From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Wed Feb  1 00:34:54 2006
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:34:54 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] WSJ: A Cold Calculus Leads Cryonauts To
	PutAssetson Ice
In-Reply-To: <015301c626ba$2a45fc40$640fa8c0@kevin>
References: <20060125053124.66338.qmail@web80727.mail.yahoo.com>
	<015301c626ba$2a45fc40$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0601311634n47d878fcn14394367d82acbe3@mail.gmail.com>

On 1/31/06, kevinfreels.com <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
>
> It led me to another idea. Has anyone considered something similar to the
> X-prize for cryonics? Imagine a trust that was paid into out of life
> insurance as people passed away. This trust would pay out say 10% to the
> first group to bring back a squirrel after 6 months, 25% to the first to
> bring back a dog after a year, and 65% to whomever brings back the first
> human. This pot would continuously grow as more people were preserved.


Is cryonics an allowable treatment for the Methuselah Mouse Prize? I'm not
sure if it's in the spirit of the competition, but from a cursory glance of
their site it doesn't seem to be explicitly prohibited.

http://mprize.org/

The any case, the Methuselah Mouse Prize structure could be a useful model.
Researchers compete to beat the previous longevity record for mice and get a
percentage of the prize pot based on how much they beat the record by.

-- Neil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060131/042ef8ec/attachment.html>

From velvethum at hotmail.com  Wed Feb  1 02:57:51 2006
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:57:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
References: <200601300811.k0U8BDe06350@tick.javien.com>
	<43DFEFBE.3090406@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <BAY108-DAV3C8D2D13B3790A581F3C7A70B0@phx.gbl>

Ben wrote:
> If a mind and everything in it, including all it's subjective
> opinions and feelings etc., is indeed information (and we know that
> information can be completely represented in a digital form), then thats
> it. That's everything. There is no room left for anything else. At all.
> Hence, the 'you', the 'life', the 'thread' is all in there, all
> information. It's absolutely no good saying "yes, but there's still the
> FLOW of that information, the link to the next brain state, etc.",
> because all that still boils down to information that can be read,
> recorded, and reproduced.

That "flow" is an actual *activity* of matter in space-time which is NOT 
information. Yes, you can record each brain state but it would still be just 
a map, not territory.

Slawomir 


From shogyo.mujo at gmail.com  Wed Feb  1 04:17:53 2006
From: shogyo.mujo at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tom=E1s_Arribas?=)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 05:17:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
In-Reply-To: <BAY108-DAV3C8D2D13B3790A581F3C7A70B0@phx.gbl>
References: <200601300811.k0U8BDe06350@tick.javien.com>
	<43DFEFBE.3090406@lineone.net>
	<BAY108-DAV3C8D2D13B3790A581F3C7A70B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <bf3d71290601312017y51d69e3bw@mail.gmail.com>

2006/2/1, Slawomir:
> That "flow" is an actual *activity* of matter in space-time which is NOT
> information. Yes, you can record each brain state but it would still be just
> a map, not territory.

I don't know much (in fact, nothing) abut neurobiology or whatever,
but I think that maybe an analogy with computers will be good. I'm
sure most of you know of the "hibernation" feature of most modern OS
(Linux and Windows, to put an example). This proccess permits to turn
off a computer completely in the middle of anything, and later restore
your session *exactly* in its former state, allowing you to continue
what you were doing. The proccess is based in saving all the RAM data
in that clock cycle to the hard disk. When you turn on the computer,
that saved information is returned to the RAM, and the computer
continues to run from that state without even knowing it was turned
off at some moment. You saved just information, a map, as you say, a
snapshot of a clock cycle. But even so, when you restore, the flow
continues (even when computers are idle, they're doing *a lot* of
stuff, so a computer turned on has a continuous flow of electrons
inside).

Then, what is the difference between that procces and uploading, or
cryonics? (this gets closer to cryonics in my opinion). Is the
restored session a *different* session of the "original", in any way,
because the continous space-time flow of electrons was shutted of
*completely* during an arbitrary lapse of time?



Tom?s



2006/2/1, Heartland <velvethum at hotmail.com>:
> Ben wrote:
> > If a mind and everything in it, including all it's subjective
> > opinions and feelings etc., is indeed information (and we know that
> > information can be completely represented in a digital form), then thats
> > it. That's everything. There is no room left for anything else. At all.
> > Hence, the 'you', the 'life', the 'thread' is all in there, all
> > information. It's absolutely no good saying "yes, but there's still the
> > FLOW of that information, the link to the next brain state, etc.",
> > because all that still boils down to information that can be read,
> > recorded, and reproduced.
>
> That "flow" is an actual *activity* of matter in space-time which is NOT
> information. Yes, you can record each brain state but it would still be just
> a map, not territory.
>
> Slawomir
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


--
Emergency e-mail: mobile at forbidden-games.com



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Feb  1 06:18:11 2006
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 16:48:11 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] Computing Power: Moore's Law keeps going and
	going and going
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060126161247.01ec08a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <deaa866a0601260949l2b428753i9bd970a5383679fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060126184819.35016.qmail@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<deaa866a0601261406yb7cc47avd0464b4481fd93b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060126161247.01ec08a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0601312218g51e82f5fr@mail.gmail.com>

Hmm... there must be somewhere easier to get access to the circulatory
system. Maybe the lungs for instance... could you tap into it inside
the lungs without as much drama (excepting of course for getting into
the lungs in the first place.

Or, what might work better would be an implant somewhere in the body,
under the skin, that transduces (god that word could be so wrong,
please guess what I am trying to say if it is) power through the skin
to appropriate equipment on the outside. The reverse of how the newest
artificial hearts work (which I think zap the power through the skin
from outside to inside).

So it requires that you get an implanted power generator. But then
people get liposuction, after all, which is probably a good deal more
invasive.

--
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com


On 27/01/06, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 05:06 PM 1/26/2006 -0500, Robert B. wrote:
>
> >Just filter the glucose out of your blood and circulate it into a bag
> >containing bacteria that utilize the glucose to produce light.  If you
> >make the bag into a transparent suit jacket you can glow in the dark while
> >losing weight.
>
> That's cool, of course, and lets you read under the blankets, if you're the
> sort of person who sleeps in his suit jacket, as most of us here surely
> are--but it can be a hassle, wearing clothes that require you to plug them
> in to an indwelling catheter stuck inside a major blood vessel. So messy to
> keep clean and bacteria-free. (I had a friend once with a colostomy; he
> spent an awful lot of time in the shower.)
>
> Damien Broderick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Feb  1 06:22:58 2006
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 16:52:58 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] Computing Power: Moore's Law keeps going and
	going and going
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0601312218g51e82f5fr@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0601260949l2b428753i9bd970a5383679fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060126184819.35016.qmail@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<deaa866a0601261406yb7cc47avd0464b4481fd93b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060126161247.01ec08a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<710b78fc0601312218g51e82f5fr@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0601312222w1660836bl@mail.gmail.com>

and... obviously I didn't read Robert's reply to Damien's post carefully enough.

So the subdermal implant would need a bacteria that could feed on
blood and produce harmless biproducts and electricity. You might want
to be careful about making sure they can't reproduce inside the body,
or it might get upsetting in case of a leak...

Anyway, from there it's the same as my previous post.

On 01/02/06, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm... there must be somewhere easier to get access to the circulatory
> system. Maybe the lungs for instance... could you tap into it inside
> the lungs without as much drama (excepting of course for getting into
> the lungs in the first place.
>
> Or, what might work better would be an implant somewhere in the body,
> under the skin, that transduces (god that word could be so wrong,
> please guess what I am trying to say if it is) power through the skin
> to appropriate equipment on the outside. The reverse of how the newest
> artificial hearts work (which I think zap the power through the skin
> from outside to inside).
>
> So it requires that you get an implanted power generator. But then
> people get liposuction, after all, which is probably a good deal more
> invasive.
>
> --
> Emlyn
>
> http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
> Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com
>
>
> On 27/01/06, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > At 05:06 PM 1/26/2006 -0500, Robert B. wrote:
> >
> > >Just filter the glucose out of your blood and circulate it into a bag
> > >containing bacteria that utilize the glucose to produce light.  If you
> > >make the bag into a transparent suit jacket you can glow in the dark while
> > >losing weight.
> >
> > That's cool, of course, and lets you read under the blankets, if you're the
> > sort of person who sleeps in his suit jacket, as most of us here surely
> > are--but it can be a hassle, wearing clothes that require you to plug them
> > in to an indwelling catheter stuck inside a major blood vessel. So messy to
> > keep clean and bacteria-free. (I had a friend once with a colostomy; he
> > spent an awful lot of time in the shower.)
> >
> > Damien Broderick
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
>


--
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Feb  1 07:29:25 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:29:25 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ethanol from switchgrass
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0601310514j302d54edle665ec11ae7a091@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602010803.k1183O4P005250@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

For those who listened to w this evening, he mentioned making

ethanol from switch grass: 

 

"...We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of
producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips, stalks, or switch
grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and
competitive within six years..."

 

I had heard of this only because Lockheeed Martin is involved in it.  Check

it out:

 

http://www.westbioenergy.org/july98/0798_01.htm

 

spike

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060131/2f49a03c/attachment.html>

From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Wed Feb  1 08:31:35 2006
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 00:31:35 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] SotU and human cloning/modification
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0602010031n5102acddsd782d772b0a9c1f@mail.gmail.com>

I was rather worried by this part of the address:

"A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut
ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life.
Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses
of medical research ? human cloning in all its forms ... creating or
implanting embryos for experiments ... creating human-animal hybrids ... and
buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our
Creator ? and that gift should never be discarded, devalued, or put up for
sale."

On 1/31/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>  For those who listened to w this evening, he mentioned making
>
> ethanol from switch grass:
>
>
>
> "...We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of
> producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips, stalks, or switch
> grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and
> competitive within six years..."
>
>
>
> I had heard of this only because Lockheeed Martin is involved in it.
> Check
>
> it out:
>
>
>
> http://www.westbioenergy.org/july98/0798_01.htm
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060201/9d93a42b/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Wed Feb  1 09:40:49 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 04:40:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Computing Power: Moore's Law keeps going and
	going and going
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0601312222w1660836bl@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0601260949l2b428753i9bd970a5383679fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060126184819.35016.qmail@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<deaa866a0601261406yb7cc47avd0464b4481fd93b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060126161247.01ec08a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<710b78fc0601312218g51e82f5fr@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0601312222w1660836bl@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602010140h5760ff22l82bf80fc7a615963@mail.gmail.com>

The conversion to electricity in-body probably makes it less efficient.  The
transmission of electricity through the skin is going to involve induction
coils (similar to the battery chargers in electric toothbrushes) and that
will involve losses.  I was thinking along the lines of bioluminescent
bacteria which are in most, if not all, cases driven off of ATP.  Conversion
of glucose into ATP is I believe fairly efficient from a thermodynamic point
of view.  Conversion of glucose directly to electricity is probably going to
require new enzymes and/or some kind of a fuel cell structure.  If you want
to transport the energy efficiently you either need chemical carriers (and
piping) or wires.

R.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060201/9656a72e/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Wed Feb  1 09:58:11 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 04:58:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] SotU and human cloning/modification
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce0602010031n5102acddsd782d772b0a9c1f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e88b73ce0602010031n5102acddsd782d772b0a9c1f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602010158o1dd9f82cn75db8964594cf062@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/1/06, Neil H. <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I was rather worried by this part of the address:


The entire paragraph was full of holes.  Steve Coles posted his
"disassembly" of it on the GRG list.  One of the problems is that the
definition of "human" is open to all kinds of interpretations.  Under the
traditional interpretation its the "looks like a duck" criteria.  But we are
already putting human genes into mice and rats.  At what point do they
become micemans and ratmans?  Leaving aside the physiological problems (the
requirement for mice and rats with very large heads to sustain a much larger
number of neurons) it is clear that one could relatively easily  replace the
"brain" genes in chimpanzees, dolphins, bears, etc. (any species with a
relatively large skull) with their human equivalents and get a species which
is functionally closer to a "normal" human than some "humans" that are
living with significantly damaged genomes.  Mind you getting them to the
point where they could interbreed with humans would be quite a bit more
difficult.   I know of nothing in the classical debate about cloning which
would prevent this kind of R&D.

The entire debate is going to get *very* interesting in about a decade when
we have a better handle on *what* genes are critical to intelligence and we
have the means to identify them in utero (leading to intelligence selection
as one now has sex selection in India and China) and have robust methods to
replace those genes in embryos (Sangamo has already demonstrated the
feasibility of this in blood stem cells).  Then the question will be when is
allowing the birth of "natural" children (less capable than what they could
be) a form of child abuse?

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060201/970393af/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Feb  1 07:36:59 2006
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:36:59 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Faith-based thought vs thinkers
	Re:IntelligentDesign: I'm not dead yet
References: <deaa866a0601260818x6101a757h73bbd93ae83f54b9@mail.gmail.com><8d71341e0601261934i7b7b1c95lfd7f4146eb9bdac7@mail.gmail.com><081801c62474$dda963f0$1283e03c@homepc><8d71341e0601291421w73e877a6he375ea288f4c5034@mail.gmail.com><09f901c6254d$54469860$1283e03c@homepc><8d71341e0601291957j35f3a0d3ya68bba4dc3b6010c@mail.gmail.com><0aa301c62574$9fd37fb0$1283e03c@homepc><8d71341e0601300039u495c7cccuad5de4b7b60297de@mail.gmail.com><ee50357e0601301611g1684b536i7a326171dc413911@mail.gmail.com><8d71341e0601301616v78ed629bu6180c9796bff90e5@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0601310514j302d54edle665ec11ae7a091@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <17db01c62702$495653d0$1283e03c@homepc>

Robert Bradbury wrote:

> 1) the hold-ups in California funding for stem cell research (an active topic on the GRG list);

Are you saying faith-based groups are effectively blocking the release of funding in California? 

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060201/417e20ea/attachment.html>

From velvethum at hotmail.com  Wed Feb  1 11:46:25 2006
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 06:46:25 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
References: <200601300811.k0U8BDe06350@tick.javien.com><43DFEFBE.3090406@lineone.net><BAY108-DAV3C8D2D13B3790A581F3C7A70B0@phx.gbl>
	<bf3d71290601312017y51d69e3bw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY108-DAV6E17407C61B8DBDB41F04A70B0@phx.gbl>


2006/2/1, Slawomir:
> That "flow" is an actual *activity* of matter in space-time which is NOT
> information. Yes, you can record each brain state but it would still be 
> just
> a map, not territory.

Tomas wrote:
I don't know much (in fact, nothing) abut neurobiology or whatever,
but I think that maybe an analogy with computers will be good. I'm
sure most of you know of the "hibernation" feature of most modern OS
(Linux and Windows, to put an example). This proccess permits to turn
off a computer completely in the middle of anything, and later restore
your session *exactly* in its former state, allowing you to continue
what you were doing. The proccess is based in saving all the RAM data
in that clock cycle to the hard disk. When you turn on the computer,
that saved information is returned to the RAM, and the computer
continues to run from that state without even knowing it was turned
off at some moment. You saved just information, a map, as you say, a
snapshot of a clock cycle. But even so, when you restore, the flow
continues (even when computers are idle, they're doing *a lot* of
stuff, so a computer turned on has a continuous flow of electrons
inside).

Then, what is the difference between that procces and uploading, or
cryonics? (this gets closer to cryonics in my opinion). Is the
restored session a *different* session of the "original", in any way,
because the continous space-time flow of electrons was shutted of
*completely* during an arbitrary lapse of time?

Tom?s
>

That's an interesting question. I used to think that a restored mind process 
on an original brain would be the same but it turns out that this restored 
process must be equivalent to the duplicate process. If you assume 
otherwise, the chain of logical implications will inevitably lead to 
contradictions.

The only logically consistent conclusion is that life (mind-producing 
*activity* of matter in space-time) exists only for a time period between 
the start of the mind process and it's end. In other words, original life 
can only exist for a single session which means that as soon as you die, you 
stay dead forever.

This is quite an orthodox view, and I don't like it, but I'm afraid it is 
true.

Slawomir




From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed Feb  1 14:32:00 2006
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 09:32:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
In-Reply-To: <43DFEFBE.3090406@lineone.net>
References: <200601300811.k0U8BDe06350@tick.javien.com>
	<43DFEFBE.3090406@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <DF3566A7-5379-4C4A-8EB5-C968EDE6A810@bonfireproductions.com>


On Jan 31, 2006, at 6:16 PM, ben wrote:

> I can tell you exactly what's going on. Crypto-Dualism.

Which is fine, unless you are a Neutral Monist. (Hey I didn't use the  
D-word first.)

Let me just say that I do understand what you are saying. Though I am  
not sure if the question and answer going on here are specific  
enough. How about this:

> Case 1:
> Copy is created, original still exist. Copy status is...
> YOU

And that's great. Two of me would get a hell of a lot more done. But  
are there two of me? Or is my subjective experience now through 4  
eyes and two bodies worth of sense-data? There is a difference  
between you saying YOU and me saying Me in this regard, and I think  
it is what is hanging up the whole conversation.

> Any one is completely
> interchangeable with any other, in every respect.

Yes. But as soon as there are more than one, what happens to  
subjective-me? I would think there were then two of me, and each  
would do its own thing.

Is that what you are saying? I am not quite sure how this is dualism  
unless you are starting to talk copying into machines, since in each  
case the entire mind/body unit (separate or not) has been duplicated.


?

Bret K.



>
> "I can't believe intelligent people still don't get this" is  
> exactly my
> reaction. I can't quite believe that intelligent people are  
> clinging to
> this dualist view. All this talk of 'you' and 'your own life' is a  
> form
> of mysticism. It ignores the fact that 101001101 is IDENTICAL to
> 101001101. If a mind and everything in it, including all it's  
> subjective
> opinions and feelings etc., is indeed information (and we know that
> information can be completely represented in a digital form), then  
> thats
> it. That's everything. There is no room left for anything else. At  
> all.
> Hence, the 'you', the 'life', the 'thread' is all in there, all
> information. It's absolutely no good saying "yes, but there's still  
> the
> FLOW of that information, the link to the next brain state, etc.",
> because all that still boils down to information that can be read,
> recorded, and reproduced. The fact that it's rather weird to think of
> there being two of you is irrelevant. It's also weird to think of a
> photon being both a wave and a particle. So what.
>
> Answers to those questions:
>
> (Please fill the copy status for each case with either "is you" or  
> "isn't
> you".)
>
> Case 1:
> Copy is created, original still exist. Copy status is...
> YOU
>
> Case 2:
> Copy is created, original brain was destroyed during scanning. Copy  
> status
> is...
> YOU
>
> Case 3:
> Copy is created, original stays around for a while and is then  
> killed. Copy
> status is...
> YOU!
>
> All You! You=You. Copy You (perfect copy, includes all information
> relevant to a mind) = You. Exactly as a digital copy of "All of  
> You" IS
> "All of You", no matter how many other copies exist. Saying that it's
> just one "All of You" is both true and irrelevant. Any one is  
> completely
> interchangeable with any other, in every respect.
>
> Oh, i give up.
>
> It seems clear that the animists and the patternists here aren't going
> to convince one another of their respective viewpoints. Perhaps we
> should just concentrate on other things, like how an uploading  
> procedure
> could satisfy both. F'rinstance, i suspect that we may crack the issue
> of neural interfacing, enabling more and more comprehensive and  
> powerful
> links between neurons and electronics, and leading to something like
> Moravec's Transmigration, before we solve how to scan,  
> destructively or
> not, an entire brain, then figure out what to do with the resulting
> information.
>
> Any opinions on that?
>
> ben
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From jonkc at att.net  Wed Feb  1 17:33:15 2006
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:33:15 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
References: <200601280009.k0S091e20357@tick.javien.com><BAY108-DAV1050EDC68B5057072520BFA7170@phx.gbl><003101c62433$c0f3e820$ea064e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV59DCE77336BB6CB822C77A7170@phx.gbl><018601c624ea$557fe4b0$c6044e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV406ACC230EF7CAFEBFFC1A7160@phx.gbl><00e901c625b5$74656c30$a10d4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV176B4C771D528D32F47FD7A7090@phx.gbl><019401c625e3$03a581a0$300c4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV10C9BFBF17A7E2C2B7A43EA7090@phx.gbl><002601c62686$41ecd0f0$2f0d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<BAY108-DAV825E49712CC62B56D98F6A7080@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <002801c62755$a65f1370$1a0e4e0c@MyComputer>

"Heartland" <velvethum at hotmail.com>

> you need to realize at some point that your current subjective experience
> would NOT transfer to your copy.  Of course, the copy would "feel" that
> the original subjective experience has been transferred successfully.
> However, the point is that dead original wouldn't.

Let me see if I have this straight, you feel like the subjective experience
of the you of yesterday has been successfully transferred to the you of
today, but you might be mistaken because the you of yesterday might not feel
that way, he might not feel that he has transferred his subjective
experience to the you of today. Don't you see how silly that is? Of course
the you of yesterday doesn't feel like he has transferred anything to you,
the you of today didn't exist yesterday!

> Don't expect your subjective experience you carry now to magically
> continue on a destructively uploaded copy.

But you just said the you of today thinks your subjective experience has
continued and he is the final arbiter on the subject, you certainly can't
ask the you of yesterday's opinion on the subject, not today you can't.

> each mind (that produces that subjective experience) carves out
> separate and verifiably unique trajectory in space-time
> from any other mind

Separate and verifiably unique trajectory in space-time, wow, I like the way
that trips off the tongue, it sounds so very scientific. Do you remember
when I predicted you would find a euphemism for the soul?

You said yourself a few posts ago than mind is not the brain and I agree,
mind is not a object so it does not have a trajectory is space time unique
or otherwise, neither does "fast" or "pink" or "smart" or "big" or any other
adjective.

 >One is gradual which doesn't destroy or alter the mind process that
> produces subjective experience. The other one obliterates it.

So we know it doesn't alter the subjective mind because it was gradual and
we know it was gradual because it doesn't alter the subjective mind and
round and round we go. By the way, do you have an equation to calculate
exactly how fast is too fast?

I show you the end product of the duplicating process and science can not
tell if the duplication was done fast or slow but you say there is still a
huge difference, so we're not talking about science anymore, we're talking
about religion.

> why two instances of the same subjective experience are not the same
> somehow eludes you

True, it eludes me in the same was as the statement 2 +2 = parrots
eludes me, because it's gibberish.

 John K Clark






From exi at syzygy.com  Wed Feb  1 17:45:14 2006
From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick)
Date: 1 Feb 2006 17:45:14 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
In-Reply-To: <BAY108-DAV6E17407C61B8DBDB41F04A70B0@phx.gbl>
References: <200601300811.k0U8BDe06350@tick.javien.com><43DFEFBE.3090406@lineone.net><BAY108-DAV3C8D2D13B3790A581F3C7A70B0@phx.gbl>
	<bf3d71290601312017y51d69e3bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY108-DAV6E17407C61B8DBDB41F04A70B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20060201174514.20712.qmail@syzygy.com>

>The only logically consistent conclusion is that life (mind-producing 
>*activity* of matter in space-time) exists only for a time period between 
>the start of the mind process and it's end. In other words, original life 
>can only exist for a single session which means that as soon as you die, you 
>stay dead forever.
>
>This is quite an orthodox view, and I don't like it, but I'm afraid it is 
>true.
>
>Slawomir

Ok, so what about children who have been revived after hours of being
submerged in near freezing water?  They have no circulation and no
brain activity when they are pulled from the water.  They experienced
death, but then are revived, apparently undamaged.

Are they not the same person they were before?

-eric


From jonkc at att.net  Wed Feb  1 18:00:25 2006
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:00:25 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
References: <200601300811.k0U8BDe06350@tick.javien.com><43DFEFBE.3090406@lineone.net>
	<BAY108-DAV3C8D2D13B3790A581F3C7A70B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <006001c62759$742bfbd0$1a0e4e0c@MyComputer>

"Heartland" <velvethum at hotmail.com>
> Yes, you can record each brain state but it would still be just
> a map, not territory.

In the Email I'm quoting above did you just send me a map of your original 
Email? Perhaps that's why your augments haven't convinced me. Please send me 
the territory too. Or is the entire map territory business meaningless when 
you're talking about information?

  John K Clark




From velvethum at hotmail.com  Wed Feb  1 19:08:07 2006
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 14:08:07 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
References: <200601300811.k0U8BDe06350@tick.javien.com><43DFEFBE.3090406@lineone.net><BAY108-DAV3C8D2D13B3790A581F3C7A70B0@phx.gbl>
	<006001c62759$742bfbd0$1a0e4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <BAY108-DAV12430B6DDFF8C9A74019FCA70B0@phx.gbl>



> "Heartland" <velvethum at hotmail.com>
>> Yes, you can record each brain state but it would still be just
>> a map, not territory.

> In the Email I'm quoting above did you just send me a map of your original
> Email? Perhaps that's why your augments haven't convinced me. Please send 
> me
> the territory too. Or is the entire map territory business meaningless 
> when
> you're talking about information?

It's meaningless when you're talking about information but a mind is not a 
piece of static information.

