be able to do about it--that's another story and I could >really use help with some ideas here. > >Keith Henson > > > I knew memes were analogous to genes. It sounds like you're saying they are linked. -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Wed Dec 13 08:05:06 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:05:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets Message-ID: > Unfortunately, this awareness has been lost, especially in modern > America. When did your family begin locking its doors at night? ... Today, there are still places, encompassing towns (but smaller than a State), in the U.S. where no one locks their houses and cars. And yes, the houses and cars contain valuables. It's 'culture-dependent', dependent on what you learn from your community starting from a young age. Amara From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 12:43:27 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:43:27 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear winter's back In-Reply-To: <02b901c71e64$fc7509c0$6501a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <457F0D32.5040007@thomasoliver.net> <02b901c71e64$fc7509c0$6501a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <710b78fc0612130443v4f37fe4fv4b8fe1cdf4cfecdf@mail.gmail.com> I really love that idea. Anyone got an idea on numbers? Related... instead of global nuclear winter, could we pollute with something a lot more opaque than current fossil fuels, and reduce the amount of energy getting through to the planet surface? Modify the greenhouse gas emmisions so they act like dark sunglasses? Emlyn On 13/12/06, Gary Miller wrote: > > Hey now here's an thought. > > What about using nuclear weapons nuclear winter effect to offset global > warming? > > We could probably set them off far enough out under the middle of the ocean > that that significant > fallout wouldn't even reach land. > > Radical perhaps but using one environmental disaster to counter another > sounds crazy enough to work. > > Who says two wrongs can't make a right? > ________________________________ > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf > Of Thomas > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:13 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] nuclear winter's back > > > Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/916 SYDNEY: Even a > small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many fatalities as all > of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more, U.S. > researchers have found. "With the exchange of 100 [hiroshima-sized] weapons > as posed in this scenario, the estimated quantities of smoke generated > could lead to global climate anomalies exceeding any changes experienced in > recorded history," said co-author Alan Robock, of Rutgers Univeristy in > New Jersey. "And that's just 0.03 per cent of the total explosive power of > the current world nuclear arsenal." > > Kucinich's knuckles hit the podium like a drumroll as he says he will "cause > the U.S. to work toward total nuclear disarmament...." > http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/11/ma_562_01.html > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From eugen at leitl.org Wed Dec 13 12:50:53 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:50:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear winter's back In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0612130443v4f37fe4fv4b8fe1cdf4cfecdf@mail.gmail.com> References: <457F0D32.5040007@thomasoliver.net> <02b901c71e64$fc7509c0$6501a8c0@ZANDRA2> <710b78fc0612130443v4f37fe4fv4b8fe1cdf4cfecdf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061213125053.GG6974@leitl.org> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:43:27PM +1000, Emlyn wrote: > Related... instead of global nuclear winter, could we pollute with > something a lot more opaque than current fossil fuels, and reduce the > amount of energy getting through to the planet surface? Modify the > greenhouse gas emmisions so they act like dark sunglasses? Get aircraft exhaust as high as possible. Use hydrogen fuel and maybe nucleators. Stratospheric aerosol solutions are also an option, but pricier. With jet exhaust, you're getting the thing as side effect. Also, global dimming might come en vogue again. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Dec 13 14:15:39 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:15:39 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Neural Internet:Web Surfing with Brain Potentials In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212211846.03ea2bd8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212211846.03ea2bd8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <2684.81.152.101.82.1166019339.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Keith Henson wrote: > Just for fun . . . . Very nice story. Published somewhere? There is an ongoing nanomedicine and neural interface story in the webcomic Schlock Mercenary. The current "scene" starts here http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20061209.html although the story itself really starts here: http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20061031.html (the fire scene is hysterically funny: "Any kid who plays with fire learns this stuff. It's too bad I was playing with shaped charges instead.") -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Dec 13 14:59:52 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 06:59:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear winter's back In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0612130443v4f37fe4fv4b8fe1cdf4cfecdf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200612131512.kBDFC9M7015888@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Related... instead of global nuclear winter, could we pollute with > something a lot more opaque than current fossil fuels, and reduce the > amount of energy getting through to the planet surface? Modify the > greenhouse gas emmisions so they act like dark sunglasses? > > Emlyn If we are declaring that we have the technology to change the planet's thermostat, we soon get into an argument regarding what the temperature should be, and how to decide. This leads to some wildly complications, such as what if one part of the planet is too cold and getting colder, while another is too warm and getting warmer. What about wet/dry places, and the storm cycles? Oy. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Dec 13 15:41:43 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 07:41:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] PLoS Biology - Balancing Robustness and Evolvability Message-ID: This essay appeared today on PLoS Biology on a topic of interest to members of this list. Although the article seems to contain some misconceptions (even in the first paragraph, below) it also contains some interesting concepts such as "survival of the flattest" and some references to related papers. - Jef http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.13 71%2Fjournal.pbio.0040428 One of the most important features of biology is the ability of organisms to persist in the face of changing conditions. Consider the remarkable fact that every organism alive today is the product of billions of generations in which its progenitors, without fail, managed to produce progeny that survived to reproduce. To achieve this consistency, organisms must have a balance between robustness and evolvability, that is, between resisting and allowing change in their own internal states [1-3]. Moreover, they must achieve this balance on multiple time scales, including physiological responses to changes over an individual life and evolutionary responses, in which a population of genomes continually updates its encoded information about past environments and how future generations should respond given that record... From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 15:49:56 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:49:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets In-Reply-To: <765205.89231.qm@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> References: <019d01c71df0$e8b2d8a0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <765205.89231.qm@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60612130749w335bbc15g9851c5f21d839915@mail.gmail.com> On 12/13/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > Well its not the ACLU's or the gangster's fault that > police officers would rather bust some kids for > smoking pot than get into the gun battles to clear out > the inner-city. Some of the gangs probably even have > connections inside the police department. ### You surely realize that it *is* the gangster's fault that the police are unwilling to bust him - obviously, his ferocity, utter contempt for police officers' lives, marksmanship, and bribes contribute to make them turn a blind eye to the depredations he inflicts on his victims. That's why honest people hate gangsters with a vengeance, because hate, well-tempered by reason, makes our lives better. Rafal From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Dec 13 07:05:23 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:05:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rights and Moral Indignation In-Reply-To: <353004.82753.qm@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061213070523.76646.qmail@web37207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: espirit de corp. Do you mean, esprit de corps? Just to understand properly. Happy Holidays Anna:) PS. > "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in > it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick Nice quote:) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 14:55:01 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 06:55:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets In-Reply-To: <2684.81.152.101.82.1166019339.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20061213145502.33950.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> [moderator, please post] No, a 'rube' clearly implies someone who pushes their religion & politics, on others. Someone who lives in a very small town (such is called a hamlet) and leaves you alone is not a rube, they tend to the farm or run a business; a rube is engaged in more pushy efforts to qualify him as a rube. Bush is a rube, he is not content to oversee his estate in Crawford TX, he pushes his religion, for instance, on many people. Many Xians feel compelled by their scripture to 'witness' (push their faith) to potential converts. Rube religion. Anti-abortionists push 'pro-life' propaganda. Rube politics. Lee, I can't understand why you would think residents of very small towns who don't feel they have to lock their doors at night would be considered rubes by me. >Lee Corbin wrote: >...but it's also true that in a few very small towns, people, who Al would call "rubes"... --------------------------------- Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Dec 13 16:43:02 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:43:02 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear winter's back Message-ID: <3334.81.152.101.82.1166028182.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Emlyn wrote: > I really love that idea. Anyone got an idea on numbers? > > Related... instead of global nuclear winter, could we pollute with > something a lot more opaque than current fossil fuels, and reduce the > amount of energy getting through to the planet surface? Modify the > greenhouse gas emmisions so they act like dark sunglasses? As Eugene pointed out, sulphur oxide and sulphate particles do a good job. See the papers: P. J. Crutzen, Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma, Climatic Change (2006) 77: 211?219 http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/pdf/2006/Crutzen2006.pdf Vaishali Naik, Donald J. Wuebbles, Evan H. DeLuci and Jonathan A. Foley, Influence of Geoengineered Climate on the Terrestrial Biosphere, Environmental Management, 32:3 / September, 2003 http://www.springerlink.com/content/nffpj86jp0kfyfle/ It is my prediction that within this century we are going to see unilateral climate improvements by one or more nations if they feel themselves threatened enough. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Dec 13 17:05:13 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:05:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60612130749w335bbc15g9851c5f21d839915@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > ### You surely realize that it *is* the gangster's fault that > the police are unwilling to bust him - obviously, his > ferocity, utter contempt for police officers' lives, > marksmanship, and bribes contribute to make them turn a blind > eye to the depredations he inflicts on his victims. > > That's why honest people hate gangsters with a vengeance, > because hate, well-tempered by reason, makes our lives better. Hate is a heuristic, most useful in cases of insufficient understanding. In my opinion Stuart made some excellent points, presenting a broader view of these social and personal dynamics, but the picture he paints leaves out the subjective element so vitally important to--and so passionately defended by--certain of our list members. There seems to be a strong relation between positions on this topic and positions on preservation of personal identity. In both cases there's a particular sense of "I damn well know what's important to me so don't give me none of yer high-falutin' theories that just cover up what everybody knows is right." I see bullying and gangs as large negative values to society, and symptomatic of many deeper factors, but when considering these problems I'm glad I don't experience the perturbations of hate. By the way, I too went through years of being bullied as a child due to being so different and "actin' all superior and shit" (and [still] not being skilled at the game.) - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Dec 13 17:53:25 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:53:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hating Those Who Would Destroy You References: <765205.89231.qm@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <023001c71edf$be5c5190$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart also wrote ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Avantguardian" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets >> And you think it's acceptable that people >> in "those parts of town" can get away with >> beating up, mugging and robbing people? > > No. But neither do I think it's acceptable that our > military is torturing people*, putting civilians at > risk (even if they are not OUR civilians), and doing > idiotic things like shooting Iraqi shepherds' flocks > for sport. Nor is it acceptable that the government is > spying, detaining, and possibly torturing, American > citizens* without a trial. Well, it's pretty obvious what you want to talk about! > You talk about how wrong it is to stand idly by while > bullies victimize others? George W. Bush is the > biggest bully of them all.... You always drift off into Bush-hate. Why do you hate so much? :-) >> It's not fear. It's my utter contempt and hatred >> of bullies that does it. Yes, I was a "bully >> magnet", >> as you put it, in school, and I suppose I still am. >> Yes, I was afraid of them. But I always stood my >> ground, too, and I did get beat up a couple of >> times. > > A wise little green man who never existed once said, > "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads > to suffering." If you give in to hating, you will have > slipped even further to the "dark side" and the > bullies will not have been diminished one iota >> ... >> How in God's name can you blame the victims >> the way you're doing? I despair at the moral >> cowardice of not standing up to bullies and >> hoodlums. > > Victimizer-victim is an evolved social dynamic, just > like any other. As such it is reciprocal and not > unilateral. Victimizers could not exist in a world > that did not have people that allowed themselves > to be victims. Why allow yourself to be a victim? I'm not a victim! Not any more. I can afford to live where it's easy and safe, and everyone is courteous. Everywhere I happen to go (which isn't far, I admit) everything is perfectly normal and civilized. I don't need to be "street-wise". NO ONE SHOULD NEED TO BE STREET WISE! I'm telling you, that in certain schools it simply cannot be helped: there will always be those who are weaker, and you're simply being unreasonable to blame them for not taking karate lessons or what-have-you. Rather than kids adjusting to the presence of crime and bullies, why don't we all try to strongly rid ourselves of those elements which make neighborhoods unsafe? (And please, that's not a question about Amerian foreign policy or about Bush's "war crimes".) >> But I absolutely HATE those who in any way >> defend the hoodlums and bullies because their >> victims were "bully magnets" or were "asking >> for it". > > There you go hating again. Do you still not see the > innate weakness and ultimate futility of hate? No. As I read history, it looks rather effective. Carthago delenda est, and many examples like it. Without hate of what the Japanese did, the Americans could not have brought the Pacific war to an end. You consider yourself *perfectly* safe in your neighborhood? Has it been taken over by gangs? Would you mind if it was, seeing as you are so good at not being a victim of any sort? If you don't want your neighborhood taken over by gangs, please explain why. > I am urging you to refuse to be a victim. NOT > by graduating to victimizer, mind you. But > instead by leaving the cycle of fear and violence > completely. That does sound a lot like dying! But I know you can't be suggesting that. If in your jaunts through various kinds of neighborhoods in LA, Stuart, what will do you if someone tries to mug you? (Assume it's late at night and they can't see how the way that you carry yourself and the way that you dress precludes your being singled out.) Will you just tell them that you refuse to be a victim? What about when the police decide that you look like the sort they'd like to rough up? Just again, tell them they've got the wrong guy and that you're not a victim? That's silly. > When your decisions (or indecision) put you in harms > way, you cannot shift the culpability to others. > Ultimate responsibility for the self lies with the > self. Maybe in the eyes of the law you can pin blame > on others, but not in the eyes of natural selection or > karma. Yes, you *can* shift the responsibility to others! It should NOT be the fault of a little old lady that she gets mugged. We *should* be able to walk our parks at night. Don't you agree that something terribly important has been lost because we cannot? >> These animals---and that is the mildest term I >> have for them---these animals who thrive on >> crime and a repudiation of everything that is >> good or noble in our civilization all deserve >> to be rounded up and executed. > > Shall we tatoo numbers on them and throw them into > concetration camps first? Animals? Now you're talking! Yes, gang members should be rounded up and put into concentration camps. It could---believe it or not---make the parks safe to walk again at night. It could prevent more criminals and hoodlums from growing up if the role models for such behavior are removed. It could be that people would--- instead of fearing to go about their honest business---become afraid of harming, baiting, mugging, or raping others. Right now, most young criminals are fully cognizant that if they're caught, they get to move on to "higher education" in the prisons, bulk up, and become true professionals. This has transpired because we do not hate criminals sufficiently. > Hitler called the jews rats to convince people > it was politically correct to do precisely what > you advocate. Jesus Christ. You compare the millions of perfectly innocent, harmless, and economically productive European Jews to our inner-city hoodlums, gangsters, and murderers? I can hardly believe what I am reading! > Hate is evil, no matter who you hate or why. Love is > more powerful anyways. I could not have hurt you so > much with "bully-magnet" remark had I not loved you > enough to know it to be true. You're breaking my heart! :-) I do thank you for the love you have for me and mine. But you're wrong about hate. It was right for the Jews to hate Hitler and the Nazis, right for Americans to hate Japs in the war, and right for any people to hate those who would destroy them. If your emotions are not going to truly be on your side when the chips are down, then you and people like you will become extinct. And that's the basic EP reason we hate. Lee *all those people should simply announce that they're not victims, and that it should stop. All those people just bring it on themselves, is that what you're saying? From fm1 at amug.org Wed Dec 13 18:11:02 2006 From: fm1 at amug.org (Frederick Mann) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:11:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fatal Cult Memes (was: Recent evolution) In-Reply-To: <457FA3EC.2060209@thomasoliver.net> References: <20061125171315.91968.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> <456A5688.7020208@goldenfuture.net> <007501c71518$29bfc2e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00b801c715bd$c573eea0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4742FF4C-4FD3-457C-8757-F36F5160296B@thomasoliver.net> <62c14240612101353m44356cc1y4016c0ed977c0b4b@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061212114952.03e90578@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5562D19A75679FC592F58848@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> <457FA3EC.2060209@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: --On Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:55:40 PM -0700 Thomas wrote: > > Mr. Mann, After reading these articles I see I may have been preaching to the choir on this list. I thank you for the wealth of information. -- Thomas > The "fatal cult memes" mentioned below constitute part of what I call "ancient/primitive/obsolete/destructive software": I know 2 people who have more or less spontaneously cleared the "ancient/primitive/obsolete/destructive software" from their brains. For the example of Simon Baker, see: #TL07E: NSPIC DEBATE #1 There may be several hundred, possibly several thousand people in the world who have already developed the mental capacity to upgrade their brains/minds by dumping the "ancient software." If the means could be developed whereby maybe several dozen people could upgrade, a core group might be able to further develop the means to enable many more people to upgrade. This endeavor, apart from the vast benefits to people in general, could become a billion dollar business. There are 3 big challenges: 1. How to find people with the mental capacity to upgrade. 2. How to persuade/induce them to upgrade. (To "normal humans," anyone who has upgraded in the ways I suggest, is considered "crazy" -- unless they keep quiet about their upgraded status.) 3. How to organize a core group of upgraded people for the business to develop the means many more people could apply to upgrade themselves. (Max More seems to have the mental capacity to upgrade as I suggest -- demonstrated by #TL07D: DEEP ANARCHY -- AN ELIMINATIVIST VIEW OF "THE STATE" . However, if he were to continue upgrading as I suggest, and other extropians were to find out about it, most of them would probably regard him as "going crazy!") Frederick Mann > Most "modern" humans (and I suspect this includes > many libertarians, anarchists, extropians, etc.) > may still be extremely "susceptible to fatal cult > memes" -- like "state," "government," "country," > "nation," "law," "king," "queen," "president," > "god," "allah," etc. -- it's a long, deadly list. > What if at the bottom of most of the killing in > the Middle East there are "fatal cult memes." > > See #TL07D: DEEP ANARCHY -- > AN ELIMINATIVIST VIEW OF "THE STATE" > by Max T. O'Connor (aka Max More) > > ># TL07: The Constitution of No Authority > > ># TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak > > ># TL07B: The Nature of Government > > > Frederick Mann From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 18:12:35 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:12:35 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rights and Moral Indignation In-Reply-To: <353004.82753.qm@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0612120811t460d6fe3h1056f6564b3cdf60@mail.gmail.com> <353004.82753.qm@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0612131012s2e068f84y97b624fbdcf61ce0@mail.gmail.com> On 12/13/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Well Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld seem to have made that > decision for me. If you really think hatred of Bush et al constitutes support for blaming the victims for violent crime... well, I'm disappointed; I thought you had better moral standards than that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 18:22:50 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:22:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism on the Air (Wesley Smith) Message-ID: <470a3c520612131022h4b183bb9v2448b890703fb002@mail.gmail.com> >From Wesley Smith's blog: *I was interviewed for an hour by Derek Gilbert yesterday on KSSZ about transhumanism, post humanity, and genetic enhancement of our progeny. We discuss transhumanism as religion, its obsession with control, and its threat to human exceptionalism. If you are interested, check it out .* My comments below. Smith acknowledged that the transhumanist movement is not a fringe movement, that it is growing fast and becoming well known, with "influential thinkers" engaging in "serious scholarship" on posthumanity. Then of course he criticized the "value system" of transhumanists. Both Smith and the interviewer kept laughing frequently, like they could not believe the words they were about to say. Quite cheap trick if you ask me, like the style of some Fox News anchors. Needless to say, to me the effect was the opposite, like hearing a postman laughing at the Internet. Smith said "transhumanists scout the internet, and if you say something about them you will end up on their website, and probably also this radio program will be mentioned on their website at some point". Here it is Wesley! When asked how how influential the transhumanist movement is, Smith answered that it is definitely not fringe though not yet mainstream, mentioned the conference at Stanford, and remarked that while transhumanists will not influence the Bush administration, some of them teach in prestigious universities and are in a good position to influence the government leaders of tomorrow. Concerning "designer babies", Smith thinks parents should "accept with unconditional love" their children. Even, apparently, when accepting their birth defects means condemning them to a lifetime of unhappiness. His main criticism is that transhumanist think that "being merely human is not enough". He keeps referring to empty cliches, impossible to defend rationally, like the "joy we get from being merely human", and that "knowing that we are going to die is a powerful stimulation to live full lives". Even with frequent quotations from the WTA website, Smith keeps misunderstanding the transhumanist message, e.g. "transhumanists never talk of improving human capacity for love". We do talk about it of course, and a lot, but it is difficult to expain things to those who do not wish to understand. The basic premise of transhumanism, according to Smith, is that "being human has no intrinsic value". He believes, instead, in human exceptionalism: humans are special, and being human has value. I agree, but prefer defining "human" based not on our current biological makeup, but rather on our capacity to think, feel, love, hope and improve ourselves and our world. Smith thinks that then "everything becomes possible" and refers to Nazi eugenics which in this context is, I believe, just smoke in the eyes. Transhumanism, according to Smith, is a materialist religion that "reflects obsession with control". But some minutes later he says that he wishes to see human cloning research, even therapeutic, completely outlawed regardless of its potential to save lives and reduce suffering. So I wonder who is really obsessed with control. Even if Smith's objections seem based on humanitarian and social considerations, I still sense the old "will of god" argument against progress (at the very beginning the interviewer refers to "Transhumanism: the idea that we can be more than our God-given physical limitations"). Of course Smith is too intelligent to mention it explicitely. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 18:26:51 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:26:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets In-Reply-To: <20061213164506.6379.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7641ddc60612130749w335bbc15g9851c5f21d839915@mail.gmail.com> <20061213164506.6379.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60612131026r13560b75oc8bd4408d411e5b@mail.gmail.com> Cold desire for revenge is good but I am afraid it may start flagging too soon. Nothing like a a dab of seething rage to keep you marching against evil and to prevent your reason from wandering off into some evolution-forsaken byways. Rafal On 12/13/06, Al Brooks wrote: > How about a cold desire for revenge on the gangsters; would that be > acceptable? > > > > That's why honest people hate gangsters with a vengeance, because > hate, well-tempered by reason, makes our lives better. > > Rafal > > From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 18:49:33 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:49:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60612130749w335bbc15g9851c5f21d839915@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60612131049l4dbbe93emcb6730060abea12a@mail.gmail.com> On 12/13/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > > ### You surely realize that it *is* the gangster's fault that > > the police are unwilling to bust him - obviously, his > > ferocity, utter contempt for police officers' lives, > > marksmanship, and bribes contribute to make them turn a blind > > eye to the depredations he inflicts on his victims. > > > > That's why honest people hate gangsters with a vengeance, > > because hate, well-tempered by reason, makes our lives better. > > Hate is a heuristic, most useful in cases of insufficient understanding. ### I see hate as an important public good, at least until we develop truth machines capable of assessing levels of commitment to a course of action. A member of your group who hates your enemies is less likely to defect when the chips come down. It is a simple matter of rational calculation that cooperation with haters is under many circumstances likely to be more stable than cooperation with wusses. Rafal From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Dec 13 20:17:48 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:17:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60612131049l4dbbe93emcb6730060abea12a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On 12/13/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > >> Hate is a heuristic, most useful in cases of insufficient >> understanding. > > ### I see hate as an important public good, at least until we > develop truth machines capable of assessing levels of > commitment to a course of action. A member of your group who > hates your enemies is less likely to defect when the chips > come down. It is a simple matter of rational calculation that > cooperation with haters is under many circumstances likely to > be more stable than cooperation with wusses. Hate certainly acts to promote solidarity within a specified group, but at the same time drawing a sharper line between in-group and out-group. The hate dynamic tends toward immoral actions because hate motivates narrower context decision-making, evaluating consequences over narrower scope of possible agents and possible interactions. I understand your point about the rational narrow-context benefits of promoting hate. Do you understand my point about the moral broader-context detriments of promoting hate? If so, then how do you rationalize such a discontinuity in the ethics function over expanding scope? If this is a general principle of truth, then what general principle determines the dividing line? If we teach our Marines to kill the Gooks in order to win the battle, do we later reverse their programming somehow when their mission becomes one of peacekeeping? If we teach that hate is an important public good, then are we intentionally encouraging others to hate us? Or should we aspire to develop and spread methods of rational problem-solving that surpass the simpler methods of our evolutionary ancestors in their simpler world? It's the age-old question of whether ends justify means. In any specified narrow context we can argue that they do. But real life is not a closed context and with increasing context the question morphs into whether we value what we became to achieve those short-term ends. - Jef All paradox is due to insufficient context. In the bigger picture all the pieces must fit. From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Dec 13 21:01:18 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:01:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Neural Internet:Web Surfing with Brain Potentials In-Reply-To: <2684.81.152.101.82.1166019339.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212211846.03ea2bd8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061212211846.03ea2bd8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061213155547.03f58be8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:15 PM 12/13/2006 +0100, you wrote: >Keith Henson wrote: > > Just for fun . . . . > >Very nice story. Published somewhere? No. Probably will hang on a web site when/if I finish it. Editors say there isn't enough violence for it to be saleable. By the end of this chapter, Africa is depopulated, but that's not good enough. Keith >There is an ongoing nanomedicine and neural interface story in the >webcomic Schlock Mercenary. The current "scene" starts here >http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20061209.html >although the story itself really starts here: >http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20061031.html >(the fire scene is hysterically funny: "Any kid who plays with fire learns >this stuff. It's too bad I was playing with shaped charges instead.") > > >-- >Anders Sandberg, >Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics >Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Wed Dec 13 21:13:08 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:13:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rights and Moral Indignation In-Reply-To: <020801c71e85$4dac2740$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061213044340.20423.