Slawomir 


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  1 18:45:19 2006
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 10:45:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SotU and human cloning/modification
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce0602010031n5102acddsd782d772b0a9c1f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060201184519.19359.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com>



The Bushster by way of "Neil H."
<neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:

> "A hopeful society has institutions of science and
> medicine that do not cut
> ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless
> value of every life.
> Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit
> the most egregious abuses
> of medical research ? human cloning in all its forms
> ... creating or
> implanting embryos for experiments ... creating
> human-animal hybrids ... and
> buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human
> life is a gift from our
> Creator ? and that gift should never be discarded,
> devalued, or put up for
> sale."


Meanwhile in the rest of the world . . .

http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/media/2006/jan/Stem_Cell_MNE.html

Excerpt--------------------
In an Australian-first, a UNSW researcher based at the
Diabetes Transplant Unit at the Prince of Wales
Hospital has produced a human embryonic stem cell
(hESC) line without the use of any animal products.
The breakthrough eliminates the risk of
animal-to-human contamination in potential stem cell
therapy treatments. 

In another first, the Prince of Wales Hospital is the
first public institution in the country to extract
stem cells from human embryos produced using IVF in
infertile couples. 

"This is the first hESC line produced in Australia and
only the second one in the world, which does not use
animals in any way. Our line grows on human fetal
fibroblast feeder layer that does not require fetal
calf serum," said UNSW Senior Lecturer, Dr Kuldip
Sidhu, who was the scientist responsible for the
creation of the line.

"Other researchers have used animal tissue to keep the
hESC alive in the petri dish or as a culture to grow
it on," said Dr Sidhu. "Those animal products have the
potential to transmit retroviruses in humans, which
could have disastrous consequences." 

Human embryonic stem cell lines are derived from
specialized cells from embryos donated by infertile
couples that specifically consented for their excess
embryos to be used in stem cell research. 

These lines could eventually lead to safer treatments
for conditions such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease,
spinal cord injury and even breast cancer. 
-------------End excerpt

I would like to add that the main reason that the U.S.
Federal Government's "approved human ES cell lines"
are useless is not so much because of retroviruses,
although they are a concern. It is instead that the ES
cells were grown on mouse feeder cells that
glycosylated proteins in the human ES cells to
resemble mouse proteins. So a human body with a
healthy immune system will reject anything grown from
these cells because it will mistake them as being from
non-human species.    

Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Thereupon, the Soul of Mother Earth bewailed, Should I accept the support of a feeble man and listen to his words? In fact I desired the aid of a strong and mighty king. When shall such a person arise and bring strong-handed succor to me?" -Yasna 29, verse 9 

"Now I am light, now I am flying, now I see myself beneath myself, now a God dances through me." - St. Nietzsche

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From velvethum at hotmail.com  Wed Feb  1 19:48:06 2006
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 14:48:06 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
References: <200601280009.k0S091e20357@tick.javien.com><BAY108-DAV1050EDC68B5057072520BFA7170@phx.gbl><003101c62433$c0f3e820$ea064e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV59DCE77336BB6CB822C77A7170@phx.gbl><018601c624ea$557fe4b0$c6044e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV406ACC230EF7CAFEBFFC1A7160@phx.gbl><00e901c625b5$74656c30$a10d4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV176B4C771D528D32F47FD7A7090@phx.gbl><019401c625e3$03a581a0$300c4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV10C9BFBF17A7E2C2B7A43EA7090@phx.gbl><002601c62686$41ecd0f0$2f0d4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV825E49712CC62B56D98F6A7080@phx.gbl>
	<002801c62755$a65f1370$1a0e4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <BAY108-DAV118E8129455BAFE71D1208A70B0@phx.gbl>

> "Heartland" <velvethum at hotmail.com>
>
>> you need to realize at some point that your current subjective experience
>> would NOT transfer to your copy.  Of course, the copy would "feel" that
>> the original subjective experience has been transferred successfully.
>> However, the point is that dead original wouldn't.

> Let me see if I have this straight, you feel like the subjective 
> experience
> of the you of yesterday has been successfully transferred to the you of
> today, but you might be mistaken because the you of yesterday might not 
> feel
> that way, he might not feel that he has transferred his subjective
> experience to the you of today.

It's a fair point. However, you imply that something "transferred" here. 
Nothing did. My original mind process has been continuously active since my 
birth to this current moment.

Transfers only apply to situations where there have been brakes in the 
continuity of the process.


>> Don't expect your subjective experience you carry now to magically
>> continue on a destructively uploaded copy.
>
> But you just said the you of today thinks your subjective experience has
> continued and he is the final arbiter on the subject,


Copy is not the final arbiter here. A log tracking space-time trajectories 
of the original mind and copy would be.


>> each mind (that produces that subjective experience) carves out
>> separate and verifiably unique trajectory in space-time
>> from any other mind
>
> Separate and verifiably unique trajectory in space-time, wow, I like the 
> way
> that trips off the tongue, it sounds so very scientific.


Since when we should deduct points for being precise, accurate, and 
succinct? It is what it is, what can I tell you.


> You said yourself a few posts ago than mind is not the brain and I agree,
> mind is not a object so it does not have a trajectory is space time unique
> or otherwise, neither does "fast" or "pink" or "smart" or "big" or any 
> other
> adjective.

Matter that implements it does and you only need to track matter.

 Slawomir 


From Michael at videosonics.com  Wed Feb  1 18:40:54 2006
From: Michael at videosonics.com (Michael Lawrence)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:40:54 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
Message-ID: <750F2420704C0148A533E717A633CBBE1D7E14@delanceyserver.videosonics.local>

> Eric Messick

> >The only logically consistent conclusion is that life 
> (mind-producing 
> >*activity* of matter in space-time) exists only for a time 
> period between 
> >the start of the mind process and it's end. In other words, 
> original life 
> >can only exist for a single session which means that as soon 
> as you die, you 
> >stay dead forever.
> >
> >This is quite an orthodox view, and I don't like it, but I'm 
> afraid it is 
> >true.
> >
> >Slawomir
> 
> Ok, so what about children who have been revived after hours of being
> submerged in near freezing water?  They have no circulation and no
> brain activity when they are pulled from the water.  They experienced
> death, but then are revived, apparently undamaged.

My understanding is that 'brain death' is irreversable, and so there would have still been "brain activity" on some level.

Michael.
  



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  1 20:37:48 2006
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:37:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Faith-based thought vs thinkers
	Re:IntelligentDesign: I'm not dead yet
In-Reply-To: <17db01c62702$495653d0$1283e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20060201203748.79031.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Are you saying faith-based groups are effectively
> blocking the release of funding in California? 

Actually it is a couple of lawyers that are opposed to
stem cell research "on ethical grounds" (perhaps for
faith based reasons but also hoping to get their
greedy hands on some of that $3 billion, I am certain)
that have filed lawsuits against the state in order to
-

"challenge the legality of Proposition 71, contending
that it allows state money to be spent by people not
adequately under state control." Hmmm, like the
MAJORITY of Californians that voted proposition 71
into place? Talk about hypocritical statist luddite
filth .

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/business/10stem.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=7a098385ad1ff9bc&ex=1291870800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I did a little more digging and found out that while
the first lawsuit was dismissed, the second is still
ongoing:

*The second lawsuit challenging Proposition 71 was
filed by a newly created nonprofit entity,
"Californians for Public Accountability and Ethical
Sciences." 

The second action claims that Proposition 71
inappropriately and explicitly exempts certain members
of the ICOC from California's Conflict of Interest
Laws. For example, the plaintiffs allege that
Proposition 71 allows family members to vote on
research grants aimed at researching diseases that
they or their family
members may have in violation of state law. The
lawsuit also suggests that 10 of the appointed 29
members represent specific disease advocacy groups, a
fact which according to the complaint, will improperly
result in an inordinate amount of research funding
addressing illnesses and
diseases of significance to such members; thereby
potentially overshadowing other unrepresented
diseases or illnesses.*

http://www.foley.com/files/tbl_s31Publications/FileUpload137/2851/Stem%20Cell%20Legislative%20Process%20-%20v.%206%20_2_.pdf
*************************************

So essentially what these clowns are arguing is that
because research on curing every possible rare disease
is not being funded by proposition 71, the really
common diseases that impact millions every day should
not have their research funded either. It is truly
amazing how small groups of self-righteous fanatics
can perform end runs around democracy these days.  


Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Thereupon, the Soul of Mother Earth bewailed, Should I accept the support of a feeble man and listen to his words? In fact I desired the aid of a strong and mighty king. When shall such a person arise and bring strong-handed succor to me?" -Yasna 29, verse 9 

"Now I am light, now I am flying, now I see myself beneath myself, now a God dances through me." - St. Nietzsche

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed Feb  1 21:57:47 2006
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 16:57:47 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
In-Reply-To: <002601c62686$41ecd0f0$2f0d4e0c@MyComputer>
References: <200601280009.k0S091e20357@tick.javien.com><BAY108-DAV1050EDC68B5057072520BFA7170@phx.gbl><003101c62433$c0f3e820$ea064e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV59DCE77336BB6CB822C77A7170@phx.gbl><018601c624ea$557fe4b0$c6044e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV406ACC230EF7CAFEBFFC1A7160@phx.gbl><00e901c625b5$74656c30$a10d4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV176B4C771D528D32F47FD7A7090@phx.gbl><019401c625e3$03a581a0$300c4e0c@MyComputer>
	<BAY108-DAV10C9BFBF17A7E2C2B7A43EA7090@phx.gbl>
	<002601c62686$41ecd0f0$2f0d4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <40160E05-4569-42C7-8DEB-203C6C19E2B3@bonfireproductions.com>

On Jan 31, 2006, at 11:47 AM, John K Clark wrote:

> Now I'm sure you won't use the word "soul" to describe it, not on the
> Extropian list you won't, you'll dream up some euphemism for it,  
> but I know
> what you're talking about. And shit by any other name would stink  
> as bad.


No John, it is much, much worse.

And maybe even worse than that on Extropians:

1. I Don't Know.

Am I an electro/chemical event, my body a generator, and my  
perception only a spark? Am I simply a rider, and my body a horse?  
One day, will I toggle a switch, back and forth, and have the  
subjective point of view of my sense-data hop between my physical  
body and a server rack? Will I one day die, and wake up with angels  
an ancestors? I do not know.


2. You Don't Know, Either.

And that is perhaps the worse part, from your point of view. But it  
shouldnt be, since you'll just make copies of yourself.



Right? ; )


Bret K.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060201/9c08031b/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Wed Feb  1 22:12:55 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 22:12:55 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Threshold
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602011412k2326a73xb83bdbb703821fd3@mail.gmail.com>

Just watched the latest episode.
Our side lost again :-(

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060201/cf616b7f/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Feb  1 22:37:34 2006
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 09:07:34 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] Computing Power: Moore's Law keeps going and
	going and going
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602010140h5760ff22l82bf80fc7a615963@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0601260949l2b428753i9bd970a5383679fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060126184819.35016.qmail@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<deaa866a0601261406yb7cc47avd0464b4481fd93b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060126161247.01ec08a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<710b78fc0601312218g51e82f5fr@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0601312222w1660836bl@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0602010140h5760ff22l82bf80fc7a615963@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0602011437o75a61fa2o@mail.gmail.com>

On 01/02/06, Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:
> The conversion to electricity in-body probably makes it less efficient.  The
> transmission of electricity through the skin is going to involve induction
> coils (similar to the battery chargers in electric toothbrushes) and that
> will involve losses.  I was thinking along the lines of bioluminescent
> bacteria which are in most, if not all, cases driven off of ATP.  Conversion
> of glucose into ATP is I believe fairly efficient from a thermodynamic point
> of view.  Conversion of glucose directly to electricity is probably going to
> require new enzymes and/or some kind of a fuel cell structure.  If you want
> to transport the energy efficiently you either need chemical carriers (and
> piping) or wires.
>
> R.
>

Is efficiency terribly important in this case? If we can do ATP to
electricity in body, and that causes weight loss (I'm not sure if it
would; would stored fat be used for ATP production?? Or would it just
make you really tired all the time?) then you already have a use for
it, even if the amount of power generated is next to useless. And I
agree with Damien, if you have to have a permanent break in the skin
for a catheter, that's not going to fly.

--
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Feb  1 23:04:41 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:04:41 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060201170430.01dd9300@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/laser.htm



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Wed Feb  1 23:25:56 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:25:56 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060201170430.01dd9300@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060201170430.01dd9300@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602011525t3a37ddcqa4191617ff81d33e@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/1/06, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/laser.htm
>
> An updated flamethrower

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060201/97c500d6/attachment.html>

From shogyo.mujo at gmail.com  Wed Feb  1 23:32:55 2006
From: shogyo.mujo at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tom=E1s_Arribas?=)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:32:55 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Threshold
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602011412k2326a73xb83bdbb703821fd3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c0a791b40602011412k2326a73xb83bdbb703821fd3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bf3d71290602011532k632fe48dl@mail.gmail.com>

What are you talking about? I just came recently to the list so I
don't know about what are you talking, sorry.


Tom?s


2006/2/1, Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com>:
> Just watched the latest episode.
>  Our side lost again :-(
>
>  Dirk
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>


--
Emergency e-mail: mobile at forbidden-games.com



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Wed Feb  1 23:41:04 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:41:04 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Threshold
In-Reply-To: <bf3d71290602011532k632fe48dl@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c0a791b40602011412k2326a73xb83bdbb703821fd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<bf3d71290602011532k632fe48dl@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602011541t57e6d290o76d44758d0d7da97@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/1/06, Tom?s Arribas <shogyo.mujo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What are you talking about? I just came recently to the list so I
> don't know about what are you talking, sorry.
>
> http://actionadventure.about.com/od/tvshows/p/aathresholdpre.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060201/77bb865e/attachment.html>

From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Wed Feb  1 23:53:58 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:53:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Threshold
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602011541t57e6d290o76d44758d0d7da97@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c0a791b40602011412k2326a73xb83bdbb703821fd3@mail.gmail.com>	<bf3d71290602011532k632fe48dl@mail.gmail.com>
	<c0a791b40602011541t57e6d290o76d44758d0d7da97@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43E14A16.9020209@goldenfuture.net>

Seems like it could be interesting, but I don't get a good sense of what 
it's like. We seem to have an alien-invasion-conspiracy, like the "War 
of the Worlds" TV show (anybody remember that?).

Is it any good? I might just d/l an episode or two.

Joseph

Dirk Bruere wrote:

>
>
> On 2/1/06, *Tom?s Arribas* <shogyo.mujo at gmail.com 
> <mailto:shogyo.mujo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     What are you talking about? I just came recently to the list so I
>     don't know about what are you talking, sorry.
>
> http://actionadventure.about.com/od/tvshows/p/aathresholdpre.htm 
> <http://actionadventure.about.com/od/tvshows/p/aathresholdpre.htm>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>  
>



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb  2 00:12:52 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:12:52 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Threshold
In-Reply-To: <43E14A16.9020209@goldenfuture.net>
References: <c0a791b40602011412k2326a73xb83bdbb703821fd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<bf3d71290602011532k632fe48dl@mail.gmail.com>
	<c0a791b40602011541t57e6d290o76d44758d0d7da97@mail.gmail.com>
	<43E14A16.9020209@goldenfuture.net>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602011612j7e6ceb84r1513f1dd5dbf2a4c@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/1/06, Joseph Bloch <transhumanist at goldenfuture.net> wrote:
>
> Seems like it could be interesting, but I don't get a good sense of what
> it's like. We seem to have an alien-invasion-conspiracy, like the "War
> of the Worlds" TV show (anybody remember that?).
>
> Is it any good? I might just d/l an episode or two.
>
>
It is rather good.
I missed the first few episodes because I thought it would be some cliched
crap.
Not that it isn't to some extent, but it is well done.

The basic (unfeasible) premise is that an alien probe crashed in the
Atlantic but before it did to it emitted a wide spectrum sound that altered
the genetic structure of some sailors in the area. They either died horribly
or got a third DNA strand that makes them stronger, more resilient, somewhat
telepathic and a bit short of temper. Additionally, they feel the need to
infect and upgrade everyone else as well as the entire ecosystem. Our heroes
at Threshold are valiantly trying to stop them.

Anyway, one episode the current top alien upgrade explained that it had to
be done because in 6 yrs two nearby neutron stars will collide and the
radiation wipe out most life on earth. Whether this is true remains to be
seen.

Personally, I'd volunteer to have a listen to the signal on a decent hifi...

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/176efb3e/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Feb  2 03:15:47 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:15:47 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060201170430.01dd9300@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200602020400.k1240GeY003545@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
> 
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/laser.htm


Some futurey person please comment on this.  I can imagine
a future war being fought in one night, with few if any
actual human casualties, where the guys with the laser fly 
over and quietly knock out all the other guy's tanks, planes
and missiles.  

This would be a wonderful twist on Alfred Nobel's peace 
dream: war becomes impractical not because technology makes war 
too dangerous, but rather because technology makes war safe for
humans but dangerous for the war machines.  Without the
machines of war, the actual soldiers are as harmless as
kittens.

spike









From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Feb  2 03:03:41 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:03:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060201170430.01dd9300@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20060202030341.80825.qmail@web81609.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/laser.htm

So now they're repurposing the anti-air laser they've been
testing for a while as an anti-ground weapon?  Be interesting
to see if it can do any damage in its new role.


From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Thu Feb  2 03:06:51 2006
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 22:06:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Faith or probability?
Message-ID: <20060202030652.19839.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

On Mon Jan 30 16:36:22 PST 2006 
  Eliezer S. Yudkowsky at http://singinst.org/ wrote:

  >I do indeed mean "faith" in the sense of "belief in the absence of 
>evidence", i.e., "drawing a line on your map without having seen 
>something that corresponds to the line, perhaps because you haven't 
>visited that part of the territory yet".  Not necessarily "faith" as 
  >belief contrary to evidence", i.e., "drawing a line on your map that 
>contradicts something you actually saw".  Either way you end up with a 
>lousy map.

  Then why are you drawing the line?  
  Physics, probability or reason?
  Curiosity, logic or truth?
  You felt something, you heard something, you remembered something?
  A map is a map.
  The only confusion is that you know where you are or you don't!
   
  Just an opinion and some questions:)
  Anna
   

		
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060201/06c4516c/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb  2 04:08:16 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 04:08:16 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <200602020400.k1240GeY003545@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060201170430.01dd9300@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<200602020400.k1240GeY003545@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602012008v4ed4814et22f029bb4a05eb8d@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/2/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> > Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
> >
> http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/laser.htm
>
>
> Some futurey person please comment on this.  I can imagine
> a future war being fought in one night, with few if any
> actual human casualties, where the guys with the laser fly
> over and quietly knock out all the other guy's tanks, planes
> and missiles.
>
>
OTOH a good laser system would render air power obsolete.
No more 'bloodless wars' for the US - back to bayonets in the trenches.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/91df66e2/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Feb  2 06:13:12 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 22:13:12 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602012008v4ed4814et22f029bb4a05eb8d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602020613.k126DRoM011747@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dirk Bruere
...

OTOH a good laser system would render air power obsolete.
No more 'bloodless wars' for the US - back to bayonets in the trenches.

Dirk


No, we can never go back.  Unless motivated by religious
fervor, modern humans will not do that.  Even if motivated
by religious fervor, few will go there.  Evolution help 
the side which does not have a good laser system.

spike








From davidmc at gmail.com  Thu Feb  2 06:31:43 2006
From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:31:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: passing the torch
Message-ID: <c934387b0602012231x4be9b4b7xa1ae2da8f63e2c6a@mail.gmail.com>

It has been my privilege and pleasure to serve as ExI's mailing list
admin since 1996. The lists have moved a few times under my watch, to
new hardware, operating systems, physical locations and mailing list
software. Now the lists have found a new home at ziaspace.com in the
very capable hands of John Klos. I'd like to take this opportunity to
thank John for volunteering his time and bandwidth.

David McFadzean



From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu Feb  2 06:46:07 2006
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 22:46:07 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: passing the torch
In-Reply-To: <c934387b0602012231x4be9b4b7xa1ae2da8f63e2c6a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c934387b0602012231x4be9b4b7xa1ae2da8f63e2c6a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <22360fa10602012246g23417f85yc7460f0a91fca97f@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you, David, for all your behind the scenes work all these years.
- Jef

On 2/1/06, David McFadzean <davidmc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It has been my privilege and pleasure to serve as ExI's mailing list
> admin since 1996. The lists have moved a few times under my watch, to
> new hardware, operating systems, physical locations and mailing list
> software. Now the lists have found a new home at ziaspace.com in the
> very capable hands of John Klos. I'd like to take this opportunity to
> thank John for volunteering his time and bandwidth.
>
> David McFadzean
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060201/3f7ae147/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Feb  2 06:37:23 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 22:37:23 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] On the danger of Iran (was ID - I'm not dead yet)
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0601280711t4bbc921bq3663dd01cce33566@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0601260818x6101a757h73bbd93ae83f54b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<BF0F6113-AB19-4DD4-B492-237B20ABC579@mac.com>
	<deaa866a0601280711t4bbc921bq3663dd01cce33566@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B3D7CA30-05B6-4664-859E-87E6FB980A14@mac.com>


On Jan 28, 2006, at 7:11 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote:

>
> On 1/26/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
> How come?  The Crusades and various Israel-Arab conflicts were paltry
> little affairs compared to the major wars of the last century.  The
> historical record doesn't make your case.  Now, if we decide to
> declare an all out conflict targeted at one or more major religions,
> that would be a dangerous and foolish thing to do.  Let's not go  
> there.
>
> Samantha, I agree with your points, sp. regarding the magnitude of  
> the conflicts and how it would be undesirable to "make war" on  
> religion.  However, if you have been watching recent news programs  
> on Al Queda it seems clear that they *have* declared "war" on the  
> U.S. and that seems *largely* for ideological (faith) based reasons.

Then they are very ineffectual to date.  Why exactly are we making  
the entire world's politics revolve around one loudmouth relatively  
inconsequential group that once in a while does something really  
nasty but really is rather limited?  We face things of much more  
consequence it seems to me.  Thus I surmise that the terrorism is an  
excuse and that the "war on terror" is cover for something else.   
That Al Qaeda tries to wrap itself in religion says very little to  
support the notion that this is about religion.

> As far as I can tell in my limited reading on Islam (mostly in  
> Wikipedia) suggests there is a substantial amount of support behind  
> bringing back the Caliphate.  [I believe the debate over who the  
> Caliph should be and what power/authority they have is a  
> significant part of the Sunni/Shia split so it is already the  
> source of significant animosity in the Middle East.]  One could  
> speculate that the entire debate over allowing Iran to develop the  
> means for creating nuclear weapons revolves around the problem of  
> allowing nuclear weapons to be under the control of irrational  
> people (unless you view someone who claims the holocaust is a myth  
> as a "rational" thinker).

You mean like Bush and many NeoCon elements?  I certainly agree there  
is a BIG problem with pro-Apocalypse folks wielding real power.  But  
the scariest of those guys are unfortunately right here in the good  
old U.S. of A.  This certainly is a very real danger.   It is also a  
very real danger that the US economy is seriously out of balance.    
Economic instability plus over the top military superiority is a  
nasty and volatile mixture.   My unhappy prediction is for an Energy  
War within the next five years.   Underneath the "war on terror" are  
real concerns over energy and economics.  Bush gave some credence to  
the energy part in his last speech.

BTW, I have seen studies that it would take Iran at least four years,  
even without inspections and such, to devise a fully operational  
nuclear capability.   So what is this particular smokescreen about  
really?   Personally I think it has more to do with the Euro based  
oil bourse they plan to open on March 20 than it does with supposedly  
nuclear ambitions.


> The question would be how dangerous to transhumanist or extropic  
> goals is someone having control over nuclear weapons, lacking the  
> Pope's current scruples (mind you Popes were not always  
> particularly scrupulous)  and possibly wanting to regain a position  
> of combined faith-based & political power which has largely been  
> missing from the world for ~300+ years?
>

Do you really in your heart of hearts think that Iran, even if it had  
a few nukes, would be any match for Israel?   Not a chance.  So what  
are we talking about?

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060201/429fbd9b/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Feb  2 06:50:32 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 22:50:32 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Faith-based thought vs thinkers Re:
	Intelligent	Design: I'm not dead yet
In-Reply-To: <081801c62474$dda963f0$1283e03c@homepc>
References: <deaa866a0601260818x6101a757h73bbd93ae83f54b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<BF0F6113-AB19-4DD4-B492-237B20ABC579@mac.com>
	<8d71341e0601261934i7b7b1c95lfd7f4146eb9bdac7@mail.gmail.com>
	<081801c62474$dda963f0$1283e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <21443ABC-9987-4E88-BA08-605352A8C411@mac.com>


On Jan 28, 2006, at 5:39 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Russell Wallace wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Russell Wallace
> To: ExI chat list
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 2:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design: I'm not dead yet
>
> On 1/27/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> How come?  The Crusades and various Israel-Arab conflicts were paltry
> little affairs compared to the major wars of the last century.  The
> historical record doesn't make your case.  Now, if we decide to
> declare an all out conflict targeted at one or more major religions,
> that would be a dangerous and foolish thing to do.  Let's not go  
> there.
>
> I agree. Most followers of the world's major religions are not  
> enemies of progress. Yes, a minority of fanatics are; the same is  
> true among atheists; to indiscriminately tag all "faith-based  
> thinkers" as the enemy is both untrue and unproductive.
>
> Perhaps you are right that "faith-based thinkers" should not be  
> regarded as the enemy. Perhaps it is 'faith-based thought', not the  
> 'thinker' that is the root danger. But the thinker or non-thinker  
> is the agent or vector.
>

I don't think faith is "the enemy".  I think human irrationality in  
all its guises is the real danger including simplistic narrow focus  
on what "the enemy" is.  We don't have time for this nonsense.


>
> The only atheists that have done significant harm that I am aware  
> of have only been able to do so because large numbers of people put  
> faith in them.
>

The same is true of all "leaders" and causes,  in their effects for  
good or ill, whether religious or not.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060201/0737097c/attachment.html>

From benboc at lineone.net  Thu Feb  2 07:02:21 2006
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 07:02:21 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1138780236.4924.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.3.1138780236.4924.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <43E1AE7D.1000704@lineone.net>

Slawomir wrote:
"That "flow" is an actual *activity* of matter in space-time which is 
NOT information. Yes, you can record each brain state but it would still 
be just a map, not territory."

Well, as i said, i give up. You aren't going to accept that there is no 
difference between your mind and your identity, so i'm not going to 
continue bashing my head against that fact. John Clarke is welcome to, 
though, and rather i hope he does :)

I suppose i'll see you - no, an identical copy that looks, sounds, feels 
and thinks exactly like you, but somehow isn't you at all, i mean - in 
some future. I look forward to it.

ben


From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Feb  2 07:02:48 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:02:48 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading--reversible
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060129232738.04db70b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <BAY108-DAV6C42C97451EF503A6C14CA7090@phx.gbl>
	<200601281643.k0SGhee15600@tick.javien.com>
	<43DBE3BB.3010806@lineone.net>
	<BAY108-DAV6C42C97451EF503A6C14CA7090@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060129232738.04db70b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <2552A113-D008-40C9-B9FD-F4A220EF99F2@mac.com>


On Jan 29, 2006, at 8:41 PM, Keith Henson wrote:

>
> This business of destructive uploads just isn't going to play in  
> the market (for anyone besides Hans), and, in my estimation, the  
> technology to do reversible uploading of this kind isn't any harder  
> technically than a destructive upload.
>

If age and failing health catches up with me too much before we can  
stop and reverse such maladies but we have perfected destructive  
uploads, I would certainly take it.    If the upload has vastly  
improved possibilities and if the uploaded me does not experience  
discontinuity, then I would still very seriously consider it.

Why would I want to stay on an inferior substrate and a deteriorating  
one at that if I have a viable choice?

- samantha



From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Feb  2 07:57:39 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:57:39 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Faith-based thought vs thinkers Re:
	IntelligentDesign: I'm not dead yet
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0601310514j302d54edle665ec11ae7a091@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0601260818x6101a757h73bbd93ae83f54b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0601261934i7b7b1c95lfd7f4146eb9bdac7@mail.gmail.com>
	<081801c62474$dda963f0$1283e03c@homepc>
	<8d71341e0601291421w73e877a6he375ea288f4c5034@mail.gmail.com>
	<09f901c6254d$54469860$1283e03c@homepc>
	<8d71341e0601291957j35f3a0d3ya68bba4dc3b6010c@mail.gmail.com>
	<0aa301c62574$9fd37fb0$1283e03c@homepc>
	<8d71341e0601300039u495c7cccuad5de4b7b60297de@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0601301611g1684b536i7a326171dc413911@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0601301616v78ed629bu6180c9796bff90e5@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0601310514j302d54edle665ec11ae7a091@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20CE9BE1-C1B9-48EC-B329-AF162626094D@mac.com>


On Jan 31, 2006, at 5:14 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote:

>

> Subsequently over the last few years I've devoted some thought to  
> how much of Catholicism (or Biblical history) could be true if  
> things like miracles relying on nanotechnology, Intelligent Design  
> (of solar systems), ETI (SI) interventions in human evolution or  
> computer based simulations of entire civilizations are feasible  
> (which appears to be the case).
>

Yeah, I've been down that road too.  What I couldn't get a handle on  
is "why".   Of course you wouldn't expect an AI backed character in a  
sim to understand the reason behind the Sim.  Nor would you  
necessarily expect the creator[s] of the Sim to have much more  
empathy for us than we would have for a synthetic character in a  
video game.   Perhaps the purpose was to explore the minimum  
intelligence and external inputs necessary to still reach  
technological transcendence.  Maybe some of the inputs were the  
irritations that religious "pearls" formed around.  Who knows?  Makes  
interesting fiction but it doesn't explain anything or seem to give  
much traction.

> There appears to be a significant element of "group-think" in  
> "faith-based thought".  It would seem to make sense that everyone  
> who eventually reaches the conclusion that Santa Claus is a myth  
> should also reach the conclusion that religions that are based on  
> other "magical" claims are also myths.  While giving up ones belief  
> in Santa Claus is accepted  - giving up ones belief in a fictional  
> reality based set of religious beliefs generally is not.
>

Well said.

> The point which Harris finds objectionable is that the moderates  
> allow the "faith-based actors" to continue to act without forcing  
> (and yes, I used the word *force* again) them to confront their  
> failure to build rational systems for acting.  Irrational actors in  
> other contexts tend to be locked away where they can do minimal  
> harm to society.

We generally only care if someone has crazy notions if they are  
directly endangering themselves or others based on those notions.  I  
grant that we allow religious craziness more leeway than that.    
Having fought a running battle with more mystical ways and basis for  
action at times in my life I perhaps can offer some insights.    When  
I was in the mystical mindset those friends who attempted to  
intervene simply appeared clueless or caring but not really  
understanding.   It was only when the carefully constructed system  
was weakening that it was advantageous to have people I cared about  
point out the insubstantial and illusory nature of what I was  
attempting to hold as true.   Many believers seem different though.   
They think their beliefs on these subjects are their very being.    
They often see only attack and not questions.  They think that  
without their beliefs they would simply not be.    On the other hand  
most believers haven't worked as hard as I did at apologetics.  So it  
should be easier to reach them with firm disbelief and even  
incredulity that they believe impossible and/or utterly unproven  
things.   Further they clam these beliefs are the most important  
thing of all!

One of the most effective wake up calls I received was from a friend  
who grew up in mainland China.  One day at lunch she looked at me as  
if I was some bizarre exotic variant of humanity and said "Oh, do you  
have religion?   How interesting.  I grew up utterly without it and  
no one I have known has had it."    She had an attitude that it was  
some strange psychological malady.  Her friendly direct inquiry led  
me to see my beliefs as she saw them.  It was exactly what was needed  
beyond anything that could raise my defenses.

>
> Each person reading this has made a conscious (or unconscious)  
> choice not to stand in front of their local religious institution  
> on Friday, Saturday or Sunday morning holding up a sign saying "You  
> are acting upon beliefs in *myths*" (in "Western" cultures).  [You  
> either *are* extropic and are acting upon it or you are just along  
> for the ride...]  The continued tolerance of the mental belief  
> systems of faith-based actors (and the actions resulting therefrom)  
> *do* have consequences such as:
>

Yeah.  I was sickened reading articles today suggesting a balance  
needs to be struck between free speech and respect for religious  
beliefs.  Why should such beliefs be respected?   What is the meaning  
of and limits of what "respect" it makes sense to give to other human  
beings in their particular mixture of truth and delusion?  Should we  
treat religion more delicately because its roots run so deep or pull  
all the harder to have a small hope of uprooting it?

I have tried so many mixtures that might perhaps lead to extropian  
goals but with religious memes in the mix.  Again and again I  
conclude that there is no viable way to do this.   Letting go of  
religion appears essential to even beginning to become a fully  
functional, rational  and fully empowered extropian.

- samantha



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Feb  2 07:55:03 2006
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:55:03 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Faith-based thought vs thinkers
	Re:Intelligent	Design: I'm not dead yet
References: <deaa866a0601260818x6101a757h73bbd93ae83f54b9@mail.gmail.com><BF0F6113-AB19-4DD4-B492-237B20ABC579@mac.com><8d71341e0601261934i7b7b1c95lfd7f4146eb9bdac7@mail.gmail.com><081801c62474$dda963f0$1283e03c@homepc>
	<21443ABC-9987-4E88-BA08-605352A8C411@mac.com>
Message-ID: <019701c627cd$f9e940b0$1283e03c@homepc>

Samantha wrote:
  On Jan 28, 2006, at 5:39 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:


    Russell Wallace wrote:
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Russell Wallace 
      To: ExI chat list 
      Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 2:34 PM
      Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design: I'm not dead yet


      On 1/27/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote: 
        How come?  The Crusades and various Israel-Arab conflicts were paltry
        little affairs compared to the major wars of the last century.  The
        historical record doesn't make your case.  Now, if we decide to
        declare an all out conflict targeted at one or more major religions, 
        that would be a dangerous and foolish thing to do.  Let's not go there.

      I agree. Most followers of the world's major religions are not enemies of progress. Yes, a minority of fanatics are; the same is true among atheists; to indiscriminately tag all "faith-based thinkers" as the enemy is both untrue and unproductive.

    Perhaps you are right that "faith-based thinkers" should not be regarded as the enemy. Perhaps it is 'faith-based thought', not the 'thinker' that is the root danger. But the thinker or non-thinker is the agent or vector. 




  I don't think faith is "the enemy".  I think human irrationality in all its guises is the real danger including simplistic narrow focus on what "the enemy" is.  We don't have time for this nonsense.
The charcterisation of faith-based groups as "the enemy" wasn't mine. I adopted the terminology that was being used already in the thread. 

But hey, if you are opposed to irrationality in all its guises then good for you.    

*Faith-based GROUPS*, this is me using standard terminology not from this thread but from commentary I've heard in mainstream media and elsewhere, are not just plain old isolated unorganised aggregations of irrationality though (heck we can get plenty of that here ;-).  Faith-based groups can be very effective NGOs (non government organisations).  This is acknowledge by Prime Minister Blair of the UK, and a reference was made to faith-based groups by President Bush in his state of the union speech.

Faith-based groups can be and some are highly effective political units within democracies.  They raise funds, they lobby, they write letters, they door knock. And they group-think.  They are composed of homo sapiens that can use computers, email, take polls, and target politicians. And they are committed. And they are funded by churches that get tax deductable donations. 

One thing they are definately not big on though, is the separation of church from state, or keeping their own faith-based worldviews out of the courts. 

Those that are occassionally inclined to think politics is what politicians do should only consider what religious activists in faith-based groups do. 






    The only atheists that have done significant harm that I am aware of have only been able to do so because large numbers of people put faith in them. 




  The same is true of all "leaders" and causes,  in their effects for good or ill, whether religious or not.


  - samantha
Agreed. But established religions have institutions associated with them and they are power centres in their own right. They are establishment with a capital E. If a person wants to go into politics without going into politics a religious leadership role is probably the vocation of choice. 


Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/b53a59db/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Feb  2 11:32:56 2006
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:32:56 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602012008v4ed4814et22f029bb4a05eb8d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060201170430.01dd9300@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<200602020400.k1240GeY003545@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<c0a791b40602012008v4ed4814et22f029bb4a05eb8d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0602020332w45cde0bay7543ef62e1773682@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/2/06, Dirk Bruere wrote:
>  OTOH a good laser system would render air power obsolete.
>  No more 'bloodless wars' for the US - back to bayonets in the trenches.
>

Hey, it kills people as well, if they get hit by it. All the article
said was that it didn't blow up the building next door, like big bombs
do.

Another article suggested that the strength of the beam could be
reduced so it could be used as a disabling weapon.   Israel also is
eager to get a laser weapon that could destroy all the grenades and
rockets that the Palestinians keep lobbing at them.

BillK



From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Thu Feb  2 12:57:19 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 07:57:19 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Computing Power: Moore's Law keeps going and
	going and going
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0602011437o75a61fa2o@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0601260949l2b428753i9bd970a5383679fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060126184819.35016.qmail@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<deaa866a0601261406yb7cc47avd0464b4481fd93b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060126161247.01ec08a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<710b78fc0601312218g51e82f5fr@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0601312222w1660836bl@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0602010140h5760ff22l82bf80fc7a615963@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0602011437o75a61fa2o@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602020457m6d0e33cds3d29b4023df258d9@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/1/06, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is efficiency terribly important in this case? If we can do ATP to
> electricity in body, and that causes weight loss (I'm not sure if it
> would; would stored fat be used for ATP production?? Or would it just
> make you really tired all the time?) then you already have a use for
> it, even if the amount of power generated is next to useless. And I
> agree with Damien, if you have to have a permanent break in the skin
> for a catheter, that's not going to fly.
>

If all you want to do is burn fat then its simple -- drugs or gene therapies
that activate the mitochondrial uncoupling proteins.  This is a normal
biochemical mechanism that decouples the proton gradient in the mitochondria
allowing the energy derived from glucose or fat metabolism to be "thrown
away".  The mitochondria will work harder to maintain the proton gradient
producing heat while consuming energy resources.  Now of course the rest of
the biochemical system to mobilize the fat from the fat cells has to be
intact.  Alternatively, targeted uncoupling within the fat cells would work
but I suspect this is trickier since they are generally setup to store
energy reserves not burn them.

Obviously you would only want to up the temperature a few tenths of a degree
but over time this would presumably lead to weight loss.  You would however
probably produce more free radicals within the cells burning the glucose/fat
reserves.  This would probably promote accelerated aging.  It is generally
better (IMO) to get the fat extracted from the fat cells and burn it outside
the body.  Alternatively there is liposuction.

The reason I went this way is that once you have a "computerized" system to
monitor blood glucose levels you can set it so the body runs "lean" (i.e.
reduced fat & glucose levels).  Ideally you would like a system which has
much faster extraction and restoration systems than the body is equiped with
(the whole glucose/fat/insulin cycle involving the digestive tract,
pancreas, liver, muscle & fat cells).  Running "lean" is effectively what CR
imposes on the body and most probably why it results in lifespan extension.
Computerized systems could maintain glucose within might tighter limits than
the current biochemical systems do.  Ideally of course you would complement
this with drugs which convince the brain that the glucose level is higher
than it actually is.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/2dcd5e37/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Thu Feb  2 13:10:29 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 08:10:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602020332w45cde0bay7543ef62e1773682@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060201170430.01dd9300@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<200602020400.k1240GeY003545@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<c0a791b40602012008v4ed4814et22f029bb4a05eb8d@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0602020332w45cde0bay7543ef62e1773682@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602020510k5db7f8f0n69bec302e355ab95@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/2/06, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Another article suggested that the strength of the beam could be
> reduced so it could be used as a disabling weapon.   Israel also is
> eager to get a laser weapon that could destroy all the grenades and
> rockets that the Palestinians keep lobbing at them.


A utility fog mesh that ensnared them would work fairly well...

So many of these discussions go away once we have nanotechnology.

Sigh.

R.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/3421f952/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb  2 13:10:25 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:10:25 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602020332w45cde0bay7543ef62e1773682@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060201170430.01dd9300@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<200602020400.k1240GeY003545@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<c0a791b40602012008v4ed4814et22f029bb4a05eb8d@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0602020332w45cde0bay7543ef62e1773682@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602020510x650d441bo101570431c85c6af@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/2/06, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/2/06, Dirk Bruere wrote:
> >  OTOH a good laser system would render air power obsolete.
> >  No more 'bloodless wars' for the US - back to bayonets in the trenches.
> >
>
> Hey, it kills people as well, if they get hit by it. All the article
> said was that it didn't blow up the building next door, like big bombs
> do.
>
> Another article suggested that the strength of the beam could be
> reduced so it could be used as a disabling weapon.   Israel also is


A flame thrower is also a disabling weapon by that definition.

eager to get a laser weapon that could destroy all the grenades and
> rockets that the Palestinians keep lobbing at them.


And I have had big discussions on both physics NGs and
sci.military.moderated as to why countermeasures to defeat it are simple and
easy. The name of the (last) system is THEL. I'll believe it when Israel
seriously deploys it and their enemies seriously try to implement those
countermeasures and fail.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/c8e395d6/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb  2 13:20:25 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:20:25 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602020510k5db7f8f0n69bec302e355ab95@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060201170430.01dd9300@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<200602020400.k1240GeY003545@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<c0a791b40602012008v4ed4814et22f029bb4a05eb8d@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0602020332w45cde0bay7543ef62e1773682@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0602020510k5db7f8f0n69bec302e355ab95@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602020520t3cd5efabh5286b734244a4284@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/2/06, Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/2/06, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Another article suggested that the strength of the beam could be
> > reduced so it could be used as a disabling weapon.   Israel also is
> > eager to get a laser weapon that could destroy all the grenades and
> > rockets that the Palestinians keep lobbing at them.
>
>
> A utility fog mesh that ensnared them would work fairly well...
>
> So many of these discussions go away once we have nanotechnology.
>
> Sigh.
>
>
If only magick worked like in Harry Potter...
Sigh

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/1197d201/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Thu Feb  2 13:30:50 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 08:30:50 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] They who were Google...
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602020530t650b8c75l735de3a78f7432a5@mail.gmail.com>

Very interesting article on CNNMoney "Imagining the Google Future" [1], also
discussed on /. [2].

If you don't want to read the whole thing, skip down to "Scenario 4 (Circa
2105): Google is God".

They have the dates all wrong (its going to happen long before 2072/2105)
[the writer probably doesn't want to scare people or hasn't read TSIN [or
the extropian list(!) for a decade or more]] :-( but it is interesting
seeing concepts we frequently discuss become mainstream.

Robert

1.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/01/01/8368125/index.htm
2. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/01/194234
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/0d6bdc51/attachment.html>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Thu Feb  2 12:49:46 2006
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 07:49:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: passing the torch
In-Reply-To: <c934387b0602012231x4be9b4b7xa1ae2da8f63e2c6a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c934387b0602012231x4be9b4b7xa1ae2da8f63e2c6a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <37850.72.236.103.220.1138884586.squirrel@main.nc.us>

> It has been my privilege and pleasure to serve as ExI's mailing list
> admin since 1996. The lists have moved a few times under my watch, to
> new hardware, operating systems, physical locations and mailing list
> software. Now the lists have found a new home at ziaspace.com in the
> very capable hands of John Klos. I'd like to take this opportunity to
> thank John for volunteering his time and bandwidth.
>

So you're not our mailing list admin any longer?

That's *ten years*!!! Thanks, David, for all your work. :)

Regards,
MB





From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Feb  2 14:59:05 2006
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 09:59:05 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: passing the torch
In-Reply-To: <c934387b0602012231x4be9b4b7xa1ae2da8f63e2c6a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c934387b0602012231x4be9b4b7xa1ae2da8f63e2c6a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D484F300-C09C-4883-ACA8-DC921DB72DCA@bonfireproductions.com>



Three cheers for David, and all he has done for us!



Thank you David - if you are ever in the Boston area, I owe you a  
pint at the very least.

Bret K.



On Feb 2, 2006, at 1:31 AM, David McFadzean wrote:

> It has been my privilege and pleasure to serve as ExI's mailing list
> admin since 1996. The lists have moved a few times under my watch, to
> new hardware, operating systems, physical locations and mailing list
> software. Now the lists have found a new home at ziaspace.com in the
> very capable hands of John Klos. I'd like to take this opportunity to
> thank John for volunteering his time and bandwidth.
>
> David McFadzean
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Feb  2 15:32:18 2006
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:32:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] They who were Google...
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602020530t650b8c75l735de3a78f7432a5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0602020530t650b8c75l735de3a78f7432a5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C19E5BA2-29C0-4E65-9670-E3AD87FF348A@bonfireproductions.com>



All your faith are belong to us.

(!)

Given the source - is this more of a troll on their part? What sort  
of readership does CNN Money have? When I want to know the generic  
outlook of people who are on the net, I usually check the CNN opinion  
poll, and then vote against the trend. Unless I am actually opposed...

Of course the change in the valuation of Google recently could more  
squarely be due to this, rather than earnings reports!

Thanks Robert, this managed to clear my periphery even on /. .

Bret K.



On Feb 2, 2006, at 8:30 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote:

> Very interesting article on CNNMoney "Imagining the Google  
> Future" [1], also discussed on /. [2].
>
> If you don't want to read the whole thing, skip down to "Scenario 4  
> (Circa 2105): Google is God".
>
> They have the dates all wrong (its going to happen long before  
> 2072/2105) [the writer probably doesn't want to scare people or  
> hasn't read TSIN [or the extropian list(!) for a decade or more]] :- 
> ( but it is interesting seeing concepts we frequently discuss  
> become mainstream.
>
> Robert
>
> 1. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/ 
> 2006/01/01/8368125/index.htm
> 2. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/01/194234
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/75013600/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  2 14:55:01 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 06:55:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PROUT
Message-ID: <20060202145502.55670.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>

PROUT is an alternative to capitalism and communism:
  http://www.prout.org/Summary.html

		
---------------------------------
 
 What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/3c6633d0/attachment.html>

From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Thu Feb  2 16:14:17 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:14:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: passing the torch
In-Reply-To: <22360fa10602012246g23417f85yc7460f0a91fca97f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c934387b0602012231x4be9b4b7xa1ae2da8f63e2c6a@mail.gmail.com>
	<22360fa10602012246g23417f85yc7460f0a91fca97f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43E22FD9.9000905@goldenfuture.net>

Ditto. The amount of time and effort you've put into that thankless job 
is awe-inspiring, David. Thanks.

Joseph

Jef Allbright wrote:

> Thank you, David, for all your behind the scenes work all these years.
> - Jef
>
> On 2/1/06, *David McFadzean* <davidmc at gmail.com 
> <mailto:davidmc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     It has been my privilege and pleasure to serve as ExI's mailing list
>     admin since 1996. The lists have moved a few times under my watch, to
>     new hardware, operating systems, physical locations and mailing list
>     software. Now the lists have found a new home at ziaspace.com
>     <http://ziaspace.com> in the
>     very capable hands of John Klos. I'd like to take this opportunity to
>     thank John for volunteering his time and bandwidth.
>
>     David McFadzean
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>  
>



From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Feb  2 16:06:08 2006
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:06:08 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI AWARDS DAVID McFADZEAN
In-Reply-To: <c934387b0602012231x4be9b4b7xa1ae2da8f63e2c6a@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <c934387b0602012231x4be9b4b7xa1ae2da8f63e2c6a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060202094540.04af8ce8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>



Announcing the ExI Award for
"Outstanding Contribution in Spreading Extropy to the
Worldwide Digital Community"

David McFadzean, Extropy Institute Director and Electronic Communications 
Officer,  has been the technology expert, host, and administrator of the 
Extropians mailing list and the Extropy-Chat mailing list for more than a 
decade.  He has excelled in his ability to manage the lists with high-level 
quality, patience, and 24/7 dedication.

It is because of David's abilities that we ExI and list members are able to 
enjoy such a fluid, informative and lively environment.

Thank you David!

Extropy Institute and its Board of Directors
http://www.extropy.org


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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/b24e9217/attachment.html>

From jonkc at att.net  Thu Feb  2 17:50:56 2006
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 12:50:56 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
References: <200601280009.k0S091e20357@tick.javien.com><BAY108-DAV1050EDC68B5057072520BFA7170@phx.gbl><003101c62433$c0f3e820$ea064e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV59DCE77336BB6CB822C77A7170@phx.gbl><018601c624ea$557fe4b0$c6044e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV406ACC230EF7CAFEBFFC1A7160@phx.gbl><00e901c625b5$74656c30$a10d4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV176B4C771D528D32F47FD7A7090@phx.gbl><019401c625e3$03a581a0$300c4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV10C9BFBF17A7E2C2B7A43EA7090@phx.gbl><002601c62686$41ecd0f0$2f0d4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV825E49712CC62B56D98F6A7080@phx.gbl><002801c62755$a65f1370$1a0e4e0c@MyComputer>
	<BAY108-DAV118E8129455BAFE71D1208A70B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <003c01c62821$7084eff0$3e0e4e0c@MyComputer>

"Heartland" <velvethum at hotmail.com>

>  My original mind process has been continuously active since my birth to
> this current moment.

You never sleep?

> Transfers only apply to situations where there have been brakes in the
> continuity of the process.

You could stop a mind for centuries and then start it up again and the mind
would never know as long as you supplied proper inputs to its sense organs;
you could speed it up a billion fold, slow it down or even make it run
backward and the mind would never notice anything odd. A mind, like any
adjective, can exist at any time and at in any place.

> Copy is not the final arbiter here.

Then you have no right to make your previous statement. You admitted that
you could be a copy so your opinion that the you of yesterday has survived
is of no value, he may be dead. And you may not be conscious you just feel
that you're conscious. Pretty dumb don't you think.

> A log tracking space-time trajectories
> of the original mind and copy would be.

First of all a mind is not an object so it has no space time trajectory.
Second of all, even objects often don't have space time trajectories because
they are very fragile things easy to destroy. Just cool down a few billion
atoms until they form a Bose Einstein Condensation and then warm them
up again, the atoms reform but the individual atoms identity and unique
path through space time before the condensate was formed is forever
and irretrievably lost.

> Matter that implements it [mind] does and you only need to track matter.