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> <020801c71e85$4dac2740$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Dec 12, 2006, at 11:03 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stuart, our Avantguardian, writes >> Do they? What about Columbine? > > Statistically ignorable. Totally. Could be twice > as many totally nutty and lawless things like that > happened in 1906, and hardly anyone noticed. > It certainly would not have been national news. In the olden days, they called such mayhem "disasters", even when on a far grander scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 03:39:04 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:39:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] REQ: Newtonmas Charities In-Reply-To: <5366105b0612101241m1437cf03i1cd207590012ebf9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <969308.66451.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Jay, You might also consider CRN - Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, Methuselah Mouse Prize, and/or the Lifeboat Foundation. Props for your responsible generosity. Merry Newtonmas! Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Jay Dugger wrote: This Newtonmas I'll make out my list of charities for donations in 2007. Foresight Institute, SIAI, and WTA all make the list. I'd like suggestions from the lists on what others deserve consideration. I do have certain criteria, but those will remain private to encourage a wide variety of responses. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Dec 14 05:06:16 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:06:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] tepid response to hdtv In-Reply-To: <2684.81.152.101.82.1166019339.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200612140516.kBE5GbqE025150@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I first saw HDTV about 15 yrs ago, 1990 or 91. At the time we agreed it was a great picture. A friend invested a ton of money in one of the early companies making sets, but lost it all because HDTV didn't really take off in the 90s much. I don't really get the feeling that the proletariat is demanding HDTV even now, but the cable companies are pushing it and wanting to charge more for it. Insight: how many of us use the television the same now as we did back in the old days? Do you ever sit close enough to a TV and pay close enough attention to notice the difference? I don't, haven't for years, since the internet showed up. It often plays in the background, at a distance, but I don't want to pay more for a clearer picture. Am I the only one? spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 14 05:52:48 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:52:48 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Damien predicts Google (sort of) in 1985 Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061213233924.021e04f8@satx.rr.com> No, I'd never heard of Xanadu, although I did drop a version of ARPANET (AussieNET) into a 1981 story. What follows is from an extensive review I published of the Encyclopaedia Britannica 21 years ago. (Here just for laughs, and an eerie sense of Moore's Law.) ================= If the encyclopaedia could be plugged into the back of my head, with access through an electro-neural index, how happy I'd be. I'd have the thing grafted in, take my word for it. Don't laugh. Just because the Britannica is in printed form today, it need not be so in the future. It takes about 250 million bytes of storage to contain the sum of human knowledge, as represented by the words in Britannica. A quarter of a gigabyte. Suppose we wanted to store that in a computer instead of 32 fat volumes. My venerable Kaypro-II computer uses two single-sided diskettes with a combined data capacity of just under 400 kilobytes. A Kaypro 10, which today is just about the same price as my primitive machine three years ago, has hard disk storage built in, which can contain 25 times that much information--10 megabytes. That's a lot short of the whole Britannica, admittedly. But wait. Consider the common or garden laser-read Compact Disk record. A couple of years ago these astonishingly high-fidelity musical recordings were well beyond the financial range of all but demented audio fiends. Today, CD players cost about $500, and the price is still falling. The disks themselves are now about the same price as an old-fashioned LP record, and contain no less than 540 megabytes of information. And the worse-case time to locate and access any particular part of that information (once you've loaded the disk into the machine) is one and a half seconds. So think of a single mirror-shiny CD disk containing the entire text of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, with enough space left over for at least some of the illustrations. (Pictures are data-costly, and there are 24,000 of them, including 1300 maps.) Use it as a Read-Only Memory mass storage medium for a simple home computer, and you have the ideal Encyclopaedia of tomorrow. It could cost less in mass production than a home movie videotape. You'd have an almost instantaneous index, instead of two biggish books to lug off the shelf, an index that would search for any topic you key in, tracing all kinds of possible pathways for you as swiftly as you can respond to the little blinking cursor on the screen. What's more, a computer could pull out all the relevant bits and pieces from a hundred articles stored throughout the Encyclopaedia Britannica and paste them together into a big, custom-tailored piece to fit the information requirements you nominate. In fact, this is just the sort of thing the dreaded Propaedia attempts so unsuccessfully to let you do by hand now. I'm told that Chicago have decided against retailing a computerised Britannica in the foreseeable future, deeming the 1985 up-graded edition suitable until the 21st century, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the pressure of technology forced them to change their minds. You see, while CD Random Access might be one way of plugging the Britannica into your computer, there's no reason why it shouldn't be physically built in. This is what the science writer Nigel Calder has to say in his futurological study "1984 and Beyond": "All the words of the Encyclopaedia Britannica could be transmitted from New York to Washington DC in one second by the lightwave optical-fibre telecommunications link now in service. The words could also be stored on a wafer of silicon no wider than a saucer." That's as may be. What about right now? It's a little like the question teasing so many middle-income minds: should I buy a computer now or wait for Utopia? Yes, you can always go up the road to the public library and use their set (except at the weekend, and the morning, and at night when they're closed...), just as you can always use public transport when it's running. Public is cheaper and more socially redemptive; you have to wait until it's available, assuming it is; and the truth is, most people have cars and go places in them. I've found this: having the Britannica around the place is more-ish, like cashews. The only thing better for comprehensive answers to virtually anything you're likely to wish to know, all in one place, is the Junior Woodchuck's Handbook. Devotees of Donald Duck comics dream of finding a copy of that fabled vade-mecum. The triplets Huey, Dewy and Louie were never without a copy. It fitted neatly into a back pocket, and was absolutely exhaustive, practical, wise and simple to understand. What a shame it doesn't exist. Emerging technology might make the Junior Woodchuck's Britannica possible inside ten years, and then all the disadvantages of bulk and eye-testing print will be forgotten. The entire 250 megabytes will be there in the palm of your hand, ready to be consulted on a flat screen... ======================= Wow! The Wonderful World of the Future! Damien Broderick From brian at posthuman.com Thu Dec 14 05:55:27 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:55:27 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] tepid response to hdtv In-Reply-To: <200612140516.kBE5GbqE025150@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200612140516.kBE5GbqE025150@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <4580E74F.3030104@posthuman.com> HD is great in my opinion now especially since the price is into a reasonable range. Not only for TV, but for the new video game systems which pretty much require it, high-def DVDs, and video-on-demand. My cable co even has a HD version of the Yule Log available free on demand. The continuously increasing HD content is making the value proposition good enough now. And the content doesn't have to be expensive since you can pick up free HDTV over the air with a plain ole vhf/uhf antenna as long as your set has a tuner. Or if on cable, my cable co at least doesn't charge extra for the HD versions of existing channels you already subscribe to. You're right though I don't watch the majority of TV anymore with 100% attention. Must... glance... laptop... There are few shows like Lost for example where I can still manage 100% (the HD helps because this show has some beautiful locations), but mostly no. As for noticing the difference, if you have to sit close then your set isn't big enough for your normal viewing distance. Here's a chart showing the size/distance ideal zones for various resolutions: http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/ My current 2 year old set actually is a bit small for my distance so I can't tell a huge difference between 720p HD content and 1080i HD content from my couch, but either compared to SD content is a massive improvement. And finally according to Reuters, flat-screen HDTVs are a hot item this xmas: http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/11/29/surprise-of-the-day-hdtvs-top-holiday-shopping-lists/ The issue will be moot in 3 more years because the FCC is finally forcing the phase out of analog over-the-air broadcasts, so by 2009-10 most all TVs sold will be HD (ATSC) compatible. This phase out will allow all that wireless spectrum to be used for more interesting things like much better wireless internet I hope/expect. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Dec 14 06:52:09 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:52:09 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rights and Moral Indignation References: <20061213044340.20423.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com><020801c71e85$4dac2740$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <026101c71f4c$a8cef720$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Andrew writes > On Dec 12, 2006, at 11:03 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Could be [that] twice >> as many totally nutty and lawless things like that >> happened in 1906, and hardly anyone noticed. >> It certainly would not have been national news. > > In the olden days, they called such mayhem "disasters", even > when on a far grander scale. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster Thanks for that. Very interesting. To me, the main difference is that people then had much less of a "social engineering" mindset than now. The decades of socialism since 1927 have encouraged us, falsely, to assume that more laws or more programs of some kind can make such incidents rarer (which is *possible*, but not likely, I think). That is, were an identical event to occur today, there would be no end of ongoing responses, falling into two rough categories: (1) what evil thing does this imply about our whole society that such a thing could transpire? and (2) what new laws and new expensive safeguards can be enacted or developed to try to forestall another Bath School? (It would be refered to as a noun-type, "Bath School", much the way that the phrase "another Columbine" now parses in English easily.) Still, I have a feeling that I've not fully understood the implications of it being semantically a "disaster" to the people living then, Yes, it *does* make it sound like something natural that simply occurs, like an earthquake or a hurricane. Is that all? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Dec 14 07:07:32 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:07:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Usefulness of Anger and Hate References: Message-ID: <026601c71f4e$c36477c0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > Hate certainly acts to promote solidarity within a specified group, but > at the same time drawing a sharper line between in-group and out-group. I understand. > The hate dynamic tends toward immoral actions because hate motivates > narrower context decision-making, evaluating consequences over narrower > scope of possible agents and possible interactions. Sorry Jef, but this is typical of passages that really aren't clear to me, and, maybe, to many people. I'm not recommending anything---just reporting that the clarity doesn't seem to be what it should be or could be. You seem to be saying that the "hate dynamic" often results in immoral actions that would not take place otherwise. So you're probably saying that better measured and more fine-tuned responses would occur in the absence of strong emotion. Right? If I've then read you correctly, then yes, greater precision is of course obtained without the contribution of emotion. But such "bloodless" decisions also lack clarity of purpose---the most well-known controversial example being whether or not a child should be punished by an adult while the adult is still angry. One can see both sides of this question. Recall the manifold reasons that anger evolved in animals. I doubt very much if our ability to abstactly reason completely nullifies the usefulness of this emotion. Would you like personally to be rendered incapable of anger? Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 07:20:04 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:20:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rights and Moral Indignation In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0612131012s2e068f84y97b624fbdcf61ce0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061214072004.45393.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > On 12/13/06, The Avantguardian > wrote: > > > > Well Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld seem to have made > that > > decision for me. > > > If you really think hatred of Bush et al constitutes > support for blaming the > victims for violent crime... well, I'm disappointed; > I thought you had > better moral standards than that. Huh? Bush has nothing to do with the victim/victimizer argument. You are confusing two separate arguments of mine. One is moral and the other is ontological. In my *moral* argument I contend that Bush is the moral equivalent of an inner-city gangster only white, far more powerful, and therefore orders of magnitude more damaging to society. He mugged America for our treasury, Iraq for its oil, and killed a LOT of people along the way. I invoked Bush as an example because I find Lee's desire to round up inner-city gangsters into concentration camps for summary execution morally ABHORRENT. Demographically such gangsters are mostly young black males who are already in danger of extinction from one another, crack cocaine, HIV, and serving in Iraq. If you can tolerate a big gangster like Bush, then you should be able to tolerate a bunch of lesser gangsters no matter what color they are. Killing people is always morally wrong except in self-defense. Pre-emption is not self-defense. How can you support such a notion yet question my moral standards over my advising victims to learn how to defend themselves against violence instead of expecting the state to do it for them? Especially since that argument wasn't a moral one but an ontological one based on natural selection, causative determinism (i.e. karma), and freedom of choice? Open your eyes, Russell. Race is a non-sensical socio-political construct of the state to keep its people at constant odds with one another -- divided and subjugated. Biologically there is more genetic diversity WITHIN races than there are BETWEEN races. Does it shock you that you could be more closely genetically related to some blacks than you are to most other whites? Culture (i.e. social software) however is a different matter entirely. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick ____________________________________________________________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 14 09:16:50 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:16:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] tepid response to hdtv In-Reply-To: <4580E74F.3030104@posthuman.com> References: <200612140516.kBE5GbqE025150@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4580E74F.3030104@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20061214091650.GM6974@leitl.org> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 11:55:27PM -0600, Brian Atkins wrote: > The issue will be moot in 3 more years because the FCC is finally forcing the > phase out of analog over-the-air broadcasts, so by 2009-10 most all TVs sold This has already been occuring elsewhere (Holland, Germany, etc.). I'm personally less interested in HD because nowadays codecs allow flexible formats, and displays with interesting resolutions have been available for some time. Since I don't watch TV at all (unless there's personal-preference video aggregator subscription available) and DRM-free HD movies are unavailable, I have to live with DVD scaled up to 1280x1024, which is enough for time being. > will be HD (ATSC) compatible. This phase out will allow all that wireless > spectrum to be used for more interesting things like much better wireless > internet I hope/expect. There seems to be a lot of bandwidth (16 GBit wireless transmissions recently) available in RF, but you need things like MIMO and ultrabroadband and a free line of sight between the aerials. Fiber has been inching closer and closer to the network edge recently, with 10 GBit/s Ethernet being default standard for the backbone and 100 GBit/s Ethernet being in the works. If you lay 100 GBit/s capable monomode now into the living room it should be arguably enough for the next 25 years, or even longer. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 09:36:27 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:36:27 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rights and Moral Indignation In-Reply-To: <20061214072004.45393.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0612131012s2e068f84y97b624fbdcf61ce0@mail.gmail.com> <20061214072004.45393.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/14/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Open your eyes, Russell. Race is a non-sensical > socio-political construct of the state to keep its > people at constant odds with one another -- divided > and subjugated. Biologically there is more genetic > diversity WITHIN races than there are BETWEEN races. > > Does it shock you that you could be more closely > genetically related to some blacks than you are to > most other whites? Culture (i.e. social software) > however is a different matter entirely. > No comment on your argument, but I think recent discoveries show that statement to be incorrect. Humans are much more different than previously thought. The article was published in The Independent (Science and Technology) last month, but has moved to subscription only now. Another copy is here: Quotes: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 Genetic breakthrough that reveals the differences between humans Scientists hail genetic discovery that will change human understanding By Steve Connor, Science Editor Published: 23 November 2006 Scientists have discovered a dramatic variation in the genetic make-up of humans that could lead to a fundamental reappraisal of what causes incurable diseases and could provide a greater understanding of mankind. The discovery has astonished scientists studying the human genome - the genetic recipe of man. Until now it was believed the variation between people was due largely to differences in the sequences of the individual "letters" of the genome. It now appears much of the variation is explained instead by people having multiple copies of some key genes that make up the human genome. The key questions answered What have scientists discovered today? They have found that each of us is more different genetically than we previously believed. Instead of being 99.9 per cent identical, it may turn out to be more like 99 per cent identical - enough of a difference to explain many variations in human traits. Instead of having just two copies of every gene - one from each parent - we have some genes that are multiplied several times. Furthermore these "multiple copy numbers" differ from one person to another, which could explain human physical and even mental variation. Are there any other practical applications? The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups - African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin. This might help forensic scientists wishing to know more about the race of a suspect. -------------------- BillK From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Dec 14 11:47:24 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:47:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] tepid response to hdtv In-Reply-To: <200612140516.kBE5GbqE025150@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <2684.81.152.101.82.1166019339.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200612140516.kBE5GbqE025150@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <35825.72.236.102.70.1166096844.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > Insight: how many of us use the television the same now as we did back in > the old days? Do you ever sit close enough to a TV and pay close enough > attention to notice the difference? I don't, haven't for years, since the > internet showed up. It often plays in the background, at a distance, but I > don't want to pay more for a clearer picture. > > Am I the only one? > I don't even *have* TV any longer. Reception here is poor, cable is high priced and full of rubbish I don't want to see - unless I pay for selected extra channels. My TV broke some years back and I've not missed it. Regards, MB From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 11:50:12 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:50:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Hating versus Loving In-Reply-To: <023001c71edf$be5c5190$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <362978.12673.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > You always drift off into Bush-hate. Why do you > hate so much? :-) Because he threatens everything I love about America and the world. Yet I don't hate him. I just want to see him and his co-conspirators expatriated and or imprisoned. They are the toxin America's kidneys need to cleanse from our system in order for us to survive and preserve our way of life. Furthermore I swore an oath when I joined the military to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. The President is the commander in chief of the Armed Forces of which I am no longer a part of so I no longer need to obey him. There is no expiration date on my oath although as a civilian I no longer have a chain of command to answer to. By violating his oath of office, Bush threatens the Constitution and is a domestic enemy of the American people. So now, I am ronin honor-bound to protect the U.S. Constitution. And the guy in charge of protecting it, is wiping his ass with it. Weird isn't it? > I'm not a victim! Not any more. I can afford to > live where it's easy and safe, and everyone is > courteous. Everywhere I happen to go (which > isn't far, I admit) everything is perfectly normal > and civilized. I don't need to be "street-wise". > NO ONE SHOULD NEED TO BE > STREET WISE! Now who is the unrealistic idealist? Nobody should need to be rational either but we do. The wisdom of the street is wisdom nonetheless. > I'm telling you, that in certain schools it simply > cannot be helped: there will always be those > who are weaker, and you're simply being > unreasonable to blame them for not taking > karate lessons or what-have-you. Rather than > kids adjusting to the presence of crime and > bullies, why don't we all try to strongly rid > ourselves of those elements which make > neighborhoods unsafe? (And please, that's > not a question about Amerian foreign policy > or about Bush's "war crimes".) Because it is evolutionarily the best thing to do. If the transhumanist dream of self-directed species evolution is to come about, we have to make ourselves fit enough to survive the unexpected while we develop the technology to undo the inevitable. > No. As I read history, it looks rather effective. > Carthago delenda est, and many examples > like it. Without hate of what the Japanese did, the > Americans could not have brought the Pacific war > to an end. Without hate, Rome WOULD not have destroyed Carthage. But did not Carthage hate Rome just as much? Why did hate serve one and not the other? Hate is the most treacherous of all emotions. It makes you *feel* invincible and beligerent all the way up to point where you run up against someone stronger. Then it abandons you. Like it did Carthage against Rome. Like it did Rome against the Huns. Love on the other hand *makes* you strong. Stronger than you ever thought you could be. You contend that without hate, the U.S. could not have brought the Pacific War to an end. That is not so. Our anger at Pearl Harbor gave us the courage to enter the fray but did not sustain us. Our love of our families at home and our european allies sustained the U.S. in a two-front war until it could defeat Nazi Germany. Hate could not have taken the beach at Normandy. The Nazi's had hate. The Nazis were FOUNDED on hate. Yet they surrendered in droves to American Marines soaked in the blood of their beloved comrades. Love is stronger than hate. Patton, short on fuel and supplies, defeated Rommel's superior Panzers in N. Africa not too far from where Carthage used to be, because he respected and admired Rommel enough to read Rommel's book on tank warfare. Love is stronger than hate. At the Battle of the Bulge, Germany's attempt to decieve America by having German units dress in American uniforms failed, because we had black soldiers and they didn't. Love is stronger than hate. In the Pacific War, American Indians speaking Navajo over the radio served as an unbreakable code that the Japanese could not crack. Love is stronger than hate. Germany was the most technologically sophisticated country on the planet at the time, but it's hate chased away all its best phycisists. Americas love gave them a new home, even though they were our ENEMIES just days before. That is how we got the bomb first. That is how we won the Pacific and the War. Because love is stronger than hate. > You consider yourself *perfectly* safe in your > neighborhood? > Has it been taken over by gangs? > Would you mind if it was, seeing as you are so > good at not being a victim of any sort? > If you > don't want your neighborhood taken over by > gangs, please explain why. Just because I am confident in my strength does not make me stupid or arrogant. Alexander the Great was likely killed by a mosquito from which he caught malaria. Steve Irwin was killed by a two foot fish. The battle is not always to the strong. I practice martial arts not because I enjoy fighting because I don't want to. You like latin so much, here: Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum. "If you want peace prepare for war." I would further add: try to avoid one, if possible, and never start one. > > I am urging you to refuse to be a victim. NOT > > by graduating to victimizer, mind you. But > > instead by leaving the cycle of fear and violence > > completely. > > That does sound a lot like dying! It's only equivalent to dying if you live in fear. If you don't, it is just living. > But I know you > can't be suggesting that. If in your jaunts through > various kinds of neighborhoods in LA, Stuart, > what will do you if someone tries to mug you? > (Assume it's late at night and they can't see how > the way that you carry yourself and the way that > you dress precludes your being singled out.) > Will you just tell them that you refuse to be a > victim? No first of all I would calm myself, center myself, and externalize myself. Then I would assess myself, my assailent, and my surroundings. Based on my assessment I would either threaten, negotiate, improvise, fight, evade, or surrender. I cannot give you a meaningful answer to your question, without knowing a myriad of variables that make every confrontation unique. This is called the fog of war. > What about when the police decide that you > look like the sort they'd like to rough up? Then my lawyer would have a field day and I would be rich. > > When your decisions (or indecision) put you in > harms > > way, you cannot shift the culpability to others. > > Ultimate responsibility for the self lies with the > > self. Maybe in the eyes of the law you can pin > blame > > on others, but not in the eyes of natural > selection or > > karma. > > Yes, you *can* shift the responsibility to others! > It should NOT be the fault of a little old lady that > she gets mugged. We *should* be able to walk > our parks at night. Don't you agree that something > terribly important has been lost because we cannot? Fault and responsibility are not the same thing. She has the responsibility to herself to defend herself. It is not her fault if she fails in this. But it is her fault if she does not try. Old ladies can pull a trigger too you know. As far as having lost something, you make it sound like the world used to be a better safer place. At least the mugger won't eat her. > Now you're talking! Yes, gang members should > be rounded up and put into concentration camps. > It could---believe it or not---make the parks > safe to walk again at night. It could prevent > more criminals and hoodlums from growing > up if the role models for such behavior are > removed. It's not the gangsters who get shot, strung out on crack, or go to prison that serve as the role models. It's the gangsters on TV, the gangster rap stars with their millions, and cinimatic gangsters like the Godfather and Scarface that are their role models. Its the hollywood gangster that carry big guns, drive fancy cars, sleep with beautiful women, and live in fancy houses that inspire them. You can't romanticize crime in art without expecting imitation in life. > It could be that people would--- > instead of fearing to go about their honest > business---become afraid of harming, baiting, > mugging, or raping others. > Right now, most > young criminals are fully cognizant that if they're > caught, they get to move on to "higher education" > in the prisons, bulk up, and become true > professionals. This has transpired because we > do not hate criminals sufficiently. Yeah prison's a hoot. You should try it sometime. Once you go to prison, your saleability on the job market is nearly nil. There is no honest attempt at rehabilitation by prisons. That is a decision by the state and not the criminal. > > Hitler called the jews rats to convince people > > it was politically correct to do precisely what > > you advocate. > > Jesus Christ. You compare the millions of > perfectly innocent, harmless, and economically > productive European Jews to our inner-city > hoodlums, gangsters, and murderers? I can > hardly believe what I am reading! Nobody is perfectly innocent and harmless except maybe an infant or a liar. > But you're wrong about hate. It was right for the > Jews to hate Hitler and the Nazis, right for > Americans > to hate Japs in the war, and right for any people to > hate those who would destroy them. If your emotions > are not going to truly be on your side when the > chips You think so huh? Then why did the Lord of Hate end his days in a bunker abandoned by all, hating even himself enough to put a bullet in his own brain? Hate is entropy. Love is spontaneous self-organizing complexity. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 16:45:01 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:45:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60612131049l4dbbe93emcb6730060abea12a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60612140845k651855f4mbf82add2251e1e85@mail.gmail.com> On 12/13/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > I understand your point about the rational narrow-context benefits of > promoting hate. > Do you understand my point about the moral broader-context detriments of > promoting hate? > > If so, then how do you rationalize such a discontinuity in the ethics > function over expanding scope? If this is a general principle of truth, > then what general principle determines the dividing line? ### I do not recognize expanding the scope of ethics (i.e. constructing ethics as to maximize the size of the in-group, if I understand you correctly) as an independent value. The basis for all of my ethical reasoning is satisfaction of my goals. Inclusiveness of my ethics is then a function of my assessment of relationship between inclusiveness and satisfaction. The in-group is redefined as needed to achieve optimal satisfaction. This implies that satisfaction trade-offs in the ingroup always must be a positive-sum game, or else the group would be redefined so as to exclude some members. The dividing line will then exclude those neural networks whose inclusion would reduce my satisfaction. There are no useful (for me) trade-offs between me and snails, which is why snails are not a part of my ingroup. Regrettably, there is a certain number of humans who are not members of my ingroup, so the same reason. ------------------------------------------------- > > If we teach our Marines to kill the Gooks in order to win the battle, do > we later reverse their programming somehow when their mission becomes > one of peacekeeping? If we teach that hate is an important public good, > then are we intentionally encouraging others to hate us? ### I do not support the training of Marines. In fact, if it was up to me, I would abolish the Marines altogether. But for the record, encouraging professional soldiers to hate humans because of race, language, or the color of their passport is under any conceivable circumstances quite counterproductive. ---------------------------------------------------- > > Or should we aspire to develop and spread methods of rational > problem-solving that surpass the simpler methods of our evolutionary > ancestors in their simpler world? ### By all means - I am all for truth-machines, psychoengineering and other tricks but until then, judiciously hating murderers is still the best game in town. ------------------------------------------------- > > It's the age-old question of whether ends justify means. In any > specified narrow context we can argue that they do. But real life is > not a closed context and with increasing context the question morphs > into whether we value what we became to achieve those short-term ends. > ### This age-old question is so ill-defined as to necessitate very long disambiguation before attempting an answer, unfortunately. Rafal From brian at posthuman.com Thu Dec 14 16:52:56 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:52:56 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] tepid response to hdtv In-Reply-To: <20061214091650.GM6974@leitl.org> References: <200612140516.kBE5GbqE025150@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4580E74F.3030104@posthuman.com> <20061214091650.GM6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <45818168.8010807@posthuman.