Mind does not need to know anything about brain, it does not need to know
where it is, when it is, how it works, how many there are, or what it's made
of. It does not even need to know anything about matter.

>> Me:
>>  is the entire map territory business meaningless
>>  when you're talking about information?

>It's meaningless when you're talking about information but a mind is not a
>piece of static information.

Neither is a computer program. I wonder if Windows is a good program, I
don't know because I've never seen the ORIGINAL in Redmond Washington.

    John K Clark






From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Feb  2 17:57:55 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:57:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental research and evolutionary psychology
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060202123217.04ea7240@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

(This may have been lost in the switchover)

Fully a year ago I submitted an article to an SF magazine.  The article, 
"Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War," was rejected as 
being just too speculative.

I rewrote it as an academic publication and submitted it to the group that 
had published my previous "Sex Drugs and Cults" article on the 
web.  Unfortunately the principles involved became overloaded with off the 
Net projects and some months after I submitted it to them, they said they 
were not going to put any more time into the on line publication.

So if any of you wants a copy (20 pages in Word or html) or can suggest a 
home for it, please let me know.  It might eat some bandwidth even in 
text.  The Sex, Drugs and Cults article was downloaded around 250,000 
times.  (With a title like that, how could it miss?  :-)  )

In the mean time, one of my suggestions in the "Origin of War" article was 
to go looking with fMRI for the brain structures involved in suppressing 
reasoning when humans go into "war mode."

Something close enough has now been reported, especially if you make the 
case that "politics is just a continuation of war by other means."  :-)  I 
love Dr Westen's image of twirling the cognitive kaleidoscope!

http://www.rxpgnews.com/specialtopics/article_3287.shtml

*******************

Interesting Findings from fMRI Scans of Political Brains

Jan 25, 2006, 17:07, Reviewed by: Dr. Priya Saxena

"Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may 
reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in 
how to interpret 'the facts' "

By Emory University Health Sciences Center,

When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political 
issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their 
decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research 
sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same 
information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.

The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of 
committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the 
U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats and Republicans were 
given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening 
information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects 
underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active. What the 
researchers found was striking.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally 
engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical 
psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network 
of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be 
involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in 
resolving conflicts." Westen and his colleagues will present their findings 
at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social 
Psychology Jan. 28.

Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially 
finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted 
-- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and 
disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits 
involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their 
fix, Westen explains.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly 
engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the 
cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then 
they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative 
emotional states and activation of positive ones."

During the study, the partisans were given 18 sets of stimuli, six each 
regarding President George W. Bush, his challenger, Senator John Kerry, and 
politically neutral male control figures such as actor Tom Hanks. For each 
set of stimuli, partisans first read a statement from the target (Bush or 
Kerry). The first statement was followed by a second statement that 
documented a clear contradiction between the target's words and deeds, 
generally suggesting that the candidate was dishonest or pandering.

Next, partisans were asked to consider the discrepancy, and then to rate 
the extent to which the person's words and deeds were contradictory. 
Finally, they were presented with an exculpatory statement that might 
explain away the apparent contradiction, and asked to reconsider and again 
rate the extent to which the target's words and deeds were contradictory.

Behavioral data showed a pattern of emotionally biased reasoning: partisans 
denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate that they had no 
difficulty detecting in the opposing candidate. Importantly, in both their 
behavioral and neural responses, Republicans and Democrats did not differ 
in the way they responded to contradictions for the neutral control 
targets, such as Hanks, but Democrats responded to Kerry as Republicans 
responded to Bush.

While reasoning about apparent contradictions for their own candidate, 
partisans showed activations throughout the orbital frontal cortex, 
indicating emotional processing and presumably emotion regulation 
strategies. There also were activations in areas of the brain associated 
with the experience of unpleasant emotions, the processing of emotion and 
conflict, and judgments of forgiveness and moral accountability.

Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral 
prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning (as 
well as conscious efforts to suppress emotion). The finding suggests that 
the emotion-driven processes that lead to biased judgments likely occur 
outside of awareness, and are distinct from normal reasoning processes when 
emotion is not so heavily engaged, says Westen.

The investigators hypothesize that emotionally biased reasoning leads to 
the "stamping in" or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating the 
participant's "revisionist" account of the data with positive emotion or 
relief and elimination of distress. "The result is that partisan beliefs 
are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen 
says.

The study has potentially wide implications, from politics to business, and 
demonstrates that emotional bias can play a strong role in decision-making, 
Westen says. "Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and 
politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a 
vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts,' " Westen says.

********************

(Sorry for posting the whole release, but I think this is one of the most 
important pieces of research I have seen in ages.)

Approaching these findings from an evolutionary psychology viewpoint, the 
question you need to ask is how in our evolutionary past would "emotionally 
biased reasoning" and inhibiting areas of the brain that are involved in 
rational thought have been useful to genes?  Not just useful, but so 
critical for gene survival for these mechanisms to have been harshly selected.

When first considered, it doesn't make sense; you are almost always going 
to make better decisions that lead to your survival using rational thinking.

And that is the key.

In our hunter-gatherer past there were times (times that led to an awful 
lot of gene selection) where personal survival was "contraindicated" by 
"your genes" in the "inclusive fitness" sense.

Inclusive fitness is perhaps the most important development in evolutionary 
biology in the past 50 years.  It is expressed in simple mathematics as 
formulated by William Hamilton.  As Hamilton put it, genes should have 
built into us the willingness to die if it would save more than two 
brothers, more than 4 half sibs and so on.  It explains bee behavior and 
why parents take horrible risks and sometimes die trying to save their 
children.

But it also explains why humans have the ability to suppress rational 
thinking as shown in Dr. Westen's fMRI study.  In our hunter-gatherer past, 
human populations (which have no serious predators) expanded.  When the 
populations periodically reached the ecological limits, psychological 
traits shut down rational thinking and upped the gain on xenophobic 
memes--then warriors from one band attacked another band.

While attacking other humans and taking a terrible chance of being killed 
or injured does not make sense from an individual or the genes in his body, 
genes "take a wider view" considering other copies.*   Thus genes for even 
suicidal behavior will become more common in the population if the loses 
from the suicidal behavior are more than compensated by better survival of 
copies of those genes in relatives.

Times when humans were not reaching the ecosystem limits, rational thinking 
and behavior were good for both the individual and the genes he carried in 
both the personal and inclusive sense.  But when game is in short supply, 
humans have an evolved ability to switch to non-rational thinking and 
behavior which is personally risky or destructive--though good for the 
copies of their genes in relatives, i.e., improves their inclusive fitness 
at a personal cost of even death.

I think this is what the Emory study is showing us--activation of "evolved 
in the stone age" mechanisms that originally functioned to induce warriors 
to a do or die effort that improved their inclusive fitness.

"The finding suggests that the emotion-driven processes that lead to biased 
judgments likely occur outside of awareness, and are distinct from normal 
reasoning processes when emotion is not so heavily engaged."

If you have ever wondered why so many irrational decisions are made in all 
phases of wars, here it is.

Keith Henson

cc Dr. Westen

*Metaphor language.  Genes, of course, don't have "a view."  What happens 
is that genes for X become more common in the population if inducing X 
increases the percentage of genes for X in future generations.












From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Thu Feb  2 20:43:44 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 15:43:44 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental research and evolutionary psychology
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060202123217.04ea7240@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060202123217.04ea7240@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602021243h33230a22sbd0493b10a76c665@mail.gmail.com>

Keith,

Not only are the "rational" vs. "irrational" (emotional?) thought
patterns/biases important but the willingness to act upon various
"conclusions" plays a role.  It doesn't matter much (at least to society) if
you never act upon what you are thinking (either verbally or physically).
[Its the old "What goes on in your head stays in you head." principle (just
like Las Vegas...)].

Recent work has uncovered at least two genes, GRP and Stathmin that appear
to play a role in fear and how one deals with it.  Since GRP is a
hormone/neurotransmitter there are probably several more genes (the
promoter, the receptor, the secondary messenger, etc.) involved in its
activity.  All of these could have subtle variations (polymorphisms) within
the population.  Stathmin on the other hand seems to involve the
construction of neurons, particularly those involved with learned fears.
Defects in this system would presumably give rise to the "Stupid is as
stupid has always done." phenomena (paraphrasing Forrest Gump).

So there now an abundance of possible genetic variations that lead to
various subtle behavioral strategy differences for personal survival,
accumulation of power, making gene/meme copies, etc.

Robert

1. http://www.hhmi.org/news/kandel3.html
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastrin_Releasing_Peptide (though it needs
some work)
3.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1129_051129_brave_mice.html
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stathmin
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/bb721cdb/attachment.html>

From starman2100 at cableone.net  Thu Feb  2 21:09:15 2006
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:09:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
Message-ID: <1138914555_52661@S1.cableone.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/1cea5137/attachment.html>

From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com  Thu Feb  2 21:42:03 2006
From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:42:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental research and evolutionary psychology
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602021243h33230a22sbd0493b10a76c665@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060202123217.04ea7240@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<deaa866a0602021243h33230a22sbd0493b10a76c665@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5844e22f0602021342j257040c2jddb8b1d1e09a3a45@mail.gmail.com>

Keith,

Since it is now in an academic style, have you tried submitting to one
of the academic journals interested in EP? Though you probably already
have these links, a list of relevant journals is available at
http://www.hbes.com/HBES/articles.htm

If you're not sure whether it's "academic enough" for journal
submission, you could submit to a relevant conference (e.g.,
http://www.hbes2006.com/) to get feedback from EP professors before
submitting to a journal.

Best,
--
Jeff Medina
http://www.painfullyclear.com/

Community Director
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/

Relationships & Community Fellow
Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies
http://www.ieet.org/

School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb  2 21:57:35 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 21:57:35 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <1138914555_52661@S1.cableone.net>
References: <1138914555_52661@S1.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602021357t2375157fl4485c1b3bc194175@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/2/06, starman2100 at cableone.net <starman2100 at cableone.net> wrote:
>
> Spike wrote:
> >Some futurey person please comment on this.
>
> "Futurey?"  Why Spike, you just coined a new transhumanist term!  I will
> found in your honor, "The Institute for Futurey Studies!" or perhaps, "The
> Society for Futurey People!" :  )
>
> >This would be a wonderful twist on Alfred Nobel's peace
> >dream: war becomes impractical not because technology makes war
> >too dangerous, but rather because technology makes war safe for
> >humans but dangerous for the war machines. Without the
> >machines of war, the actual soldiers are as harmless as
> >kittens.
>
> Harmless as kittens? lol  A disarmed but well-trained soldier can
> still take life, but doing it the "old-fashioned way" with his own bare
> hands.  I will admit that when this soldier faces *armed* forces he will be
> in deep trouble.
>
>
The biggest one-day slaughter in Human history was done with swords and
spears, not guns or nukes.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/a1cde4d9/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Feb  2 22:16:06 2006
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:46:06 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] Computing Power: Moore's Law keeps going and
	going and going
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602020457m6d0e33cds3d29b4023df258d9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0601260949l2b428753i9bd970a5383679fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060126184819.35016.qmail@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<deaa866a0601261406yb7cc47avd0464b4481fd93b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060126161247.01ec08a0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<710b78fc0601312218g51e82f5fr@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0601312222w1660836bl@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0602010140h5760ff22l82bf80fc7a615963@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0602011437o75a61fa2o@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0602020457m6d0e33cds3d29b4023df258d9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0602021416q5da0bbc8l@mail.gmail.com>

On 02/02/06, Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:

> If all you want to do is burn fat then its simple --
<snipped>

Robert, if it *is* simple, do it and make a $Billion. Then do
something truly extropic with the resources.

--
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Feb  2 22:18:18 2006
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:48:18 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: passing the torch
In-Reply-To: <43E22FD9.9000905@goldenfuture.net>
References: <c934387b0602012231x4be9b4b7xa1ae2da8f63e2c6a@mail.gmail.com>
	<22360fa10602012246g23417f85yc7460f0a91fca97f@mail.gmail.com>
	<43E22FD9.9000905@goldenfuture.net>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0602021418n2556c6a8w@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, thanks!

On 03/02/06, Joseph Bloch <transhumanist at goldenfuture.net> wrote:
> Ditto. The amount of time and effort you've put into that thankless job
> is awe-inspiring, David. Thanks.
>
> Joseph
>
> Jef Allbright wrote:
>
> > Thank you, David, for all your behind the scenes work all these years.
> > - Jef
> >
> > On 2/1/06, *David McFadzean* <davidmc at gmail.com
> > <mailto:davidmc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     It has been my privilege and pleasure to serve as ExI's mailing list
> >     admin since 1996. The lists have moved a few times under my watch, to
> >     new hardware, operating systems, physical locations and mailing list
> >     software. Now the lists have found a new home at ziaspace.com
> >     <http://ziaspace.com> in the
> >     very capable hands of John Klos. I'd like to take this opportunity to
> >     thank John for volunteering his time and bandwidth.
> >
> >     David McFadzean
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >extropy-chat mailing list
> >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


--
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com



From "Eric Messick" at syzygy.com  Thu Feb  2 22:19:44 2006
From: "Eric Messick" at syzygy.com ("Eric Messick" at syzygy.com)
Date: 2 Feb 2006 22:19:44 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
In-Reply-To: <750F2420704C0148A533E717A633CBBE1D7E14@delanceyserver.videosonics.local>
References: <750F2420704C0148A533E717A633CBBE1D7E14@delanceyserver.videosonics.local>
Message-ID: <20060202221944.11415.qmail@syzygy.com>

"Michael Lawrence" <Michael at videosonics.com> wrote:

>> Ok, so what about children who have been revived after hours of being
>> submerged in near freezing water?  They have no circulation and no
>> brain activity when they are pulled from the water.  They experienced
>> death, but then are revived, apparently undamaged.
>
>My understanding is that 'brain death' is irreversable, and so there =
>would have still been "brain activity" on some level.

Ok, you made me go looking for references.  Although the general
prognosis is not good, there are isolated cases of survival, which was
the point.

Here is a brief quote from: http://www.emedicine.com/neuro/topic491.htm

  Montes and Conn reported ECS after near-drowning in a child aged two
  and a half years. The child had CPR for 30 minutes, was placed on
  a mechanical ventilator, had initial decerebration, and was then
  paralyzed with pancuronium. Phenobarbital was loaded intravenously,
  and a core temperature of 35?C was documented. Two hours later, an EEG
  was performed and described as flat in all leads. Ten hours later, EEG
  activity reappeared and the patient went on to recover fully. The
  authors suggested allowing 24 hours of observation after near-drowning
  before declaring brain death in children.

We have here a case where there was no brain activity, followed by
full recovery.

Hypothermia seems to be protective in such circumstances, hence the
desire for a cryonics patient to be cooled quickly.

>>> In other words, original life can only exist for a single session
>>> which means that as soon as you die, you stay dead forever.
>>> [...]
>>> Slawomir

The case above seems to contradict this.

-eric


From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb  2 22:31:03 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:31:03 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] PROUT
In-Reply-To: <20060202145502.55670.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060202145502.55670.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602021431g627eb1ebxd56013c1531b747e@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/2/06, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> PROUT is an alternative to capitalism and communism:
> *http://www.prout.org/Summary.html*
>
> ------------------------------
>

When I hear the words 'world government' I reach for my delete key.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/fb80bb57/attachment.html>

From benboc at lineone.net  Thu Feb  2 22:12:26 2006
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 22:12:26 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Computing Power: Moore's Law keeps going and
 going and going
In-Reply-To: <mailman.42.1138892354.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.42.1138892354.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <43E283CA.9030108@lineone.net>

Robert Bradbury wrote:
> If all you want to do is burn fat then its simple -- drugs or gene
> therapies that activate the mitochondrial uncoupling proteins.  This
> is a normal biochemical mechanism that decouples the proton gradient
> in the mitochondria allowing the energy derived from glucose or fat
> metabolism to be "thrown away".  The mitochondria will work harder to
> maintain the proton gradient producing heat while consuming energy
> resources.  Now of course the rest of the biochemical system to
> mobilize the fat from the fat cells has to be intact.  Alternatively,
> targeted uncoupling within the fat cells would work but I suspect
> this is trickier since they are generally setup to store energy
> reserves not burn them.

When we're babies, we all have something called brown adipose tissue, or
BAT - sometimes called 'brown fat', that does exactly this. It seems
it's purpose is to burn fat to produce heat, to help infants survive
until their homoeostatic mechanisms are mature and robust enough.

Some people keep this BAT into youth and even adulthood, i think we all
have a bit of it. It can probably explain the skinny teenagers who eat
and eat and eat (i used to be one).

It seems likely that this BAT could be prodded into action in adults, or
maybe a 'BAT transplant' would be feasible.

Over to the real biologists.

ben (fake biologist)


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Feb  2 23:29:59 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:29:59 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental research and evolutionary psychology
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602021243h33230a22sbd0493b10a76c665@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060202123217.04ea7240@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060202123217.04ea7240@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060202173340.04eccdd8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 03:43 PM 2/2/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>Keith,
>
>Not only are the "rational" vs. "irrational" (emotional?) thought 
>patterns/biases important but the willingness to act upon various 
>"conclusions" plays a role.  It doesn't matter much (at least to society) 
>if you never act upon what you are thinking (either verbally or 
>physically).  [Its the old "What goes on in your head stays in you head." 
>principle (just like Las Vegas...)].

You are right, but I am going to disagree with you anyway.  What is in 
their heads does matter to society because people *can't* avoid acting on it.

The paper I wrote makes the case that people evolved in the stone age to be 
sensitive to the local ecosystem's prospects for feeding them--a bleak 
outlook flips a behavioral switch to a higher gain setting for xenophobic 
memes and suppresses rational thinking.  Circulating xenophobic memes 
eventually fired up the (mentally impaired) warriors for a do or die 
attack.  (This only makes sense if inclusive fitness was a *major* factor 
in human evolution.)

Given a population where some threshhold fraction sees a bleak future, 
society members on average will be more responsive to accepting and passing 
on xenophobic memes.  Even if the effect on a given person is so minor that 
all they do is fail to object to some other person's use of an ethnic slur, 
the overall effect of positive feedback (gain greater than one) can lead to 
war.

>Recent work has uncovered at least two genes, GRP and Stathmin that appear 
>to play a role in fear and how one deals with it.  Since GRP is a 
>hormone/neurotransmitter there are probably several more genes (the 
>promoter, the receptor, the secondary messenger, etc.) involved in its 
>activity.  All of these could have subtle variations (polymorphisms) 
>within the population.  Stathmin on the other hand seems to involve the 
>construction of neurons, particularly those involved with learned 
>fears.  Defects in this system would presumably give rise to the "Stupid 
>is as stupid has always done." phenomena (paraphrasing Forrest Gump).

Interesting links.  Lots more to this story you can bet.

>So there now an abundance of possible genetic variations that lead to 
>various subtle behavioral strategy differences for personal survival, 
>accumulation of power, making gene/meme copies, etc.

Sure.  But I am mostly talking about species-typical behaviors, those 
evolved by natural selection to maximize "inclusive reproductive success" 
in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness, not the variations from 
person to person..

Keith Henson

>Robert
>
>1. 
><http://www.hhmi.org/news/kandel3.html>http://www.hhmi.org/news/kandel3.html
>2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastrin_Releasing_Peptide (though it needs 
>some work)
>3. 
><http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1129_051129_brave_mice.html>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1129_051129_brave_mice.html
>4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stathmin
>5. 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From velvethum at hotmail.com  Fri Feb  3 00:23:45 2006
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:23:45 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
References: <200601280009.k0S091e20357@tick.javien.com><BAY108-DAV1050EDC68B5057072520BFA7170@phx.gbl><003101c62433$c0f3e820$ea064e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV59DCE77336BB6CB822C77A7170@phx.gbl><018601c624ea$557fe4b0$c6044e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV406ACC230EF7CAFEBFFC1A7160@phx.gbl><00e901c625b5$74656c30$a10d4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV176B4C771D528D32F47FD7A7090@phx.gbl><019401c625e3$03a581a0$300c4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV10C9BFBF17A7E2C2B7A43EA7090@phx.gbl><002601c62686$41ecd0f0$2f0d4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV825E49712CC62B56D98F6A7080@phx.gbl><002801c62755$a65f1370$1a0e4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV118E8129455BAFE71D1208A70B0@phx.gbl>
	<003c01c62821$7084eff0$3e0e4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <BAY108-DAV4B4BD15865E4CB1434D7BA70D0@phx.gbl>

> "Heartland" <velvethum at hotmail.com>
>
>> My original mind process has been continuously active since my birth to
>> this current moment.
>
> You never sleep?

Sleep is not brain death. Mind process continues during sleep. Only brain 
death stops that process.


>> Transfers only apply to situations where there have been breaks in the
>> continuity of the process.
>
> You could stop a mind for centuries and then start it up again and the 
> mind
> would never know as long as you supplied proper inputs to its sense 
> organs;
> you could speed it up a billion fold, slow it down or even make it run
> backward and the mind would never notice anything odd.

True, but what the copy thinks it is doesn't influence the objective truth 
of what it is. And the objective truth can only be found in the space-time 
trajectory log.

Sure, you can stop and restart a mind, but you can never recover the 
original mind process in the same exact space and time.


>> Copy is not the final arbiter here.
>
> Then you have no right to make your previous statement. You admitted that
> you could be a copy so your opinion that the you of yesterday has survived
> is of no value, he may be dead.

Okay, I had no right to be so confident that my original has survived. Does 
that prove that pattern view is correct? Not at all.

Again, you can't determine the truth by asking copy or original whether 
he/she feels he/she survived because, regardless of the truth, each one will 
say that he/she is the original. Only the trajectory log will show you who's 
who.


>> A log tracking space-time trajectories
>> of the original mind and copy would be.
>
> First of all a mind is not an object so it has no space time trajectory.

You're right. The phrase "space-time trajectories of the original mind" 
should have been "space-time trajectories of matter implementing the 
original mind."

I usually assume that readers know that "trajectory of mind" really means 
"trajectory of matter that implements mind." I won't assume that anymore.


> Second of all, even objects often don't have space time trajectories 
> because
> they are very fragile things easy to destroy. Just cool down a few billion
> atoms until they form a Bose Einstein Condensation and then warm them
> up again, the atoms reform but the individual atoms identity and unique
> path through space time before the condensate was formed is forever
> and irretrievably lost.

What you describe is a process of preventing space-time trajectory from 
continuing. What that process cannot do is to erase that trajectory from 
history.



>>> Me:
>>>  is the entire map territory business meaningless
>>>  when you're talking about information?
>
>>It's meaningless when you're talking about information but a mind is not a
>>piece of static information.
>
> Neither is a computer program. I wonder if Windows is a good program, I
> don't know because I've never seen the ORIGINAL in Redmond Washington.
>
>    John K Clark

I think this is the real source of disagreement. You and Ben seem to think 
that computer code is equivalent to the process (activity of matter in space 
and time) of running the code. They are not even remotely equivalent.

Think about this. You record a car crash on film. The original crash doesn't 
occur again and again whenever you look at the frames from the film, is it?

Sorry for bringing up the old clich? but the map isn't territory.

Slawomir 


From velvethum at hotmail.com  Fri Feb  3 00:38:08 2006
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:38:08 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
References: <750F2420704C0148A533E717A633CBBE1D7E14@delanceyserver.videosonics.local>
	<20060202221944.11415.qmail@syzygy.com>
Message-ID: <BAY108-DAV16D6C373EB65EFBB05DA51A70D0@phx.gbl>


> Here is a brief quote from: http://www.emedicine.com/neuro/topic491.htm
>
>  Montes and Conn reported ECS after near-drowning in a child aged two
>  and a half years. The child had CPR for 30 minutes, was placed on
>  a mechanical ventilator, had initial decerebration, and was then
>  paralyzed with pancuronium. Phenobarbital was loaded intravenously,
>  and a core temperature of 35?C was documented. Two hours later, an EEG
>  was performed and described as flat in all leads. Ten hours later, EEG
>  activity reappeared and the patient went on to recover fully. The
>  authors suggested allowing 24 hours of observation after near-drowning
>  before declaring brain death in children.
>
> We have here a case where there was no brain activity, followed by
> full recovery.
>
> Hypothermia seems to be protective in such circumstances, hence the
> desire for a cryonics patient to be cooled quickly.
>
>>>> In other words, original life can only exist for a single session
>>>> which means that as soon as you die, you stay dead forever.
>>>> [...]
>>>> Slawomir
>
> The case above seems to contradict this.
>
> -eric

My point is that the restored mind would be of the same *type* as the 
original, but it wouldn't be the same *instance* of the original mind. In 
other words, the original mind is permanently dead and a revived mind is 
merely a perfect duplicate. This doesn't contradict your referenced example.

Slawomir 


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Feb  3 02:33:49 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:33:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Computing Power: Moore's Law keeps going and
	going and going
In-Reply-To: <43E283CA.9030108@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <20060203023349.89594.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
> It seems likely that this BAT could be prodded into action in adults,
> or
> maybe a 'BAT transplant' would be feasible.

That's the line of thinking that got me started on this in the
first place, some time ago.  Given recent technical advances -
might it be feasable to differentiate adult stem cells into BAT?
(So, turning fat into a fat burner.0


From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Fri Feb  3 03:02:16 2006
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:02:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Religion versus religious
Message-ID: <20060203030216.47729.qmail@web35505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Do you know what I like about religion?  I like the fact that a whole bunch
  of smart people (Buddha, Ghandi, Jesus Christ, Einstein..), decided they had an idea. They believed in something,  they had a cause.  (Politics influences
  every idea, don't under estimate the intelligence behind it).
   
  Somethings you can't change: (unless you go up against Goliath)
  politics, religious beliefs, monetary value and dna
   
  I don't believe in people telling me what to believe (I don't like to be preached)
  I need proof (at least 80% of the time, i'd be happy)
  Faith is based on the maximum of people that believe in the same cause.
   
  Just because I believe that Singularity will occur
  doesn't change the fact that I have faith or believe in religion.  
  I'm hoping humanity will accept that technology is the future, 
  as much as I believe that somethings will always be unexplained.
   
  Anna
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

		
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/c9f6ea4b/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Feb  3 05:31:57 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 21:31:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <200602020400.k1240GeY003545@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <20060203053157.86781.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> I can imagine
> a future war being fought in one night, with few if any
> actual human casualties, where the guys with the laser fly 
> over and quietly knock out all the other guy's tanks, planes
> and missiles.  

That works if the laser-less side depends heavily on tanks,
planes, and missiles.  Problem is, in the last few major US
military conflicts, the backbone of the enemy has been infantry
(and not very well trained or equipped infantry, either - but
usually highly motivated).

This has actually become a bit of a problem in US military
thinking.  Sure, people prepare for big-state-on-big-state war,
just like WWII...but that's not what we're actually fighting
anymore.


From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Feb  3 07:24:59 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 23:24:59 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <20060203053157.86781.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200602030810.k138A0DM015466@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:32 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ray gun
> 
> --- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
...
> 
> This has actually become a bit of a problem in US military
> thinking.  Sure, people prepare for big-state-on-big-state war,
> just like WWII...but that's not what we're actually fighting
> anymore.

Ja, well I guess we can be thankful for that.  Actually this
sounds like progress.  If we look at the radical muslms vs 
the rest of the world conflict, the numbers slain look 
way lower than in any of the 20th century world wars.

But let's watch this station for a few weeks.  With Israel and
Iran ready to go at each other, I might be much less optimistic
a few months from now.  Europe is trying to decide if it is 
willing to forego freedom of speech or fight.  We may soon 
see if war is going out of style or if humanity is just
getting started in this grim business, evolution forbid.

spike





  




From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Fri Feb  3 13:32:56 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:32:56 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Computing Power: Moore's Law keeps going and
	going and going
In-Reply-To: <20060203023349.89594.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <43E283CA.9030108@lineone.net>
	<20060203023349.89594.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602030532n423a3494lb5e4499db5625c3f@mail.gmail.com>

Almost all of us still have the capability.  I believe there are some rare
genetic diseases that may involve defects in the uncoupling proteins or the
related genetic factors that result in defects in their activation (time to
go look at OMIM I suppose...).  The number of proteins (I think there are at
least 3) didn't become clear I think until the HGP was complete.  They are
still unraveling what turns them on and off last time I ran across a
discussion.  Wikipedia has brief articles on thermogenin and thermogenesis
that are related.  A more detailed search would involve looking at Medline
abstracts involving UCP1, UCP2, UCP3, etc.  (do I have to do *all* the
biochemistry work around here.... :-?!?)

But remember, I said that enabling the uncoupling proteins is likely to
result in increased free radical production...

R.

On 2/2/06, Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> --- ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
> > It seems likely that this BAT could be prodded into action in adults,
> > or
> > maybe a 'BAT transplant' would be feasible.
>
> That's the line of thinking that got me started on this in the
> first place, some time ago.  Given recent technical advances -
> might it be feasable to differentiate adult stem cells into BAT?
> (So, turning fat into a fat burner.0
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060203/1e195492/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Fri Feb  3 15:14:49 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:14:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
In-Reply-To: <750F2420704C0148A533E717A633CBBE1D7E14@delanceyserver.videosonics.local>
References: <750F2420704C0148A533E717A633CBBE1D7E14@delanceyserver.videosonics.local>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602030714h6ca571ddw9258e5a3f977163b@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/1/06, Michael Lawrence <Michael at videosonics.com> wrote:

> > Ok, so what about children who have been revived after hours of being
> > submerged in near freezing water?  They have no circulation and no
> > brain activity when they are pulled from the water.  They experienced
> > death, but then are revived, apparently undamaged.
>
> My understanding is that 'brain death' is irreversable, and so there would
> have still been "brain activity" on some level.


Michael, "brain death" is an arbitrary term currently used in medicine.  I'm
sure there are relatively precise technical definitions but they usually
involve a lack of detectable electrical activity and a failure to respond to
stimuli (which is what one would expect given a lack of electrical
activity).  It also implies, particularly when it gets into whether or not
one is "legally" dead, the assumption that no *current* technology is
capable of "resurrecting" the brain.  But cryonic suspension is not resting
upon the assumption of current technology.  It assumes we will develop
better technologies in the future which will correct both the cause(s) of
death as well as the damage(s) associated with suspension and reanimation.

There was a recent discussion of the technical aspects of this on the GRG
list citing a number of studies where the heart was stopped and various
fluids (presumably non-oxygenated and lacking glucose) were circulated
through animals and the animals were able to survive a minimum of 3.5 hours
without "brain activity".  There was a technical discussion regarding the
degree to which biochemical activities may slow down given various
temperature reductions and the problem of the damage that may result when
"resurrection" is attempted.

The bottom line (IMO) is that the individual is not "dead" until the
information content of their brain is disassembled (incineration or
bacterial molecular recycling probably being the most efficient methods) in
such a way that reassembly would require capabilities beyond currently known
laws of physics to return them to an operational state.  Current brain death
perspectives involve (a) a loss of activity which can be due to a loss of
energy supplies (O2 & glucose); (b) a loss of activity due to the poorly
managed reintroduction of energy supplies (producing free radicals which may
lead to cell death); (c) physical trauma (leading to a disruption of the
physical connections between large numbers of neurons and/or extensive cell
death).  With (a) and (b) a management of temperature to control the rate of
chemical reactions (e.g. proteases which may digest the cells internally and
the rate of free radical production are important in the degree of damage
occurs which cannot currently be repaired.  Repair of (c) would involve
near-future microsurgical and/or stem cell therapies to repair the damage
sustained to the brain structure.  There might be some information loss but
it might be no different than that sustained in strokes from which patients
often recover (the brain is an adaptable organ).

Its the *information* which is the individual -- not the instantiation or
substrate which retains it.  People may choose not to believe that, many
choosing to cling to the "man behind the curtain" set of beliefs that we are
something more than that (I even like to do so at times).  But I strongly
doubt that is something they will *ever* be able to conclusively prove.

For me "Plan a" is preserving the thread (with various levels of stopping
and restarting it [sleep, unconsciousness, "brain death", cryonic
suspension.]  "Plan b" is preserving the information [most probably via
uploading or recreation from external sources].

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060203/b9bfefc0/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Fri Feb  3 15:54:22 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:54:22 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602021357t2375157fl4485c1b3bc194175@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1138914555_52661@S1.cableone.net>
	<c0a791b40602021357t2375157fl4485c1b3bc194175@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602030754i48716e75nac300c2a1d9d4826@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/2/06, Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The biggest one-day slaughter in Human history was done with swords and
> spears, not guns or nukes.
>
>
Can you give us a hint?

I'd also like to see some comparisons with the death rates by influenza in
the early 1900's or perhaps the plague at various points in time in the
middle ages.  I suspect that in some cases they swept through large
populations, esp. in cities, quite quickly.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060203/2bd2a92e/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Fri Feb  3 17:24:46 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:24:46 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602030754i48716e75nac300c2a1d9d4826@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1138914555_52661@S1.cableone.net>
	<c0a791b40602021357t2375157fl4485c1b3bc194175@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0602030754i48716e75nac300c2a1d9d4826@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602030924y667e66cat55623d9db236445d@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/3/06, Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/2/06, Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The biggest one-day slaughter in Human history was done with swords and
> > spears, not guns or nukes.
> >
> >
> Can you give us a hint?
>
>
Cannae

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060203/5c4b7c57/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Feb  3 17:56:39 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 11:56:39 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602030924y667e66cat55623d9db236445d@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <1138914555_52661@S1.cableone.net>
	<c0a791b40602021357t2375157fl4485c1b3bc194175@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0602030754i48716e75nac300c2a1d9d4826@mail.gmail.com>
	<c0a791b40602030924y667e66cat55623d9db236445d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060203115336.01ebef10@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


>The biggest one-day slaughter in Human history was done with swords and 
>spears, not guns or nukes.
>
>Cannae

Maximum dead on both sides: less than 70,000. cf. (Wiki:) Hiroshima: 
80,000. Nagasaki: estimated 70,000 people were killed outright with another 
70,000 doomed to die of bomb-related causes in the decades that followed.



From shogyo.mujo at gmail.com  Fri Feb  3 18:05:02 2006
From: shogyo.mujo at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tom=E1s_Arribas?=)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:05:02 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602030924y667e66cat55623d9db236445d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1138914555_52661@S1.cableone.net>
	<c0a791b40602021357t2375157fl4485c1b3bc194175@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0602030754i48716e75nac300c2a1d9d4826@mail.gmail.com>
	<c0a791b40602030924y667e66cat55623d9db236445d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bf3d71290602031005r440e1285t@mail.gmail.com>

2006/2/3, Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com>:
>  Cannae

Wasn't it the Somme offensive in 1916 (during First World War)?

Tom?s


2006/2/3, Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com>:
>
>
> On 2/3/06, Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2/2/06, Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > The biggest one-day slaughter in Human history was done with swords and
> spears, not guns or nukes.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Can you give us a hint?
> >
> >
>
>  Cannae
>
>  Dirk
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>


--
Emergency e-mail: mobile at forbidden-games.com



From jonkc at att.net  Fri Feb  3 17:36:35 2006
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 12:36:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
References: <200601280009.k0S091e20357@tick.javien.com><BAY108-DAV1050EDC68B5057072520BFA7170@phx.gbl><003101c62433$c0f3e820$ea064e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV59DCE77336BB6CB822C77A7170@phx.gbl><018601c624ea$557fe4b0$c6044e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV406ACC230EF7CAFEBFFC1A7160@phx.gbl><00e901c625b5$74656c30$a10d4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV176B4C771D528D32F47FD7A7090@phx.gbl><019401c625e3$03a581a0$300c4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV10C9BFBF17A7E2C2B7A43EA7090@phx.gbl><002601c62686$41ecd0f0$2f0d4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV825E49712CC62B56D98F6A7080@phx.gbl><002801c62755$a65f1370$1a0e4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV118E8129455BAFE71D1208A70B0@phx.gbl><003c01c62821$7084eff0$3e0e4e0c@MyComputer>
	<BAY108-DAV4B4BD15865E4CB1434D7BA70D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <023201c628e8$773fee40$c00d4e0c@MyComputer>

"Heartland" <velvethum at hotmail.com>

> Mind process continues during sleep.

Brain process continues in deep sleep but not mind. Much of what brain cells
do has nothing to with mind, like any other cell its first duty is to just
stay alive through basic metabolism.

> what the copy thinks it is doesn't influence the objective truth of what
> it is

But subjectivity is far more important than objectivity, if subjectively I'm
alive that's all I need or want; if objectivity says I'm dead or I'm not me
or some other damn silly thing then objectivity can take its "truth" and
stick it where the sun don't shine. I don't care.

>  Okay, I had no right to be so confident that my original has survived.
> Does that prove that pattern view is correct?

I'll tell you what it does prove, your ideas are insane. I'm sorry but there
is just no other word to describe someone who doesn't know if they have
survived or not.

>  Only the trajectory log will show you who's who.

The trajectory of what? All your atoms get recycled every month or so. And I
don't give a hoot in hell who's atoms are who's anyway; if you've seen one
atom you've seen them all. I care about who's mind is who's and that has no
space time trajectory (or to put it in less pompous language, no time or
place)

>  What that process cannot do is to erase that trajectory from
> history.

You are quite wrong about that, when atoms form a Bose Einstein Condensation
the atoms individuality is lost. Before you had a billion atoms, a billion
things, a billion quantum wave functions; when the condensate is formed you
only have one thing and one quantum wave function. When you warm it up again
the atoms come back but it is imposable even in theory to know which atom is
which, the information about their individual history has been erased from
the universe and there is no way to get it back, at least as far as we know.
I suppose you could say maybe someday we'll discover new physics and find a
way to retrieve the information, but conjuring new physics is an act of
desperation, my ideas need no new physics. And in fact I don't much care
what the history of atoms are, I'm more interested in mind.

>  Sorry for bringing up the old clich? but the map isn't territory.

And I'm sorry for bringing this up but for some reason you keep sending me
the map of you Email but not the territory, it's no wonder you haven't
convinced me. Next time send the territory too, perhaps you could include it
as an attachment.

> You and Ben seem to think that computer code is equivalent to the process
> (activity of matter in space and time) of running the code. They are not
> even remotely equivalent.

Both your computer and mine ran code that produced your latest Email message
on a screen, but now you say what I read was not even remotely equivalent to
the message on your computer. Not even remotely? Well, that's going to make
it rather difficult to continue this debate.

  John K Clark










From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Fri Feb  3 18:13:27 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:13:27 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060203115336.01ebef10@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <1138914555_52661@S1.cableone.net>
	<c0a791b40602021357t2375157fl4485c1b3bc194175@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0602030754i48716e75nac300c2a1d9d4826@mail.gmail.com>
	<c0a791b40602030924y667e66cat55623d9db236445d@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060203115336.01ebef10@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602031013i9335749rbc1eb5887579f61@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/3/06, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> >The biggest one-day slaughter in Human history was done with swords and
> >spears, not guns or nukes.
> >
> >Cannae
>
> Maximum dead on both sides: less than 70,000. cf. (Wiki:) Hiroshima:
> 80,000. Nagasaki: estimated 70,000 people were killed outright with
> another
> 70,000 doomed to die of bomb-related causes in the decades that followed.
>

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp10.htm
Hiroshima dead 66,000, not all of whom died within the 24 hrs specified.
Nagasaki 39,000

Dirk

Cannae
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060203/18574457/attachment.html>

From HerbM at learnquick.com  Fri Feb  3 18:39:58 2006
From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 12:39:58 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602030754i48716e75nac300c2a1d9d4826@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EIU4JUT-000G28-79@mail2.learnquick.com>

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9:54 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ray gun




On 2/2/06, Dirk Bruere < <mailto:dirk.bruere at gmail.com>
dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote: 


The biggest one-day slaughter in Human history was done with swords and
spears, not guns or nukes.


>Can you give us a hint?

> I'd also like to see some comparisons with the death rates 
> by influenza in the early 1900's or perhaps the plague at 
> various points in time in the middle ages.  I suspect that 
> in some cases they swept through large populations, esp. 
> in cities, quite quickly. 

Robert

The following is not a complete answer but it does have (a lot)
on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll
 
Most of the above doesn't have specific "one day totals" -- some
battles or other disasters go on for days, week, even years.
 
[Battle of Stalingrad was over six months long:  1,109,000 deaths]
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=46252

Three Years of Natural Disasters (China 1959-1961)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Years_of_Natural_Disasters

This is a candidate, since estimates range from 10-100 Million.
Using 10 Million over 1000 days (3 years) we get an AVERAGE
of 10,000 per day (these are estimates of "abnormal deaths" not
just the normal human attrition.)  

Obviously there were good days and worse days, and if the high
estimates are used then this is an AVERAGE of 100,000 per day.
(over three years!!!)
 
In July of 1959 the Yellow River flooded and "directly killed through
starvation ...or drowning" 3 million people.  If we use the whole
30 days, this averages to 100,000 per day -- likely some days were
MUCH worse than others.
 


Also

 <http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/hist/disasters-war.html>
http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/hist/disasters-war.html
 
List of Roman battles (not organized by butchery but many
of the items contain the death toll):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_battles
 
Picking through quickly I found (knowing generally that several of
the Battles of Hannibal in Italy had large death tolls):

The Battle of Cannae (Hannibal over the Roman) was NOT the largest
but quite a massacre:
 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae

--
Herb Martin

 




  _____  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060203/3be81f0d/attachment.html>

From jonkc at att.net  Fri Feb  3 18:08:14 2006
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:08:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading
References: <200601280009.k0S091e20357@tick.javien.com><BAY108-DAV1050EDC68B5057072520BFA7170@phx.gbl><003101c62433$c0f3e820$ea064e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV59DCE77336BB6CB822C77A7170@phx.gbl><018601c624ea$557fe4b0$c6044e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV406ACC230EF7CAFEBFFC1A7160@phx.gbl><00e901c625b5$74656c30$a10d4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV176B4C771D528D32F47FD7A7090@phx.gbl><019401c625e3$03a581a0$300c4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV10C9BFBF17A7E2C2B7A43EA7090@phx.gbl><002601c62686$41ecd0f0$2f0d4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV825E49712CC62B56D98F6A7080@phx.gbl><002801c62755$a65f1370$1a0e4e0c@MyComputer><BAY108-DAV118E8129455BAFE71D1208A70B0@phx.gbl><003c01c62821$7084eff0$3e0e4e0c@MyComputer>
	<BAY108-DAV4B4BD15865E4CB1434D7BA70D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <029201c628ec$dbcd8530$c00d4e0c@MyComputer>

Heartland" <velvethum at hotmail.com>

> Mind process continues during sleep.

Brain process continues in deep sleep but not mind. Much of what brain cells
do has nothing to with mind, like any other cell its first duty is to just
stay alive through basic metabolism.

> what the copy thinks it is doesn't influence the objective truth of what
> it is

But subjectivity is far more important than objectivity, if subjectively I'm
alive that's all I need or want; if objectivity says I'm dead or I'm not me
or some other damn silly thing then objectivity can take its "truth" and
stick it where the sun don't shine. I don't care.

>  Okay, I had no right to be so confident that my original has survived.
> Does that prove that pattern view is correct?

I'll tell you what it does prove, your ideas are insane. I'm sorry but there
is just no other word to describe someone who doesn't know if they have
survived or not.

>  Only the trajectory log will show you who's who.

The trajectory of what? All your atoms get recycled every month or so. And I
don't give a hoot in hell who's atoms are who's anyway; if you've seen one
atom you've seen them all. I care about who's mind is who's and that has no
space time trajectory (or to put it in less pompous language, no time or
place)

>  What that process cannot do is to erase that trajectory from
> history.

You are quite wrong about that, when atoms form a Bose Einstein Condensation
the atoms individuality is lost. Before you had a billion atoms, a billion
things, a billion quantum wave functions; when the condensate is formed you
only have one thing and one quantum wave function. When you warm it up again
the atoms come back but it is imposable even in theory to know which atom is
which, the information about their individual history has been erased from
the universe and there is no way to get it back, at least as far as we know.
I suppose you could say maybe someday we'll discover new physics and find a
way to retrieve the information, but conjuring new physics is an act of
desperation, my ideas need no new physics. And in fact I don't much care
what the history of atoms are, I'm more interested in mind.

>  Sorry for bringing up the old clich? but the map isn't territory.

And I'm sorry for bringing this up but for some reason you keep sending me
the map of you Email but not the territory, it's no wonder you haven't
convinced me. Next time send the territory too, perhaps you could include it
as an attachment.

> You and Ben seem to think that computer code is equivalent to the process
> (activity of matter in space and time) of running the code. They are not
> even remotely equivalent.

Both your computer and mine ran code that produced your latest Email message
on a screen, but now you say what I read was not even remotely equivalent to
the message on your computer. Not even remotely? Well, that's going to make
it rather difficult to continue this debate.

  John K Clark










From jonkc at att.net  Fri Feb  3 18:44:25 2006
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:44:25 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
References: <1138914555_52661@S1.cableone.net><c0a791b40602021357t2375157fl4485c1b3bc194175@mail.gmail.com><deaa866a0602030754i48716e75nac300c2a1d9d4826@mail.gmail.com><c0a791b40602030924y667e66cat55623d9db236445d@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060203115336.01ebef10@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <02ac01c628f1$ee5b0650$c00d4e0c@MyComputer>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>

> Maximum dead on both sides: less than 70,000. cf. (Wiki:) Hiroshima:
> 80,000. Nagasaki: estimated 70,000 people were killed outright with
> another 70,000 doomed to die of bomb-related causes in the decades
> that followed.

The non nuclear firebombing of Tokyo killed at least 125,000 people,
probably the bloodiest 6 hours in human history. The firebombing of Hamburg
may have killed more but took a couple of days.

John K Clark






From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Feb  3 21:20:41 2006
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:20:41 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Social decision-making] Pandora music service
	breaks new ground
Message-ID: <22360fa10602031320p57c5a795r3f8f64bd25a8124d@mail.gmail.com>

An article in the LA Times today describes progress and rapid growth of
users with a new way of distributing music based on recognition of shared
(musical) values.

This is exciting because it inverts the tired old model of trying to enlarge
audience share by an averaging or lowest common denominator approach such as
we see with much of television programming.

With this new approach, a larger audience is reached and satisfied by
increasing awareness of the shared aspects of a diverse set of musical
attributes.  Approximately 400 different musical characteristics are
analyzed and then matched with user preferences to determine the likely
value of particular music selections to a particular user.

I expect this higher-intelligence/higher-bandwidth model to spread quickly
to other entertainment domains, followed by news, education, and eventually
applied to increasing awareness of shared human values (not averaged, but
with high detail) for effective social decision-making, formerly known as
politics.

References
[1] LA Times: That Song Sounds Familiar  [Registration may be
required]<http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-et-pandora3feb03,1,5395052,full.story>
[2] Jef's Web Files:  Abstract and commentary area for the article and
related subjects <http://www.jefallbright.net/node/3357>
[2] Pandora.com <http://pandora.com/>

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net
Increasing awareness for increasing morality
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060203/4503b114/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Fri Feb  3 21:35:19 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 21:35:19 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Social decision-making] Pandora music service
	breaks new ground
In-Reply-To: <22360fa10602031320p57c5a795r3f8f64bd25a8124d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <22360fa10602031320p57c5a795r3f8f64bd25a8124d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602031335y3f99a26cw3f71e4294cd38961@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/3/06, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
>
> An article in the LA Times today describes progress and rapid growth of
> users with a new way of distributing music based on recognition of shared
> (musical) values.
>
> This is exciting because it inverts the tired old model of trying to
> enlarge audience share by an averaging or lowest common denominator approach
> such as we see with much of television programming.
>
> With this new approach, a larger audience is reached and satisfied by
> increasing awareness of the shared aspects of a diverse set of musical
> attributes.  Approximately 400 different musical characteristics are
> analyzed and then matched with user preferences to determine the likely
> value of particular music selections to a particular user.
>
> I expect this higher-intelligence/higher-bandwidth model to spread quickly
> to other entertainment domains, followed by news, education, and eventually
> applied to increasing awareness of shared human values (not averaged, but
> with high detail) for effective social decision-making, formerly known as
> politics.
>
> References
> [1] LA Times: That Song Sounds Familiar  [Registration may be required]<http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-et-pandora3feb03,1,5395052,full.story>
> [2] Jef's Web Files:  Abstract and commentary area for the article and
> related subjects <http://www.jefallbright.net/node/3357>
> [2] Pandora.com <http://pandora.com/>
>
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4660394.stm

"*The first album from indie band Arctic Monkeys has become the
fastest-selling debut album in UK chart history. *

Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not was released on 23 January and
has sold more than 360,000 copies."

...

"

He added: "In the space of just a few weeks the Arctic Monkeys have gone
from being relative newcomers to becoming a household name."

Arctic Monkeys built up their fan base on the internet, after demo CDs they
handed out at gigs in 2003 were put on the web for other people to hear."

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060203/239193d3/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Feb  3 21:54:54 2006
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:54:54 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Tech] StarChase Pursues High-Tech End to High-Speed
	Chases
Message-ID: <22360fa10602031354w47c22d80r90be3b7f6f4ef7e7@mail.gmail.com>

This item in Friday's LA Times caught my attention.  It un-asks the question
of how to deal with the dangers of high-speed car chases by proposing a way
to eliminate the high-speed chase.

An air-propelled sticky projectile, about the size of a golf ball and
containing a GPS receiver, is shot at the car being pursued.  The car can
then be tracked via radio triangulation at a safe speed and distance.  A
four to six month trial with a small number of patrol cars is beginning in
Los Angeles.

If the technology proves its effectiveness, I wonder what objections will be
thrown at this innovation and whether any will stick.

References
[1] LA Times [Registration may be
required]<http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bratton3feb03,1,5774115.story>
[2] StarChase website <http://www.starchase.org/>

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net
Increasing awareness for increasing morality
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060203/c0e960b4/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Feb  3 22:21:17 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:21:17 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Tech] StarChase Pursues High-Tech End to
 High-Speed Chases
In-Reply-To: <22360fa10602031354w47c22d80r90be3b7f6f4ef7e7@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <22360fa10602031354w47c22d80r90be3b7f6f4ef7e7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060203162024.01cf58b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 01:54 PM 2/3/2006 -0800, Jef wrote:

>If the technology proves its effectiveness, I wonder what objections will 
>be thrown at this innovation and whether any will stick.