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 11:55:27PM -0600, Brian Atkins wrote: > >> The issue will be moot in 3 more years because the FCC is finally forcing the >> phase out of analog over-the-air broadcasts, so by 2009-10 most all TVs sold > > This has already been occuring elsewhere (Holland, Germany, etc.). I'm personally > less interested in HD because nowadays codecs allow flexible formats, and displays > with interesting resolutions have been available for some time. Since I don't > watch TV at all (unless there's personal-preference video aggregator subscription > available) and DRM-free HD movies are unavailable, I have to live with DVD > scaled up to 1280x1024, which is enough for time being. > >> will be HD (ATSC) compatible. This phase out will allow all that wireless >> spectrum to be used for more interesting things like much better wireless >> internet I hope/expect. > > There seems to be a lot of bandwidth (16 GBit wireless transmissions recently) > available in RF, but you need things like MIMO and ultrabroadband and > a free line of sight between the aerials. Fiber has been inching closer and > closer to the network edge recently, with 10 GBit/s Ethernet being default > standard for the backbone and 100 GBit/s Ethernet being in the works. > If you lay 100 GBit/s capable monomode now into the living room it should > be arguably enough for the next 25 years, or even longer. > A little bit higher wireless speeds in cities will make some interesting possibilities. One idea I'd like to see happen would be virtual tourism where you can pilot around Paris or some other touristy spot your own (for a day's rent) robot (or modded Segway) using an app downloaded to your Xbox 360, receiving a high quality HD/surround sound experience from the remote city. Why fly there in person with all the risks, costs, annoyances when you could tour art museums from your couch for $50 a day, in high-def, with zoomable eyes? You could even use the 360's camera attachment to put your own face on your temporary robot for talking to folks on the other end, or use gesture recognition to operate its hand or other interactive parts if it had some. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Dec 14 17:00:35 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:00:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Usefulness of Anger and Hate In-Reply-To: <026601c71f4e$c36477c0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Lee Corbin wrote: > Sorry Jef, but this is typical of passages that really aren't > clear to me, and, maybe, to many people. I'm not recommending > anything---just reporting that the clarity doesn't seem to be > what it should be or could be. Thanks Lee. I've become increasingly sensitive to the observation that stating general principles in abstract terms isn't generally effective in this forum of such a mixed audience. On the other hand, a long detailed exposition isn't appropriate here either. In this particular case, I simply referred to my standard phrasing about what makes moral decision-making, without introduction or explanation, assuming I've explained it too many times here already. I'm starting to think about other approaches for conveying the flavor if not the essence of an idea in an entertaining way. Short stories and vignettes may be a better way to go. It seems more and more that we live in a time when attention means entertainment. Back to the topic of hate: > Recall the manifold reasons that anger evolved in animals. I > doubt very much if our ability to abstactly reason completely > nullifies the usefulness of this emotion. Would you like > personally to be rendered incapable of anger? Similar to the recent confusion between rationality and morality, are we now conflating anger with hate? * Anger describes an emotion, providing a useful indication when one's values are being seriously offended. Further, expressing one's anger can be very effective in communicating with those people who are disposed to assessing right and wrong in terms of feelings (especially other people's feelings) rather than assessing in rational thinking terms. * Hate describes a belief, a filter for perceiving and making sense of the world, that some entity is *bad*, and thus causing one's feelings of anger. While it is very effective in promoting group bonding and cohesion, it does so by reducing the context of awareness and is therefore detrimental to morality. - Jef From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 17:18:35 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:18:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Criticizing One's Own Goals---Rational? In-Reply-To: <638d4e150612070625x4e3f26cbs3fa8ac8ce6457e3c@mail.gmail.com> References: <064c01c71941$a99e7010$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <638d4e150612070625x4e3f26cbs3fa8ac8ce6457e3c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60612140918l2b45e16cla1f4744bec2c56bf@mail.gmail.com> On 12/7/06, Ben Goertzel wrote: > IMO, revising one's supergoal set is a complex dynamic process that is > **orthogonal** to rationality. I suppose that Nietzsche understood > this, though he phrased it quite differently. His notion of > "revaluation of all values" is certainly closely tied to the notion of > supergoal-set refinement/modification.... > > Refining the goal hierarchy underlying a given set of supergoals is a > necessary part of rationality, but IMO that's a different sort of > process... ### Thank you for the excellent post, Ben - you have clearly articulated some concepts that in my mind exist only as intuitions. And I would agree that there are some subtle differences between the two processes mentioned above but I would not go as far as saying they are orthogonal. It is useful to classify supergoals in two flavors - protected and unprotected. By protected I mean that any attempt to downgrade the importance of a supergoal evokes an immediate and strong response (emotional or cognitive) that prevents downgrading or erasure. Unprotected supergoals may exist independently of other supergoals (i.e. are not derived from and do not exist solely to further other goals) but may be erased without inner conflict. Additionally there may be hardwired goals, which remain stable even if unprotected as long as no other goals have the means of directly modifying the computational substrate - these we can disregard in further discussion. This distinction is for many goals very clear in my mind. If I could boot up my mind in safe mode, and have overview of the goal network in my working memory, with little red delete buttons attached to each goal, I know I could go slashing a lot of them without dissonance. "Eat chocolate" might be gone in a click, if there was any need to do so. But the self-referential "Avoid downgrading self-preservation and avoid downgrading this goal, unless necessary for self-preservation" would awaken to burning intensity and strike the cursor dead, should it wander too close the delete button. Generally I would expect that a supergoal would be protected if it is important to other goals (has in part an aspect of a subgoal), or if it is self-referential. I am not sure if these are the only two possibilities, you may be able to come up with more. Now, reshaping unprotected supergoals is very much like reshaping subgoals - if there is a process capable of performing erasure and modification, any goal capable of controlling that process will be able to do that. Changing protected supergoals would probably depend on the mechanism of protection. If protection is due to their being locked into a network of dependencies with other goals, then the complex dynamics would come into play, with various cognitive and emotional processes modifying connections between goals, until a goal becomes unprotected - most likely an outcome very difficult to predict a priori, much like a monstrously complicated version of chess. If a supergoal is self-referential, then there could be still change if the premises on which the goal's definitions are based are changed, for example due to accumulation of new knowledge. Again most likely an outcome very dependent on the details of the initial conditions, maybe even to the point of single neurons making a difference - as you said, complex dynamics. Even then, however, I would not say that this is necessarily orthogonal to rationality - after all, rationality is also a complex dynamic process, with various goals competing for resources, and continuously modified by external inputs, frequently driven by feedback effects from our behavior. The subtle difference you refer to seems to come from the changes in the measures of rationality that the system itself is applying to its own actions: As long as you only change subgoals, you still may measure the degree of correspondence between goal, action and outcome using the same measurement device. Even if you change a supergoal, you can still obtain a consistent measure of the overall outcome, telling you if the change was rational in the context of other goals. However, once you change the measurement device you can no longer really tell if a supergoal change brought the whole system closer or farther away from its initial goals. It is only with the greatest trepidation and unease that I would contemplate such an intervention... Rafal From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Dec 14 18:02:14 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:02:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60612140845k651855f4mbf82add2251e1e85@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Rafal. I very much enjoy the clarity and coherence of your thinking, which I can't criticize within your intended context. You made an interesting (and eye-opening, to me) statement a short while ago about your scoring very low on self-transcendence. Studies of human values place self-transcendence diametrically opposite self-enhancement. I think we can agree on which way the extropian list tends to lean. In my case I tend very strongly, almost off the scale, toward self-transcendence. I highly value what works over increasing scope, far more than I value what works for my own (nominal) scope. For this reason I value systems thinking (but principles more than practice), rationality (but always in terms of context), moral thinking (but beyond conventional morality), and human enhancement (but beyond enhancement of individual self.) It all comes down to values, which can't be directly argued or denied. [Actually I think that values /can/ be argued in evolutionary terms of some working better than others over increasing scope, but this appears to be a value-less argument to those who don't value self-transcendence.] Thanks again Rafal. By engaging and responding in your highly rational style you've helped clarify a disconnect that I've been experiencing for a long time. - Jef Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > On 12/13/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > >> >> I understand your point about the rational narrow-context >> benefits of promoting hate. >> Do you understand my point about the moral broader-context >> detriments of promoting hate? >> >> If so, then how do you rationalize such a discontinuity in >> the ethics function over expanding scope? If this is a >> general principle of truth, then what general principle >> determines the dividing line? > > ### I do not recognize expanding the scope of ethics (i.e. > constructing ethics as to maximize the size of the in-group, > if I understand you correctly) as an independent value. The > basis for all of my ethical reasoning is satisfaction of my > goals. Inclusiveness of my ethics is then a function of my > assessment of relationship between inclusiveness and > satisfaction. The in-group is redefined as needed to achieve > optimal satisfaction. This implies that satisfaction > trade-offs in the ingroup always must be a positive-sum game, > or else the group would be redefined so as to exclude some members. > > The dividing line will then exclude those neural networks > whose inclusion would reduce my satisfaction. There are no > useful (for me) trade-offs between me and snails, which is > why snails are not a part of my ingroup. Regrettably, there > is a certain number of humans who are not members of my > ingroup, so the same reason. From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Dec 14 18:24:41 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:24:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Usefulness of Anger and Hate In-Reply-To: <026601c71f4e$c36477c0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061214124108.03f65218@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:07 PM 12/13/2006 -0800, you wrote: >Jef writes > > > Hate certainly acts to promote solidarity within a specified group, but > > at the same time drawing a sharper line between in-group and out-group. > >I understand. > > > The hate dynamic tends toward immoral actions because hate motivates > > narrower context decision-making, evaluating consequences over narrower > > scope of possible agents and possible interactions. > >Sorry Jef, but this is typical of passages that really aren't clear to >me, and, maybe, to many people. I'm not recommending >anything---just reporting that the clarity doesn't seem to be >what it should be or could be. Perhaps I could rephrase this in EP terms. > > Hate certainly acts to promote solidarity within a specified group, but > > at the same time drawing a sharper line between in-group and out-group. That's the evolved function of hate, particularly xenophobic hate. > The hate dynamic tends toward immoral actions What we feel is "immoral" has been shaped by evolution in the stone age. It is, for example, considered immoral to kill close relatives while it is considered entirely moral to kill attackers who are trying to kill those close relatives. Exactly what you would expect from genes that are rationally "trying" to get into the next generation. In times of low stress, that is the food supply looks to be ok into the foreseeable future, and your tribe is not under attack, what we consider immoral widens. >because hate motivates > narrower context decision-making, evaluating consequences over narrower > scope of possible agents and possible interactions. That's a better technical wording to the way I usually put it. I just say that xenophobic memes and the mental state they induce (hate) interferes with the parts of the mind that do rational thought. A really short approach is hate makes you stupid. snip Of course the *reason* these mechanisms evolved is that (pre birth control) humans lacked other ways to keep the population inside the ability of the ecosystem to feed them. Keith Henson From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 14 20:47:10 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:47:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] new dresdencodak is up Message-ID: <20061214204710.GX6974@leitl.org> http://dresdencodak.com/index.htm -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Dec 14 23:13:47 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:13:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] tepid response to hdtv In-Reply-To: <45818168.8010807@posthuman.com> References: <200612140516.kBE5GbqE025150@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4580E74F.3030104@posthuman.com> <20061214091650.GM6974@leitl.org> <45818168.8010807@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <35921.72.236.103.49.1166138027.squirrel@main.nc.us> > Why > fly there in person with all the risks, costs, annoyances when you could tour > art museums from your couch for $50 a day, in high-def, with zoomable eyes? You > could even use the 360's camera attachment to put your own face on your > temporary robot for talking to folks on the other end, or use gesture > recognition to operate its hand or other interactive parts if it had some. > Ha, for *that* I might even buy a working TV! :) It would be worthwhile and fascinating. I wouldn't have to watch (and pay for) someone else's idea of what is fun or cool or interesting or necessary. Let me know when it's available here in Appalachia! :))) Regards, MB From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Dec 14 20:19:22 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:19:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hating versus Loving In-Reply-To: <362978.12673.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <023001c71edf$be5c5190$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061214141553.03f741f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:50 AM 12/14/2006 -0800, Stuart wrote: >--- Lee Corbin wrote: > > > You always drift off into Bush-hate. Why do you > > hate so much? :-) > >Because he threatens everything I love about America >and the world. I am about as far from being a Bush fan as you can get. Yet from an EP viewpoint, he is the correct sort of leader for a tribe that feels they are under attack. I.e., irrational, or if you don't want to use that word, "the thinking impaired state induced by xenophobic memes." >Yet I don't hate him. I just want to >see him and his co-conspirators expatriated and or >imprisoned. They are the toxin America's kidneys need >to cleanse from our system in order for us to survive >and preserve our way of life. "Our way of life" is far more dependant on an economy growing faster than the population and relatively low cost energy. I would far rather see nanotube/space elevator/solar power satellites being developed or lot of high temp nuclear reactors being installed than Bush being impeached. (Though impeaching Bush for lying the US into a war is a good idea too.) An alternative is to kill (by starvation for example) a few hundred million Arabs and take the oil in that region. I really don't like saying it, but a Bush type leader is what you need for something like this. snip >Without hate, Rome WOULD not have destroyed Carthage. >But did not Carthage hate Rome just as much? Why did >hate serve one and not the other? Hate is the most >treacherous of all emotions. It makes you *feel* >invincible and beligerent all the way up to point >where you run up against someone stronger. You are exactly on target here, but you need to take it a little further, namely back to the stone age. Why do we have hate if if makes us so crazy? You have to look at this "feature" from the viewpoint of genes in the stone age. Population growth eventually resulted in a bleak future where it was obvious the tribe was going to starve. So genes get selected that detect this condition approaching and turn up the gain on xenophobic (hate) memes. Eventually the warriors get hyped up to a do or die attack on neighbors. I make the case that this was better for genes *even for those genes in the tribe that lost.* Even if all the males in a tribe were killed, copies of their genes existed in the young women who were usually booty and were incorporated into the tribe that killed all the men folk. snip >Love on the other hand *makes* you strong. Stronger >than you ever thought you could be. You contend that >without hate, the U.S. could not have brought the >Pacific War to an end. That is not so. Our anger at >Pearl Harbor gave us the courage to enter the fray but >did not sustain us. snip The subjects you discuss here are complicated beyond what I can respond to in a reasonable time. But you really should try to recast them in light of understanding EP. > > But you're wrong about hate. It was right for the > > Jews to hate Hitler and the Nazis, right for > > Americans > > to hate Japs in the war, and right for any people to > > hate those who would destroy them. If your emotions > > are not going to truly be on your side when the > > chips > >You think so huh? Then why did the Lord of Hate end >his days in a bunker abandoned by all, hating even >himself enough to put a bullet in his own brain? I think the bad guys of history need to be reconsidered in the light of EP. When there exist a widespread belief in a population that there is a need to slaughter neighbors or some sub group in their population, then people like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot will rise to leadership. In some ways it isn't their fault. If Hitler had been born plus or minus 20 years from when he was, we never would have heard about him. >Hate is entropy. Love is spontaneous self-organizing >complexity. Unfortunately, human "spontaneous self-organizing complexity" eventually overloads the the ecosystem. And since we are the top predator . . . Keith From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 15 00:45:48 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:45:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Usefulness of Anger and Hate References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061214124108.03f65218@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <029601c71fe2$f77b2060$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > [Jef wrote] > > The hate dynamic tends toward immoral actions > > What we feel is "immoral" has been shaped by evolution in the stone > age. It is, for example, considered immoral to kill close relatives while > it is considered entirely moral to kill attackers who are trying to kill > those close relatives. Exactly what you would expect from genes that are > rationally "trying" to get into the next generation. > > In times of low stress, that is the food supply looks to be ok into the > foreseeable future, and your tribe is not under attack, what we consider > immoral widens. Yes, that's right. Quite a number of behavioral traits including kindness, generosity, and even loyalty and honesty are, alas, luxuries that due to our wealth today we can afford, but which many of our ancestors could not afford. > > because hate motivates > > narrower context decision-making, evaluating consequences over narrower > > scope of possible agents and possible interactions. > > That's a better technical wording to the way I usually put it. I just say > that xenophobic memes and the mental state they induce (hate) interferes > with the parts of the mind that do rational thought. What is not clear to me is how the "rational thought" that you are referring to here relates to the values of the hater, or in general an actor. Could you provide an example where the xenophobia, say, was *irrational*? Surely you mean, don't you, that it merely conflicts with some other also-EEA- adapted values? Lee > A really short approach is hate makes you stupid. > > snip > > Of course the *reason* these mechanisms evolved is that (pre birth control) > humans lacked other ways to keep the population inside the ability of the > ecosystem to feed them. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 15 01:12:54 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:12:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hating versus Loving References: <362978.12673.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <029d01c71fe6$7bccb1a0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart writes >> I'm not a victim! Not any more. I can afford to >> live where it's easy and safe, and everyone is >> courteous. Everywhere I happen to go (which >> isn't far, I admit) everything is perfectly normal >> and civilized. I don't need to be "street-wise". >> NO ONE SHOULD NEED TO BE >> STREET WISE! > > Now who is the unrealistic idealist? Nobody should > need to be rational either but we do. The wisdom of > the street is wisdom nonetheless. Did you catch my meaning? I was trying to suggest that societies in which one does not *need* to be "street-wise" are vastly preferable, and that we should insist---and do what we must---to achieve that level again. There have been many, many societies, mostly small ones, in which one felt completely safe from crime. E.g., many small towns in 1950s America (or in even a few today!), religious communities, e.g. Quakers, and so on. Fukiyama in his book "Trust" gives examples too. But he's not the only one who has noticed an alarming diminution of trustfulness in America during the last forty years, and a concomitant rise in fearfulness. >> No. As I read history, it looks rather effective. >> Carthago delenda est, and many examples >> like it. Without hate of what the Japanese did, the >> Americans could not have brought the Pacific war >> to an end. > > Without hate, Rome WOULD not have destroyed Carthage. > But did not Carthage hate Rome just as much? Why did > hate serve one and not the other? Hate is the most > treacherous of all emotions. It makes you *feel* > invincible and belligerent all the way up to point > where you run up against someone stronger. Then it > abandons you. Like it did Carthage against Rome. Like > it did Rome against the Huns. Are you trying to make an evolutionary argument that tribes which cannot or do never hate have a survival advantage? If Rome hadn't hated the Carthagenians, then maybe they would have just waited around until the people across the water sent another Hannibal at them. In an evolutionary sense, the Romans did the right thing. As for their enemies, sadly for them they couldn't prevail, and whether they hated the Romans or not, they might still have lost, for the same kinds of material reasons that the South lost to the North. > Love on the other hand *makes* you strong. Stronger > than you ever thought you could be. This and statements like "evil destroys itself"---or whatever it was in your earlier post---makes me wonder if you ever worry about mouthing platitudes. Yes, I can understand how the love of a man for his family would give him strength for its defense, just as the love people have of their country also adds to the longevity of a country. Are these the kinds of examples you have in mind? > Hate could not have taken the beach at Normandy. > The Nazi's had hate. The Nazis were FOUNDED > on hate. Well, they did overran all of Europe. After them, the Soviets about whom nothing any better can be said than the Nazis, suppressed with equal ferocity a dozen nations for forty years. Now, I may not go so far as you and say that anyone or anything is FOUNDED on hate, but I'm sure that you agree the less hateful don't always win. Material factors are important here too, else the Japanese---with the highest morale in the world---would have been as invincible as they thought they were. >> It should NOT be the fault of a little old lady that >> she gets mugged. We *should* be able to walk >> our parks at night. Don't you agree that something >> terribly important has been lost because we cannot? > > Fault and responsibility are not the same thing. She > has the responsibility to herself to defend herself. > It is not her fault if she fails in this. But it is > her fault if she does not try. Old ladies can pull a > trigger too you know. As far as having lost something, > you make it sound like the world used to be a better > safer place. At least the mugger won't eat her. But Stuart, it *is* true that people in many, many cities throughout not only U.S. history, but world history, have felt safer than they do in our large cities. People feel a lot safer in Chinese cities, for example. And one big reason for that is that whatever else he did, Mao totally wiped out the criminal elements, right down to the last prostitute. There is no hope of convincing you and most others of a need for draconian measures, and I'm not really interested in convincing anyone. (What all the people here think about something doesn't really matter very much, sad to say.) I *am* interested in wondering why you can't imagine that things could be a lot better in our big cities and *should* be, and that we *should* have long ago been implementing policies that would have helped. >> > Hitler called the jews rats to convince people >> > it was politically correct to do precisely what >> > you advocate. >> >> Jesus Christ. You compare the millions of >> perfectly innocent, harmless, and economically >> productive European Jews to our inner-city >> hoodlums, gangsters, and murderers? I can >> hardly believe what I am reading! > > Nobody is perfectly innocent and harmless except maybe > an infant or a liar. Could you go into more detail concerning the faults of European Jewry :-) or at least why we shouldn't consider them to have been completely innocent (in that time and place)? Lee P.S. I cut back your 13KB post a bit; maybe you can selectively reply to the most salient points and let other points go, in fear of geometric progression! From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 15 03:25:46 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:25:46 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Identity and all that Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061214212113.0217d638@satx.rr.com> ...is evidently explored interestingly in BLINDSIGHT, the new novel by Peter Watts, now available for free download at his site: http://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm Here's an enticing Bookslut review: http://www.bookslut.com/fiction/2006_11_010325.php Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 15 04:21:42 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:21:42 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Usefulness of Anger and Hate References: Message-ID: <02b201c72001$18dcad00$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes >> Recall the manifold reasons that anger evolved in animals. I >> doubt very much if our ability to abstactly reason completely >> nullifies the usefulness of this emotion. Would you like >> personally to be rendered incapable of anger? > > Similar to the recent confusion between rationality and morality, are we > now conflating anger with hate? 'Twasn't I who conflated rationality and morality :-) To me, they're as different as night and day. Now, I do like your characterization of *anger*: > * Anger describes an emotion, providing a useful indication when one's > values are being seriously offended. Further, expressing one's anger > can be very effective in communicating with those people who are > disposed to assessing right and wrong in terms of feelings (especially > other people's feelings) rather than assessing in rational thinking > terms. But > * Hate describes a belief, a filter for perceiving and making sense of > the world, that some entity is *bad*, and thus causing one's feelings of > anger. While it is very effective in promoting group bonding and > cohesion, it does so by reducing the context of awareness and is > therefore detrimental to morality. I don't understand this at all. Hate is a *belief*? It is, of course, a behavioral disposition. Does it extend into the kingdom of the lower animals as *anger* does? I wish I knew. Hate is a permanent sort of anger. Before you dismiss it as detrimental to morality, recall that "hatred of oppression", and "hatred of injustice", and the like, have served to liberate a lot of people. Hatred is certainly a form of intolerance. It differs only from disapproval, I submit, because of its emotional component. As was succinctly stated by Rafal in one of his posts, hatred could carry one through to finish some task once begun (e.g. eliminating Carthage). In that sense---of helping one to complete goals already set upon--- it resembles how Julian Jaynes used to describe the utility of linguistic expressions: Suppose that shortly after the agricultural revolution had begun, a man managed to say to himself "I shall work until dusk". This allows him, according to Jaynes, to remain longer upon a fixed task than he would be able to do sans the verbal facility. Without the facility, his mind would wander, and at some point tiredness would prompt him to consider some other activity. Slaves ought to hate their oppressors, IMO. And, as I said before, hatred of bullies, vandals, and criminals is probably a good thing, and if more people partook, we'd have fewer of them. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 15 05:16:33 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:16:33 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? References: <200612130605.kBD6523H088723@mail0.rawbw.com> Message-ID: <02be01c72008$cdc42700$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Spike wrote ----- Original Message ----- From: "spike" Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:04 PM Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Bully Magnets >> Unfortunately, this awareness has been lost, especially in modern >> America. When did your family begin locking its doors at night? > ... > This is something I have wondered about. My conclusion is that door locking > does not start at a particular time in history, so much as it starts in > families when certain milestones are reached, such as 1) when the children > are old enough to be responsible with keys, and 2) when the home attains > something of actual value. With 2) you may have a point. But even there, many people in large cities in the 19th century had valuable possessions, and it would be of great interest to know if they locked their doors at night. >> Most people I know relate that their folks began >> locking their doors at night around 1960 > > Lee perhaps many of those people were in their teens in 1960? A problem that I have with this part of your proposal is that now practically everyone locks their doors, whether or not they have children. And I do believe that before 1940 it was uncommon for Californians to ever lock their doors, unless they were to be gone for quite some time. (In the latter case I can only guess that they might have been afraid of hobos making camp.) At least that's what I've heard from acquaintances. Lee > In my case that happened around 1974. My brother and I could keep up with > house keys before that time, but our house contained exactly nothing that > would be worth the effort to haul away. In 74, we bought a color TV, so the > door had to be locked after that. > > > > > From moulton at moulton.com Fri Dec 15 06:42:41 2006 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:42:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? In-Reply-To: <02be01c72008$cdc42700$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200612130605.kBD6523H088723@mail0.rawbw.com> <02be01c72008$cdc42700$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1166164961.5494.143.camel@localhost.localdomain> One of the items that was of value and more widely owned in some parts of the country were hunting rifles and shotguns. In addition to locking doors of a home, it is interesting to consider when locking doors of a car became more widespread. I can remember a time when cars were typically not locked in store parking lots. Also many of the older models did not have the alerts to notify you that the headlights were on and thus it was not uncommon for people to walk by a car with the headlights on and to open the door and turn the lights off and then continue on. Fred From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Dec 15 16:20:48 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:20:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? In-Reply-To: <1166164961.5494.143.