I suspect petrolhead cops will hate it. Takes all the macho fun outta the 
sport.

Damien Broderick 



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Fri Feb  3 22:25:33 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 22:25:33 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Tech] StarChase Pursues High-Tech End to
	High-Speed Chases
In-Reply-To: <22360fa10602031354w47c22d80r90be3b7f6f4ef7e7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <22360fa10602031354w47c22d80r90be3b7f6f4ef7e7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602031425j7dadc181p363766c628f0384c@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/3/06, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
>
> This item in Friday's LA Times caught my attention.  It un-asks the
> question of how to deal with the dangers of high-speed car chases by
> proposing a way to eliminate the high-speed chase.
>
> An air-propelled sticky projectile, about the size of a golf ball and
> containing a GPS receiver, is shot at the car being pursued.  The car can
> then be tracked via radio triangulation at a safe speed and distance.  A
> four to six month trial with a small number of patrol cars is beginning in
> Los Angeles.
>
> If the technology proves its effectiveness, I wonder what objections will
> be thrown at this innovation and whether any will stick.
>

Even better if they put a small radio controlled bomb in it.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060203/137b94c0/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Sat Feb  4 00:16:09 2006
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 16:16:09 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Tech] StarChase Pursues High-Tech End to
	High-Speed Chases
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060203162024.01cf58b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <22360fa10602031354w47c22d80r90be3b7f6f4ef7e7@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060203162024.01cf58b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <22360fa10602031616k34135810g2b3818a359a7e659@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/3/06, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> At 01:54 PM 2/3/2006 -0800, Jef wrote:
>
> >If the technology proves its effectiveness, I wonder what objections will
> >be thrown at this innovation and whether any will stick.
>
> I suspect petrolhead cops will hate it. Takes all the macho fun outta the
> sport.
>
>
Good point, but think of all the extra opportunities it would provide for
cops who like to shoot at suspects, without the hassle of filling out a
"weapons fired" report.

- Jef
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060203/f2f94713/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Feb  4 00:44:22 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:44:22 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Tech] StarChase Pursues High-Tech End to
 High-Speed Chases
In-Reply-To: <22360fa10602031616k34135810g2b3818a359a7e659@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <22360fa10602031354w47c22d80r90be3b7f6f4ef7e7@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060203162024.01cf58b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<22360fa10602031616k34135810g2b3818a359a7e659@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060203184146.01da3fa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 04:16 PM 2/3/2006 -0800, Jef wrote:

>I suspect petrolhead cops will hate it. Takes all the macho fun outta the
>sport.
>
>Good point, but think of all the extra opportunities it would provide for 
>cops who like to shoot at suspects, without the hassle of filling out a 
>"weapons fired" report.

There'll be special points, though, for those who can lob the sucker 
through the back window and accidentally take out the driver's skull... 
Might take two in row. That'd be worth a notch in the belt.

Damien Broderick 



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  4 00:39:15 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 16:39:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Social decision-making] Pandora music service
	breaks new ground
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602031335y3f99a26cw3f71e4294cd38961@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060204003915.35503.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>

As an aside, there ought to be no censorship of lyrics, under any circumstances, excepting if the lyrics are downright treasonous; say if the singer asks al qaeda to contact him or her with bombmaking instructions-- or sings of assassinating a public figure.
  This disc explains why censorship is ultimately futile repression:
  http://www.polus.us/07725449570256157642.htm

			
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060203/48c2d23e/attachment.html>

From bkdelong at pobox.com  Sat Feb  4 01:32:39 2006
From: bkdelong at pobox.com (B.K. DeLong)
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 20:32:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Tech] StarChase Pursues High-Tech End to
 High-Speed Chases
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060203184146.01da3fa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <22360fa10602031354w47c22d80r90be3b7f6f4ef7e7@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060203162024.01cf58b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<22360fa10602031616k34135810g2b3818a359a7e659@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060203184146.01da3fa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060203201057.0ad34ac0@mail.brain-stream.net>

At 07:44 PM 2/3/2006, you wrote:
>At 04:16 PM 2/3/2006 -0800, Jef wrote:
>
> >I suspect petrolhead cops will hate it. Takes all the macho fun outta the
> >sport.
> >
> >Good point, but think of all the extra opportunities it would provide for
> >cops who like to shoot at suspects, without the hassle of filling out a
> >"weapons fired" report.
>
>There'll be special points, though, for those who can lob the sucker
>through the back window and accidentally take out the driver's skull...
>Might take two in row. That'd be worth a notch in the belt.

And what happens if they ditch the car and head out on foot? You'd be 
better to shower the car in GPS-emitting nanobots so when the guy 
exits the car they get into his clothes and hair. Who knows - you 
could have the nanobots transmit a DNA profile as well and see if 
he's in CODIS. I wonder if you can have nanobots crawl over ones skin 
and map out fingerprints.


--
B.K. DeLong
bkdelong at pobox.com
+1.617.797.8471

http://www.wkdelong.org         Son.
http://www.haloworldwide.com            Work.
http://www.bostonredcross.org           Volunteer.
http://www.brain-stream.com             Play.
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org       Potter.



PGP Fingerprint:
38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5  A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE

FOAF:
http://foaf.brain-stream.org 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Feb  4 03:13:09 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:13:09 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Tech] StarChase Pursues High-Tech End
	toHigh-Speed Chases
In-Reply-To: <22360fa10602031616k34135810g2b3818a359a7e659@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602040313.k143DPHI019142@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



On 2/3/06, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
At 01:54 PM 2/3/2006 -0800, Jef wrote:

>If the technology proves its effectiveness, I wonder what objections will
>be thrown at this innovation and whether any will stick.

>I suspect petrolhead cops will hate it. Takes all the macho fun outta the 
sport.


Oy, think of all the good low-brow television that will be
lost if we eliminate car chases.

spike







From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Sat Feb  4 02:33:09 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 21:33:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] [Tech] StarChase Pursues High-Tech End to
 High-Speed Chases
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060203184146.01da3fa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <22360fa10602031354w47c22d80r90be3b7f6f4ef7e7@mail.gmail.com>	<6.2.1.2.0.20060203162024.01cf58b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<22360fa10602031616k34135810g2b3818a359a7e659@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060203184146.01da3fa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <43E41265.7020802@goldenfuture.net>

That would certainly get me to keep watching CNN when they show those 
highway chases...

Joseph

Damien Broderick wrote:

>At 04:16 PM 2/3/2006 -0800, Jef wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I suspect petrolhead cops will hate it. Takes all the macho fun outta the
>>sport.
>>
>>Good point, but think of all the extra opportunities it would provide for 
>>cops who like to shoot at suspects, without the hassle of filling out a 
>>"weapons fired" report.
>>    
>>
>
>There'll be special points, though, for those who can lob the sucker 
>through the back window and accidentally take out the driver's skull... 
>Might take two in row. That'd be worth a notch in the belt.
>
>Damien Broderick 
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat Feb  4 04:44:31 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 23:44:31 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <02ac01c628f1$ee5b0650$c00d4e0c@MyComputer>
References: <1138914555_52661@S1.cableone.net>
	<c0a791b40602021357t2375157fl4485c1b3bc194175@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0602030754i48716e75nac300c2a1d9d4826@mail.gmail.com>
	<c0a791b40602030924y667e66cat55623d9db236445d@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060203115336.01ebef10@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060203234309.04efec00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 01:44 PM 2/3/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
>
> > Maximum dead on both sides: less than 70,000. cf. (Wiki:) Hiroshima:
> > 80,000. Nagasaki: estimated 70,000 people were killed outright with
> > another 70,000 doomed to die of bomb-related causes in the decades
> > that followed.
>
>The non nuclear firebombing of Tokyo killed at least 125,000 people,
>probably the bloodiest 6 hours in human history. The firebombing of Hamburg
>may have killed more but took a couple of days.

The original (stone age) evolved purpose of war was to kill a lot of 
warriors.  Modern wars are less discriminating.

Keith Henson



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sat Feb  4 14:50:35 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 14:50:35 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060203234309.04efec00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <1138914555_52661@S1.cableone.net>
	<c0a791b40602021357t2375157fl4485c1b3bc194175@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0602030754i48716e75nac300c2a1d9d4826@mail.gmail.com>
	<c0a791b40602030924y667e66cat55623d9db236445d@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060203115336.01ebef10@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<02ac01c628f1$ee5b0650$c00d4e0c@MyComputer>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060203234309.04efec00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602040650w61c2e230pec1b6b8e45236dd8@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/4/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> The original (stone age) evolved purpose of war was to kill a lot of
> warriors.  Modern wars are less discriminating.
>

It's the other way around: the evolved function of war is to eliminate
competitors. Sometimes women and children would be kept alive, but often
they would be killed off. The idea that noncombatants are sacrosanct is a
modern one.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060204/58030210/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Feb  4 18:07:10 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:07:10 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] earthquake
In-Reply-To: <22360fa10602031354w47c22d80r90be3b7f6f4ef7e7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602041838.k14IcWJp026166@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



Whoa, earthquake!  10.05 a.m. PST, Santa 
Clara Taxifornia.  Everyone OK?  No damage 
here, got my full and undivided.  {8-]

spike








From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Sat Feb  4 18:41:54 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 18:41:54 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] earthquake
In-Reply-To: <200602041838.k14IcWJp026166@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <22360fa10602031354w47c22d80r90be3b7f6f4ef7e7@mail.gmail.com>
	<200602041838.k14IcWJp026166@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602041041i65aeb5dp48ef24aab888e0c9@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/4/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Whoa, earthquake!  10.05 a.m. PST, Santa
> Clara Taxifornia.  Everyone OK?  No damage
> here, got my full and undivided.  {8-]
>
>
Didn't feel a thing

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060204/a87802f4/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Feb  4 19:04:07 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:04:07 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] julie myers captured by feds
In-Reply-To: <200602041838.k14IcWJp026166@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <200602041904.k14J4E3A001842@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


Nothing serious here.  This news story contained a comment
that was worded in such a way that it sounded like the
feds had discovered Julie Myers stashed away among the
arsenal.  It made me laugh, having her name show up in
a list of seized weapons.  {8^D

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/03/laredo.arsenal/index.html


...The feds captured more than 30 homemade bombs, grenade components,
assault weapons, silencers, machine gun assembly kits, bulletproof vests,
police scanners and cash, Julie Myers, assistant secretary of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in a statement...

spike








From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Feb  4 18:38:12 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:38:12 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] earthquake
Message-ID: <200602041924.k14JOYnv012616@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: spike [mailto:spike66 at comcast.net]
> 
> Whoa, earthquake!  10.05 a.m. PST... spike

Hey this is kinda cool.  After the shake I googled
on the single word earthquake and found a site where
you can submit a form answering questions about the
intensity of a quake, then they collect them and
figure out quickly where it happened and what is
the approximate intensity.

http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/shake/ca/

I knew the 10.05 a.m. event was mild and close, because
the shaking was short duration.  They had it up on the
site with 32 reports within 17 minutes of the event: 
 
http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/shake/ca/STORE/X40183076/ciim_display.html

Grandpa, did people do before the internet?  Just go around
not knowing stuff?

spike







From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Feb  4 19:53:13 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:53:13 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060204134844.01d5cf48@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/science/04climate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential 
appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose r?sum? says he was 
an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 
2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs 
officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements.

In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA 
contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for 
middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be 
added after every mention of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, 
adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration 
such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent 
design by a creator."

It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. 
And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half 
of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate 
the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."

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

Well, yes, and I trust that they will henceforth also always refer to the 
Spherical Earth Theory, since this is more than a science issue, it is a 
religious issue: the Bible implies that the world is flat, with four corners.

Damien Broderick




From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Sat Feb  4 20:36:35 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 14:36:35 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060204134844.01d5cf48@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <002601c629ca$b1a87e20$640fa8c0@kevin>

This wouldn't be totally inaccurate if people would focus on the actual
scientific meaning of the word "theory". Unfortunately, too many people
think that the word "theory" is the same as "conjecture", "hypothesis", or
"guess". A flat Earth "theory" is not theory at all since there is no body
of knowledge or fact involved that has survived repeated testing.

I get this argument from creationists all the time where they say things
like "If it were proven, it would be a fact and not a theory". This is a
horrible failure of education.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 1:53 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/science/04climate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential
appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose r?sum? says he was
an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A
2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs
officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements.

In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA
contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for
middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be
added after every mention of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote,
adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration
such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent
design by a creator."

It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue.
And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half
of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate
the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."

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

Well, yes, and I trust that they will henceforth also always refer to the
Spherical Earth Theory, since this is more than a science issue, it is a
religious issue: the Bible implies that the world is flat, with four
corners.

Damien Broderick


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Feb  4 21:49:16 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:49:16 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060204134844.01d5cf48@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060204134844.01d5cf48@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060204153956.01e25ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 01:53 PM 2/4/2006 -0600, I cited:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/science/04climate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th
>
>The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote,
>adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration
>such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent
>design by a creator."

Maybe I should have noted that *of course* the emergence of the known 
cosmos from a singularity is a corrigible *theory* (though saying it's an 
"opinion" is truly laughable if not iniquitous). Clearly it might be 
replaced by some more developed and evidential model; perhaps an ekpyrotic 
brane event, or something currently unknown.

The political operative's absurdity was his insistency that the current 
scientific model should be presented in NASA press releases as questionable 
*because it discounts deliberate creation*, by which he palpably meant 
"creation by the deity of the Abrahamic scriptures".

Damien Broderick 



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Sat Feb  4 22:18:17 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 22:18:17 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060204134844.01d5cf48@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060204134844.01d5cf48@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602041418p5b755a0dweb42ff988e144b40@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/4/06, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/science/04climate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th
>
> The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential
> appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose r?sum? says he
> was
> an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.
> A
> 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs
> officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements.
>
> In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA
> contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for
> middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be
> added after every mention of the Big Bang.
>
> The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote,
> adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration
> such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts
> intelligent
> design by a creator."
>
> It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue.
> And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half
> of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly
> educate
> the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."
>
> ====================
>
> Well, yes, and I trust that they will henceforth also always refer to the
> Spherical Earth Theory, since this is more than a science issue, it is a
> religious issue: the Bible implies that the world is flat, with four
> corners.
>
>
If I were the Chinese leadership I'd covertly fund the anti-science loons in
the US just as a longterm plan to screw US scitech.
I'd especially fund those people who opposed emerging biotech and nanotech.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060204/e7207af2/attachment.html>

From james.hughes at trincoll.edu  Sat Feb  4 23:14:22 2006
From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 18:14:22 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Victoria News: Singularitarians in the City of
	Gardens
Message-ID: <B55E044559115F4B8C9EE62323C322B413E306AB@hickory.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu>


http://www.vicnews.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=36&cat=43&id=583423&m
ore=

Singularitarians in the City of Gardens

Don Denton/Victoria News

By Keith Norbury

Victoria News

Feb 03 2006

He once dreamed he was a computer, David Coombes candidly admits.

"Basically, I was in a matrix," Coombes says as he sits on the sofa in
the living room of his character home in James Bay. "There were many
lights flashing on and off. It was pretty boring because all it was was
lights going on in foolish patterns."

That dream occurred around 1970 when he was in his mid 20s, a decade
before the personal computer became popular. In those days, a computer
was regarded as a bulky box of flashing lights and whirring magnetic
tape.

He still dreams of being a computer - only the dream is anything but
boring. And the computer he envisages bears far less resemblance to the
desktop machine of today than a modern computer resembles the one in his
dream 35 years ago.

Coombes is the vice-president of the Canadian branch of the Singularity
Institute for Artificial Intelligence, which is devoted to promoting the
creation of friendly, superhuman intelligence for the benefit of
humanity. His home, built six years before the Wright Brothers' historic
flight at Kittyhawk, is the institute's Canadian headquarters. Its
president is Coombes' house guest, 41-year-old divorcee Michael Roy
Ames, who is currently between jobs in his career as software developer
and database administrator.

At the entrance to the house, a brass plaque proclaims "Toad Hall."
Inside, the 19th-century woodwork and the wall decorations of spears and
woven hats from southeast Asian tribesmen juxtapose with the digital
future the two have in mind. In the kitchen, Coombes' wife, Zheny, an
Igorot from Bontoc on the island of Lauzon in the Philippines, is making
haggis.

"She likes it," her husband says. An immigration consultant, he is
moving his office out of the house, which adds to the chaotic
atmosphere.

So far, their group has only five members, although the parent
U.S.-based society boasts about 1,000. Similar groups, such as the
Acceleration Studies Foundation, also exist. The movement is small, but
growing - just what Singularitarians would expect.

Ultimately, they anticipate technology will rapidly advance over the
next few decades to where superhuman computers, or other entities as yet
undreamed, merge with human brains to produce a paradigm shift unlike
life has ever encountered.

"There is suffering - death, pollution - of many kinds. People try to
solve these problems, but it's very difficult. They need a lot of
organization and intelligence to grapple with them," Ames says in the
slight accent that remains from his upbringing in England. "One of the
things that has helped our society solve some of these problems and in
other societies in the past is our technology. We use computers already
to enhance our intelligence."

At first blush, Singularitarianism may seem like a religion and has even
earned from critics the label "Rapture of the Nerds." But
Singularitarianism differs from religion in one crucial aspect: its
belief doesn't depend on a supernatural power influencing human affairs.
Singularitarians rely only on the evidence and patterns scientists have
tested and observed in the natural universe.

Neither Ames nor Coombes considers himself religious. Zheny Coombes
quips that she's the only person from the Philippines in the city who
doesn't attend church.

"I think there very well may be an intelligence associated with the
universe like a higher power, but I don't think that is a religious
thing," Ames says.

He points out that a set of well-defined constants enables the universe
to exist as it does. Even slight variations and the universe, and life
as we know it, wouldn't exist because atoms and molecules wouldn't have
formed.

"I believe there could be a higher power when we make it or when we
become it," Coombes says.

Their movement doesn't have a Bible or a Koran. However, last year
computer scientist Ray Kurzweil published a bestseller, The Singularity
is Near, that detailed his arguments on the matter.

Kurzweil's primary thrust is that technology, particularly computing, is
advancing exponentially. He builds upon the premise of Moore's Law (the
40-year-old observation by Intel founder Gordon Moore that computer
processing power doubles every 18 months) and finds a similar pattern in
all of technology. Indeed Kurzweil goes beyond that - graphing
exponential increases in biological evolution and even the evolution of
the universe from the Big Bang, through the appearance of the first
hydrogen atoms, to complex molecules to the formation of life itself.

According to Singularitarians, these exponential increases in
technological innovation are about to explode in complexity so profound
as to boggle our human brains. The thesis sounds impossible until one
looks at the relatively simple math and graphs in Kurzweil's book and
realizes he is onto something.

Since the creation of the first computer in the 1940s, the processing
power has doubled about 32 times. Kurzweil estimates it will take only
about five more doublings for a supercomputer to "emulate the human
brain." A decade beyond that, today's equivalent of a desktop computer
will have that capacity. By 2080, Kurzweil calculates, $1,000 worth of
computing will be able to contemplate the equivalent of all human
knowledge since the dawn of the species in a fraction of a second. And
that still won't be the end of it.

Long before that - by his projection the year 2045 - the Singularity
will have occurred.

Not only do Singularitarians expect this to happen, they expect to live
to see it, their lives prolonged by genetically engineered organs and
pathogen-destroying nanobots.

By its definition, the Singularity is beyond our comprehension, but
Kurzweil envisions a world where reality and virtual reality become
indistinguishable. Ultimately this consciousness spreads across the
cosmos at nearly the speed of light - or even faster.

The runaway changes leading to that aren't yet noticeable because in its
initial stages an exponential graph appears quite flat. Only at the
"knee of the curve" does it begin to veer sharply upward. We're at the
knee now, Kurzweil says.

Ames doubts any force can stop the Singularity - barring a planetary
cataclysm such as a global thermo-nuclear war or an asteroid collision.

"It's really hard to imagine an obstacle that would throw the
Singularity off the rails," Ames says.

When it will occur remains a subject of debate among Singularitarians.
Vernon Vinge, the mathematician credited with popularizing the idea in a
1993 paper, predicts the Singularity as early as 2030. Others push the
date to early in the next century.

The expression "singularity" derives from a mathematical term to
describe certain types of functions, such as where the answer approaches
infinity as one of the variables approaches zero.

Physics borrowed the term to describe the collapse of matter in a black
hole to a seemingly singular point. The technological singularity refers
not so much to the black hole as to the event horizon surrounding it
beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape. In that sense, the
Singularity represents an event horizon of ideas impenetrable to the
modest power of a biological human brain.

"We both anticipate it and we want it to happen," Ames says of he and
Coombes. "And we want it to be accessible to everyone and not to just a
few countries and a few people."

Even if Kurzweil underestimates human brainpower by a factor of a
million or billion, that will only postpone the Singularity by a few
decades - as long as the increases remain on the same exponential track.
He agrees that any physical system eventually imposes a limit on growth.
However, he notes that integrated circuits aren't expected to reach
their limit until about 2020, by which time he anticipates carbon
nanotubes will have replaced them as the preferred circuitry and will
continue the growth. Beyond that the future is hazier, but he reports
that physicists have already demonstrated the capacity of a single atom
to store 50 bits of information.

Indeed the most vocal arguments against Singularitarians aren't that
this technological explosion won't occur soon - but that it will and it
must be stopped.

Among those sounding the alarm is another computer scientist, Bill Joy,
the founder of Sun Microsystems. In a famous 2000 Wired magazine essay
titled "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us," Joy underscored the perils of
runaway biotechnology, nanotechnology and potentially hostile superhuman
artificial intelligence. Anyone familiar with the movie, The Matrix,
understands the latter danger. Biotechnology harbours the spectre of a
genetically engineered plague. Runaway nanotechnology threatens to
convert all of the Earth's biomass, including human life, into grey goo.
Kurzweil acknowledges these threats but disagrees with Joy on how much
technological innovation humanity will have to relinquish in order to
prevent them.

Too many obstacles will postpone technologies to relieve human suffering
and prolong human life, Kurzweil argues. He is confident careful
protocols and other innovations, such as reverse engineering the human
brain in order to apply its pattern-recognition powers to artificial
intelligence, will safeguard against the dangers. That is also the
philosophy of the Singularity Institute.

"The point is currently we have control and how much control we have in
the future does not just depend on fate. It depends on what we do now,"
Ames says. "The Singularity Institute favours getting in the driver's
seat and driving it, so we can see these problems coming up."

Ames first became interested in the idea during his involvement with
transhumanist mailing lists in the late 1990s. He introduced the idea to
Coombes, who he has known for about 20 years going back to when they
both worked for the provincial government where Coombes was a fishery
scientist.

"I am doing this to solve the world's problems. This is an important
thing to do," says Coombes, who has a master's degree in
bio-geochemistry from the University of Victoria.

"I think it's pretty obvious something is going to happen," Coombes adds
later. "I read a lot of science fiction and technical science magazines
like Discover and Scientific American. I just see it's pretty inevitable
that it's going to happen. And if we don't get organized to reason out
how it comes about, we could be in deep trouble."

Even if we employ superhuman intelligence to defuse the threats of
biotechnology and nanotechnology, that still leaves the intelligence.

"Artificial intelligence will think in different ways than humans," Ames
says. "That is one thing that is hard for people, even educated people,
to grasp. I think they won't have human goals and desires unless we put
them in there."

But what if these super intelligences don't want to have any part of us?

In technical terms, this problem is called goal stability during
recursive improvement. An example of that would be Isaac Asimov's three
laws of robotics as enunciated in his science-fiction books and the film
I, Robot.

"Right now, we don't have the answer," Ames says. "We don't know how to
create that goal stability when the AI copies itself again and again. We
don't have a technical theory of how we can create that stability. This
is one thing we must know how to do in order for whoever is on this side
of the Singularity to connect to whoever is on the other side."

Even if the goals cannot be programmed, the most likely outcome is the
superior intelligence will simply be as indifferent to humans as we are
to insects, Ames says.

On a similar note, Kurzweil expects a super intelligence would devote
such a tiny fraction of its resources to human needs that it would
hardly even notice we exist.

Now what if humans didn't wish to be part of that brave new
super-intelligent reality?

"There'll definitely be a wide range of views and I think the
Singularity Institute is about increasing the number of options," Ames
says. "We are not just going to create artificial intelligence where
everybody just gets uploaded and lives forever."

Among those who have doubts about life in the Singularity is Coombes'
wife, Zheny.

She works as a registered nurse, often with patients near the end of
their lives, and she has difficulty with the Singularity's promise to
extend the human lifespan indefinitely.

"It's kind of a cool idea to be alive forever, but I don't know if I
would like to live forever," she says. "It could be kind of boring,
especially if I lived with people who don't like me very much."

Of course, she could cook all the haggis she likes and even occupy a
virtual reality identical to her present 19th-century home. In the
Singularity anything a human mind can imagine should be possible.

vicnews at vinewsgroup.com






From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  5 00:03:58 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 16:03:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Victoria News: Singularitarians in the City of
	Gardens
In-Reply-To: <B55E044559115F4B8C9EE62323C322B413E306AB@hickory.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu>
Message-ID: <20060205000359.42790.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>

It will also rely on the ever-important race between civilization and Nemesis.
  (A Canadian immigration consultant? -- worth an article just by itself).