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200612151621.kBFGL1Kt013923@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Fred C. Moulton > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? > > > One of the items that was of value and more widely owned in some parts > of the country were hunting rifles and shotguns... Fred Fred I should clarify my earlier comment. My family had guns in the house before we had the color TV, but the guns were locked in their own rack inside the house, and the rack was hard mounted to the wall. Where I grew up, people might have begun locking in response to a mostly fictitious character, the theoretical heroin addict. The news media made up this caricature of a wretched and dangerous being; desperate was he to steal in order to support this hopeless addiction. As much as I read about this in the news, I never actually saw such a thing. Perhaps they only existed in the big city. This stands to reason, for if a heroin addict were to show up in the town where I grew up, some square would surely have slain the pitiful wretch. The local jury would acquit, agreeing that it was done for mercy. In retrospect, there were probably heroin addicts about, but we failed to recognize them. We expected filthy wrecks of men, lying unconscious in the gutter with a belt around the arm. The real heroin addicts were most likely indistinguishable from everyone else, possibly a little ragged around the edges, but so were we back in those days. We actually believed the news media back then. spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Dec 15 17:58:38 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:58:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? In-Reply-To: <200612151621.kBFGL1Kt013923@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1166164961.5494.143.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200612151621.kBFGL1Kt013923@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 12/15/06, spike wrote: > In retrospect, there were probably heroin addicts about, but we failed to > recognize them. We expected filthy wrecks of men, lying unconscious in the > gutter with a belt around the arm. The real heroin addicts were most > likely indistinguishable from everyone else, possibly a little ragged > around the edges, but so were we back in those days. It is useful to note, that there were millions "addicted" to opium [1] (or morphine [2]) in the late 19th century as a result of treatment for neuropathy resulting from amputations during the Civil War and that fact that laudanum [3] was commonly used by many women to relieve monthly cramps. It is also true that many authors we now hold in high esteem were users (abusers?) during this time period. Heroin [4] abuse arose in large part due to the restrictions on availability of opium, morphine and laudanum which in turn had is initial start in the "upstanding" upper crust of San Francisco seeking to avoid having their daughters from frequenting the opium dens of the Chinese in San Francisco and becoming easy sexual prey of the "foreigners". The History channel has a good documentary on this which they broadcast from time to time [5]. The derivatives of opium which were supposed to be "better" unfortunately were increasingly addictive which led to the nightmare in which one finds oneself today (where highly addicted people in a criminalized environment will commit criminal acts in order to satisfy the addiction). It would be so much easier and less costly to create environments which enable people to "manage" addictions. Fortunately, research is making progress separating the neuronal pain pathways (which drive a significant fraction of alcohol or drug, esp. opiate, "abuse") from the mental state pathways of wanting to "disconnect" from reality. Hopefully within the next decade we will have much better solutions to the pain aspects (e.g. [6, 7]). In the forthcoming era, one will easily be able to support people (disconnected from "reality") who exist off of easily available energy resources (nanoera parasites if you will) who do not wish to engage in the survival and evolution game (e.g. Spike's so-called "filthy wrecks"). However there will come a point (in thousands or millions of years) when parasites will have to justify their continued existence. The interesting question for society is (and will be) whether the Poes and Byrons make up for the not-Poes & not-Byrons (and to what extent one should support or tolerate the not's in hope of the contribution the not nots may make.) Robert 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphine 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudinum 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin 5. "Illegal drugs and how they got that way" (maybe?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQlk01sxO_E 6. Such as opiorphin: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10514&print=true 7. or cone snail toxin derivatives: http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Snails-offer-hope-for-pain-sufferers/2006/12/11/1165685622038.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Dec 15 20:21:49 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:21:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? In-Reply-To: References: <1166164961.5494.143.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200612151621.kBFGL1Kt013923@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <36267.72.236.102.71.1166214109.squirrel@main.nc.us> When I was growing up in New York City, I do not recall ever locking a door - all through my teenage years I do not recall even having a key! Surely Old-Timer's Disease must have snatched away my memory, because I have a hard time believing this is accurate. I also recall feeling unthreatened on the NYC subway at night. Travelling at night, as a young person alone. Walking home through the dark streets at night, alone. Not frightened. Enjoying the dark, enjoying how the streets and lights looked. I have a picture on my wall, Edward Steichen's photo of the FlatIron Building. http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/steichen/steichen_flatiron.jpg Even though it's half a century too soon, it reminds me of the city of my childhood. And there's no threat there. Where I live now, some folks still do not lock their doors. Mostly those are old folks, ones who grew up here, and their memory and practice is of no keys - no locking. I'm not that way any longer. :( We've lost something. Something I think was quite valuable. I have no idea how we could go about getting it back. Regards, MB From asa at nada.kth.se Fri Dec 15 21:00:55 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:00:55 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? In-Reply-To: <36267.72.236.102.71.1166214109.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <1166164961.5494.143.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200612151621.kBFGL1Kt013923@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <36267.72.236.102.71.1166214109.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <4716.163.1.72.81.1166216455.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> MB wrote: > We've lost something. Something I think was quite valuable. I have no idea > how we > could go about getting it back. One approach is of course transparency - if anything is stolen or broken you and everybody else who cares will know who did it. We will be there soon. But I doubt that adds much to a sense of trust and security, which is what this thread really is about. Knowing that the police can catch the wrongdoers doesn't lessen the fear of being attacked by them. My guess is that the valuable thing you are longing for is a friendly neighbourhood social network, where people know each other well enough to act as a robust protective system. It seems that this has become harder both due to urbanisation and some bad architectural solutions and the move towards widespread but weaker social links. Scale also matters: living in a big city means that even if the fraction truly nasty people is very low there are going to be some of them around - and given the density they are likely not that far away. Meanwhile diffusion of responsibility effects make nice people less efficiently nice in a large setting. Maybe we should all move into small and cozy metavillages and exurbs, telepresencing to work. Or maybe we should just mandate higher oxytocin levels everywhere. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 15 21:56:36 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:56:36 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? In-Reply-To: <4716.163.1.72.81.1166216455.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1166164961.5494.143.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200612151621.kBFGL1Kt013923@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <36267.72.236.102.71.1166214109.squirrel@main.nc.us> <4716.163.1.72.81.1166216455.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061215153830.0223ec40@satx.rr.com> At 10:00 PM 12/15/2006 +0100, Anders wrote: >My guess is that the valuable thing you are longing for is a friendly >neighbourhood social network, where people know each other well enough to >act as a robust protective system.... diffusion of responsibility effects >make nice people less efficiently nice in a large setting. Maybe we should >all move into small and cozy metavillages and exurbs, telepresencing to >work. Well, yeah, but... I live these days in downtown San Antonio, a pretty poor neighborhood mixing Mexicans and fewer whites in house that are often unpainted or leaning like drunks, with blacks mostly somewhere over to the west. Walking home in the hot winter sun today, I was aghast (as usual) by the crap and detritus scattered along the street: piled up cartons, cigarette packets and plastic or glass bottles in scrubby weeds, pizza containers, all that careless fuck-you urban shit. Some of this is due to sloppy emptying of bins by garbage collectors, but most is chucked out car windows or dropped by ambling idle oafs. A mile or so to the north, where real estate prices are closer to a million bucks, everything is serene, snipped, with handsome roads and uncracked, unsmashed sidewalks, and even a few working drains in the gutters. Hardly any distributed crap to be found. I don't think it because the city pays for extra street cleaning there, although that's possible. Probably people *just behave in a more civilized manner*--because that's how they were trained, that's what they (we) interiorized as agreeable, mutually beneficial mores. To throw packaging into the street or leave it on the front lawn would make these wealthier people cringe with aesthetic revulsion and shame. (And of course such internal discipline is *why* many of them are wealthier to start with.) But you can see why the poor and the shiftless and the overwhelmed-by-kids slump into a different ethos, or piss on everyone else in their anger or, worse, their inner obliteration. Will nano abundance modify this socialization gap? I fear it won't, although the detritus problem can be engineered away. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 15 22:00:57 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:00:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Usefulness of Anger and Hate References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061214124108.03f65218@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061215104014.03f45870@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <02d801c72095$17b767a0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes >>Yes, that's right. Quite a number of behavioral traits including kindness, >>generosity, and even loyalty and honesty are, alas, luxuries that due to >>our wealth today we can afford, but which many of our ancestors could >>not afford. > > I suggest you have not read enough anthropology. Loyalty comes out most > strongly in combat groups, and I don't see kindness, generosity and honesty > being correlated with wealth. (Enron for example.) I suggest that you address people as equals. :-) One's wealth in the world, whether one is a member of a primitive tribe or whether one is in dire personal circumstances, does affect what levels of these finer emotions one exhibits. In other words, people are often driven towards selfishness, dishonesty, and brutality (beyond their normal capacities) by deprivation. That's all I meant. It's common sense really. (Although, is sometimes totally astonishing how noble a few people remain even under the most trying circumstances.) >>What is not clear to me is how the "rational thought" that you >>are referring to here relates to the values of the hater, or in >>general an actor. > > I have no idea of what you might be referring to by "values of the > hater." Hate, like other intense emotional states, tends to interfere with > a person's ability to think. Panic does that as well, which is why you get > lots of people killed in fires where the building doors open to the inside. > >>Could you provide an example where >>the xenophobia, say, was *irrational*? > > Xenophobia induced by xenophobic hate memes *had* a function in the stone > age. Yes. I want an example where xenophobia or some other of your "non-rational" states, say, is irrational also today. I'm trying to tease out whether or not it actually boils down to just a value conflict, as I suspect. For example, xenophobia need not be irrational provided that one's values and goals are not inclusive of that which is deemed "foreign" or alien. Clearly if we were to broaden a bit our definition of xenophobia (which we are *not* doing), then xenophobia would fit very nicely with goals such as self-preservation, or preservation of one's culture. > It induced a closely related group of warriors facing bad times > (starvation) to attack neighbors in an attempt to have their gene line > prosper. Inducing a state where warriors were willing to take a high > chance of dying was rational from the *gene's* viewpoint if not so rational > from the viewpoint of dead warriors. That might depend! You may be projecting your own (and my own) values onto these dead warriors. As is thoughtfully presented in the book "The Robot's Rebellion", if you haven't read it, the goals of an individual *may* consistently include the survival of his family, or his friends, or even his tribe or culture. These warriors may have chosen their actions with full knowledge and calm awareness. What I'm saying is that what has been taken in these discussions as rational vs. irrational is often nothing more than conflicting goals. It's been emphasized that what most people here mean by "rational" is characteristic of activity that leads towards their goals. We may also add that consistency is a necessary part of anyone's definition of rationality (I would think.) > Because we don't now live in closely related groups and fight for them, > xenophobia induced by xenophobic hate memes isn't rational even for genes > today. You still may have to kill hopped up warriors coming after you, you > might even have to destroy them as a people or nation, but hating them is > pointless because it interferes with your ability to think. Well, strong emotional states like love or anger can do exactly what you're talking about, i.e., interfere with our ability to think. And yes, it's plausible to regard such interference as a compromise of rational behavior. But merely because something is a deep-seated value with which we as individuals may disagree, of course does not mean that it's in any way necessarily irrational. Back to suicide bombers, I guess we are: I'd say a majority of posters here did not consider suicide bombing to be irrational, (a caveat, however, being that many nonetheless endorsed a notion of certain *goals* being irrational, a viewpoint that still seems peculari to me, and appears to cross the is/ought boundary). Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 15 22:06:29 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:06:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? References: <200612130605.kBD6523H088723@mail0.rawbw.com><02be01c72008$cdc42700$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1166164961.5494.143.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <02df01c72095$ccde38c0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Fred writes > In addition to locking doors of a home, it is interesting to consider > when locking doors of a car became more widespread. I can remember a > time when cars were typically not locked in store parking lots. Thanks for bringing up this important aspect! I can even remember as a young adult trying to open people's cars to turn off their lights and being surprised that the doors were locked. This data point suggests to me that in southern California something changed in the mid-seventies. I began locking my car doors when I moved to northern California about 1980. Lee > Also many of the older models did not have the alerts to notify you that the > headlights were on and thus it was not uncommon for people to walk by a > car with the headlights on and to open the door and turn the lights off > and then continue on. > > Fred From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 15 22:08:39 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:08:39 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? References: <1166164961.5494.143.camel@localhost.localdomain><200612151621.kBFGL1Kt013923@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <36267.72.236.102.71.1166214109.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <02e001c72095$ccf39580$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> MB writes > When I was growing up in New York City, I do not recall ever locking a door - all > through my teenage years I do not recall even having a key! > ... > I also recall feeling unthreatened on the NYC subway at night. Travelling at night, > as a young person alone. Walking home through the dark streets at night, alone. Not > frightened. Enjoying the dark, enjoying how the streets and lights looked. Could you possibly supply a rough date? Thanks a lot! > Where I live now, some folks still do not lock their doors. Mostly those are old > folks, ones who grew up here, and their memory and practice is of no keys - no > locking. And :-) sorry, but it really would be valuable to know about where you live now! Thanks, Lee > I'm not that way any longer. :( > > We've lost something. Something I think was quite valuable. I have no idea how we > could go about getting it back. > > Regards, > MB From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Dec 15 22:15:35 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:15:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? References: <1166164961.5494.143.camel@localhost.localdomain><200612151621.kBFGL1Kt013923@andromeda.ziaspace.com><36267.72.236.102.71.1166214109.squirrel@main.nc.us> <4716.163.1.72.81.1166216455.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <02e401c72097$37b619a0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Anders writes > MB wrote: >> We've lost something. Something I think was quite valuable. >> I have no idea how we could go about getting it back. > > One approach is of course transparency - if anything is stolen or broken > you and everybody else who cares will know who did it. We will be there > soon. But I doubt that adds much to a sense of trust and security, which > is what this thread really is about. Knowing that the police can catch the > wrongdoers doesn't lessen the fear of being attacked by them. But I think that it would lessen our fears considerably. We would realize that the incentives related to the commission of crime had changed. Moreover, if the police succeed in catching a higher percentage of wrongdoers, it reduces the fraction of them loose in the neighborhoods, and thus affects the probability of being victimized. > My guess is that the valuable thing you are longing for is a friendly > neighbourhood social network, where people know each other > well enough to act as a robust protective system. Good point. > It seems that this has become harder both due to urbanisation and > some bad architectural solutions and the move towards widespread > but weaker social links. Has anyone read "Bowling Alone"? I'm thinking of getting this book, because of the numerous examples it's supposed to contain concerning the weakening of social links. It sounds fascinating, but perhaps does not take certain very recent phenomena into account, e.g., migration to on-line worlds. > Or maybe we should just mandate higher oxytocin levels everywhere. If people were not appalled on *principle* against the use of drugs, this excellent suggestion would be entertained widely. Lee From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Dec 15 22:38:28 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:38:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? In-Reply-To: <4716.163.1.72.81.1166216455.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1166164961.5494.143.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200612151621.kBFGL1Kt013923@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <36267.72.236.102.71.1166214109.squirrel@main.nc.us> <4716.163.1.72.81.1166216455.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: It will be interesting to see what happens as society transitions from the physical reality to the virtual one. The reason one starts locking doors is presumably because there is something of "value" behind them. If one abstains from accumulating things of value then one need not worry about locking ones door. Equivalently if the nanoera makes "things" of equal or better value available to everyone then there will be no point to robbery, burglery, car jackings, etc. There will be no point to locking ones door. It is only if one has something of value on the open market that people might desire to take it from you. But Anders is right, and as the CSI, NCIS, etc. shows would lead one to believe, transparency in terms of knowing precisely who commits a crime is becoming more common in which case it becomes increasingly difficult to be a "criminal". (Macro scale actors like human beings have a hard time of it in an era where they leave behind DNA, minuscule amounts of "trace" that can be put through a Mass-Spec machine for identification, cameras on every block (not here yet but in the U.K. its getting very close), etc.). One wonders about the possibilities of a "Lost" season situated in east L.A.? At any rate this conversation relates to things of value from objective and subjective perspectives and brings to mind an interesting question. What is one of the few things that you have that cannot be taken from you? [1] Robert 1. For example if all things of value that you possess are within "virtual" realms (say Linden dollars), someone could coerce you into giving them up by threatening to take your life or the life of someone you care about. You could refuse to turn them over and as a result "they" could take your life. (Of course this might be a pointless strategy if one has lots of real time copies...). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Dec 15 23:08:20 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:08:20 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? In-Reply-To: References: <1166164961.5494.143.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200612151621.kBFGL1Kt013923@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <36267.72.236.102.71.1166214109.squirrel@main.nc.us> <4716.163.1.72.81.1166216455.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On 12/15/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > It will be interesting to see what happens as society transitions from the > physical reality to the virtual one. The reason one starts locking doors is > presumably because there is something of "value" behind them. If one > abstains from accumulating things of value then one need not worry about > locking ones door. Equivalently if the nanoera makes "things" of equal or > better value available to everyone then there will be no point to robbery, > burglery, car jackings, etc. There will be no point to locking ones door. > It is only if one has something of value on the open market that people > might desire to take it from you. > An interesting point is that before the Industrial Revolution, locks were very expensive, hand-crafted items in their own right. Only rich people could afford locks. In the good ol' days poor people left their doors unlocked because they didn't have anything of value *and* they couldn't afford the locks anyway. >From the 1960's onward what you are talking about is inner city decay, urban decline and 'White Flight' out to the suburbs. BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Dec 15 23:12:39 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:12:39 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? In-Reply-To: <4716.163.1.72.81.1166216455.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1166164961.5494.143.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200612151621.kBFGL1Kt013923@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <36267.72.236.102.71.1166214109.squirrel@main.nc.us> <4716.163.1.72.81.1166216455.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <8d71341e0612151512x374a4dbcm4acaa5b0aa230984@mail.gmail.com> On 12/15/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > One approach is of course transparency - if anything is stolen or broken > you and everybody else who cares will know who did it. We will be there > soon. But I doubt that adds much to a sense of trust and security, which > is what this thread really is about. Knowing that the police can catch the > wrongdoers doesn't lessen the fear of being attacked by them. Indeed. I think it would be more effective (as well as safer and more ethical) to attack the root cause of the problem, rather than merely the symptoms. There are always going to be a few sadistic sociopaths who were just plain born with their brains wired up the wrong way, but they're a small minority. The difference in violent crime rate between a modern city and a traditional small town is accounted for by people who in a better environment would have lived better lives [1]. A big part of the problem is that as the web of laws and regulations grows thicker, the barriers to earning an honest living grow higher. To make matters worse, the planning and rent laws restrict the supply of housing to the point that it's very hard to pay rent on a low wage; there's a strong incentive to go on social security and let the government provide you with housing. Young men in a lot of poor areas end up correctly perceiving that the opportunity to be a full member of society, supporting a family by honest work, is something society is _forcibly denying_ them for no good reason; they turn to crime out of boredom, frustration and anger. Combine that with the laws against drugs and prostitution that provide a market with high risk but much higher reward than most legal jobs, and it's a wonder the crime rate is as low as it is. Even leaving aside ethical considerations, the _effective_ solution to the crime problem is fewer laws. [1] I will emphasize that I am _not_ suggesting this is a moral excuse for violent crime. I am only discussing cause in order to arrive at an effective solution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Fri Dec 15 23:25:14 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:25:14 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? In-Reply-To: <02e401c72097$37b619a0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1166164961.5494.143.camel@localhost.localdomain><200612151621.kBFGL1Kt013923@andromeda.ziaspace.com><36267.72.236.102.71.1166214109.squirrel@main.nc.us> <4716.163.1.72.81.1166216455.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <02e401c72097$37b619a0$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <50985.86.130.30.74.1166225114.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Lee Corbin wrote: > Anders writes >> One approach is of course transparency - if anything is stolen or broken >> you and everybody else who cares will know who did it. We will be there >> soon. But I doubt that adds much to a sense of trust and security, which >> is what this thread really is about. Knowing that the police can catch >> the >> wrongdoers doesn't lessen the fear of being attacked by them. > > But I think that it would lessen our fears considerably. We would > realize that the incentives related to the commission of crime had > changed. My impression is that it does not fix the fear problem. Because you are both constantly reminded of the threat and subjected to irrational or desperate criminals - they might be a bit less common than any criminal, but they worry people more. The UK is very noticeably a surveillance society (when I open the curtains in the morning the first thing I see is a big white security camera) but people certainly committ crime and worry about crime. If you look at the statistics violent crime is certainly declining like elsewhere, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf (page ten) but assaults from strangers is not declining despite a great deal more cameras. > Moreover, if the police succeed in catching a higher > percentage of wrongdoers, it reduces the fraction of them loose > in the neighborhoods, and thus affects the probability of being > victimized. This assumes the wrongdoers are removed from the neighbourhood. While it may be useful to get the really violent and dangerous people locked away, the bulk of crimes are petty crimes committed by people unlikely to stay removed long. The neighbour that cuts down your ivy "by mistake", the loud and uncouth youths or the moving theif that picks up stuff when he can and then moves elsewhere, they are hard to stop this way. >> It seems that this has become harder both due to urbanisation and >> some bad architectural solutions and the move towards widespread >> but weaker social links. > > Has anyone read "Bowling Alone"? I'm thinking of getting this book, > because of the numerous examples it's supposed to contain concerning > the weakening of social links. It sounds fascinating, but perhaps does > not take certain very recent phenomena into account, e.g., migration > to on-line worlds. I have not read it, but it seems relevant (even if its conclusions are not uncontested). Given that paper that was mentioned earlier on one of these lists of the surprising scarcity of people to hold meaningful discussions with (25% of the surveyed had nobody to talk deeply to) it might be very relevant. I wonder if another way out of the issue might be to adapt to not have deep connections. In the past this has been regarded as pathological and "sad", but suppose we could modify ourselves not to want or need deep human contact? (I can hear Fukuyama screaming in the background :-) That might actually be a possible trans- or posthuman mode of existence, in the sense that it changes the nature of the 'social' in the social animal. Most people wouldn't want this change and would prefer the reinforcement of social connection, but if we instead could get the same emotional and health benefits from weaker links I personally don't see why it could not be just as worthwhile and flourishing as the current modes. But maybe I'm just the superficial type. >> Or maybe we should just mandate higher oxytocin levels everywhere. > > If people were not appalled on *principle* against the use of drugs, > this excellent suggestion would be entertained widely. We could try to raise them with mandatory sex or cuddling, but I guess that would run into other problems :-) -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Fri Dec 15 23:50:57 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:50:57 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061215153830.0223ec40@satx.rr.com> References: <1166164961.5494.143.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200612151621.kBFGL1Kt013923@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <36267.72.236.102.71.1166214109.squirrel@main.nc.us> <4716.163.1.72.81.1166216455.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7.0.1.0.2.20061215153830.0223ec40@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <2210.129.67.116.2.1166226657.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Broderick wrote: > Walking home in the hot winter sun today, I was aghast (as usual) by the crap and detritus scattered along the street: Yes, trash as a social marker. I think it has to do with signalling, a bit like middle class values are so much about demonstrating that one is investing in one's human capital - health, education and similar signals tell a story about being successful in a meritocracy beyond just showing off wealth and status (I might not be rich, but look at my *prospects*!). Not caring about one's environment seems to signal that either it can't get worse, or that it is not *my* environment. By throwing out the trash they might also mark the territory to some extent by placing a symbolic trace. There are of course other factors too: young litter more than old, alone people litter more, and there is a correlation to eating fast food, smoking and going to bars (class markers, class markers). The deeper, an IMHO more worrisome thing, is that littering might be a sign of short-term thinking. If there is something that is part of the upper middle class perspective it is to have a long future perspective. And faster future discounting seem to correlate with lower class. I think there is a messy feedback here, including a bit of learned culture and imitation of others, a bit of success being affected by short- vs long-term planning, and adaptation to a more risky and uncertain environment. > Will nano > abundance modify this socialization gap? I fear it won't, although the detritus problem can be engineered away. Socialization and having a reasonable time discount might be hard problems. Hmm, maybe in the future adulthood will be regarded as happening when you finally start to take a long-term view of things. People grow up in posthuman ghettos, eventually graduating after an indefinite period when they realize that they don't have to stay there and instead join the real mainstream for their real socialization. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Dec 16 00:42:06 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:42:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] virtual realities for the elderly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200612160101.kBG11Fsr017457@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? >It will be interesting to see what happens as society transitions from the physical reality to the virtual one...Robert Robert may hijack that thought into another thread? Thanks. Grandmother-in-law is nearly 90, Alzheimers, confused much of the time, definitely not enjoying life currently. When the grandfather-in-law was in this same situation a few years ago, I began thinking seriously about virtual realities for the elderly. Now perhaps some of you who are up to speed on the latest technologies can clue me. About five years ago I suggested a dome under which the patient would sit or lie, or something between such as a dentist chair style semi-recliner. LCD and plasma screen technology would allow the necessary visual interface. The Duke Nukem and Second Life sims convince me that the technology is now sufficiently advanced to do this. Could we have a Second-Life like character that is guided by the eyes for left and right? Do we have instruments that can watch the eyes? The forward and backward could be controlled by some means, such as forward if the eyes are fixing on some distant object for instance, slow down if the eyes are looking around, etc. Imagine some system for people who may not be with it enough to realize they are in a simulation, or want to lose themselves in a simulation by pretending that it is reality. What can we do with current tech? spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Dec 15 16:18:43 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:18:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Usefulness of Anger and Hate In-Reply-To: <029601c71fe2$f77b2060$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061214124108.03f65218@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061215104014.03f45870@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 04:45 PM 12/14/2006 -0800, Lee wrote: >Keith writes > > > [Jef wrote] > > > The hate dynamic tends toward immoral actions > > > > What we feel is "immoral" has been shaped by evolution in the stone > > age. It is, for example, considered immoral to kill close relatives while > > it is considered entirely moral to kill attackers who are trying to kill > > those close relatives. Exactly what you would expect from genes that are > > rationally "trying" to get into the next generation. > > > > In times of low stress, that is the food supply looks to be ok into the > > foreseeable future, and your tribe is not under attack, what we consider > > immoral widens. > >Yes, that's right. Quite a number of behavioral traits including kindness, >generosity, and even loyalty and honesty are, alas, luxuries that due to >our wealth today we can afford, but which many of our ancestors could >not afford. I suggest you have not read enough anthropology. Loyalty comes out most strongly in combat groups, and I don't see kindness, generosity and honesty being correlated with wealth. (Enron for example.) > > > because hate motivates > > > narrower context decision-making, evaluating consequences over narrower > > > scope of possible agents and possible interactions. > > > > That's a better technical wording to the way I usually put it. I just say > > that xenophobic memes and the mental state they induce (hate) interferes > > with the parts of the mind that do rational thought. > >What is not clear to me is how the "rational thought" that you >are referring to here relates to the values of the hater, or in >general an actor. I have no idea of what you might be referring to by "values of the hater." Hate, like other intense emotional states, tends to interfere with a person's ability to think. Panic does that as well, which is why you get lots of people killed in fires where the building doors open to the inside. >Could you provide an example where >the xenophobia, say, was *irrational*? Xenophobia induced by xenophobic hate memes *had* a function in the stone age. It induced a closely related group of warriors facing bad times (starvation) to attack neighbors in an attempt to have their gene line prosper. Inducing a state where warriors were willing to take a high chance of dying was rational from the *gene's* viewpoint if not so rational from the viewpoint of dead warriors. Because we don't now live in closely related groups and fight for them, xenophobia induced by xenophobic hate memes isn't rational even for genes today. You still may have to kill hopped up warriors coming after you, you might even have to destroy them as a people or nation, but hating them is pointless because it interferes with your ability to think. Keith >Surely you mean, >don't you, that it merely conflicts with some other also-EEA- >adapted values? > >Lee > > > A really short approach is hate makes you stupid. > > > > snip > > > > Of course the *reason* these mechanisms evolved is that (pre birth > control) > > humans lacked other ways to keep the population inside the ability of the > > ecosystem to feed them. > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Dec 16 05:21:33 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:21:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? In-Reply-To: <02e001c72095$ccf39580$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1166164961.5494.143.camel@localhost.localdomain><200612151621.kBFGL1Kt013923@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <36267.72.236.102.71.1166214109.squirrel@main.nc.us> <02e001c72095$ccf39580$6801a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <36299.72.236.102.75.1166246493.squirrel@main.nc.us> >> When I was growing up in New York City, I do not recall ever locking a door - all >> through my teenage years I do not recall even having a key! >> ... >> I also recall feeling unthreatened on the NYC subway at night. Travelling at >> night, >> as a young person alone. Walking home through the dark streets at night, alone. >> Not >> frightened. Enjoying the dark, enjoying how the streets and lights looked. > > Could you possibly supply a rough date? Thanks a lot! Mid to late 1950s, early 1960s. > >> Where I live now, some folks still do not lock their doors. Mostly those are old >> folks, ones who grew up here, and their memory and practice is of no keys - no >> locking. > > And :-) sorry, but it really would be valuable to know about where you > live now! > Appalachia. Regards, MB From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Dec 16 05:34:47 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:34:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] When Did (or Do) People Start Locking Doors? In-Reply-To: <2210.129.67.116.2.1166226657.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1166164961.5494.143.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200612151621.kBFGL1Kt013923@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <36267.72.236.102.71.1166214109.squirrel@main.nc.us> <4716.163.1.72.81.1166216455.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7.0.1.0.2.20061215153830.0223ec40@satx.rr.com> <2210.129.67.116.2.1166226657.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <36321.72.236.102.75.1166247287.squirrel@main.nc.us> > >> Will nano >> abundance modify this socialization gap? I fear it won't, although the >> detritus problem can be engineered away. > > Socialization and having a reasonable time discount might be hard > problems. Hmm, maybe in the future adulthood will be regarded as happening > when you finally start to take a long-term view of things. People grow up > in posthuman ghettos, eventually graduating after an indefinite period > when they realize that they don't have to stay there and instead join the > real mainstream for their real socialization. > Ha. In our family that was called "coming out of the tunnel" and it varied widely. Some were ready much earlier than others, though we often laughed and said our young were Late Bloomers. Regards, MB From pj at pj-manney.com Sun Dec 17 00:02:03 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 19:02:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Music and Science Message-ID: <17464192.778201166313723061.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >pjmanney >> Are you aware of any scientists who >> have had specific scientific inspiration >> from music? > >http://wohba.com/pages/ruben1006.html Groovy! I've been reading Science & Music by Sir James Jeans and this is much more fun visualization compared to his rather dry textbook! http://www.amazon.com/Science-Music-Sir-James-Jeans/dp/0486619648/sr=8-1/qid=1166313543/ref=sr_1_1/104-9371125-4023114?ie=UTF8&s=books Sorry it took me so long to reply. I filed this in the wrong email file. Thanks for this! PJ From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sun Dec 17 01:51:50 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:51:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The New Atlantis compares JPII and Transhumanism Message-ID: <4584A2B6.30205@goldenfuture.net> http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/9/hart.htm It's more than a year old, but some anti-Transhumanist and pro-Catholic blogs have just picked up on it and are breathing new life into it. Given the source, (The New Atlantis could well have been founded as a direct counter to the rise of Transhumanist thought as a respectable entity), we should not be surprised at the anti-Transhumanist stance of the author. However, his ad hominem attacks and virulence are somewhat startling. Some choice quotes: "A satirist with a genius for the morbid could scarcely have invented a faction more depressingly sickly..." "Obviously one is dealing here with a sensibility formed more by comic books than by serious thought." "If, as I have said, the metaphysics of transhumanism is inevitably implied within such things as embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, then to embark upon them is already to invoke and invite the advent of a god who will, I think, be a god of boundless horror, one with a limitless appetite for sacrifice." Read it all. Yikes. Joseph Bloch http://transhumanist.blogspot.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 17 01:58:59 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:58:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Hating versus Loving In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061214141553.03f741f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20061217015859.31961.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- Keith Henson wrote: > > I am about as far from being a Bush fan as you can > get. > > Yet from an EP viewpoint, he is the correct sort of > leader for a tribe that > feels they are under attack. I.e., irrational, or > if you don't want to use > that word, "the thinking impaired state induced by > xenophobic memes." Bush is indeed the correct tribal leader for a group of Neanderthals under attack by rival cavemen in the stone age. In a modern world of intricately linked ecomomies, weapons of mass destruction, and global energy shortage, he is the worst possible leader. That EP seems to explain WHY he was elected certainly does not make him the right leader. Just the one that cavemen would want, not civilized men. > "Our way of life" is far more dependant on an > economy growing faster than > the population and relatively low cost energy. I > would far rather see > nanotube/space elevator/solar power satellites being > developed or lot of > high temp nuclear reactors being installed than Bush > being impeached. > > (Though impeaching Bush for lying the US into a war > is a good idea too.) This late into his presidency, I think impeachment would not be cost effective. It would be far more efficient at this point to let him serve out his term and then bring criminal and civil charges against him and his crew afterwards. That is if he actually steps down from the presidency. If ever there was a president that had the gall to try to install himself as a permanent dictator, it would be Dubya. If he is so willing to disregard the Bill of Rights then him disregarding term limits is not out of the question. As far as the energy crisis goes, I don't see how all of his expenditure of resources did a bit of good. The amount of oil and dollars he will need to burn, to kill all his "insurgents" does not make what's under the ground there worth it. So long as there are insurgents, they can't drill for oil. The insurgents would rather see it all burn than give him one drop of it. Where is the ROI on this fool's bet? Iraq has maybe 20 years of oil. Less if everybody in China buys an SUV. For a trillion dollars, you could probably have had cold fusion, warp drive, and an exoplanet to aim it at. But instead of EXPLORING like we ought to have, we had to listen to our genes instead of our brains and give a caveman the "nucular" football. > An alternative is to kill (by starvation for > example) a few hundred million > Arabs and take the oil in that region. I really > don't like saying it, but > a Bush type leader is what you need for something > like this. No. Absolutely not. Even if I wanted all out war with the Arabs (and I don't), I wouldn't want Bush in charge of it. He has no concept of HOW to best fight a war. The fact that he started a war with NO exit strategy, tells me he hasn't the first clue of HOW to use the military. There are senior officers (who majored in warfare in military academies mind you) telling him it's an "un-winnable war". Of course there are kiss-asses telling him different, but they just want to get promoted. And he is too egotistical to tell the difference. > > >Without hate, Rome WOULD not have destroyed > Carthage. > >But did not Carthage hate Rome just as much? Why > did > >hate serve one and not the other? Hate is the most > >treacherous of all emotions. It makes you *feel* > >invincible and beligerent all the way up to point > >where you run up against someone stronger. > > You are exactly on target here, but you need to take > it a little further, > namely back to the stone age. Why do we have hate > if if makes us so crazy? Because it served us well as hunter-gatherers. In the agrarian age, it held its own. In the nuclear age, it will be our downfall. > You have to look at this "feature" from the > viewpoint of genes in the stone > age. > > Population growth eventually resulted in a bleak > future where it was > obvious the tribe was going to starve. So genes get > selected that detect > this condition approaching and turn up the gain on > xenophobic (hate) > memes. Eventually the warriors get hyped up to a do > or die attack on > neighbors. That is why a warrior's mind must be disciplined. You cannot trust a sword to an undiciplined mind, let alone a nuke. Warriors can't afford hate. Hate will cause them to be rash, fall for traps, die, and lose the cause. Warriors need calm cold reasoning. > I make the case that this was better for genes *even > for those genes in the > tribe that lost.* Even if all the males in a tribe > were killed, copies of > their genes existed in the young women who were > usually booty and were > incorporated into the tribe that killed all the men > folk. Genes are pretty darn stupid. That is why brains that generate minds evolved from them. Genes take generations to change. A mind can change in the space of a heartbeat. The whole evolutionary advantage to minds is that they can change quickly. But if minds can't over-rule genes, then what's the point of having one? > The subjects you discuss here are complicated beyond > what I can respond to > in a reasonable time. But you really should try to > recast them in light of > understanding EP. Oh I understand EP. I just don't find it very useful. It's less useful than either evolution or psychology are separately. What a caveman should think of blackholes, is trivial. > >You think so huh? Then why did the Lord of Hate end > >his days in a bunker abandoned by all, hating even > >himself enough to put a bullet in his own brain? > > I think the bad guys of history need to be > reconsidered in the light of > EP. When there exist a widespread belief in a > population that there is a > need to slaughter neighbors or some sub group in > their population, then > people like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot will rise to > leadership. In some > ways it isn't their fault. If Hitler had been born > plus or minus 20 years > from when he was, we never would have heard about > him. Revisionist history seems a fine pursuit of EP. We certainly cannot make policy decisions with it. Although it seems good for marketing purposes. > > >Hate is entropy. Love is spontaneous > self-organizing > >complexity. > > Unfortunately, human "spontaneous self-organizing > complexity" eventually > overloads the the ecosystem. And since we are the > top predator . . . We best ration the resources we have left, start looking for others, and find another ecosystem . . . somewhere. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 17 06:38:01 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:38:01 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] random caveman thought In-Reply-To: <20061217015859.31961.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200612170638.kBH6cGGe001771@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > ...Just the one that cavemen would want, not civilized men... Is it not striking how deeply this term "cavemen" has penetrated our language? We all know it refers to ancient people, but consider how few caves there are in this world. There are surely not enough caves to shelter a sufficient population to be self sustaining. Protohumans must have been capable of building shelters of some sort from the time they split from protochimps. Only a fortunate few humans would have discovered caves. These fortunate few would be at least as civilized as their non-cave-dwelling cousins, for they would need to work out a system of living in cooperation with as many humans as the cave would hold. They would need to band together in common defense of that cave, otherwise a larger group would attack and take that natural shelter. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 17 06:27:06 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:27:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The New Atlantis compares JPII and Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <4584A2B6.30205@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <200612170638.kBH6cGGd001771@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch > Subject: [extropy-chat] The New Atlantis compares JPII and Transhumanism > > http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/9/hart.htm > > It's more than a year old, but some anti-Transhumanist and pro-Catholic > blogs have just picked up on it and are breathing new life into it. Joseph Bloch >From the article Joseph Bloch referenced: "...Joseph Fletcher was a man with a manifestly brutal mind, desperately anxious to believe himself superior to the common run of men, one who apparently received some sort of crypto-erotic thrill from his cruel fantasies of creating a slave race, and of literally branding others as his genetic inferiors..." Who is this Joseph Fletcher character that is being savaged? I have been reading transhumanist stuff for over a decade and never heard of him. The article seems to think he has something to do with transhumanism. spike From rheil at gmx.li Sun Dec 17 06:50:09 2006 From: rheil at gmx.li (rheil at gmx.li) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 07:50:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The New Atlantis compares JPII and Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <200612170638.kBH6cGGd001771@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200612170638.kBH6cGGd001771@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20061217065009.252180@gmx.net> > Who is this Joseph Fletcher character that is being savaged? I have been > reading transhumanist stuff for over a decade and never heard of him. The > article seems to think he has something to do with transhumanism. article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fletcher reinhard -- "Ein Herz f?r Kinder" - Ihre Spende hilft! Aktion: www.deutschlandsegelt.de Unser Dankesch?n: Ihr Name auf dem Segel der 1. deutschen America's Cup-Yacht! From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 17 10:41:55 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:41:55 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] random caveman thought In-Reply-To: <200612170638.kBH6cGGe001771@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20061217015859.31961.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <200612170638.kBH6cGGe001771@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 12/17/06, spike wrote: > > Is it not striking how deeply this term "cavemen" has penetrated our > language? We all know it refers to ancient people, but consider how few > caves there are in this world. There are surely not enough caves to shelter > a sufficient population to be self sustaining. Protohumans must have been > capable of building shelters of some sort from the time they split from > protochimps. Only a fortunate few humans would have discovered caves. > These fortunate few would be at least as civilized as their > non-cave-dwelling cousins, for they would need to work out a system of > living in cooperation with as many humans as the cave would hold. They > would need to band together in common defense of that cave, otherwise a > larger group would attack and take that natural shelter. > Caves are good for preserving human remains. That's the main reason we associate early humans with caves. But cave-dwelling as a permanent habitation would not have been possible before farming was invented. Hunter-gatherers and nomadic tribes would possibly have used caves temporarily until the nearby food sources were used up, then they would move on. By the time farming was developed, there were usually many better options for housing available. BillK From benboc at lineone.net Sun Dec 17 12:53:50 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:53:50 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The New Atlantis compares JPII and Transhumanism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45853DDE.6020705@lineone.net> "spike" wrote: > Who is this Joseph Fletcher character that is being savaged? I have > been reading transhumanist stuff for over a decade and never heard of > him. The article seems to think he has something to do with > transhumanism. I suspect this is a strategy of demonisation by association. Find somebody whose ideas are obviously reprehensible, find some link (even a tenuous one) to a group you dislike, and thereafter quote the person as a representative of the group, assuming that his views and the group's views are synonymous. ben zaiboc From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Dec 17 13:42:55 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 08:42:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] random caveman thought In-Reply-To: References: <20061217015859.31961.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <200612170638.kBH6cGGe001771@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Silly rabbits... For those of you who have not traveled extensively in Europe, castles are caves. Highly recommended for those of you who happen to be in SE NM at some point... Go take a trip to Carlsbad Cavern. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Dec 17 14:05:41 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:05:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The New Atlantis compares JPII and Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <45853DDE.6020705@lineone.net> References: <45853DDE.6020705@lineone.net> Message-ID: On 12/17/06, ben wrote: > > > I suspect this is a strategy of demonisation by association. > Find somebody whose ideas are obviously reprehensible, find some link > (even a tenuous one) to a group you dislike, and thereafter quote the > person as a representative of the group, assuming that his views and the > group's views are synonymous. Interesting. In reading the Wikipedia page I don't find any of his ideas "reprehensible". Nor would find it easy to associate someone who promoted euthanasia to be tied to a groups of people who almost universally argue for and actively support lifespan extension. You are right about links being "tenuous". Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 17 14:34:45 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:34:45 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] random caveman thought In-Reply-To: <200612170638.kBH6cGGe001771@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20061217015859.31961.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <200612170638.kBH6cGGe001771@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20061217143445.GA6974@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 10:38:01PM -0800, spike wrote: > Is it not striking how deeply this term "cavemen" has penetrated our > language? We all know it refers to ancient people, but consider how few > caves there are in this world. There are surely not enough caves to shelter They didn't actually live in caves. It's just caves are great at conserving things which otherwise would perish in open spaces. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From amara at amara.com Sun Dec 17 14:36:53 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:36:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] random caveman thought Message-ID: pharos at gmail.com : >But cave-dwelling as a permanent habitation would not have been >possible before farming was invented. Hunter-gatherers and nomadic >tribes would possibly have used caves temporarily until the nearby >food sources were used up, then they would move on. >By the time farming was developed, there were usually many better >options for housing available. I guess you've not heard of the underground cities in Cappadocia (Turkey) Estimates give at least 35 underground cities (experts say many more are waiting to be discovered). The largest is under under Derinkuyu. The site at Derinkuyu covers an area of 4 km^2 and is considered to be big enough to house 2000 families, 20,000 people in total. Some of the openings are in presently used houses, parts of the first floors of some underground cities are used as storage places. Some of the these underground developments go down 18-20 floors. I recommend highly a visit to them, they are fascinating places representing life underground, and for centuries. The development of these cities began 4000 years ago, and were continually developed over the next several thousand years. Even though they were continually developed, the cities were greatly enlarged upon arrival of Arab raiding parties in Anatolia in the 7th and 8th centuries, who drove the monks underground taking the local Christian communities with them forming the underground cities. http://www.rdricketts.com/uncity.html Cappadocia: http://www.turkeytravelplanner.com/photo_galleries/cappadocia/index.html -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Dec 17 15:10:30 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 07:10:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The New Atlantis compares JPII and Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <45853DDE.6020705@lineone.net> Message-ID: <200612171510.kBHFAld3028009@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ben > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The New Atlantis compares JPII and > Transhumanism > > "spike" wrote: > > > Who is this Joseph Fletcher character that is being savaged? I have > > been reading transhumanist stuff for over a decade and never heard of > > him... > > I suspect this is a strategy of demonisation by association. > Find somebody whose ideas are obviously reprehensible, find some link > (even a tenuous one) to a group you dislike... ben zaiboc Oh ok I get it, thanks ben. So the strategy then would be to point out that Jeffrey Dahmer, Hitler and Ted Kaczynski were all catholic and then ask David B. Hart why he and the pope are so intimately involved in the things these men did, etc. How can we clue this silly jerk and the New Atlantis that Fletcher is not one of ours? spike From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 17 15:20:59 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:20:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The New Atlantis compares JPII and Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <200612171510.kBHFAld3028009@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <45853DDE.6020705@lineone.net> <200612171510.kBHFAld3028009@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20061217152059.GH6974@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 07:10:30AM -0800, spike wrote: > How can we clue this silly jerk and the New Atlantis that Fletcher is not > one of ours? I would be very surprised if the smear piece wasn't deliberate. A useful response might be deconstruct the piece line by line (perhaps, using over-the-top verbiage to be ridiculously offensive, but I'm not sure giving the apoplectic rumplestiltskins free pulpit space would do any good. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From neptune at superlink.net Sun Dec 17 15:29:53 2006 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:29:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] random caveman thought References: <20061217015859.31961.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com><200612170638.kBH6cGGe001771@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <005b01c721f0$339ad040$29893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, December 17, 2006 5:41 AM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote: > Caves are good for preserving human remains. That's > the main reason we associate early humans with caves. This is true. > But cave-dwelling as a permanent habitation would not > have been possible before farming was invented. Hunter- > gatherers and nomadic tribes would possibly have used > caves temporarily until the nearby food sources were > used up, then they would move on. I agree. It's also true that such caves might be reused for a band that migrates, say, with the food and then migrates back later in the season. > By the time farming was developed, there were usually > many better options for housing available. It seems also true that though protohumans or early humans had the capability to build shelters, they might not have invented or learned the actual skills until much later. It's likely humans 50K years ago had the potential to do set theory or build rockets, but it still took thousands of years to acquire the actual skills to do either. Regards, Dan From neptune at superlink.net Sun Dec 17 15:26:05 2006 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:26:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] random caveman thought References: <200612170638.kBH6cGGe001771@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <005501c721ef$abdf7fc0$29893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, December 17, 2006 1:38 AM spike spike66 at comcast.net wrote: >> ...Just the one that cavemen would want, not civilized men... > > > Is it not striking how deeply this term "cavemen" has > penetrated our language? No. It's not really that new of a term. It's had decades to sink in, so it's not striking, though, I agree with you below that it might mis-shape views about prehistoric peoples. > We all know it refers to ancient people, but consider > how few caves there are in this world. But the regions known to be inhabited by prehistoric humans have lots of evidence of cave usage -- some even for dwelling. Granted, really big extensive caves are rare, but rock overhangs and shallow caves seem to be plentiful in many places in the world. Where do the bears and other animals that "nest" underground find places to hibernate?:) Of course, this could also be selection bias -- evidence found in caves is more likely to be preserved. (It's also true that some of the cave evidence was misunderstood because some nonhumans probably dragged humans or their remains into their (the nonhumans') cave lairs for processing. Later, we might be mislead to thinking the humans actually lived their.) > There are surely not enough caves to shelter a sufficient > population to be self sustaining. I disagree. It would depends on population size. Yes, it's unlikely that caves able to comfortably house modern humans with a reproductive community (let's say 150 souls) would be plentiful, but very small natural shelters able to house a family or a slight larger band might be another matter. Also, the humans wouldn't likely spend all their time in the caves. Likely, they would be shelters for the night or against bad weather conditions. > Protohumans must have been capable of building shelters > of some sort from the time they split from protochimps. I don't disagree. Of course, shelter-building is not a specifically human or primate or even "intelligent" traits. Bugs and birds can do such. The only problem would be confirming such shelters for proto-humans. My guess would be that the evidence would be scant even if your view is correct because a sort of nest of grass would be unlikely to leave much in the way of evidence for archaeologists or paleontologists to find, especially if such shelters were temporary. > Only a fortunate few humans would have discovered caves. It really depends on where these humans or protohumans were. E.g., in Vermont, there are shallow caves all over the place. It's easy to imagine early humans here -- though I'm using this as an example and not arguing actual "cavemen" lived here circa 50K BCE. -- easily find and using them. It's also true that once caves are found out, they're likely to remain found -- either being passed down to subsequent generations or found out by rivals. (Humans might have also followed bear back to their caves and merely evicted (read: killed*) the residents and took over.) > These fortunate few would be at least as civilized as their > non-cave-dwelling cousins, for they would need to work out a system of > living in cooperation with as many humans as the cave would hold. I don't think this is a specialized skill. Humans probably had a basket of cooperation skills -- as some other primates do -- and these would likely be easily adapted to cave-dwelling. > They > would need to band together in common defense of that cave, otherwise a > larger group would attack and take that natural shelter. As, no doubt, often happened. I mean there's no reason to suppose using a cave means one must be able to defend it from all comers. No doubt, actual cavemen would've been overrun, from time to time, by other humans who then also became cavemen. Regards, Dan * This is not to deny that humans were more likely scavengers than hunters, but a small band armed with primitive weapons would probably be able to chase off if not kill a bear. From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 17 17:05:27 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:05:27 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] random caveman thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/17/06, Amara Graps wrote: > I guess you've not heard of the underground cities in Cappadocia (Turkey) > Estimates give at least 35 underground cities (experts say many more are > waiting to be discovered). The largest is under under Derinkuyu. The > site at Derinkuyu covers an area of 4 km^2 and is considered to be big > enough to house 2000 families, 20,000 people in total. Some of the > openings are in presently used houses, parts of the first floors of some > underground cities are used as storage places. Some of the these > underground developments go down 18-20 floors. I recommend highly a visit > to them, they are fascinating places representing life underground, and > for centuries. > > The development of these cities began 4000 years ago, and were > continually developed over the next several thousand years. Even though > they were continually developed, the cities were greatly enlarged > upon arrival of Arab raiding parties in Anatolia in the 7th and 8th > centuries, who drove the monks underground taking the local Christian > communities with them forming the underground cities. > Yes, there are lots of underground houses around the world. Google produces many references. But they could not be used for *permanent* habitation for large tribes before agriculture was invented. "Wherever caves were available, prehistoric nomadic hunters and gatherers incorporated them into the yearly cycle of seasonal camps. On every continent, prehistoric foragers made use of caves. Chinese caves contain some of the earliest evidence of human use of fire, approximately 400,000 years ago. Once agriculture became important, people established villages of permanent houses and found new uses for caves, mainly as hunting and herding campsites and for ceremonial activities. In Europe, Asia, and Africa caves continued to be used as shelters by nomadic groups." says that agriculture arrived between 9000 and 3000 BC in Europe and around 3000 BC in the Americas. After an adequate, continuous supply of local food and water became available, early humans could think about permanent habitation and building civilization. The natural caves and soft rock in Cappadocia caused the Hittite people to take advantage of the natural caves and also start excavating additional caves around 2000 - 1000 BC. BillK From amara at amara.com Sun Dec 17 18:13:28 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:13:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] random caveman thought Message-ID: BillK: >The natural caves and soft rock in Cappadocia >caused the Hittite people to take advantage of the natural caves and >also start excavating additional caves around 2000 - 1000 BC. The area was settled much earlier than that, a few thousand years before, in the Neolithic period, before the Hittites. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk The underground cities further north that I pointed you to before were not used for storage, they were built for living for many months at a time under the ground (without emerging on top of land). I don't know when the local people started building and using the underground cities, and I doubt you know either. The Hittite culture was based on agriculture, but before them were cultures engaging in a vigorous trading activity (on a route to Mesopotamia) with horses and lots of movement. The people who lived in Catalhoyuk in ~8000 BC were agricultural perhaps, mixing (and fighting) with the travelling tribes. Amara From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Dec 17 18:37:34 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:37:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A useful remark Message-ID: <7641ddc60612171037k28bca76fj1e3daaa4fd4c5ef9@mail.gmail.com> Over at transhumantech Eugen made this remark: "A machine god pantheon by default kills things by habitat destruction" (this is in response to James, who talks about his usual stuff, basic income, free healthcare, and "democracy") ### This brings to mind Eliezer's analysis of the applicability of evolutionary theory to SAI's. According to Eli, and I agree with him here, evolution would not apply to a singleton AI, given the absence of mutation and selection which are the sine qua non of evolution. But Eugen points to a situation where even in the absence of mutation (that is, randomly generated change) there could be evolution, with its associated tendencies towards exponential proliferation and filling of all accessible ecological niches. All you need is one AI without very strong built-in limitations on the destruction of humans, and even in the presence of friendly AI's of equal intelligence the outcome could be dire: an UFAI could physically expand heedless of its impact on humans, and it could self-modify without concern for its long-term stability. Lack of physical and mental limitations could give the UFAI an edge over FAIs, forcing them to expand and self-modify, perhaps leading to loss of Friendliness. I agree with Eugen that unmodified humans are likely to survive only in a world with one FAI ("The One"), or a group of closely cooperating FAIs ("Them" :). An ecology of self-enhancing entities essentially assures the obliteration of HAWKI (Humanity As We Know It). Given that it is most likely technically difficult to prevent the emergence of such an ecology using the good old methods (committees, congressional acts, pen-pushers spouting regulations, jackbooted enforcers and other fruits of commie imagination), considerations of basic income, and other such stuff, are about as relevant to our future as droit de seigneur. Although a singleton globe-spanning FAI appears to be our best bet for survival (a good reason to support SIAI), I am wondering if there are other methods. I remember that Eugen used to advance the notion of a massive program of uploading which would occur before building true SAI. Do you still think this is a good idea, Eugen? I wish it was, but I think that SAI (although not necessarily FAI) is a bit easier than uploading, so it's likely that SAI will happen first, for better or for worse. This topic has been raised here many times but I would still like to know if anybody has any new realistic ideas about saving humanity from SAI, other than the FAI? (Pen-pusher ideas are not realistic, so don't even mention them) Rafal From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 17 19:25:57 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:25:57 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] random caveman thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/17/06, Amara Graps wrote: > BillK: > >The natural caves and soft rock in Cappadocia > >caused the Hittite people to take advantage of the natural caves and > >also start excavating additional caves around 2000 - 1000 BC. > > The area was settled much earlier than that, a few thousand years before, > in the Neolithic period, before the Hittites. > > http://www.catalhoyuk.com/ > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk > > The underground cities further north that I pointed you to before > were not used for storage, they were built for living for many months at > a time under the ground (without emerging on top of land). > > I don't know when the local people started building and using the > underground cities, and I doubt you know either. The Hittite culture was > based on agriculture, but before them were cultures engaging in a > vigorous trading activity (on a route to Mesopotamia) with horses and > lots of movement. The people who lived in Catalhoyuk in ~8000 BC were > agricultural perhaps, mixing (and fighting) with the travelling tribes. > I don't think I am disagreeing with anything you wrote (although your post reads as though you think I am) :) In fact, I was quoting from the reference you provided. Quote: "Underground cities are still being found in Cappadocia. The ancient Hittites, who came to area from east of the Black Sea around 2,000 B.C., are believed to have begun the excavation here. It is believed that these underground cities were enlarged during early Christians times to provide refuge from invaders and persecutors." All I am pointing out, with references, is that large permanent human settlements did not start until after agriculture was invented. Whether they were living in buildings or caves, early humans required a steady supply of food and water. Hunter-gathering alone cannot support a permanent 10,000 - 20,000 people town. Quote: "The Neolithic Revolution is the term for the first agricultural revolution, describing the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture, as first adopted by various independent prehistoric human societies, in various locations. The hunter-gatherer way of life was replaced by domestication of crops and animals, enabling people to live more sedentary lives. Permanent settlements arose, creating new social, cultural, economic and political institutions. The Neolithic Revolution is believed to have become widespread in southwest Asia around 8000 BC?7000 BC, though earlier individual sites have been identified." BillK From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Dec 17 19:17:59 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:17:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The New Atlantis compares JPII and Transhumanism In-Reply-To: References: <45853DDE.6020705@lineone.net> <45853DDE.6020705@lineone.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061217141107.03803b58@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:05 AM 12/17/2006 -0500, Robert wrote: >On 12/17/06, ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote: >> >>I suspect this is a strategy of demonisation by association. >>Find somebody whose ideas are obviously reprehensible, find some link >>(even a tenuous one) to a group you dislike, and thereafter quote the >>person as a representative of the group, assuming that his views and the >>group's views are synonymous. > >Interesting. In reading the Wikipedia page I don't find any of his ideas >"reprehensible". Nor would find it easy to associate someone who promoted >euthanasia to be tied to a groups of people who almost universally argue >for and actively support lifespan extension. Actually there is a link. I have personally collected about 1000 signature to get a "right to die" law on the books in California. The reason is that it would greatly improve the quality of cryonic suspensions for the terminally ill. Keith Henson >You are right about links being "tenuous". > >Robert > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Dec 18 02:04:04 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:04:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Time Magazine's Person of the Year Message-ID: <28470085.833391166407444054.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> I was just writing to one of our ilk that the zeitgeist is shifting. Hierarchical power is out. And "me" as in "the power of one" is in. And then this just arrived on my electronic doorstep. I'm the Person of the Year. And so are You. PJ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1569514,00.html Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2006 Person of the Year: You Yes, you. You control the Information Age. Welcome to your world. By LEV GROSSMAN The "Great Man" theory of history is usually attributed to the Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle, who wrote that "the history of the world is but the biography of great men." He believed that it is the few, the powerful and the famous who shape our collective destiny as a species. That theory took a serious beating this year. To be sure, there are individuals we could blame for the many painful and disturbing things that happened in 2006. The conflict in Iraq only got bloodier and more entrenched. A vicious skirmish erupted between Israel and Lebanon. A war dragged on in Sudan. A tin-pot dictator in North Korea got the Bomb, and the President of Iran wants to go nuclear too. Meanwhile nobody fixed global warming, and Sony didn't make enough PlayStation3s. But look at 2006 through a different lens and you'll see another story, one that isn't about conflict or great men. It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes. The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web. Not the Web that Tim Berners-Lee hacked together (15 years ago, according to Wikipedia) as a way for scientists to share research. It's not even the overhyped dotcom Web of the late 1990s. The new Web is a very different thing. It's a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter. Silicon Valley consultants call it Web 2.0, as if it were a new version of some old software. But it's really a revolution. And we are so ready for it. We're ready to balance our diet of predigested news with raw feeds from Baghdad and Boston and Beijing. You can learn more about how Americans live just by looking at the backgrounds of YouTube videos?those rumpled bedrooms and toy-strewn basement rec rooms?than you could from 1,000 hours of network television. And we didn't just watch, we also worked. Like crazy. We made Facebook profiles and Second Life avatars and reviewed books at Amazon and recorded podcasts. We blogged about our candidates losing and wrote songs about getting dumped. We camcordered bombing runs and built open-source software. America loves its solitary geniuses?its Einsteins, its Edisons, its Jobses?but those lonely dreamers may have to learn to play with others. Car companies are running open design contests. Reuters is carrying blog postings alongside its regular news feed. Microsoft is working overtime to fend off user-created Linux. We're looking at an explosion of productivity and innovation, and it's just getting started, as millions of minds that would otherwise have drowned in obscurity get backhauled into the global intellectual economy. Who are these people? Seriously, who actually sits down after a long day at work and says, I'm not going to watch Lost tonight. I'm going to turn on my computer and make a movie starring my pet iguana? I'm going to mash up 50 Cent's vocals with Queen's instrumentals? I'm going to blog about my state of mind or the state of the nation or the steak-frites at the new bistro down the street? Who has that time and that energy and that passion? The answer is, you do. And for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, TIME's Person of the Year for 2006 is you. Sure, it's a mistake to romanticize all this any more than is strictly necessary. Web 2.0 harnesses the stupidity of crowds as well as its wisdom. Some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred. But that's what makes all this interesting. Web 2.0 is a massive social experiment, and like any experiment worth trying, it could fail. There's no road map for how an organism that's not a bacterium lives and works together on this planet in numbers in excess of 6 billion. But 2006 gave us some ideas. This is an opportunity to build a new kind of international understanding, not politician to politician, great man to great man, but citizen to citizen, person to person. It's a chance for people to look at a computer screen and really, genuinely wonder who's out there looking back at them. Go on. Tell us you're not just a little bit curious. From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Dec 18 08:35:24 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:35:24 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Time Magazine's Person of the Year Message-ID: <1279.213.112.92.173.1166430924.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> pjmanney wrote: > I was just writing to one of our ilk that the zeitgeist is shifting. > Hierarchical power is out. And "me" as in "the power of one" is in. And > then this just arrived on my electronic doorstep. > > I'm the Person of the Year. Congratulations! > And so are You. It is a bit like the occasional Peace Prize to the Red Cross - well deserved, but a bit of avoiding having to choose. I'm intrigued by this new kind of "online people power", or perhaps rather Web 2.0 power. How can we turn it into better cognitive enhancement? The Wikipedia is already a good example. The combination of sites like Flickr and new imageprocessing ( http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/the_future_of_images.html ) can produce some interesting results, especially connected to a people's panopticon. Can we construct a useful open society protection system this way? -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Dec 18 15:41:09 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:41:09 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Time Magazine's Person of the Year In-Reply-To: <28470085.833391166407444054.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <28470085.833391166407444054.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061218093048.042a4888@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 08:04 PM 12/17/2006, pjmanney wrote: >I was just writing to one of our ilk that the zeitgeist is >shifting. Hierarchical power is out. And "me" as in "the power of one" >is in. And then this just arrived on my electronic doorstep. I'm the >Person of the Year. And so are You. PJ >http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1569514,00.html >Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2006 Person of the Year: You Yes, you. You control the >Information Age. Welcome to your world. Congratulations PJ, I haven't read it yet but I'm glad that you are awarded! (Thank goodness post-modernism is over. phew. That was a real brain drain.) Welcome to the interconnected network-modernist world! Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture 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 pj at pj-manney.com Mon Dec 18 18:52:02 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:52:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Time Magazine's Person of the Year Message-ID: <19273604.903821166467922914.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Anders wrote: >It is a bit like the occasional Peace Prize to the Red Cross - well >deserved, but a bit of avoiding having to choose. I'm not so sure. I looked at the list of notable nominees and not a single person stood out as much as the effect of You Tube, My Space, Web 2.0, etc., did on the global stage. I think they nailed it, at least in the zeitgeist sense. If anything, this year showed that the single powerful individual as global & cultural motivator (Bush, bin Ladin, Kim Jong-Il, Gates, etc.) is on the wane. At least for now... ;-) >I'm intrigued by this new kind of "online people power", or perhaps rather >Web 2.0 power. I am as well. The reason I posted this was not only as a confirmation of my own perceived 'gut rumblings,' but I think the idea that the individual is crafting their own perceived reality (instead of just experiencing it) is crucial to the formulation of H+ ideas. The flipside, of course, is when you do not share a common culture with your fellow citizens because each citizen has their own self-created culture, the fragmentation can cause massive schisms in society and will redefine what society is. We're seeing just the beginnings of it right now. But we all know that already. As these niche societies become more and more diverse, and more narcissistic, it's going to get pretty dicey globally, until we find a way to achieve a socially viable balance. At least that's my theory. If you look at the "normal people" Time profiled as representing Web 2.0, I can't say that many of them impressed me with their committment to the larger picture. It was a lot of people looking for self-promotion and validation using the Web. It often has the flavor of prostitution for fame. But such will be the future. Maybe the bad taste will leave my mouth after enough time has passed. >How can we turn it into better cognitive enhancement? The >Wikipedia is already a good example. The combination of sites like Flickr >and new imageprocessing ( >http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/the_future_of_images.html ) >can produce some interesting results, especially connected to a people's >panopticon. Can we construct a useful open society protection system this >way? I think I see what you're getting at. I met a gentleman recently whose company, ActiveSymbols, can online search using images alone. No "words" to describe the image are necessary a la Google. http://www.activesymbols.com/ Beyond their press release commercial applications, this will allow the accessing of billions of images that we wouldn't find or use otherwise because of inadequate labeling. This certainly helps with participating in and monitoring the panopticon. PJ From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Dec 18 20:13:15 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:13:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Time Magazine's Person of the Year In-Reply-To: <19273604.903821166467922914.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: > pjmanney wrote: > The flipside, of course, is when you do not share a common > culture with your fellow citizens because each citizen has > their own self-created culture, the fragmentation can cause > massive schisms in society and will redefine what society is. > We're seeing just the beginnings of it right now. But we > all know that already. As these niche societies become more > and more diverse, and more narcissistic, it's going to get > pretty dicey globally, until we find a way to achieve a > socially viable balance. At least that's my theory. I think this is a key point requiring a bigger picture perspective that is generally lacking. Many people have heard the statement "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" [1] and think of it as a statement about the importance of free speech. It is an expression of a much broader principle, that of a *shared* appreciation of the importance of *diversity* as essential to our *common* growth. * We have people on one side of the room arguing that diversity is important in terms of all individuals having equal worth, or immeasurable worth -- either way a muddled concept that ignores significant differences. * We have people on the other side of the room arguing that diversity is important in terms of each "sovereign" individual having the right to do one's own thing as long as such actions don't infringe on the rights of another to do the same -- an equally muddled concept that ignores significant commonalities. So few of us today see human society as an ecology, where one's intentional growth is based on effective awareness of a complex system of both competition and cooperation. Fortunately, as the Times article highlights, such awareness tends to emerge because it works. But will it fly high enough and far enough just to meet our basic needs as primates who enjoy being entertained, or will we recognize and grasp it as a powerful and general tool of effective decision-making? - Jef 1. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 18 20:27:27 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:27:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Anders' "Keep on Raging Against Ageing" SL uvvy transcript Message-ID: <20061218202727.GG6974@leitl.org> Monday, December 18 at 19:00 CET (13:00 EST, 10:00 PST) Anders Sandberg held a multimedial (with the handicap of audio lagging by one minute, which he handled excellently) talk called "Keep on raging against ageing", of which I'm posting a partial transcript, including lead-in and trailing sessions. Discussion was a bit rowdy, but keep in mind that this is a new medium without established means of social feedback yet. I hope this event wasn't the last one, and that we'll see more participation (ahem, this means you) on uvvy events in future. [7:52] Giulio Perhaps is Online [7:52] Giulio Perhaps: someone else speaking? (girl) [7:52] Anders Nadir: I'm reminded of the early VR studies that were done while I started university. One of my advisors was really proud of having organized a conference where everybody was a green 'T'. [7:54] You: Do the clients crash often? [7:56] You: Yeah, mine did. [7:56] Anders Nadir: I guess this is a good training of split attention, multitasking and multimodality. [7:57] Giulio Perhaps: uploaded images, lets go inside to load on screens [7:57] Waldemar Commerce: Suicidal chic [7:58] Anders Nadir: Are these screens essentially standard box prims that switch image by touch? [7:59] Anders Nadir: Maybe I should have done a welcome screen, but it is nice to get right to the data [7:59] Anders Nadir: Is this better, Hakan? [7:59] Hakan Triangle: yep [8:00] There is no suitable surface to sit on, try another spot. [8:00] No room to sit here, try another spot. [8:00] Anders Nadir: So when I'm lecturing, should I ask you "next slide please"? [8:01] Waldemar Commerce: BTW Anders [8:02] Giulio Perhaps: ok screen setup is complete [8:02] Anders Nadir: Well, it is unlikely that you can all read the small details in this aliasing. I'll just have to paste in literature citations. [8:02] Giulio Perhaps: lets do something for volume [8:02] Waldemar Commerce: Rock med att snubben h?rde av sig om att han skickat till MEPPAR [8:02] Giulio Perhaps: anders you sure you dont have any hardware sliding control for volume on mic? [8:03] Anders Nadir: Ah, that might require a bit of translation. Just a small piece of good news, a politician got interested in dealing wit the European Clinical Trials Directive. [8:03] Anders Nadir: The ECT is *stupid*. [8:04] Anders Nadir: The ECT manages to with a minimum of regulation cause an extreme amount of paperwork and cost. Like 700% increase in reporting of *possible* side effects, which takes a lot of effort. [8:05] Hakan Triangle: That is a yes I assume :) [8:07] Anders Nadir: For the talk, what is your experience of how quickly I should add information. [8:08] Giulio Perhaps: well in view of sound problem better you dont talk too fast [8:08] Giulio Perhaps: and try to put mic closer to mouth and speak very loud [8:08] Anders Nadir: Some odd comments from me are entirely due to the local environments. [8:09] Anders Nadir: But the key issue is how big chunks of talk I can throw at you. [8:09] Giulio Perhaps: same as in any lecture [8:09] Anders Nadir: Ah, I can "select all" in word and just send you 30 pages! :-) [8:10] Giulio Perhaps: ?? [8:10] Giulio Perhaps: now you sound a bit louder perhaps yopu put mic closer to mouth [8:10] Anders Nadir: We have very nice friday seminars in the research group where we discuss the latests (more or less TH) papers. People in philoophy loves to write. [8:12] Basic Chair: Right click me and choose 'Sit Here' to sit down [8:12] Anders Nadir: Maybe we should set up some meetings from our EU project here too. [8:12] Giulio Perhaps: you going to read from text? [8:12] Anders Nadir: My plan is to paste in sectons of text and read them. But hardly an entire paper. I have some mercy :-) [8:13] Giulio Perhaps: well then why dont sent text to me I will put online on web [8:13] Anders Nadir: I think you can get it after the talk, since I no doubt will discover mistakes while talking. [8:13] You: At least Waldemar is amusing himself. [8:13] Anders Nadir: Waldemar reminds me of the shingami in "Death Note". [8:13] Giulio Perhaps: waldemar sit on another chair [8:13] Waldemar Commerce: OMG I'm trapped by the chair :-) [8:14] Anders Nadir: Just a little test. [8:16] Anders Nadir: I guess that once I'm a bit more experience at this I ought to add gestures to the talk text and just paste them in. [8:16] Giulio Perhaps is Offline [8:17] Anders Nadir: Just a quick break to prepare myself. [8:19] Giulio Perhaps is Online [8:19] Elliot Ehrler: I have to leave in 40 min. So if I suddenly leave, don't be offended. [8:21] You: Is the event due in 40 minutes, or in 1:40? [8:21] Giulio Perhaps: had a crash [8:22] You: Perhaps your machine is underpowered, too. Mine crashed when it ran out of cycles. [8:23] xyryx Simca: is there an alternate plan if you can't get your sim back up in a timely fashion? [8:23] You: Hi xyryx. [8:23] xyryx Simca: Hi TK [8:23] Giulio Perhaps: xyrix: ?? [8:23] xyryx Simca: Hi TM! lol [8:24] xyryx Simca: so it just crashed?? [8:24] Giulio Perhaps: no my client crashed [8:24] xyryx Simca: kk [8:24] xyryx Simca: :) [8:24] You: Do you use a Windows client, Giulio? [8:24] Giulio Perhaps: I have win and mac [8:24] Giulio Perhaps: now I am using win [8:25] Giulio Perhaps: I hear anders talking on phone in other room [8:25] You: I'm also using Win because you mentioned we need Quicktime. Performance is worse than under Windows. [8:25] Manoj Undercity is Online [8:25] xyryx Simca: no one [8:26] xyryx Simca: can't sit there! even the chair has standards! [8:26] Manoj Undercity: Hey Simca ! [8:26] xyryx Simca: Hey Manoj! [8:26] Manoj Undercity: sup man [8:26] xyryx Simca: can you sit in one of these front seats? [8:26] Manoj Undercity: let me try [8:26] xyryx Simca: 5/5 no go [8:27] xyryx Simca: kk [8:27] xyryx Simca: guess it wants me to sit back here! lol [8:27] Manoj Undercity: its working man [8:27] Manoj Undercity: instead of the butt rest. iright clicked the spine rest [8:27] Giulio Perhaps: 1:30 [8:28] Manoj Undercity: kewl roller skates [8:28] Manoj Undercity: thats it [8:28] xyryx Simca: you're exactly right! [8:28] Manoj Undercity: told ya so [8:29] xyryx Simca: that sure would have taken out the frustration for a lot of ppl at big functions I've been at and you just couldn't sit anywhere! [8:29] xyryx Simca: why is that? [8:29] Manoj Undercity: hey glad u could make it for this talk simca ! [8:31] Manoj Undercity: hey thanks.. lemme get em [8:35] WhiteBoard (e): Showing Image 6/7 - anders3 [8:35] WhiteBoard (e): Showing Image 7/7 - anders4 [8:36] Manoj Undercity: weeee [8:36] xyryx Simca: oh oh! [8:36] xyryx Simca: Giulio will not be pleased! lol [8:36] Manoj Undercity: weee yaaay [8:36] Manoj Undercity: thanks simca [8:36] Manoj Undercity: he knows my age [8:36] Giulio Perhaps: not be pleased of what? [8:37] Giulio Perhaps: (emailing but following this window too) [8:37] xyryx Simca: I'm thinking age has nothing to do with it :) [8:37] Anders Nadir: OK, now I'm back again. A quick meal to get the glucose level up. [8:37] Manoj Undercity: i agree with u there simca [8:38] xyryx Simca: Don't you just love playing with ppl that are AWAY? [8:38] Manoj Undercity: absolutely ! [8:38] xyryx Simca: or emailing..or eating.. [8:38] xyryx Simca: such rudimentary needs! [8:38] Anders Nadir: And it even more fun to play on their paranoia... [8:39] xyryx Simca: paranoia has it's uses [8:39] Manoj Undercity: hello Anders.. wish u good luck with the presentation [8:39] xyryx Simca: brings ppls behavior around due to fear? [8:39] Anders Nadir: There is an optimal paranoia level, but it is probably uncomputable. [8:39] Anders Nadir: Thanks! [8:40] xyryx Simca: we are all uncomputable..that's what insures/assures our current continuance [8:40] xyryx Simca: but everyone has time to skate? yes? [8:40] Manoj Undercity: YAAAY [8:41] xyryx Simca: gawd.. I love lag-free zones! [8:41] Anders Nadir: Actually, I think we are all computable - it is the paranoia we have to approximate! [8:41] Manoj Undercity: i have grown so used to my avatar body that i actually have begun to identify with the joy of skating when done by my avatar [8:41] Anders Nadir: Does you identify with it as soon as you log in, Manoj? [8:42] Manoj Undercity: yes i do...im almost linked with my avatar now [8:42] Manoj Undercity: it very wierd [8:42] Anders Nadir: BTW, what about "The War on Newtonmas" in Wikipedia? It seems to have become somewhat uptight about internet weirdness like that, [8:42] Basic Chair: Right click me and choose 'Sit Here' to sit down [8:42] Manoj Undercity: WIKIPEDIA ROX0RS [8:43] Anders Nadir: I think this is a affordance of the human brain, we identify with our bodies very easily whatever we declare to be "our body". Bodes well for uploading. [8:43] Giulio Perhaps: I think we are very computable [8:44] Anders Nadir: And it has good entries for superheroes and BDSM politics. [8:45] You decline The Palms, Goun (222, 75, 27)FreeIceSkates from xyryx Simca. [8:46] Anders Nadir: Thanks! [8:47] Anders Nadir: It is a kind of selforganized criticality. Open spaces are creative, which attracts "parasitism" and problems, which leads to overmoderation, which makes new spaces the creative ones. [8:49] Anders Nadir: Yes, I think so. Past creative resources get frozen at one point or another - French intellectual salons, WIkipedia or Haldanes early transhumanists - and the next creative cluster builds on them. [8:49] Giulio Perhaps: very low, but understandable [8:49] Giulio Perhaps: are you listening to yourself anders? [8:50] Basic Chair: Right click me and choose 'Sit Here' to sit down [8:50] Giulio Perhaps: brb [8:50] Anders Nadir: No I cant hear myself. What settings should I change? [8:50] Anders Nadir: Have fun! [8:50] Elliot Ehrler: Bye everybody! [8:50] Giulio Perhaps is Offline [8:50] Elliot Ehrler: Thanks! [8:50] Elliot Ehrler: I have to leave. Too bad I miss the lecture. [8:51] Waldemar Commerce: Strange I heard myself , with some lag when I spoke [8:52] Anders Nadir: But a deliberate copybot fpr audiences? [8:53] Manoj Undercity: yes 20 metre limit for say or shout i dont know [8:53] Manoj Undercity: copybot can copy anything including avatars [8:53] Anders Nadir: It seems to be a development of the 'presence' and 'aura' concepts of early VR conferencing models like DIVE. [8:53] xyryx Simca: using chat? [8:53] xyryx Simca: anders to me 9m [8:53] xyryx Simca: say=20m shout=?? more..umm up to 100M??? [8:54] Manoj Undercity: i dont really remember the range simca.. must ask Giulio [8:54] Anders Nadir: One feature it had was auditoria that actually amplified ones presence and range. [8:54] xyryx Simca: anders to me 22m now say something [8:54] Multi Gadget v1.50.0 by Timeless Prototype [8:54] Giulio Perhaps is Online [8:56] xyryx Simca: manoj? [8:56] xyryx Simca: go halfway between us? [8:56] Manoj Undercity: okay [8:56] xyryx Simca: you can tp our audio [8:56] Manoj Undercity: start test [8:56] Manoj Undercity: i can hear u simca [8:56] xyryx Simca: i sound like a phone commercial? [8:56] xyryx Simca: can you hear me now? [8:57] xyryx Simca: can anders hear me? [8:57] Manoj Undercity: can u see simca's text Ander's ? [8:57] Manoj Undercity: im asking him [8:57] Anders Nadir: Yes, I can see the IM [8:57] Manoj Undercity: not the IM, the regular chat [8:57] Anders Nadir: No, I do not see it in the chat [8:57] Anders Nadir: So IM links might be essentially arbitrarily long? [8:57] Manoj Undercity: IM is independent of distance [8:57] Manoj Undercity: ah ! [8:57] Manoj Undercity: simca. he cant see your text [8:58] xyryx Simca: right [8:58] Manoj Undercity: where r all the people ? [8:58] Manoj Undercity: so maybe a relay script in the middle would do the trick [8:58] Manoj Undercity: lemme send a holler to the WTA group here [8:58] Manoj Undercity: eh ? [8:58] Anders Nadir: Maybe one could creat loudspeaker script objects? [8:58] Manoj Undercity: how much longer for starting G ? [8:58] You: Will we have a sync mark at which we're required to start the Movies channel? [8:59] Manoj Undercity: yes Anders [8:59] Anders Nadir: How do we start the movies channels? [8:59] You: Anders, you probably don't, the audience probably has. [8:59] Manoj Undercity: im sorry ? [9:00] You: Manoj: will we need to set a sync mark for audio, for each participant? [9:00] Manoj Undercity: oh u can hear yourself if u have quicktime and when u press play button in the tab that says movies [9:00] Manoj Undercity: its right above the text bar where u type text to chat [9:00] Anders Nadir: Hmm, I seem to lack a movies bar. [9:00] Manoj Undercity: HD DVD is gonna come..and go ? [9:00] Manoj Undercity: oh [9:01] Manoj Undercity: okay.. go to edit - preferences - audio/video tab [9:01] You: Maybe that's just me, but this chat is worse than useless. This thing needs audio. [9:01] Anders Nadir: Yes, audio is so much more rich. [9:01] Manoj Undercity: once there.. click the play streaming audio and streaming media when available [9:01] Manoj Undercity: it will show up then [9:02] xyryx Simca: I thought that Giulio said it was thru shoutcast? [9:02] Anders Nadir: Think I found it. [9:02] Manoj Undercity: good for u [9:03] Manoj Undercity: checkmark them [9:03] xyryx Simca: can you back up10m and see if you hear me [9:03] Anders Nadir: Yup! [9:03] Manoj Undercity: Music, Movies [9:03] Manoj Undercity: yeah Simca ? [9:03] xyryx Simca: hey manoj? [9:03] Anders Nadir: Checkmarked. [9:03] Manoj Undercity: do u see the bars now in your screen ? [9:03] Manoj Undercity: now u will hear yourself [9:03] Manoj Undercity: now press play on Movies [9:03] Anders Nadir: OK, play pressed. [9:03] Manoj Undercity: okay Simca [9:03] xyryx Simca: Hello, avatar! [9:04] xyryx Simca: now Manoj??? [9:04] Anders Nadir: I can hear myself now, with a one minute delay. I can lecture in canon this way! :-) [9:04] Manoj Undercity: try again [9:04] xyryx Simca: 19m [9:04] xyryx Simca: 20m [9:04] Manoj Undercity shouts: if i shout i can reach u [9:04] Manoj Undercity: /whiste [9:05] xyryx Simca: yes so anders should use shout? just in case some ppl are not set up in preferences to use music/movies enabled? [9:05] Manoj Undercity: but he isnt gonna type Simca [9:05] Manoj Undercity: he is gonna speak [9:05] Manoj Undercity: voice reaches all around uvvy [9:05] Manoj Undercity: it did last time [9:05] Manoj Undercity: when Waldemar spoke [9:05] Giulio Perhaps: due to the delay it would be impossible to type and speak [9:05] Manoj Undercity: Anders. can u hear yourself now ? [9:05] xyryx Simca: but some ppl have trouble [9:06] Anders Nadir: Yes, I can hear myself. [9:06] Manoj Undercity: kewl [9:06] Anders Nadir: It is a slightly odd situation to hear oneself with a one minute delay. It is long enough to go outside both the phonological loop and working memory proper. [9:07] Anders Nadir: Hi Cryonica! [9:07] Manoj Undercity: neurologists !!!! [9:07] Cryonica Artizar: HI everybody [9:07] Anders Nadir: Work related personality damage :-) [9:07] Manoj Undercity: hi [9:07] WhiteBoard (e): Showing Image 5/7 - anders2 [9:07] Manoj Undercity: hehe Anders [9:07] Cryonica Artizar: MAnoj how is everything? [9:08] WhiteBoard (e): Showing Image 6/7 - anders3 [9:08] Manoj Undercity: im fine Cryonica.. how is your second life ? [9:08] WhiteBoard (e): Showing Image 7/7 - anders4 [9:08] WhiteBoard (e): This is the Last Slide [9:08] Cryonica Artizar: busy [9:08] WhiteBoard (e): This is the Last Slide [9:08] Manoj Undercity: nice sweater btw [9:08] Cryonica Artizar: I have been decorating my house [9:08] Cryonica Artizar: and rezzed an rerezzed [9:08] Anders Nadir: Which of them? [9:08] Cryonica Artizar: I'll be back 4 7 pm [9:08] Manoj Undercity throws a peanut at Simca [9:09] Manoj Undercity: cuz I CAN [9:09] Manoj Undercity: muwahaha [9:09] Manoj Undercity: oh i wish OneUp would show up [9:09] Anders Nadir: Who is that? [9:10] Manoj Undercity: Charles Anderson, the chairman of the WTA chapter here in second life [9:10] Anders Nadir: Ah. [9:10] Anders Nadir: So, when should we start? [9:11] Manoj Undercity: please ask Giulio that question [9:11] Waldemar Commerce: 19h00 CET [9:11] Anders Nadir: Sounds OK. I'm still somewhat confused by moving timezone yesterday. [9:11] You: Do we need to press Moview on 19:00 to get a sync, or is this not necessary? [9:12] Manoj Undercity: not necessary [9:12] xyryx Simca: ahhh let your mind wander to the places forbidden by it... [9:12] Manoj Undercity: but if ur stream stops midway, it is good idea to stop and press play again [9:12] xyryx Simca: lalala [9:12] Manoj Undercity: hehe Simca [9:12] You: Good. The audio stream seems to bring everything to their knees. [9:12] Manoj Undercity: it shouldnt usually [9:12] xyryx Simca: oh NO..brought to your knees in SL is not a good thing! [9:13] Manoj Undercity: al your graphics settings and your cache must be full [9:13] Manoj Undercity: maybe thats why [9:13] You: I presume this hardware is borderline, and I need a dual-core. [9:13] Manoj Undercity: oh lol Simca.. yeah.. not with the Goreans around [9:14] xyryx Simca: no go for quad core.. heheh [9:14] Giulio Perhaps: where is cryonica? [9:14] Manoj Undercity: nano core too while yer at it [9:14] xyryx Simca: SL is all about rising to the lowest common denominator [9:14] Manoj Undercity: she was here [9:14] Manoj Undercity: i have sent her tp [9:15] Anders Nadir: In general there is no limits to the number of cores needed, we (and the OS) will fill them all. [9:15] Manoj Undercity: brb [9:15] Manoj Undercity: a nice point ! [9:16] Manoj Undercity: brb [9:16] xyryx Simca: so anyone do croquet..take a look? [9:16] Manoj Undercity: afk [9:16] Giulio Perhaps: no need to sync, it is a stream - everyone hears the same thing at the same time [9:16] Giulio Perhaps: only we hear anders 1 min after he speaks [9:16] Anders Nadir: I'm one minute in the future. [9:16] Giulio Perhaps: not very impressed by croquet [9:17] Giulio Perhaps: much more impressed by multiverse [9:17] Anders Nadir: Or was thast the past? [9:17] xyryx Simca: remember the problems some peeps had at the transvision06? [9:17] You: Croquet is a different architecture. [9:17] Giulio Perhaps: was due to old streaming server [9:17] xyryx Simca: Catherine Omega seems taken by Croquet.. but says the popular vr will succeed not the best [9:17] xyryx Simca: but ...well [9:18] xyryx Simca: and Areae? [9:18] You: Of course Croquet has issues: it needs a deterministic physics in each node, and it syncs diffs. [9:18] Giulio Perhaps: seen multiverse? [9:18] You: It is limited to what Smalltalk can do, which is not a lot. [9:18] xyryx Simca: no G [9:18] You: No, what's the URL for multiverse? [9:19] Giulio Perhaps: multiverse.net [9:19] Giulio Perhaps: you can try the beta [9:19] Giulio Perhaps: multiverse = une wavefunction for many worlds = one client for many virtual worlds [9:19] You: Bookmarked. Thans, Giulio. [9:20] xyryx Simca: well, but isn't that the direction that IBM would like to go in? [9:20] Giulio Perhaps: yes - using multiverse [9:20] xyryx Simca: but then many ppl think is an impossibility [9:20] Giulio Perhaps: not one client for ALL VR worlds, but one client for MANY VR worlds [9:20] Giulio Perhaps: about IBM, I was at their launch party in SL [9:21] xyryx Simca: but at diff times? [9:21] Giulio Perhaps: impressive. they are spending a lot of money here [9:21] xyryx Simca: some ppl say the execs are getting caught up in the base(ics) [9:21] xyryx Simca: just want to PARTY [9:22] Giulio Perhaps: one top exec was partying with virtual champagne and dancing [9:22] xyryx Simca: 12 sims for IBM and NOAA is going to washington to get backing for their 25 sims [9:22] xyryx Simca: I vote for NOAA [9:22] xyryx Simca: and wish Troy McLuhan had not just gone on holiday yesterday [9:22] Giulio Perhaps: I vote for IBM [9:23] Giulio Perhaps: NOAA is bureaucracy, ppl sitting on their asses and girls doing nails [9:23] xyryx Simca: why [9:23] xyryx Simca: HUH! [9:24] xyryx Simca: later I take you on the tour of NOAA sims if he didn't screw up my access [9:24] xyryx Simca: so much potential to tie it all together [9:24] xyryx Simca: sry [9:24] xyryx Simca: too much coffee [9:24] Giulio Perhaps: Right, but unfortunately a big gov ord is not the right org to do things dynamically [9:24] xyryx Simca: yeah I'm here to RAGE! lol [9:25] Giulio Perhaps: (and they call me a commie) [9:25] xyryx Simca: arghhhh [9:25] xyryx Simca: prolly don't like NASA either doya? [9:25] Anders Nadir: Read _Zenith Angle_ by Bruce Sterling? He has some interesting rants about government agencies and software security. [9:25] Giulio Perhaps: I worked with nasa for a few months [9:26] Giulio Perhaps: 15 yrs ago [9:26] Giulio Perhaps: it was already very different from teh nasa of the 60s [9:26] You: xyryx, do you know how annoying abrvs can be? [9:26] xyryx Simca: yes [9:26] Giulio Perhaps: and now it is even more different [9:26] xyryx Simca: toured Dryden last year [9:26] xyryx Simca: impressive [9:26] Giulio Perhaps: abrvs??? [9:26] You: Please try to expand whenever possible. Thank you. [9:27] Anders Nadir: Is nasa as bad with powerpoint as Tufte claims? [9:27] xyryx Simca: Okay. [9:28] Cryonica Artizar: ciao giulio [9:29] You: Giulio, is there no realtime (no 1 min delay) audio conferencing technology available that would scale to 40 people? [9:30] Manoj Undercity: cryonica.. u seem to b floating [9:30] Cryonica Artizar: really? [9:30] Giulio Perhaps: yes - highspeedconferencing (skype plugin) [9:30] Giulio Perhaps: Bot for some reason quality is bad for some people [9:31] Manoj Undercity: not anymore Cryonica [9:31] Giulio Perhaps: thats why we are not using it now [9:31] Manoj Undercity: where is Simca ? [9:31] Giulio Perhaps: I wanted to use it, and made a few tests [9:31] Cryonica Artizar: I have managed to sit down [9:31] Giulio Perhaps: for most people it worls well, but not for everyone [9:31] Manoj Undercity: is he talking now ? [9:31] Manoj Undercity: i cant hear him [9:31] Anders Nadir: No, not right now. [9:31] Manoj Undercity: oh okie dokie [9:31] Anders Nadir: Or rather, NOW. [9:32] Giulio Perhaps: someone outside [9:33] Manoj Undercity: okie dokie. i can hear him [9:33] Anders Nadir: Ecellent. [9:35] Cryonica Artizar: Should we switch on Skype? [9:35] Manoj Undercity: no no [9:35] Manoj Undercity: continue with quicktime [9:35] You: Standard Skype scales to 4 people only, I thought. [9:35] Cryonica Artizar: Just movies? [9:35] Manoj Undercity: G is saying for Anders i guess [9:35] Manoj Undercity: yes Cryonica [9:36] You: How's your Coke, Waldemar? [9:36] Giulio Perhaps: yes but highspeedconferencing is an extension of skypecast good (they say) for 100 ppl and more [9:36] Cryonica Artizar: Anders and Waldemar look like twins [9:36] Giulio Perhaps: I hope to use that for next talk [9:36] Waldemar Commerce: Pretty good, but I prefer Pepsi [9:37] Manoj Undercity: lol [9:37] Waldemar Commerce: OMG it is in here too, ANders! [9:37] You: Giulio: is the skype plugin for-profit? Expensive? [9:37] Waldemar Commerce: Its the infamous Eudoxa cloning process [9:37] Manoj Undercity: welcome back Simca [9:38] Manoj Undercity: G. please stand beside anders and Wlademar [9:38] xyryx Simca: okay, I had my oxytocin bolus..love and peace to all I see for the next 20 min guaranteed! lol [9:39] Manoj Undercity: lol okay Simca [9:40] You: Skypecasts seem to be still free. [9:41] Anders Nadir: Thanks, Waldemar. [9:42] Anders Nadir: Well, we Eudoxa people are parts of a borganism anyway. [9:43] IM: Manoj Undercity: Anders Sandberg is going to talk in a few minutes on raging against aging live ! all interested people may come to uvvy island conference room and watch ! [9:43] IM: Second Life: Manoj Undercity has left this session. [9:44] Manoj Undercity: ASSIMILATION [9:45] Anders Nadir: Resistance is futile, you will be think tanked. [9:45] Manoj Undercity: hehe [9:46] Manoj Undercity: hey Jpsy.. over here [9:46] Manoj Undercity: Jopsy [9:46] Manoj Undercity: hey Lucifer is here ! [9:46] Lucifer Darrow: Greetings, all [9:46] Anders Nadir: Hi! [9:46] Lucifer Darrow bows [9:46] Giulio Perhaps: hi! [9:46] Manoj Undercity: greetings Lucifer [9:47] xyryx Simca: come in for a sec? [9:47] Manoj Undercity: Ian ! [9:48] Lucifer Darrow: I will be broadcasting the talk to an IRC channel on lucifer.com if that's OK [9:48] xyryx Simca: kk [9:48] Ian Sterling: Hey Manjoy!! greaty to see you! [9:48] Manoj Undercity: so u will have a log Lucifer ? [9:48] Lucifer Darrow nods [9:48] Manoj Undercity: great to see u as well Ian ! [9:48] xyryx Simca: you should at least meet Giulio [9:48] Manoj Undercity: wish Mo were here [9:48] Manoj Undercity: and Sat [9:48] xyryx Simca: it's his sim [9:48] Lucifer Darrow: I think Sat will attend via IRC [9:49] Manoj Undercity: great ! [9:49] Manoj Undercity: he wont be able to hear though [9:49] Anders Nadir: So will we see IRC somewhere here too? [9:49] #uvvy: Lucifer: yes [9:49] xyryx Simca: kk he's here whenever [9:49] Manoj Undercity: hello Madame Denise [9:49] Anders Nadir: Hi! [9:49] #uvvy: Lucifer: I'm in IRC too [9:50] Manoj Undercity: Simca.. dude.. please sit next to me man [9:50] Anders Nadir: It is nice to be in so many media at once. I fell quasi-uploaded :-) [9:50] Manoj Undercity: hehe [9:50] Giulio Perhaps: can I intro my wife to everyone - Anders met her in Madrid [9:50] Anders Nadir: Ah, great to see you again! [9:51] xyryx Simca: Hello, Denise [9:51] Manoj Undercity: Evalyn just came [9:51] Denise Kostolany: hi anders nice 2 c u here [9:51] Manoj Undercity: hi Anne [9:51] Giulio Perhaps: hi anne [9:51] Manoj Undercity: the forces r gathering..muwahaha [9:51] Ian Sterling smiles a greeting to Guilioo's wife [9:51] Anders Nadir: That just reminded me that I ought to send you the dog photo, as well as the photo of the infamous sip of espresso :-) [9:51] Denise Kostolany: hi ian [9:53] Lucifer Darrow: Hey Brunswick [9:53] Evalyn Dagmar: Hi everyone who said hi...sorry I was adjusting my clothing. [9:54] Evalyn Dagmar: Hi Guilio [9:54] Toeter Alva: heez xyryx:)) [9:54] xyryx Simca: hey Toeter! [9:54] Toeter Alva: hi giulio [9:55] Giulio Perhaps: hi toeter [9:55] Basic Chair: Right click me and choose 'Sit Here' to sit down [9:56] increase Hermes: Is this where Anders will be talking? [9:56] Giulio Perhaps: anne did you meet anders? [9:56] Manoj Undercity: yes Hermes [9:56] Anders Nadir: Yes, at least I plan to. [9:56] Evalyn Dagmar: I've met him once IRL actually but not in SL [9:56] Evalyn Dagmar: HI Anders [9:56] Anders Nadir: Hi [9:56] Evalyn Dagmar: glad to see so many people here! [9:57] Giulio Perhaps: lets wait a few more min [9:57] Anders Nadir: Yes, it is crowding up nicely. [9:57] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 7/7 - anders4 [9:57] #uvvy: Sat has joined #uvvy [9:57] Giulio Perhaps: hi mike glad you could make it [9:57] Anders Nadir: I have no problem waiting. For once my body doesn't get tired by standing up! :-) [9:57] Evalyn Dagmar: Is this going to be an audio talk? [9:57] IntLibber Brautigan: Thanks, good to see so many folks here [9:58] Giulio Perhaps: yes [9:58] Anders Nadir: Yes, it is adio too. [9:58] xyryx Simca: turn off music button [9:58] Giulio Perhaps: ok - hit play on movie control (not music control) for the audio stream [9:58] xyryx Simca: turn on movie button [9:58] Giulio Perhaps: anders' mic is not very loud unfortunately [9:58] #uvvy: Sat is back (gone 01:04:45) [9:58] Giulio Perhaps: his voice will be loud [9:58] Manoj Undercity: im sitting beside u on hover chair [9:59] Manoj Undercity: oops [9:59] Giulio Perhaps: but understandable [9:59] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 7/7 - anders4 [9:59] Toeter Alva: woopxx [9:59] WhiteBoard (e): This is the Last Slide [9:59] Giulio Perhaps: and don't forget there is a 1 minute delay between what he says and what we hear [9:59] Anders Nadir: Is the whiteboard changing my slides of its own? [9:59] Evalyn Dagmar: I hear music right now [9:59] Waldemar Commerce: put in some music on the TV radio or steroe [9:59] Giulio Perhaps: best thing is ask questions (by text chat) during the presentation [9:59] Giulio Perhaps: he will answer after [10:00] Anders Nadir: Im rather fond of tangents too, so some questions might work during the chat. [10:00] Giulio Perhaps: now only 8 persons are listening to the audio stream [10:00] Cryonica Artizar: I can hear you perfectly [10:01] increase Hermes: How do I turn on audio? [10:01] Giulio Perhaps: hi goomba [10:01] Brunswick Warburton: i dont see the boards changing but i hear ya [10:01] Evalyn Dagmar: Press play on movie control [10:01] Giulio Perhaps: I repeat, hit play on movie control [10:01] Evalyn Dagmar: Cool, I can hear it [10:01] Anders Nadir: Great to hear! [10:01] Evalyn Dagmar: Go to preferences [10:01] Giulio Perhaps: if you are hearing music instead of anders, then you hit play on music control [10:01] Manoj Undercity: okay shush me [10:01] #uvvy: Sat: There's three of us here via irc in #uvvy, and we're logging. [10:01] increase Hermes: What movie control? [10:01] Evalyn Dagmar: select play streaming video when available [10:01] Manoj Undercity: lets all sing together.. SMOKE ON THE WATER FIRE IN DA SKY [10:01] Manoj Undercity: :P [10:01] Giulio Perhaps: in this case, stop music and play movie [10:01] Waldemar Commerce: The box named movies [10:01] Ian Sterling: to turn on movie sound I had to click on right movie button and then wait for a minute to hear anything [10:02] #uvvy: eugen has joined #uvvy [10:02] Giulio Perhaps: How many from IRC? [10:02] Manoj Undercity grabs Sat and slamdunks him into a big something which isnt mine [10:02] Anders Nadir: Hi Eugen! [10:02] Giulio Perhaps: For those on IRC: audio URL is http://uvvy.com:7147/listen.pls [10:02] #uvvy: Lucifer: did anyone invite the folks from #sl4? [10:02] Giulio Perhaps: Hi Melanie [10:02] #uvvy: Sat: 4 so far [10:02] Basic Chair: Right click me and choose 'Sit Here' to sit down [10:02] #uvvy: Sat: nope [10:02] #uvvy: eugen: Hi Anders -- I'm being present doubly, then. [10:02] Denise Kostolany: non sento niente, Giulio. [10:02] Giulio Perhaps: no Lucifer can you do that? [10:03] Giulio Perhaps: was announced on wta-talk and extropy lists [10:03] increase Hermes: I clicked play streaming video, but all I hear is typing. [10:03] Giulio Perhaps: turn your loudspeaker up [10:03] Denise Kostolany: sta al maximum! [10:04] Lock toggle: You cannot change lock mode - only AngryBeth Shortbread can. [10:04] Evalyn Dagmar: ow [10:04] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 7/7 - anders4 [10:04] Evalyn Dagmar: feedback [10:04] Manoj Undercity: i sent out a notice a few minutes ago on wta group here [10:04] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 7/7 - anders4 [10:04] Manoj Undercity: guess it reminded everyone [10:04] You: Is anyone else having problems listening both to audio and seeing chat? [10:04] #uvvy: giulio has joined #uvvy [10:05] #uvvy: giulio: hi goomba and sat [10:05] #uvvy: Sat: hello giulio [10:05] Brunswick Warburton: /join #uvvy [10:05] #uvvy: giulio: got audio url? [10:05] Evalyn Dagmar: I am seeing chat and hearing audio fine [10:05] IntLibber Brautigan: /join #uvvy [10:05] #uvvy: Sat: at work. audio is forbidden [10:05] Evalyn Dagmar: headphones? [10:05] Ian Sterling: yes you do need to sing..:) [10:05] IntLibber Brautigan: testing [10:05] IntLibber Brautigan: /testing [10:05] increase Hermes: does joining help? How do I join? [10:05] Denise Kostolany: anders you can even sing! [10:06] IntLibber Brautigan: what channel is the irc piping on? [10:06] Giulio Perhaps: lets wait 5 min then we can start [10:06] #uvvy: eugen changed the topic to http://uvvy.com:7147/listen.pls [10:06] Giulio Perhaps: #uvvy on irc.lucifer.com server [10:07] Giulio Perhaps: melanie why are you covering your face? [10:07] Anders Nadir: This is the first time I had to worry about clippng planes when lecturing. [10:07] Xantha Oe: time for a change [10:07] xyryx Simca: lol [10:07] Giulio Perhaps: I have 14 people on audio channel, two missing [10:07] xyryx Simca: time warped [10:07] Anders Nadir: Yes, a good challenge for the brain. [10:07] increase Hermes: will the audio come on the mucis stream? [10:07] tavi Tuck: i can't get it to work [10:08] Giulio Perhaps: no increase - on movie stream [10:08] xyryx Simca: rofl..in the Big Vacuum with only yourself to listen to [10:08] #uvvy: Cuillins has joined #uvvy [10:08] Giulio Perhaps: hit play on movie control [10:08] #uvvy: Cuillins: Hello all [10:08] #uvvy: Sat: howdy [10:08] #uvvy: Cuillins: I am Ian Sterling in SL [10:08] Giulio Perhaps: hallo cuillins [10:08] Evalyn Dagmar: hi [10:09] increase Hermes: good morning. [10:09] #uvvy: Cuillins smiles to everyone and finds a quiet seat [10:09] Giulio Perhaps: now 20 people, 18 on audio channel [10:09] IntLibber Brautigan: I'm getting a graphic at irc.lucifer.com, no way to log into an irc client [10:09] xyryx Simca: hehehe! [10:09] #uvvy: eugen: Giulio, do you now have one more audio stream? I'm streaming to a different computer, which seems to be working. [10:10] #uvvy: Cuillins: I have a solid audio stream from SL [10:10] increase Hermes: Thanks. That seems to have worked. (I found the movie control) [10:10] Manoj Undercity: steam engines r hawt [10:10] Lucifer Darrow: Use an IRC client, IntLibber [10:10] Giulio Perhaps: eugen audio stream is http://uvvy.com:7147/listen.pls [10:10] #uvvy: Cuillins: I am doing it all on one puter [10:10] Evalyn Dagmar: For next time, perhaps we should make a slide to show at the very beginning with instructions for streaming audio written on it. [10:10] Giulio Perhaps: ok anders, start in 2 min (your time;-) [10:11] Anders Nadir: My first lecture just using a video link was a total flop, a few years back. It took about two years of that course before we finally got it working. [10:11] xyryx Simca: crazed laughter [10:11] Anders Nadir: Good idea about the slide show with instructions. [10:11] xyryx Simca: then try the first one again [10:12] xyryx Simca: I'll IM Guilio [10:12] xyryx Simca: oops [10:12] #uvvy: Cuillins: we really need courses on all this communications to save 100 of hours of confusion in communication [10:12] #uvvy: Sat raises an eyebrow [10:12] Giulio Perhaps: is someone recording anders' talk? [10:12] Anders Nadir: I'm thinking a bit of mouse based gesture control of gestures could be useful. [10:12] Giulio Perhaps: easy to do with VLC [10:13] Ian Sterling settles to listen [10:13] #uvvy: Sat sips coffee and programs thermal printers while waiting [10:14] Evalyn Dagmar: <- is on vacation from work, hooray [10:14] Giulio Perhaps: david can you change message displayed by IRC gateway? [10:14] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 7/7 - anders4 [10:14] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 7/7 - anders4 [10:14] Manoj Undercity breaks the coffee pots and watches it ooze thru Sat's printers [10:14] Anders Nadir: I have spent the day as slavedriver for a friend. [10:14] Giulio Perhaps: just put #uvvy channel on IRC at lucifer.com or something like that [10:14] Giulio Perhaps: hi meleah [10:14] Brunswick Warburton: are you using microsoft windows, sir? [10:14] #uvvy: Sat: Manoj don't make me log on and grief you. [10:14] #uvvy: Lucifer changed the topic to irc.lucifer.com:6667/#uvvy [10:15] Manoj Undercity shuts up pronto [10:15] Giulio Perhaps: ok all those who came in the last 2-3 min [10:15] Giulio Perhaps: anders will start on one min [10:15] Giulio Perhaps: please tune in audio stream hitting play on movie control (not music control) [10:15] Giulio Perhaps: direct audio url is http://uvvy.com:7147/listen.pls [10:15] #uvvy: Cuillins: brb getting coffee [10:15] Anders Nadir: Note that my talk is a bit intermittent right now on the audio. [10:15] #uvvy: eugen: David, don't change the topic. The url for the audio is important. [10:16] Basic Chair: Right click me and choose 'Sit Here' to sit down [10:16] #uvvy: Lucifer changed the topic to http://uvvy.com:7147/listen.pls [10:16] Giulio Perhaps: OK Anders, did you start? [10:16] Anders Nadir: Just tell me when to start. [10:17] Giulio Perhaps: go fetch 2 ppl lost outside [10:17] Anders Nadir: Normally it is people who get lost in buildings, now it is in software protocols. [10:18] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 7/7 - anders4 [10:18] Evalyn Dagmar: writing doesn't disappear as soon as it happens like audio does. [10:18] Anders Nadir: And it tends to force you to be a bit more careful in logic and wording. [10:19] xyryx Simca: virtual lag [10:20] Anders Nadir: It is interesting to see that we can still set up a kind of meeting despite the lag - I think human social behavior has the same kind of redundancy as we see in written text. [10:20] Manoj Undercity is Offline [10:21] xyryx Simca: redundancy to accomodate tolerance? [10:21] Evalyn Dagmar: redundancy to accomodate the unexpected. The best-laid plans and all. [10:21] Anders Nadir: I think it is to accomodate the noise we get in communication. And I guess the same must happen in body labguage too. [10:21] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 7/7 - anders4 [10:22] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 7/7 - anders4 [10:22] Giulio Perhaps: hi herbert [10:22] Giulio Perhaps: anders: start [10:22] Anders Nadir: Thanks! [10:22] Herbert Hoggard: HI! [10:22] Evalyn Dagmar: I prefer text-based communication almost all the time, and I hope it never disappears. Complex ideas are better expressed in writing because humans do not have a very reliable verbal memory overall. [10:22] Anders Nadir: Welcome to this little talk. [10:23] Anders Nadir: This is going to be about "keep on raging against ageing" [10:23] Anders Nadir: The dream of eternal youth is as old as mankind. It is not a coincidence that the oldest remaining literary epic is the one about king Gilgamesh's search for the herb of immortality. But the dream is increasingly becoming medical and demographic reality. We live in a rapidly greying society where the average lifespan, health and vigour would have seemed supernatural to king Gilgamesh, whose subjects had a life expectancy at birth around 25 years [10:23] Anders Nadir: . In lab animals today life is routinely extended and ageing slowed. As researchers increasingly see ageing as something mutable ? and hence potentially treatable - we have to start considering how to deal with the changes it will cause in society and our lives. [10:23] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 7/7 - anders4 [10:23] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 7/7 - anders4 [10:24] Anders Nadir: This talk will be about both the scientific and ethical case for stopping ageing, and some reflections of the intersection between longevity, society and policy. [10:24] Anders Nadir: So, the case for life extension - the scientific case [10:24] Anders Nadir: What is ageing? At its core, ageing is a gradual weakening of most of the body's systems. Some lose their abilities to repair themselves, others began to misbehave and there is a general loss of resiliency. We see the symptoms of ageing ? grey hair, wrinkles, lack of energy - but the underlying causes have until recently been little studied. [10:25] Anders Nadir: Why does this happen? The core reason is simply that there is no evolutionary advantage in being non-ageing for most species. In nature the decrepitude of old age is never encountered since the environment is deadly enough that no individual reaches it! Ageing is very much an illness of civilization, a result of living in an unnaturally safe and caring environment. Compared to the alternative it is in fact rather good. [10:25] Anders Nadir: In nature the survival curve is essentially an exponential decline, where most individuals die before reproducing and most survivors don?t survive much further than that. A gene that conferred longevity would not be selected for even if it meant a longer reproductive period since practically no individuals would survive long enough to take advantage of it [10:25] #uvvy: Lucifer: The IRC gateway is limited to about 100 characters per line (FYI) [10:26] Anders Nadir: On the other hand, genes helping survival in early life would be favored even if they had side-effects later on. Hence telomere shortening protect our cells against turning cancerous, but also hinder repair in old age. The production of free radicals is kept under control enough not to kill us early on, but there has never been a need to make it good enough to allow indefinite life. And so on. [10:27] Anders Nadir: Just a check. Is this speed enough or too fast? [10:27] Evalyn Dagmar: fine with me [10:27] Manoj Undercity is Online [10:27] Giulio Perhaps: good I think [10:27] Anders Nadir: At least one voice in favor... 2 ones. Well, just interrupt if I go too deep. [10:27] Anders Nadir: The scientific study of the causes of ageing, biogerontology, is a young science that developed after WW II and was still often ridiculed by researchers from other field as late as the 1970's. What possible use could it have? [10:28] Anders Nadir: Ageing is natural, and it was said that we needed to treat the many diseases of old age, not aging itself. The field was associated with generations of quacks, alchemists and other suspect characters seeking the elixir of youth. Even today when the field is mature and produces a steady stream of scientific discoveries most researchers are unwilling to speculate on where our knowledge may lead us. They often point out that we do not know any scientifically proven ways of even slowing ageing in humans. But that is just part of the story. [10:28] Cryonica Artizar: it is good [10:28] Toeter Alva: its fine [10:28] Meleah Lilienthal: sounds fine [10:28] Anders Nadir: Now I need my first slide. [10:29] WhiteBoard (e): Showing Image 6/7 - anders3 [10:29] WhiteBoard (e): Showing Image 5/7 - anders2 [10:29] WhiteBoard (e): Showing Image 4/7 - anders1 [10:29] increase Hermes: You could go faster. We can read faster tahn we can listen. The bottleneck is typing speed. [10:29] #uvvy: _Nawi_ has joined #uvvy [10:29] WhiteBoard (e): Showing Image 6/7 - anders3 [10:29] WhiteBoard (e): Showing Image 5/7 - anders2 [10:29] WhiteBoard (e): Showing Image 4/7 - anders1 [10:29] Anders Nadir: If one plots the life expectancy in the nation with the greatest longevity one gets a straight line over the last 160 years. In 1840 Sweden led by 45 years, today it is Japan with 85 years. The line rises three months each year since 1840. That means we gain 5 hours of life every day! The line is surprisingly steady despite the many different advances contributing: sewers, less child mortality, better food, safer environment, vaccinations and better medical care. The refrigerator, giving us healthy food from afar, probably contributed more than many of the recent medical breakthroughs. [10:29] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 4/7 - anders1 [10:29] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 4/7 - anders1 [10:29] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 4/7 - anders1 [10:30] Anders Nadir: Jim Oeppen and James W. Vaupel, Broken Limits to Life Expectancy, Science 10 May 2002: Vol. 296. no. 5570, pp. 1029 - 1031 http://www.demogr.mpg.de/publications/files/brokenlimits.htm [10:30] Anders Nadir: Just a lit reference. [10:30] Anders Nadir: Experts have time and again estimated limits to this trend: the curve has to stop somewhere. So far they have been wrong. On average their predictions are proven too pessimistic just five years after being made. This is unsettling, since it suggests that the models used to plan our pension systems and health care likely underestimate how long the people of the future will live. If the current trend continues for 60 more years the average lifespan in 2066 will be around a hundred years. But there are reasons to think this is an underestimate, because ageing itself is now under attack. [10:31] Anders Nadir: Ageing is not inevitable: there are animals that do not appear to age, from sharks to Galapagos turtles. They grow older, but they do not grow weaker. Another piece of biological evidence shows that animals that have longer lifespan can evolve from species with short lifespan very quickly. Whatever the secret of their longevity is, evolution can find it easily when the conditions are right. In the laboratory there are now many ways of changing lifespan of animals. Genetic modifications of nematode worms, fruit flies and mice have demonstrated genetic changes that prolong life (up to six times in the worms, and by 30% in the mice). The underlying genetics of ageing is slowly coming into focus, involving regulating growth hormone, stress handling and metabolism. [10:32] Anders Nadir: Benjamin Franklin once said ?To lengthen thy life, lessen thy meals?. He was entirely right: since the 1930's it has been known that rats and mice that were given about 40% less food than they would eat on their own lived about 40% longer. The diet does not just postpone ageing diseases but actually seems to slow ageing itself, and old dieting rodents are far more active than even young normal rodents. ?Caloric restriction? has been successfully tried on a variety of other animals, including ongoing trials with rhesus monkeys. A few enthusiastic humans are trying it too, but the willpower to stay on a strict diet is rare and it will take many years to see results. However, by understanding what happens in the body when it adapts to low energy living it is likely we can find out ways of achieving it in other ways, like taking pills that fool it into thinking we are on a strict diet energy-wise. [10:32] Khannea Suntzu: Script run-time error [10:32] Khannea Suntzu: Stack-Heap Collision [10:32] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 4/7 - anders1 [10:32] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 4/7 - anders1 [10:32] Giulio Perhaps: Hi Khannea. Play movie control (not music) for audio, or directly http://uvvy.com:7147/listen.pls [10:32] Dresden Nakatani: could you type a little less, its dissapearing too fast [10:32] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 4/7 - anders1 [10:33] Anders Nadir: The new consensus in biogerontology is that ageing is not inevitable. [10:33] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 4/7 - anders1 [10:33] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 4/7 - anders1 [10:33] Anders Nadir: That bears noting, because it goes again so much established wisdom. Even if one does not expect radical life extension it suggests that the length and possibly shape of life can be changed deliberately. And given human motivation, it is likely that it will. [10:33] xyryx Simca: Dresden: use chat>history [10:33] Anders Nadir: The goal is not to prolong illness and weakness, but rather an increased ?healthspan?. Interventions that slow ageing in animals do not seem to prolong late-life suffering but increase the length of healthy adult life. If we could get the same benefits as seen today in mice we would go from life expectancy of 78 to 112 years. And these 112-year-olds would (based on what is seen with the mice) likely have the same health as current 78-year olds. Few would be marathon runners, but there would be some. [10:34] Anders Nadir: This is of course far more conservative than Aubrey de Grey?s SENS approach. His vision is to repair the damage caused by metabolism before it does the long-term pathologies we normally call ageing. Correcting metabolism and genetics is a terribly complex project, just as correcting all the age-related changes in the body. But if Aubrey is right there is just a small set of kinds of damage that needs to be fixed, and if they can be repaired well enough often enough ageing may be slowed and possibly indefinitely postponed. I refer to his excellent website http://www.sens.org/ for more details (and arguments that more or less make much of the rest of my talk redundant). [10:34] #uvvy: _Nawi_ has left #uvvy [10:35] IntLibber Brautigan: dresden hit your history button [10:35] Waldemar Commerce: Check chat history [10:35] Dresden Nakatani: got it thanks [10:35] Anders Nadir: One of my own concerns is cognitive ageing, the gradual changes that occur over lifespan in how the brain functions. Old people in general do not suffer as much memory impairment as is commonly claimed (it is mostly an effect of slower neural function making them less able to handle fixed time limits on memory tests), but it could be that there are genetic programs that reduce our learning capacity as we age. I have a paper with Jo?o Pedro de Magalh?es (Cognitive aging as an extension of brain development: A model linking learning, brain plasticity, and neurodegeneration in the October issue of Mechanisms of Ageing and Development, number 126.) 