 >its belief doesn't depend on a supernatural power influencing human affairs.
>Singularitarians rely only on the evidence and patterns scientists have
>tested and observed in the natural universe.

		
---------------------------------
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
 PhotoMail  - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060204/2e6390d5/attachment.html>

From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Sun Feb  5 02:23:52 2006
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 21:23:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060204134844.01d5cf48@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20060205022352.71187.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:    religious issue: the Bible implies that the world is flat, with four corners.
  Just curious but couldn't that have meant that 2000 years ago somebody came
  up with a scientic hypothesis that the world is flat with four corner?.  I think
  that would seem like a very good probability based on the information they
  had at that time. 
  Anna
   
   
  
 

		
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060204/41ba608a/attachment.html>

From shogyo.mujo at gmail.com  Sun Feb  5 03:32:11 2006
From: shogyo.mujo at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tom=E1s_Arribas?=)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 04:32:11 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
In-Reply-To: <20060205022352.71187.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060204134844.01d5cf48@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20060205022352.71187.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <bf3d71290602041932p6696ed54l@mail.gmail.com>

2006/2/5, Anne-Marie Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca>:
>
>
> Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> religious issue: the Bible implies that the world is flat, with four
> corners.
> Just curious but couldn't that have meant that 2000 years ago somebody came
> up with a scientic hypothesis that the world is flat with four corner?.  I
> think
> that would seem like a very good probability based on the information they
> had at that time.
> Anna
>

Of course. The problem arise when you try to apply those 2000 years
old theories to the present world with modern knowledge.



Tom?s



>
>
>
>
>  ________________________________
> Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>


--
Emergency e-mail: mobile at forbidden-games.com



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Sun Feb  5 03:39:04 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 03:39:04 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
In-Reply-To: <bf3d71290602041932p6696ed54l@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060204134844.01d5cf48@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20060205022352.71187.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<bf3d71290602041932p6696ed54l@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602041939n22dff44dg891b19e76e95b31@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/5/06, Tom?s Arribas <shogyo.mujo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2006/2/5, Anne-Marie Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca>:
> >
> >
> > Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > religious issue: the Bible implies that the world is flat, with four
> > corners.
> > Just curious but couldn't that have meant that 2000 years ago somebody
> came
> > up with a scientic hypothesis that the world is flat with four
> corner?.  I
> > think
> > that would seem like a very good probability based on the information
> they
> > had at that time.
> > Anna
> >
>
> Of course. The problem arise when you try to apply those 2000 years
> old theories to the present world with modern knowledge.
>

Platonism seems alive and well in modern physics.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060205/007586f8/attachment.html>

From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com  Sun Feb  5 03:54:16 2006
From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 22:54:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Big Bang & "the origin of the Universe"
Message-ID: <5844e22f0602041954gecc990ds24f3623c971c3d05@mail.gmail.com>

Big Bang physics does not imply the creation or origin of the
Universe. According to the theory and the data supporting it, the
"initial state" of the Universe simply refers to the earliest point
from which data was preserved in a form we are currently capable of
investigating in some way.

The "initial" state was such that, were there anything preceding that
state, information about it would have been lost. A
not-quite-accurate, but perhaps intuition-informative analogy:

If you store data on your computer, run programs, etc., and then
compress and melt down the materials making up your computer at
ridiculous temperatures (plasma-level) and cool them off, you won't be
able to infer anything about the nature of the resultant substance
prior to the supercompression/heating. Information lost. Not
indicative of creation or "the beginning of the Universe".

Yet a lot of people, mostly general public, but also a surprisingly
large number of scientifically educated folks, speak of the Big Bang
theory as if it asserts something about the origin of the Universe.

We have no evidence about what existed prior to the Big Bang, nor any
evidence in favor of " nothing" existing before the Big Bang.

If someone with substantial physics knowledge thinks I'm missing
something here, please speak up. If not... what a weird, fundamental
error for so many scientists and engineers to make in their
understanding of BBT. Thoughts on the psychological underpinnings of
such a failing, iff there's something more unusual than "even people
of above average intelligence make lots of mistakes / have lots of
unquestioned assumptions", are welcome as well.

Best,
--
Jeff Medina
http://www.painfullyclear.com/

Community Director
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/

Relationships & Community Fellow
Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies
http://www.ieet.org/

School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Sun Feb  5 04:08:32 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 04:08:32 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Big Bang & "the origin of the Universe"
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0602041954gecc990ds24f3623c971c3d05@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5844e22f0602041954gecc990ds24f3623c971c3d05@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602042008k2823ef34u4e421ac9c6ebcf61@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/5/06, Jeff Medina <analyticphilosophy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Big Bang physics does not imply the creation or origin of the
> Universe. According to the theory and the data supporting it, the
> "initial state" of the Universe simply refers to the earliest point
> from which data was preserved in a form we are currently capable of
> investigating in some way.
>
> The "initial" state was such that, were there anything preceding that
> state, information about it would have been lost. A
> not-quite-accurate, but perhaps intuition-informative analogy:
>
> If you store data on your computer, run programs, etc., and then
> compress and melt down the materials making up your computer at
> ridiculous temperatures (plasma-level) and cool them off, you won't be
> able to infer anything about the nature of the resultant substance
> prior to the supercompression/heating. Information lost. Not
> indicative of creation or "the beginning of the Universe".
>
> Yet a lot of people, mostly general public, but also a surprisingly
> large number of scientifically educated folks, speak of the Big Bang
> theory as if it asserts something about the origin of the Universe.
>
> We have no evidence about what existed prior to the Big Bang, nor any
> evidence in favor of " nothing" existing before the Big Bang.
>
> If someone with substantial physics knowledge thinks I'm missing
> something here, please speak up. If not... what a weird, fundamental
> error for so many scientists and engineers to make in their
> understanding of BBT. Thoughts on the psychological underpinnings of
> such a failing, iff there's something more unusual than "even people
> of above average intelligence make lots of mistakes / have lots of
> unquestioned assumptions", are welcome as well.
>
>
http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/

Check out the third lecture by Roger Penrose

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060205/e71749ad/attachment.html>

From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Feb  5 03:52:24 2006
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 22:52:24 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
References: <20060205022352.71187.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <009201c62a07$93675c00$cb893cd1@pavilion>

Well, actually, the Ancient Greeks knew the world was round and already had good estimates of its size.  (IIRC, Erasthones made an estimate about 200 BCE of 25K miles.)  The reasoning was based on information known at that time, including things like the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during eclipses (obviously, when the Earth eclipses the Sun from the Moon's point of view:), that the masts of ship appeared first on the horizon, that the horizon looked round from high altitudes, and that difference in angle of the Sun at various places during noon on the same day (that how Erasthonese made his famous calculation).

Of course, we sophisticated moderns know that current flat earth theory explains how the Ancients got it so wrong with their silly notion of a spherical Earth.  Just kidding!":)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/
  From: Anne-Marie Taylor 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 9:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"

  Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote: 
    religious issue: the Bible implies that the world is flat, with four corners.
  Just curious but couldn't that have meant that 2000 years ago somebody came
  up with a scientic hypothesis that the world is flat with four corner?.  I think
  that would seem like a very good probability based on the information they
  had at that time. 
  Anna
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060204/5cd0cf3c/attachment.html>

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sun Feb  5 17:02:26 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 17:02:26 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Big Bang & "the origin of the Universe"
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0602041954gecc990ds24f3623c971c3d05@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5844e22f0602041954gecc990ds24f3623c971c3d05@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602050902l7964f3ectbec87cd2e8f3f66c@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/5/06, Jeff Medina <analyticphilosophy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Big Bang physics does not imply the creation or origin of the
> Universe. According to the theory and the data supporting it, the
> "initial state" of the Universe simply refers to the earliest point
> from which data was preserved in a form we are currently capable of
> investigating in some way.


Suppose there is indeed no information about what if anything existed before
the Big Bang (rather than said information just not being detectable with
current technology). Then any belief about said prior state is going to be
philosophical rather than scientific; said prior state is not part of our
universe; and it is true to say the Big Bang is the origin of the universe.

Of course we can't prove that this is in fact the case - perhaps better
instruments, better theories or whatever in the future will provide
information about the state of affairs before the Big Bang. But in the
absence of any such today it is reasonable to adopt the view that the Big
Bang was the origin of the universe _as a working hypothesis until shown
otherwise_; I don't see any error here.

If someone were to claim it as certain fact, that would be different of
course, but I haven't seen anyone do that.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060205/d6388e94/attachment.html>

From zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  5 16:13:40 2006
From: zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com (Keith M. Elis)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 08:13:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0602041954gecc990ds24f3623c971c3d05@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060205161340.24367.qmail@web80725.mail.yahoo.com>

This topic is one that many people have mixed feelings about. Companies
appear to be seriously weighing the idea of charging for email delivery
in certain cases. Frankly some form of email postage is probably a good
idea for the long-term viability of the medium.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/05AOL.html?ex=1296795600&en=6efa03d1cbfacf9e&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Feb  5 18:57:40 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:57:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <20060205161340.24367.qmail@web80725.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060205185740.24090.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

The companies that adopt it, only think their size gives them a
stranglehold on the Internet.  There are just too many people on
the "outside" - and likely always will be.

That said, if Yahoo! adopts a minimal approach - that is, the
only things that paid email guarantees are that the message will
be delivered, and will be delivered to the inbox instead of the
spam folder, that might be a viable way to test the service
without losing customers.  Rejecting, altering, or in any way
failing to deliver unpaid email (to the standards of today,
which do allow for spam filtering) just because it's unpaid is
likely to run into trouble...but then, AOL has been hemorraging
customers for years, and survives in large part by replacing
them with new people who have never used the Internet before.

--- "Keith M. Elis" <zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com> wrote:

> This topic is one that many people have mixed feelings about.
> Companies
> appear to be seriously weighing the idea of charging for email
> delivery
> in certain cases. Frankly some form of email postage is probably a
> good
> idea for the long-term viability of the medium.
> 
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/05AOL.html?ex=1296795600&en=6efa03d1cbfacf9e&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Feb  5 19:54:22 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] earthquake
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602041041i65aeb5dp48ef24aab888e0c9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060205195422.52045.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > Whoa, earthquake!  10.05 a.m. PST, Santa
> > Clara Taxifornia.  Everyone OK?  No damage
> > here, got my full and undivided.  {8-]
> >
> Didn't feel a thing

Ditto.  (Mountain View, just a few miles west of Santa Clara.)


From benboc at lineone.net  Sun Feb  5 22:07:40 2006
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 22:07:40 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat]  NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
In-Reply-To: <mailman.100.1139082802.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.100.1139082802.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <43E6772C.3070706@lineone.net>

Good gravy, when will all these people insisting upon the word 'theory'
figure out what that actually means?

They obviously think it somehow degrades the ideas presented in the
theory, and that a theory is somehow inferior.

Look at at all the insubstantial theories we have: the theory of plate
tectonics, the theory of evolution, einstein's theories of relativity,
even the standard model of physics is a theory. I also have a theory
that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Perhaps i should be worried,
because after all, it's 'just' a theory.

It would be interesting to propose that we should refer to the god
theory, the genesis theory, the jesus theory, the virgin birth theory,
the original sin theory, the infallibility of the pope theory, the
apocalypse theory ...

But it's a shame most of those can't actually be tested, so they can't
be dignified with the word 'theory'.

The big bang IS a theory, and that's all it needs to be. It should be
proud to be one.

ben


From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Sun Feb  5 22:52:22 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 22:52:22 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
In-Reply-To: <43E6772C.3070706@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.100.1139082802.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<43E6772C.3070706@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602051452od24070eu1b9f5ab1f0921517@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/5/06, ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
>
> Good gravy, when will all these people insisting upon the word 'theory'
> figure out what that actually means?
>
> They obviously think it somehow degrades the ideas presented in the
> theory, and that a theory is somehow inferior.
>
> Look at at all the insubstantial theories we have: the theory of plate
> tectonics, the theory of evolution, einstein's theories of relativity,
> even the standard model of physics is a theory. I also have a theory
> that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Perhaps i should be worried,
> because after all, it's 'just' a theory.
>
> It would be interesting to propose that we should refer to the god
> theory, the genesis theory, the jesus theory, the virgin birth theory,
> the original sin theory, the infallibility of the pope theory, the
> apocalypse theory ...
>
> But it's a shame most of those can't actually be tested, so they can't
> be dignified with the word 'theory'.
>
> The big bang IS a theory, and that's all it needs to be. It should be
> proud to be one.
>
>
A theory is a data compression algorithm.
A scientific theory is a data compression algorithm that can be extrapolated
to yield further prosective data points that can be tested by experiment.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060205/a1d3c704/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  5 23:56:34 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 15:56:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Victoria News: Singularitarians in the City of
	Gardens
In-Reply-To: <20060205000359.42790.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060205235634.5395.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>

This is one reason so many are suspicious or want to ignore it. It's pretty chirpy to say singularitarians rely, "only on the evidence and patterns scientists have tested and observed in the natural universe".
   Nothing else?


    >Singularitarians rely only on the evidence and patterns scientists have
>tested and observed in the natural universe.

		
---------------------------------
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
 PhotoMail  - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060205/5f933387/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 00:17:07 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 00:17:07 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Victoria News: Singularitarians in the City of
	Gardens
In-Reply-To: <20060205235634.5395.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060205000359.42790.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20060205235634.5395.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602051617o6d53a59dn7c39c9e49242e023@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/5/06, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> This is one reason so many are suspicious or want to ignore it. It's
> pretty chirpy to say singularitarians rely, "only on the evidence and
> patterns scientists have tested and observed in the natural universe".
>  Nothing else?
>
>
Faith, hope and charity

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060206/a5112986/attachment.html>

From sentience at pobox.com  Mon Feb  6 00:24:54 2006
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 16:24:54 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Victoria News: Singularitarians in the City of
 Gardens
In-Reply-To: <20060205235634.5395.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060205235634.5395.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <43E69756.3060500@pobox.com>

Al Brooks wrote:
> This is one reason so many are suspicious or want to ignore it. It's 
> pretty chirpy to say singularitarians rely, "only on the evidence and 
> patterns scientists have tested and observed in the natural universe".
> Nothing else?

I also rely on evidence and patterns which mere passing observation 
detects in the natural universe, if there's no reason to expect that 
science could should and would test it.  I rely on my eyes to tell me 
whether my shoelace is untied; this fact is rationally knowable to me, 
but it is not part of the publicly acessible knowledge of humankind, as 
it would be if it were a replicable experiment published in a journal.

Aside from that, the answer to your question is "Not intentionally."

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


From transcend at extropica.com  Mon Feb  6 00:08:43 2006
From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 18:08:43 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602051452od24070eu1b9f5ab1f0921517@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602060101.k1611Gvv029024@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

*      A scientific theory is a data compression algorithm that can be
extrapolated to yield further prosective data points that can be tested by
experiment.



 

Is that the "information theoretic theory of theorioes?"

 

:-)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060205/04e9a9a8/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Feb  6 01:03:45 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 17:03:45 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
In-Reply-To: <43E6772C.3070706@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <200602060108.k1618tmW024164@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ben
...
> 
> It would be interesting to propose that we should refer to the god
> theory, the genesis theory, the jesus theory, the virgin birth theory,
> the original sin theory, the infallibility of the pope theory, the
> apocalypse theory ... ben


Ben that has been done.  By me specifically.  If you use any of those,
they fundies often reply with something along the lines of "That isn't
a theory, its the truth, a fact!  Says so right in the bible."

sigh.

spike








From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Feb  6 00:59:47 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 16:59:47 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] earthquake
In-Reply-To: <20060205195422.52045.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200602060133.k161X39X026787@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Ja I wrote Santa Clara meaning county.  The quake was about
five miles east north east of Milpitas, and I live on the
north east end of Milpitas, so the epicenter was probably
within walking distance from my house.  Taxifornians, we
are playing with fire living practically on top of
the Calaveras fault.

spike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:54 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] earthquake
> 
> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/4/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Whoa, earthquake!  10.05 a.m. PST, Santa
> > > Clara Taxifornia.  Everyone OK?  No damage
> > > here, got my full and undivided.  {8-]
> > >
> > Didn't feel a thing
> 
> Ditto.  (Mountain View, just a few miles west of Santa Clara.)
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Feb  6 01:20:18 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 17:20:18 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] jagger in the superbowl
In-Reply-To: <200602041924.k14JOYnv012616@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <200602060133.k161X39Z026787@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



Jagger is looking damn good for 62, is he not?  Perhaps sex,
drugs and rock n roll are the key to long youth?

spike



 




From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Feb  6 01:15:39 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 17:15:39 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
In-Reply-To: <200602060101.k1611Gvv029024@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <200602060133.k161X39Y026787@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brandon Reinhart
...

Is that the ?information theoretic theory of theorioes??

?

Theorioes: breakfast of champion scientists.

spike









From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 01:40:22 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 01:40:22 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
In-Reply-To: <200602060101.k1611Gvv029024@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <c0a791b40602051452od24070eu1b9f5ab1f0921517@mail.gmail.com>
	<200602060101.k1611Gvv029024@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602051740u5ebf52d1sf1239f229b65097d@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/6/06, Brandon Reinhart <transcend at extropica.com> wrote:
>
>  ?      A scientific theory is a data compression algorithm that can be
> extrapolated to yield further prosective data points that can be tested by
> experiment.
>
>
>
> Is that the "information theoretic theory of theorioes?"
>
I would guess so.
It's also a good bet that it is the shortest complete definition.
Although Godel/Turing/Church might have something to say about that

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060206/4ddc1aed/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  6 00:46:14 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 16:46:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Victoria News: Singularitarians in the City of
	Gardens
In-Reply-To: <43E69756.3060500@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20060206004614.85385.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>

Okay. But recently I've come to doubt, just for instance, economics-- economics is no science. And the social 'sciences' as they are taught in K-12 are junk, and perhaps in higher Ed as well.
  I honestly think legitimate grounds exist for not only skepticism but also cynicism & mistrust as well; that is harsh, but there's something to it. Nietzsche wrote, "there are rational reasons for abandoning rationalism". Would have to think about that a long time, but he was on to something.
  
>I also rely on evidence and patterns which mere passing observation 
>detects in the natural universe, if there's no reason to expect that 
>science could should and would test it. I rely on my eyes to tell me 
>whether my shoelace is untied; this fact is rationally knowable to me, 
>but it is not part of the publicly acessible knowledge of humankind, as 
>it would be if it were a replicable experiment published in a journal.

>Aside from that, the answer to your question is "Not intentionally."



		
---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060205/0cb93047/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 02:04:43 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 02:04:43 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Victoria News: Singularitarians in the City of
	Gardens
In-Reply-To: <20060206004614.85385.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <43E69756.3060500@pobox.com>
	<20060206004614.85385.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602051804i158090feifc9286853d51564c@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/6/06, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Okay. But recently I've come to doubt, just for instance, economics--
> economics is no science. And the social 'sciences' as they are taught in
> K-12 are junk, and perhaps in higher Ed as well.
> I honestly think legitimate grounds exist for not only skepticism but also
> cynicism & mistrust as well; that is harsh, but there's something to it.
> Nietzsche wrote, "there are rational reasons for abandoning rationalism".
> Would have to think about that a long time, but he was on to something.
>

Rationalism does not get big things done.
That takes emotion, and often very unreasonable and irrational emotion
bordering on insanity.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060206/ac0d78c0/attachment.html>

From shogyo.mujo at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 02:26:01 2006
From: shogyo.mujo at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tom=E1s_Arribas?=)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 03:26:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] jagger in the superbowl
In-Reply-To: <200602060133.k161X39Z026787@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200602041924.k14JOYnv012616@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<200602060133.k161X39Z026787@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <bf3d71290602051826x26ed5d79r@mail.gmail.com>

I'd rather say money = therapies, medicines, operations, anything you need.

Tom?s

2006/2/6, spike <spike66 at comcast.net>:
>
>
> Jagger is looking damn good for 62, is he not?  Perhaps sex,
> drugs and rock n roll are the key to long youth?
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


--
Emergency e-mail: mobile at forbidden-games.com



From sentience at pobox.com  Mon Feb  6 02:25:49 2006
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 18:25:49 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Victoria News: Singularitarians in the City of
 Gardens
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602051804i158090feifc9286853d51564c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <43E69756.3060500@pobox.com>	<20060206004614.85385.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
	<c0a791b40602051804i158090feifc9286853d51564c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43E6B3AD.2000904@pobox.com>

Dirk Bruere wrote:
> 
> Rationalism does not get big things done.
> That takes emotion, and often very unreasonable and irrational emotion 
> bordering on insanity.

My recent reply to Russell Wallace serves to this unedited.

You're conflating empirical propositions with moral choices, mixing up 
probability theory and decision theory.  Perhaps you are confused 
because English uses the same word "believe in" to indicate both your 
hypotheses and your ethics.

I *choose* love and life and laughter, beauty and goodness.  I also 
choose truth.  I strive to attain the map that reflects the territory; 
to believe based solely on evidence, and to abjure any shift of credence 
whatsoever which is not based on evidence.  For you cannot draw an 
accurate map of a city by sitting in your living room and having great 
faith in your doodles.  You must go outside and walk down streets, and 
keep your eyes open, and look around, and make lines on paper that 
correspond to what you see, and resist the temptation to draw in a few 
extra lines just for fun.

P.C. Hodgell said:  "That which can be destroyed by the truth should 
be."  I have never heard a declaration of rationality which is both 
simpler and better than this.  If a wire approaches, and I believe it to 
be electrified, and it is *not* electrified, then the truth opposes my 
fear.  If a wire approaches, and I believe it is not electrified, and it 
*is* electrified, then the Way opposes my calm.  I wish to attain those 
feelings and ethics and emotions and principles which I would aver if I 
saw truly, being the person that I am.  Where is the false statement I 
must believe, to choose love and life and laughter?

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


From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 02:32:50 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 02:32:50 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Victoria News: Singularitarians in the City of
	Gardens
In-Reply-To: <43E6B3AD.2000904@pobox.com>
References: <43E69756.3060500@pobox.com>
	<20060206004614.85385.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com>
	<c0a791b40602051804i158090feifc9286853d51564c@mail.gmail.com>
	<43E6B3AD.2000904@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602051832r6ea9ff20gbb2eef98c6a53017@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/6/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
> >
> > Rationalism does not get big things done.
> > That takes emotion, and often very unreasonable and irrational emotion
> > bordering on insanity.
>
> My recent reply to Russell Wallace serves to this unedited.
>
> You're conflating empirical propositions with moral choices, mixing up
> probability theory and decision theory.  Perhaps you are confused
> because English uses the same word "believe in" to indicate both your
> hypotheses and your ethics.


I'm saying that rationalism is not enough.
It does not *motivate* - it's a tool in the service of emotion.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060206/89350a41/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Feb  6 02:46:44 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 18:46:44 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] jagger in the superbowl
In-Reply-To: <bf3d71290602051826x26ed5d79r@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602060246.k162kl2H024556@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Tom?s Arribas
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] jagger in the superbowl
> 
> I'd rather say money = therapies, medicines, operations, anything you
> need.
> 
> Tom?s

Perhaps satisfaction causes aging?

{8-]

spike










From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Mon Feb  6 02:03:41 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:03:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] jagger in the superbowl
In-Reply-To: <200602060133.k161X39Z026787@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200602060133.k161X39Z026787@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <43E6AE7D.4090309@goldenfuture.net>

He might have looked good, but I found the set as a whole somewhat lacking.

They were phoning it in, it seemed.

Go Pats!

Joe

spike wrote:

>Jagger is looking damn good for 62, is he not?  Perhaps sex,
>drugs and rock n roll are the key to long youth?
>
>spike
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>



From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Mon Feb  6 02:12:59 2006
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:12:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Victoria News: Singularitarians in the City of
	Gardens
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602051617o6d53a59dn7c39c9e49242e023@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060206021259.68699.qmail@web35514.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:  

  On 2/5/06, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:    This is one reason so many are suspicious or want to ignore it. It's pretty chirpy to say singularitarians rely, "only on the evidence and patterns scientists have tested and observed in the natural universe".
   Nothing else?



  
Faith, hope and charity

Dirk
  When you truly believe something will happen, you 
  have a desire to see it occur.
  Hitler had faith, hope, but no charity.
  You have a really good point.
  Anna



		
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060205/1285d3c4/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 03:47:48 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 03:47:48 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Victoria News: Singularitarians in the City of
	Gardens
In-Reply-To: <20060206021259.68699.qmail@web35514.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <c0a791b40602051617o6d53a59dn7c39c9e49242e023@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060206021259.68699.qmail@web35514.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602051947k7f003e2eo598b69da4cb8a966@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/6/06, Anne-Marie Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> *Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/5/06, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is one reason so many are suspicious or want to ignore it. It's
> > pretty chirpy to say singularitarians rely, "only on the evidence and
> > patterns scientists have tested and observed in the natural universe".
> >  Nothing else?
> >
> >
> Faith, hope and charity
>
> Dirk
>
> When you truly believe something will happen, you
> have a desire to see it occur.
> Hitler had faith, hope, but no charity.
> You have! a really good point.
>

You certainly exhibit all three towards me:-)
Ah... to be compared to Hitler... it's like being back in the WTA

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060206/85de1c8c/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 03:48:29 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 03:48:29 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] jagger in the superbowl
In-Reply-To: <bf3d71290602051826x26ed5d79r@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200602041924.k14JOYnv012616@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<200602060133.k161X39Z026787@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<bf3d71290602051826x26ed5d79r@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602051948s7f902323te6e016a665de57f7@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/6/06, Tom?s Arribas <shogyo.mujo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd rather say money = therapies, medicines, operations, anything you
> need.