2005 about this possibility. If it is true, then we need to fix this in addition to the basic ageing damage. [10:35] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 4/7 - anders1 [10:36] Anders Nadir: But this is also relevant to deal with in terms of cognitive enhancement anyway. An important possibility worth remembering is that in the future we should not expect old minds to be be grey and dusty: at the very least they should retain their capacities (otherwise there would be no point in life extension), and it seems plausible to create medications that make them ?younger? and more energetic. Youthful idealism might be something you decide to get at any point of life. This of course upsets the traditional ideas about how elderly are. [10:36] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 4/7 - anders1 [10:36] Anders Nadir: One research area I have been involved in together with Nick Bostrom is using evolution as a guide to what kinds of enhancements are likely to be troublesome or successful. The basic approach is to ask ?if this is such a good thing, why has not evolution already done it?? If it seems like it would have increased fitness in the environment of evolutionary adaptation and we do not have it, then something is wrong ? either we are wrong about its utility in nature, or there is some hidden drawback. But if it would not have increased fitness, then we at least know why evolution had not selected for it. [10:37] WhiteBoard (e): Showing Image 5/7 - anders2 [10:37] Anders Nadir: Ageing is one such trait, and one of the best researched. We know it is evolvable, and that lifespans can be lengthened by selection fairly quickly. There is also reasonably good evidence that there is no selection pressure for more than enough longevity in natural environments but that it can evolve if the environment changes. This suggests that the evolutionary heuristic gives it a fairly clear green light. It doesn?t mean fixing ageing is going to be easy, or that the methods used will not run into problems, but it means that there are very likely no biological reason it cannot be done. [10:38] Anders Nadir: Ethics of life extension [10:38] Anders Nadir: Is more life a good thing? [10:38] Anders Nadir: Ethical approaches can be character based (?what kind of person do I want to be??), will based (?what should I want to want??) and action based (?what actions are good??). [10:38] Anders Nadir: Approaching them in reverse order, would the action of developing life extension produce more happiness or some other good? From a purely utilitarian perspective more human life is likely beneficial. Avoiding the pains and infirmities of out of control ageing would also be good. As discussed later, there are also likely sizeable economic gains to be made collectively. [10:38] Manoj Undercity: hey Onyx [10:38] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 5/7 - anders2 [10:39] Anders Nadir: There are also many concerns commonly raised about bad effects of life extension. It could lead to ennui, lack of will to excel, intergenerational conflicts, overpopulation, tyrants would never die, society and culture would need to change tremendously, and so on. [10:39] Anders Nadir: Many of these concerns are based on empirical possibilities. Life extension might change the value of life this way or that. It might change society in an undesirable direction (risk aversion)? or a desirable one (living longer means taking a longer view). These concerns cannot be adequately judged today, when we can hardly predict the effects of something far less profound like the Internet. Hence we cannot use them to guide our moral thinking unless we have some compelling empirical information ? and for that we need to actually try life extension [10:39] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 5/7 - anders2 [10:39] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 5/7 - anders2 [10:39] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 5/7 - anders2 [10:40] Anders Nadir: My view is that having life extension for a while is the best way to actually figure out what it is good and bad for, just like we only now see both the good and bad sides of antibiotics or cars. But while informed decisions can then be made the scope of action is limited by the now existing structures. We might indeed have gone down a one-way road towards a destination we do not like (or rather, that our future selves might not like ? do we have the right to dictate their actions?). [10:40] Manoj Undercity is Offline [10:40] Anders Nadir: But at the same time we will also have new options. Today we can respond to problems of cars in a variety of ways that we could not do in the past (anti-congestion fee systems, hybrid cars, airbags, villages designed with car-free cores etc). It seems unlikely given our historical evidence that we will get fewer options in the future, both individually and as societies. Instead of arguing about whether to get life extension we might need to discuss what kinds of life extension are good ? and in what settings. [10:41] Anders Nadir: Should we want to want to live for a long time? Maybe we would be happier if we were content with whatever lifespan we had. [10:41] Anders Nadir: On the other hand, we could imagine becoming content with any bad state of affairs. Would the subjects of a tyrant be better off if they didn?t resent his misrule? They would not suffer from experiencing the injustice, but would still suffer from the bad state of affairs. Being content with a limited lifespan doesn?t make the state good. At the very least the negative effects of ageing are worth overcoming just like any bad medical condition, and becoming content with the status quo would actually prevent it. Rather, it would be rational to be discontent if the discontent could be channelled to doing something about the situation. [10:42] Khannea Suntzu growls antagonistic and belligerent [10:42] Manoj Undercity is Online [10:42] Anders Nadir: In the past there was little chance of actually doing much about ageing, so it would actually have been rational to accept limited lifespan as any other inevitability. But given the current technological state it seems that the opposite is true: it would be irrational to not want to at least fix the negative aspects of ageing. [10:43] Anders Nadir: With me so far? [10:43] Chaos Venera nods [10:43] Evalyn Dagmar: yes [10:43] Anders Nadir: Great! [10:43] Pavel Qi: fine [10:43] Dresden Nakatani: preach on preacha [10:43] Anders Nadir: Still, there could be existential reasons for not wanting long lives. [10:43] Brunswick Warburton: yes! [10:43] Anders Nadir: A popular argument, expressed for example by Leon Kass and countless other poets, is that the shortness of life makes it valuable. The beauty of flowers come from their transience. Very poetic, but why do we then value diamonds? [10:43] Evalyn Dagmar: I am not a flower. :P [10:44] Anders Nadir: More seriously the evidence seems to suggest that lifespan and general happiness are correlated. Happy people live longer and countries where people live long are usually also the happiest. Up to a degree increasing wealth increases happiness and lifespan, but beyond a certain cut-off point in living standard (roughly on Ireland?s level of GDP per capita) the link to wealth weakens. If long lives caused people to suffer ennui, lose ambition or many of the other bad things suggested, we ought to see much unhappiness in the most long-lived countries ? but this is not the case. [10:44] Eirinn Overdrive: The human mind is powered by information, as long as there are changes curiosity alone should be drive enough [10:44] Anders Nadir: A possible counterargument would be that merely 80 years is not enough, but 200 years might be enough. But this relegates us to the world of ?mights? again. If life extension and changes in ageing structure are bad we ought to have seen significant effects of a doubling of lifespan over the past century. But the world today appears to be about as happy as the past. [10:44] Cryonica Artizar: with you [10:44] Khannea Suntzu: Our current society needs low-ego low-payment and *low-age* economic slaves [10:45] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 4/7 - anders1 [10:45] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 5/7 - anders2 [10:45] Anders Nadir: Would we want to be a long-lived kind of persons? It doesn?t seem that longevity itself is any virtue or character trait, although we often value things that are said to go well together with it, like wisdom or being resilient. On the other hand, certain conceptions of what kind of life we want to live may contain elements relevant to ageing. If I?m trying to be the young tortured artist life extension might not be very relevant, while seeing myself as endlessly exploring and growing as a person might have life extension as an essential part. A character based perspective is highly individualistic. [10:45] #uvvy: Sat: We have them Khannea they're called white trash. [10:45] Anders Nadir: Professor Julian Savulescu defined human enhancement as enhancements that improve the human condition. If something improves (say) your hearing but does not make you happy it is not really an enhancement of your life. Life extension is likely to be a human enhancement for most, but not necessarily for everyone. [10:46] Eirinn Overdrive: i like that point [10:46] Anders Nadir: Having life enough is usually a requisite for most life projects, regarding what they are about. Hence it seems that from a purely instrumental perspective it will be a good tool for the good life. [10:46] Anders Nadir: Will we develop very long life projects in the long run (?I?d like to learn how to compose, write poetry, do brain surgery and then compose operas about the experience?), or will we invent new ones when old ones are finished or abandoned? (?After we finally got peace in the middle east I decided to become an architect?). It could be that people who cannot find new life projects will choose to die. [10:47] Anders Nadir: Is interest a survival trait? It could be that in the long run only those interested in life will survive. [10:47] Meleah Lilienthal: what role does expectation play as well? [10:47] Evalyn Dagmar: people can certainly choose to die, but it is certainly horrible to impose death on anyone who doesn't want it "for their own good". [10:47] Anders Nadir: In the end we must all ask ourselves: are we running away from death or running to life? I do not think one can make a good ethical or psychological case for life extension based on a fear of death, or even the undesirability of dying. Life extension only makes sense in seeing the individual, unique human life as something positive. [10:48] Anders Nadir: Expectations... I'll get to those later. [10:48] Anders Nadir: While the case for life extension is usually based on the desire to live longer and healthier there might be an even stronger reason to do it: the economic bottom line. Ageing costs society enormous sums and living people are themselves economically valuable. [10:48] Khannea Suntzu: Or versions of you that dont find a rationale shut down, those that do continue. [10:48] Eirinn Overdrive: mhmh... i do not see life extention as a limitation, but as the removal of a barrier where the effect can be ended [10:48] Eirinn Overdrive: it is not like you CANT die [10:48] Eirinn Overdrive: you will have a choice [10:48] Evalyn Dagmar: indeed. [10:48] Anders Nadir: Yes, that is an important point. Everything is mortal. Life extension is about increasing the likeliehood of survival when you want to. [10:49] #uvvy: levitation[A] has joined #uvvy [10:49] #uvvy: Sat: I'm into life extension for purely selfish reasons. [10:49] Anders Nadir: In a recent paper several prominent biogerontologists argue that just slowing ageing enough to gain seven years of extra healthy life would pay back society an enormous ?longevity dividend?. Seven years is just what the authors consider a plausible near term goal. [10:49] #uvvy: Sat shrugs [10:49] Eirinn Overdrive: so you're not imposing a certain problem you're removing one, at least when speaking personal reasons [10:49] Anders Nadir: S. Jay Olshansky, Daniel Perry, Richard A. Miller, Robert N. Butler, The Longevity Dividend, The Scientist, vol. 20:3 2006 http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/3/1/28/1/ [10:49] Eirinn Overdrive: but we will ahev serious problems with mass population (we will anyway) if immortality in some degree is attained [10:50] Anders Nadir: Ageing is a root cause for many expensive chronic diseases like cancer, stroke, dementias, arthritis, heart disease, osteoporosis and diabetes. Reducing ageing even slightly would reduce them significantly. In general it is better to go for underlying causes of illness than symptoms, as demonstrated by how the discovery of a stomach bacterium turned ulcers from something chronic and expensive into something treatable and rare. In fact, increasing lifespan by seven years would be a far greater gain than even totally eliminating cancer, heart disease and diabetes! [10:50] Meleah Lilienthal: feeding those lives for an additional seven years would pose a burdon [10:50] Dale Glass: won't be much of a problem, we geeks don't reproduce very often anyway ;-) [10:50] Eirinn Overdrive: xD [10:50] Pavel Qi: why would you discount other advances? [10:50] Eirinn Overdrive: wee another reason to make cyborgs ;P [10:50] You: Folks, please try to limit the comments to the topical. This is not a chat session. [10:50] Eirinn Overdrive: ahrem :x [10:50] Manoj Undercity is Offline [10:50] Evalyn Dagmar: thinking of people as burdens is the wrong way to go. Acknowledge the economic contribution of people, but also acknowledge that if someone wants to be alive it shouldn't matter what kind of job they're doing, etc. [10:51] Manoj Undercity is Online [10:51] Spider Mycron is Online [10:51] Anders Nadir: I hope somebody takes note of them so we can get into them at the end . My working memory is a bit loaded right now. [10:51] Anders Nadir: Ageing and death deprives society of tremendous values and knowledge, while healthier lives provide society with more experience, labour, consumers and producers. Longer lives would be a tremendous boon to economic growth. As shown in a series of economic studies, the value of improvements in life expectancy has been about as large as the value of all other consumption goods and services put together. The total value of the increased longevity that took place from 1970 to 1990 has been enormous, in the order of $2,800bn a year in the US. [10:52] Anders Nadir: To calculate this the researchers estimated the value of one year of healthy life by looking at the investments people do to achieve it, and multiplied it with the real gains achieved. In such studies the value of an older life tends to be lower than a middle aged life. Are the old undervaluing their lives? Perhaps not at present: life quality does go down when one starts to become frail. But if frailty can be postponed older people are likely to value their lives even more. That would likely make the gains greater. [10:52] Anders Nadir: This is the language politicians understand. [10:52] Anders Nadir: The longevity dividend is particularly tempting for the rapidly ageing EU, Japan and China: the relatively young US can wait, but we cannot. Maybe an international age race will define the 21st century as the space and nuclear races did the 20th. The sheer economic power of a more long-lived society might be a strong stimulus for adventure and growth, especially among the young who seek new niches rather than compete with their elders. [10:53] Anders Nadir: In general people tend to accumulate capital over their lives. This means that in a longevity society people will on average have a chance to grow richer. [10:53] Anders Nadir: Would an ageing culture stagnate, as many fear? If that was true then we should see that the countries where people live the longest would be the most stagnant, while younger countries would be more vibrant. But looking at the world today we see the opposite ? the intellectual powerhouses are just the countries where people live the longest. One explanation might be that they attract the best and brightest from everywhere else, which is at least partially true. But the majority of researchers and media innovators in the US or UK are not young people from third world nations. Instead the reason for the productivity of ideas may be the vibrant economy, pluralistic society eager to adopt ideas and the means of distributing them. Even if we are slowed down by conservative professors and set in their track executives the other factors are clearly strong enough to counteract them [10:53] Dresden Nakatani: ok, now you also have to add human overcrowding into the equation, soon our countries will be overflowing with a lot more people because feweer will be dying [10:53] Eirinn Overdrive: space expansion is a possibility [10:54] Eirinn Overdrive: there is strong evidence of life on Mars they are contemplating habitats now [10:54] Eirinn Overdrive: (it's not a joke) [10:54] Herbert Hoggard: Earth alone is big enough! [10:55] Anders Nadir: Overpopulation: yes it is an issue, but not for the greying populations of the EU, who are soon suffering from underpopulation/ [10:55] #uvvy: Mo has joined #uvvy [10:55] #uvvy: Sat: There's plenty of space here. I see it as more of an issue of carrying capacity. [10:55] Evalyn Dagmar: better to encourage people to have fewer children than encourage them to die! [10:55] Anders Nadir: But lets get to the overpopulation later. [10:55] Anders Nadir: All human cultures have a very structured idea of the process of human ageing, a life path. As we live longer we will reinvent it. Old people are increasingly active and refuse to fit into the mould of asexual, passive repositories of wisdom. A long life opens up for new phases in life, where study, retirement and work could be alternated. As retirement becomes less of a necessity and more a long holiday the less permanent it will be. Lower fertility and longer lives are producing ?beanpole families? where many generations are alive but have few members, making non-relatives more part of the family. Instead of 'till death do us part' we are becoming serial monogamists. The combination of a sharp mind and youthful body with savings, maturity and experience might open for more radical reinvention of society, careers and identity. [10:56] IntLibber Brautigan: there is no overpopulation issue [10:56] Manoj Undercity: heyas Charles [10:56] Anders Nadir: Even if successful anti-ageing would cause social problems it would likely be worth it. We would also adapt to it just as we have already adapted to our current enormous lifespan. [10:56] Khannea Suntzu: Plus can we make any statements about how a *healthy* human age 120 would act as opposed to the wrinky, frail stereotypes we know now, of over 60 ? [10:56] Anders Nadir: The two greatest threats to achieving life extension is having society think that it is impossible or easy. [10:56] #uvvy: Mo waves "hello" to Manoj Undercity [10:57] Meleah Lilienthal: and with drugs like viagra, elderly people are enjoying passionate youthful loving relationships, marrying older and living happier [10:57] Anders Nadir: The impossible part may appear obvious. As long as nobody or very few thinks it is feasible little resources will be aimed at solving the problem. Regulations and social institutions will not support the research and might actually counteract it. When methods arrive they will not be regarded as real medicine and again may suffer problems in adaptation. [10:57] Anders Nadir: But there is also a danger in thinking technologies to control ageing will be easy and happen soon. I?m always slightly irritated when I meet transhumanists who smoke. The irritation is due not to the smoke per se (and I think people should be allowed to smoke), but that they often rationalize that soon technology will be able to fix the damage. It is a gamble that nano-Santa will arrive before lung cancer. The problem here is the complacency fed by optimism. A more rational approach would be to get the nicotine through safer methods, like Swedish snus or (even better) nicotine chewing gum. But the idea that something will save them is strong enough to rationalize what is essentially an expensive kind of suicide. [10:57] Dresden Nakatani: not always, the largest cases of AIDS epidemics are now amongst the elderly, because they think just that...I'm old and gonna die anyway so why use protection.......and instead of dying they are cursing themselves to yaers of frail suffering [10:58] Anders Nadir: The same goes with believing that life extension will be easy to achieve and implement real soon. While it might encourage us to invest and behave in ways that ensure we have a long future it also encourages laziness. [10:58] Anders Nadir: Society is already suffering from the ?science fact? problem: people have a hard time distinguishing what is real from what is in the near future, being prognosticated or just suggested. Stem cells are seen as cures for disease today, when we have hardly started doing the basic research on them. The same could go for life extension. Many people expect it right here and now if it is medically possible. [10:59] Anders Nadir: Setting expectations too high risks hype and later disillusionment. Setting them too low risks losing motivation. We need to figure out feedback that enables us to adjust them, not just for ageing but for practically all science. That is an important task we need to think about how to do. [10:59] Anders Nadir: The ubiquitous Clifford Pickover?s most recent book is called ?A Beginner's Guide to Immortality? (full disclosure: he mentions my website in it). While the main theme is about becoming immortal through one?s radical work, I think the title points out something we need. We need that kind of Beginner?s Guide to understand and deal with a radically long life. [11:00] Anders Nadir: Currently we have ?A Beginner's Guide to Mortality?, although not in a convenient book form. This Beginner?s Guide is more like a self-study course we are subjected to by picking up culture and ideas from people around us. Perhaps it is a compendium, filled with everything from fairy tales, bible pages, TV sound bites and annotated, heartfelt discussions with our family. We are confronted with the threat to our existence at an early age and people gladly deliver various memes that may or may not help us deal with that. Aubrey has written and said a great deal of the pro-ageing trance much of mankind seems to be in: in order to handle death we construct various explanations about its necessity and possible goodness. Psychologists studing people?s views of ageing and death have even more to say about what is in this ?A Beginner's Guide to Mortality?, including how people actually seem to apply it quite successfully in many cases to die with at least some resignation. [11:00] Manoj Undercity: yaay Mo is here [11:00] Dresden Nakatani: how can the human psyche handle over 120 years and still halthyand not fracture basically [11:00] Eirinn Overdrive: hmm good point [11:00] Evalyn Dagmar: why not run the experiment? [11:00] Eirinn Overdrive: maybe that's the physical reason why sleep is needed ;) [11:01] Manoj Undercity: Mo. please take hover chair [11:01] Manoj Undercity: hehe [11:01] Anders Nadir: Now, if we are proposing to change the nature of ageing, we are threatening the validity of this compendium. But the psychological need to deal with the existential issues of growing old, being mortal and changing as a person still remains! If we cannot offer ?A Beginner's Guide to Immortality? instead of the already existing guide to mortality we are making a profound threat to people?s well-being. We all need a sense of meaning and order in our lives. To lack a sense that life has a structure we can predict is inherently stressful. Stress is after all the experience that one isn?t in control, and not being in control of one?s life is the ultimate stress. It is no wonder that the only times I get serious criticism for my debate articles is when I write about life extension, not things like cloning, nanotechnology or posthumans. The latter things are no threats to our sense of existence, but the mere possibility of throwing the structure of life out of the window is enormously unsettling. [11:01] #uvvy: Sat is away: (Connection reset by beer) [11:02] Dresden Nakatani: not to mention dangerous [11:02] Anders Nadir: This suggests that beside the biomedical research of actual anti-ageing we need sociological, philosophical and psychological research on building a mode of being suited for longer lifespans. It cannot be just academic research, although I think that will be important. It will need to be about creating social norms, human stories and ideals, practical advice and do?s-and-don?s to ageing, a big reinvention of what it means to age. This is a big cultural project that requires people to drive it, to constantly point out its necessity. It requires the support of the mainstream in terms of interest and participation. [11:02] Basic Chair: Right click me and choose 'Sit Here' to sit down [11:02] #uvvy: Sat: not to introduce too big a tangent... but, reducing religious thinking would go further, I think, than increasing life extension thinking in orienting people towards acting in ways which are beneficial for life extension. [11:03] Anders Nadir: It can also be started today, because we are already living in a society where the traditional Guide to Mortality clearly isn?t working. Those baby boomers are questioning it, since many of them do not fit into the traditional view of what it is like to be old. [11:03] Anders Nadir: We need to explore better ways of living long. [11:03] Anders Nadir: Currently health is a kind of religion. Striving for health is a signal of virtue. Many people become upset if despite their virtuous actions they are not rewarded with health and long life. [11:03] Anders Nadir: But health is a tool. It is something we want because it enables us to live, and because ill health and death limits our life projects. [11:03] Anders Nadir: Perhaps the healthiest way of approaching extended lifespans is to view life and health as a project, and ongoing artwork (to borrow from Natasha Vita More). If we give up the notion of one kind of health and instead see that there are as many kinds of health as life projects, we can try to find ways to our kind of health. It would mean an individualisation of healthcare, something that is slowly happening but will likely accelerate over time and also help acceptance of life extension. [11:04] Dresden Nakatani: what about those bodily entrapments we as humans have absolutely no control over [11:04] Dresden Nakatani: i.e. cancer [11:04] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 4/7 - anders1 [11:04] Anders Nadir: Our lives are ongoing artworks we are trying to shape into something beautiful, creative, amazing. Some might want to keep to the short sonnet form, others will go for the wild epic. [11:04] Khannea Suntzu: Plus we would do well to make not only our bodies health, but the world around us as well; most cities today are pathological. [11:04] WhiteBoard (e): Now showing Image 4/7 - anders1 [11:04] Anders Nadir: Thank you! [11:05] Eirinn Overdrive: interesting [11:05] Dresden Nakatani: pathological as well as self-helpless [11:05] Anders Nadir: Now, time to try to answer all your questions :-) [11:05] Eirinn Overdrive: don't spam him folks :P [11:05] Lucifer Darrow applauds [11:06] Terence McKenna applauds [11:06] Anders Nadir: To look at the most recent one: yes, life extension will not mean control. It will be about influence over an important facto, but not total control. We have to include the random in our projects [11:06] Meleah Lilienthal smiles and claps [11:06] Eirinn Overdrive applauds [11:06] Dresden Nakatani: what of those serious terminal health problems that people face every day like cancer or aids or other bodily terminal conditions [11:06] Herbert Hoggard: How to deal with religious people. They give me the most flak :) [11:06] Dresden Nakatani: with no cure even in sight [11:06] Eirinn Overdrive: cancer is getting cured in about the next 100 years [11:06] Eirinn Overdrive: huh? you're slow :P [11:06] Dresden Nakatani: i doubt it [11:06] Anders Nadir: The NIH is claiming it will make cancer merely a chronic disease by 2015. [11:06] Ian Sterling: a gift to me Anders thank you [11:06] Eirinn Overdrive: all recent studies show that cancer has a good chance of being cured withing a normal timeflow [11:07] Manoj Undercity: okie dokie.. question and answer time [11:07] Giulio Perhaps: anders can I smoke? [11:07] Eirinn Overdrive: the new dna type has loads of that [11:07] Eirinn Overdrive: the RNA [11:07] Anders Nadir: Sure, smoking in SL doesn't irritae me :-) [11:07] Dresden Nakatani: now...all be it for me to strt preaching because I am not religious...but what about the "meant " factor [11:07] Eirinn Overdrive: what's it called again >.< [11:07] Dresden Nakatani: that maybe we just werent "meant" to be immortal [11:07] Jef Ambassador: Anders: Do you think that longer life spans will enhance moral thinking due to people having a direct incentive to consider the longer consequences of their actions? [11:07] Anders Nadir: Religion is tricky. Note that most religions actually claim to be fore life, both a long healthy life here and another one inthe hereafter. [11:08] Dresden Nakatani: or to live that long [11:08] Meleah Lilienthal: how do we, as a society, change the beliefs of those around us....the mere term "life expectancy" implies that the mindset would be essential to the actuality of longevity [11:08] Eirinn Overdrive: i think limitations are imposed by humans alone [11:08] Toeter Alva: what about the brain that does not renew itself how will we stop it from not being able to remain flexible what is what marks the young [11:08] Eirinn Overdrive: now gotta go eat something unhealthy [11:08] Ian Sterling: I want to live long enough to die of global warming..:) [11:08] Dresden Nakatani: imposed maybe, but what of the absolute conditions [11:08] Eirinn Overdrive: there are no absolute conditions ;O [11:08] Manoj Undercity: lol Mo is smoking again [11:08] Anders Nadir: Some research show that over life people become more conscientous (in the big 5 personality sense), so yes, I think there might be a bit of moral growth. [11:08] Manoj Undercity: see u soon Bunny [11:08] Dresden Nakatani: certainly there are [11:08] Eirinn Overdrive: see you :) [11:08] Dresden Nakatani: spend too long in the sun..t WILL burn [11:08] Eirinn Overdrive: name me one besides the self imposed constant? [11:09] Dresden Nakatani: that is an absolute [11:09] Eirinn Overdrive: not if you apply sun block :D [11:09] Dresden Nakatani: it only lasts so long [11:09] Eirinn Overdrive: depends on factors [11:09] Eirinn Overdrive: therefor it's not absolute ;o [11:09] Anders Nadir: I think there is good reason to think that more long-lived people will be interested in ensuring their long-term environment. [11:09] Dresden Nakatani: fire will blister and cold will frostbite [11:09] You: Folks, keep private chitchat to IM, don't contaminate the channel. [11:09] Khannea Suntzu: Look at melanotan 2, interesting side effects [11:09] Manoj Undercity: long lived people would also find alternate environments or modify their own bodies to adapt in any environment [11:10] Pavel Qi: how has aging mapped against population growth? [11:10] Anders Nadir: Overpopulation> to some extent the only solution is to reduce the birth rate. But that seems to be surprisingly changeable anyway - the demograpic transition in many countries is surpringly fast. [11:10] Eirinn Overdrive: the chitchat you call it is probably the whole base for this disucssion :) [11:10] Manoj Undercity: so conservation of environment would become obsolete if we can survive in any environment [11:10] Dresden Nakatani: thank you Eirinn [11:10] Chaos Venera: the thing is, arent we right now involved in a purely theoretical constuct of assumptions? [11:10] Dresden Nakatani: weather proof houses and biio suits for all [11:10] Anders Nadir: If we could survive anywhere we wouldn't need to cae about the environment except as resources - and aesthetics, and a sense of self. [11:10] Eirinn Overdrive: np, gotta eat, bye :) [11:10] Anders Nadir: Bye! [11:10] Manoj Undercity: bye Bunny [11:11] Khannea Suntzu: I think it will come down to a compromize; an "unnatural aging" and "cybernetics" and "mods" tax. [11:11] Dresden Nakatani: another question sir [11:11] Dresden Nakatani: what of natural resources [11:11] Dresden Nakatani: and the