Or good makeup artists.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060206/35b1aef5/attachment.html>

From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Mon Feb  6 04:23:57 2006
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 23:23:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Victoria News: Singularitarians in the City of
	Gardens
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602051947k7f003e2eo598b69da4cb8a966@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060206042357.88180.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I could never imagine after talking to you, that you of all 
  people would have any comparison to Hitler whether
  he had faith, hope or not:)
Anna

Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
  

  On 2/6/06, Anne-Marie Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca> wrote:    Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:   

  On 2/5/06, Al Brooks < kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:     This is one reason so many are suspicious or want to ignore it. It's pretty chirpy to say singularitarians rely, "only on the evidence and patterns scientists have tested and observed in the natural universe".
   Nothing else?



  
Faith, hope and charity

Dirk

  When you truly believe something will happen, you 
  have a desire to see it occur.
  Hitler had faith, hope, but no charity.
  You have! a really good point.


You certainly exhibit all three towards me:-)
Ah... to be compared to Hitler... it's like being back in the WTA

Dirk
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


		
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060205/bb62f902/attachment.html>

From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Mon Feb  6 04:31:08 2006
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 23:31:08 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sorry Typo!: Re: Victoria News: Singularitarians in
	the City of Gardens
In-Reply-To: <20060206021259.68699.qmail@web35514.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060206043108.59919.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



Anne-Marie Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca> wrote:  Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:   

  On 2/5/06, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:     This is one reason so many are suspicious or want to ignore it. It's pretty chirpy to say singularitarians rely, "only on the evidence and patterns scientists have tested and observed in the natural universe".
   Nothing else?



  
Faith, hope and charity

Dirk
  Anna wrote:
  When you truly believe something will happen, you
  have a desire to see it occur. 
  Hitler had faith, hope, but no charity.
  You have a really great point.
  Sry for the typo
  Anna


		
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060205/545c7908/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Mon Feb  6 09:27:55 2006
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:27:55 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
Message-ID: <p06230900c00cc6daa4c3@[23.237.66.13]>

The cosmicvariance blog and the following comments might be instructive:

Administration Official: "Big Bang is just a theory"
http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/04/administration-official-big-bang-is-just-a-theory/#comments


Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"It is intriguing to learn that the simplicity of the world depends
upon the temperature of the environment." ---John D. Barrow


From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 14:58:55 2006
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 15:58:55 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <20060205185740.24090.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20060205161340.24367.qmail@web80725.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20060205185740.24090.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c520602060658h57a46318g217b8a886ed9b886@mail.gmail.com>

Email stamps would be a good protection against spam. If 1 email costs
5 cents, 100k emails will cost 5000 and spammers will think twice.
At the same time they should not convert email into something so
expensive that normal users must watch how many emails they send.
A good idea might be something like free email until a certain daily
treshold, much higher than the average number of emails per user per
day. Say, for example, 200 free emails per day and 5 cents per extra
email. This may leave normal users in but cut spammers out.
G.

On 2/5/06, Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> The companies that adopt it, only think their size gives them a
> stranglehold on the Internet.  There are just too many people on
> the "outside" - and likely always will be.
>
> That said, if Yahoo! adopts a minimal approach - that is, the
> only things that paid email guarantees are that the message will
> be delivered, and will be delivered to the inbox instead of the
> spam folder, that might be a viable way to test the service
> without losing customers.  Rejecting, altering, or in any way
> failing to deliver unpaid email (to the standards of today,
> which do allow for spam filtering) just because it's unpaid is
> likely to run into trouble...but then, AOL has been hemorraging
> customers for years, and survives in large part by replacing
> them with new people who have never used the Internet before.
>
> --- "Keith M. Elis" <zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > This topic is one that many people have mixed feelings about.
> > Companies
> > appear to be seriously weighing the idea of charging for email
> > delivery
> > in certain cases. Frankly some form of email postage is probably a
> > good
> > idea for the long-term viability of the medium.
> >
> >
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/05AOL.html?ex=1296795600&en=6efa03d1cbfacf9e&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Mon Feb  6 15:55:30 2006
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 10:55:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520602060658h57a46318g217b8a886ed9b886@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F278B572CF8CE893380BA5FB40E0@phx.gbl>

That would pretty much kill mailing lists like this one.

The problem with "email postage" is that it kills many legitimate internet 
functions that wouldn't work if email wasn't free. So mailing lists, alerts, 
etc would all suck at US$.05/email.

The problem with AOL and Yahoo's charging for email is:
1) It will allow direct spam to your inbox with no way of blocking it (think 
of it as a deluge of direct mail that you can't filter).
2) The additional revenues don't decrease user costs.

So I estimate that a few years from now, should email postage take off, 
we'll still get spam but it will be "legitimate" or "semi-legitimate" since 
US$.05 is still cheaper than junk mailing out credit card offers and real 
estate pitches.

I think a system of signatures that can be added to a trusted list. Or 
create an email certificate authority that I can trust any sender with a 
certificate from that authority. If I end up blocking too many senders from 
an authority, I will rescind the grant.

The solution to spam needs to be free. Not another way for ISPs to cash in.

BAL

>From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
>Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 15:58:55 +0100
>
>Email stamps would be a good protection against spam. If 1 email costs
>5 cents, 100k emails will cost 5000 and spammers will think twice.
>At the same time they should not convert email into something so
>expensive that normal users must watch how many emails they send.
>A good idea might be something like free email until a certain daily
>treshold, much higher than the average number of emails per user per
>day. Say, for example, 200 free emails per day and 5 cents per extra
>email. This may leave normal users in but cut spammers out.
>G.
>
>On 2/5/06, Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > The companies that adopt it, only think their size gives them a
> > stranglehold on the Internet.  There are just too many people on
> > the "outside" - and likely always will be.
> >
> > That said, if Yahoo! adopts a minimal approach - that is, the
> > only things that paid email guarantees are that the message will
> > be delivered, and will be delivered to the inbox instead of the
> > spam folder, that might be a viable way to test the service
> > without losing customers.  Rejecting, altering, or in any way
> > failing to deliver unpaid email (to the standards of today,
> > which do allow for spam filtering) just because it's unpaid is
> > likely to run into trouble...but then, AOL has been hemorraging
> > customers for years, and survives in large part by replacing
> > them with new people who have never used the Internet before.
> >
> > --- "Keith M. Elis" <zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This topic is one that many people have mixed feelings about.
> > > Companies
> > > appear to be seriously weighing the idea of charging for email
> > > delivery
> > > in certain cases. Frankly some form of email postage is probably a
> > > good
> > > idea for the long-term viability of the medium.
> > >
> > >
> > 
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/05AOL.html?ex=1296795600&en=6efa03d1cbfacf9e&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > extropy-chat mailing list
> > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 16:42:45 2006
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:42:45 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F278B572CF8CE893380BA5FB40E0@phx.gbl>
References: <470a3c520602060658h57a46318g217b8a886ed9b886@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY103-F278B572CF8CE893380BA5FB40E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <470a3c520602060842y72ddce04w80349ffcf820e2ff@mail.gmail.com>

Not necessarily. To post to this list you send one email to one
recipient, your ISP does not have enough information to count how many
recipients receive it from the list management system.
Of course the telecom operator carrying the list traffic does have all
the necessary information and could charge, but if such a system were
introduced as an antispam measure there might be exceptions for
"legitimate" mailing lists

On 2/6/06, Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com> wrote:
> That would pretty much kill mailing lists like this one.



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  6 16:11:36 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:11:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Victoria News: Singularitarians in the City of
	Gardens
In-Reply-To: <20060206043108.59919.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060206161136.46081.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>

Hitler was charitable to those around him, what he lacked was a sense of justice.
  Anyway, so many purchase goods & services that bust their budgets, they act as if they are living in a far-future era when money is no object to anyone. 
   
    When you truly believe something will happen, you
  have a desire to see it occur. 
  Hitler had faith, hope, but no charity.
  Anna

		
---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060206/fb6f9dd2/attachment.html>

From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Mon Feb  6 17:33:49 2006
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:33:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520602060842y72ddce04w80349ffcf820e2ff@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F124FF0D504D8A7C81F46A3B40E0@phx.gbl>

I was trying to point out that lists like extropy-chat would be shut down 
because of the costs of sending the individual messages out to each 
subscriber, not from subscribers being charged from sending to extropy-chat.

With the email postage schemes, there are only two types of email: paid and 
unpaid. So if this scheme is used to curb spam, then extropy-chat would 
never be able to pay the fee for thousands of emails sent out each day.

BAL

>From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
>Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:42:45 +0100
>
>Not necessarily. To post to this list you send one email to one
>recipient, your ISP does not have enough information to count how many
>recipients receive it from the list management system.
>Of course the telecom operator carrying the list traffic does have all
>the necessary information and could charge, but if such a system were
>introduced as an antispam measure there might be exceptions for
>"legitimate" mailing lists
>
>On 2/6/06, Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > That would pretty much kill mailing lists like this one.
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 17:43:11 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:43:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520602060842y72ddce04w80349ffcf820e2ff@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c520602060658h57a46318g217b8a886ed9b886@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY103-F278B572CF8CE893380BA5FB40E0@phx.gbl>
	<470a3c520602060842y72ddce04w80349ffcf820e2ff@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602060943x2dba9f03mdb27bb164cba9f39@mail.gmail.com>

Well some of the ideas seem reasonable.

How about:
1) No charge for "friends", i.e. people from my address list.
2) No charge for people to whom I have sent mail (but may not be in the
address list).
3) A "Commercial" Inbox for paid-for-mail and/or a "Priority" inbox for
people willing to pay to send stuff "Express".
4) After that apply the "standard" filters so that things that look like
SPAM go into the SPAM inbox/folder/category and the rest goes into a
ToBeSorted category.

I don't think I even see the spam on Gmail and in ~5+ months of using it off
an on have only received perhaps 3 Spam messages.  (Of course my address
hasn't been available in "public" for very long.)  But this would seem to
imply that the filters used by the larger email suppliers are pretty robust
at this point.

The system above would seem to be reasonable in allowing people who really
want to reach you to be able to pay to do so without inflicting a "time"
cost upon you.  (I.e. the people with nothing better to do can sort through
the junk mail and the people who are busy doing useful stuff will just
circular file it.)

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060206/19f8f38c/attachment.html>

From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Mon Feb  6 18:26:11 2006
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:26:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602060943x2dba9f03mdb27bb164cba9f39@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F28D473327866665363808BB40E0@phx.gbl>

The whole pay thing has problems because it kills many free email services. 
If someone is paying and collecting n cents per email, then there must be 
payment processing infrastructure in place to run. That now complicates all 
small projects as they must go through a pay service to send (and even 
receive email). So now open source projects must add credit card processors, 
etc to be able to send emails from sourcefourge.

The pay systems are bad because they impose a worse evil than spam: pay 
email. I would rather deal with spam than pay for any emails.

I've used hotmail for almost 10 years and I rarely get spam (maybe one per 
month). I have filters set up that prevent all the stupid \/iagra adds from 
getting through.

I think that AOL and Yahoo are more interested in email postage not as a 
spam prevention but to save money from trying to stop spam and to make 
revenue from direct emailers.

Right now AOL, Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail all spend a lot of time updating 
blacklists and whitelists and stuff like that. If they can "solve" the 
problem by using email postage then they can stop fighting spam on other 
fronts and just make customers enable email postage checking.

I think there are better ways to minimize spam without foisting a payment 
plan on top of email.

BAL

>From: Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
>Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:43:11 -0500
>
>Well some of the ideas seem reasonable.
>
>How about:
>1) No charge for "friends", i.e. people from my address list.
>2) No charge for people to whom I have sent mail (but may not be in the
>address list).
>3) A "Commercial" Inbox for paid-for-mail and/or a "Priority" inbox for
>people willing to pay to send stuff "Express".
>4) After that apply the "standard" filters so that things that look like
>SPAM go into the SPAM inbox/folder/category and the rest goes into a
>ToBeSorted category.
>
>I don't think I even see the spam on Gmail and in ~5+ months of using it 
>off
>an on have only received perhaps 3 Spam messages.  (Of course my address
>hasn't been available in "public" for very long.)  But this would seem to
>imply that the filters used by the larger email suppliers are pretty robust
>at this point.
>
>The system above would seem to be reasonable in allowing people who really
>want to reach you to be able to pay to do so without inflicting a "time"
>cost upon you.  (I.e. the people with nothing better to do can sort through
>the junk mail and the people who are busy doing useful stuff will just
>circular file it.)
>
>Robert


>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 20:05:00 2006
From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 15:05:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Big Bang & "the origin of the Universe"
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602050902l7964f3ectbec87cd2e8f3f66c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5844e22f0602041954gecc990ds24f3623c971c3d05@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0602050902l7964f3ectbec87cd2e8f3f66c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5844e22f0602061205j77251f89k899dab2713910f6c@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for your thoughts, Russell.

On 2/5/06, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
>  Suppose there is indeed no information about what if anything existed
> before the Big Bang (rather than said information just not being detectable
> with current technology). Then any belief about said prior state is going to
> be philosophical rather than scientific; said prior state is not part of our
> universe; and it is true to say the Big Bang is the origin of the universe.

Now suppose there is indeed no information about whether Something can
come into existence from Nothing. (There is indeed no such
information. And virtual particles don't count because they come into
existence from a background of spacetime, not Nothing.)\

Then any belief about the Universe coming into existence at the Big
Bang is going to be 'philosophical rather than scientific'. Said
process of getting-Something-from-Nothing is _at least as speculative
as_ the proposal that there was Something prior to the Big Bang.

[Aside: When you said "said prior state is not part of our universe",
this might be taken to mean "by definition, the universe is
Big-Bang-and-after, so even if some state existed prior to the Big
Bang, it wasn't 'part-of-the-universe'". So, to clarify, by "the
universe" I mean Everything, All of Existence, Reality. Prior states,
posterior states, concurrent unreachable states, polka dot fairy dust
states, and so forth, are all part of the universe on this definition,
*so long as those states EXIST or EXISTED* in a way conceptually
distinguishable from Nothingness.]

> But in the
> absence of any such today it is reasonable to adopt the view that the Big
> Bang was the origin of the universe _as a working hypothesis until shown
> otherwise_; I don't see any error here.

As I hope the above has made clear, the implicit assumption that
Something can come from Nothing is one of the things that makes the
suggested working hypothesis a worse hypothesis than
"We have no information on what was before the Big Bang, and therefore
should not refer to the Big Bang as the origin of the universe,
because doing so implies that science favors such said claim in a way
similar to the way it favors the theory of gravity, evolution, orbital
mechanics, and conservation of energy, and said implication is false".

>  If someone were to claim it as certain fact, [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
> that would be different of
> course, but I haven't seen anyone do that.

Do you claim the theory of gravity, or any scientific theory for that
matter, is 'certain fact'? I certainly hope not. And if not, I'm not
sure why you think this line [between people claiming it is a certain
fact on one hand, and people claiming it is
uncertain-but-still-the-best-scientific-thing-to-claim on the other]
is one that matters.

Best,
--
Jeff Medina
http://www.painfullyclear.com/

Community Director
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/

Relationships & Community Fellow
Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies
http://www.ieet.org/

School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 20:30:28 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:30:28 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Big Bang & "the origin of the Universe"
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0602061205j77251f89k899dab2713910f6c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5844e22f0602041954gecc990ds24f3623c971c3d05@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0602050902l7964f3ectbec87cd2e8f3f66c@mail.gmail.com>
	<5844e22f0602061205j77251f89k899dab2713910f6c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602061230m4382ffe4wd3c0f318cdfe5581@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/6/06, Jeff Medina <analyticphilosophy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your thoughts, Russell.


No problem, it's an interesting question.

Now suppose there is indeed no information about whether Something can
> come into existence from Nothing. (There is indeed no such
> information. And virtual particles don't count because they come into
> existence from a background of spacetime, not Nothing.)\
>
> Then any belief about the Universe coming into existence at the Big
> Bang is going to be 'philosophical rather than scientific'. Said
> process of getting-Something-from-Nothing is _at least as speculative
> as_ the proposal that there was Something prior to the Big Bang.


I didn't say anything about Something coming into existence from Nothing.  I
said if Something-B comes into existence from Something-A in such a way as
to carry no information about the Something-A, then there is no difference
between that and coming into existence from Nothing; in particular, any
putative Something-A would in this case not be part of our universe,
therefore it would be true that our universe originated in the Big Bang,
whatever other universes might or might not have existed "beforehand".

[Aside: When you said "said prior state is not part of our universe",
> this might be taken to mean "by definition, the universe is
> Big-Bang-and-after, so even if some state existed prior to the Big
> Bang, it wasn't 'part-of-the-universe'". So, to clarify, by "the
> universe" I mean Everything, All of Existence, Reality. Prior states,
> posterior states, concurrent unreachable states, polka dot fairy dust
> states, and so forth, are all part of the universe on this definition,
> *so long as those states EXIST or EXISTED* in a way conceptually
> distinguishable from Nothingness.]


Oh, okay, I mean "universe" in the normal English language sense, defined as
something like "a set of things that are causally connected to each other".
You're using the philosopher's definition (i.e. what most people who
consider the issue at all would call the multiverse) - well, following Plato
and Tegmark, we can note that the multiverse has always existed and always
will exist, indeed the concept of it not existing isn't a coherent one, so
the question doesn't arise. But the scientists you criticize weren't talking
to philosophers, they were talking to normal English speakers, so they were
correct to refrain from using the philosopher's definition.

Do you claim the theory of gravity, or any scientific theory for that
> matter, is 'certain fact'? I certainly hope not.


If I'm talking to a normal English speaker, of course, because it is,
according to the normal definitions of the words. If I'm talking to a
philosopher, of course not, because it isn't in philosophical jargon. Again,
the scientists you criticize weren't talking to philosophers.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060206/71ff6ce3/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 21:00:06 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:00:06 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F28D473327866665363808BB40E0@phx.gbl>
References: <deaa866a0602060943x2dba9f03mdb27bb164cba9f39@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY103-F28D473327866665363808BB40E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602061300s50d0ef56s86d166b700d56749@mail.gmail.com>

I am under the impression that the Yahoo/AOL payment plans are "external"
sender pays.  I.e. the payment is for the delivery, not the sending.  (I
can't believe any SPAMers would be sending from Yahoo/AOL accounts unless
they are compromised systems functioning as bot-relays.)

If they want they, as others have suggested, cap the number of "free" sent
emails to some number X per day where X is greater than the average a
spammer would like to send.  I suspect one has to do blanket spamming over a
very short time in order for it to be effective because of the rapid
adaptation of the filters.

Now, the question would be how many people on the ExI list use Yahoo or AOL
for their receiving address (and *why* would you do so when you can switch
to Gmail)???.

I suspect that what might have to happen is that there be some type of
approval process for mailing list senders who have large numbers of
Yahoo/AOL subscribers.  Alternatively all incoming mail after some free # of
messages gets "delayed" delivery if you haven't paid.  This puts a throttle
on the spammers and gives time for the filtering systems to adjust their
recognition capabilities and toss the incoming spam.

One point to consider is that you are receiving a "free" service (an
off-site mailbox and filtering service).  Unless one is arguing that "free
lunches" are justified you ultimately have to come up with some way of
paying for it.  Its easy enough now for anyone who wants to host a mailing
list and/or mailboxes to pickup a remotely located server (e.g.
UnixShell.com) for $8+/month.  I don't see citing mailing lists is
reasonable reason for objecting to payment for delivery.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060206/69c943b0/attachment.html>

From benboc at lineone.net  Mon Feb  6 20:28:14 2006
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 20:28:14 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
In-Reply-To: <mailman.129.1139189587.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.129.1139189587.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <43E7B15E.5000409@lineone.net>

Spike wrote:

...

 >>
 >> It would be interesting to propose that we should refer to the god
 >> theory, the genesis theory, the jesus theory, the virgin birth theory,
 >> the original sin theory, the infallibility of the pope theory, the
 >> apocalypse theory ... ben



 > Ben that has been done.  By me specifically.  If you use any of those,
 > they fundies often reply with something along the lines of "That isn't
 > a theory, its the truth, a fact!  Says so right in the bible."

Aha. So a 'fact' is an assertion written down in an old book, that is 
not supposed to be questioned, also known as 'the truth'. I think that 
should be referred to as 'absolute truth', to distinguish it from 
'conditional truth', which is by far the most useful kind.

Yes, now it all makes sense. The transubstantiation of wine into blood 
fact, the reincarnation fact, the Maat fact, the Saturnian Teapot fact 
(i'm sure that one's written down somewhere), and the Santa Claus fact 
can all sit happily side by side, enlighten our children, and help them 
live useful, happy, cooperative and productive fact-filled lives, kept 
on the straight and narrow with Sharia, and kept healthy with homoeopathy.

ben


From benboc at lineone.net  Mon Feb  6 20:34:52 2006
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 20:34:52 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] earthquake
In-Reply-To: <mailman.129.1139189587.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.129.1139189587.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <43E7B2EC.3000301@lineone.net>


Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>On 2/4/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Whoa, earthquake!  10.05 a.m. PST, Santa
>>>Clara Taxifornia.  Everyone OK?  No damage
>>>here, got my full and undivided.  {8-]
>>>
>>
>>Didn't feel a thing
> 
> 
> Ditto.  (Mountain View, just a few miles west of Santa Clara.)

Yeah, but Dirk's feat is much more impressive, given where he lives.

Go on, Dirk, tell us where you live.

ben (didn't feel a thing either)


From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 21:19:37 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:19:37 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] No frozen Europe...
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602061319q669b4969u30662ba0c9cee317@mail.gmail.com>

Sigh... (I thought global warming would be a cheap way to reduce the number
of European luddites opposed to GMOs :-|)

At any rate, it appears that 8000 barges (@$50 billion) put out into the
North Atlantic to increase the quantity of salty sea ice which forms (think
snow making) every year could solve the problem of keeping the Gulf Stream
flowing.  (The salty ice melts in the spring/summer producing cold & dense
salt water that sinks acting as a suction pump which draws the tropical
water towards the arctic.)  If anyone is ambitious and can find the actual
article I would love to know what fraction of this is the startup cost and
what fraction is the annual operating cost.

Even if its an annual cost, it works out to ~$200/person(in the U.S.).  I
suspect that is cheap compared with other alternatives (For example, I think
the U.S. is giving away $2000+ tax credits on hybrid cars which aren't even
going to come close to solving the problem the way the barges will).

Oh yes, another article I ran across suggests that the Antarctic Krill are
sucking down more CO2 than had previously been thought so one positive
effect of increased atmospheric CO2 would be to increase food supplies at
the bottom of the oceanic food pyramid.

Robert

1. http://www.physorg.com/news10579.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060206/9715153d/attachment.html>

From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Mon Feb  6 21:29:07 2006
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:29:07 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602061300s50d0ef56s86d166b700d56749@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F400B49CD5FC9314685CE10B40E0@phx.gbl>

I don't use Yahoo or AOL, but I use Hotmail for a great reason. I have years 
of references to my hotmail address. Since hotmail doesn't support POP, I'm 
stuck checking this address. Therefore, I check this address the most and 
use it the most. As soon as hotmail supports POP, I'll set up Gmail to pull 
down my hotmail addresses and stop using hotmail.

I understand this fee as AOL and Yahoo charging external accounts to deliver 
email to AOL/Yahoo accounts. So Exi-chat would pay five cents per email 
delivered to AOL/Yahoo.

I see this as providing little more than letting spammers willing to pay a 
nickel access to my inbox as it will bypass spam filters.

BAL

>From: Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
>Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:00:06 -0500
>
>I am under the impression that the Yahoo/AOL payment plans are "external"
>sender pays.  I.e. the payment is for the delivery, not the sending.  (I
>can't believe any SPAMers would be sending from Yahoo/AOL accounts unless
>they are compromised systems functioning as bot-relays.)
>
>If they want they, as others have suggested, cap the number of "free" sent
>emails to some number X per day where X is greater than the average a
>spammer would like to send.  I suspect one has to do blanket spamming over 
>a
>very short time in order for it to be effective because of the rapid
>adaptation of the filters.
>
>Now, the question would be how many people on the ExI list use Yahoo or AOL
>for their receiving address (and *why* would you do so when you can switch
>to Gmail)???.
>
>I suspect that what might have to happen is that there be some type of
>approval process for mailing list senders who have large numbers of
>Yahoo/AOL subscribers.  Alternatively all incoming mail after some free # 
>of
>messages gets "delayed" delivery if you haven't paid.  This puts a throttle
>on the spammers and gives time for the filtering systems to adjust their
>recognition capabilities and toss the incoming spam.
>
>One point to consider is that you are receiving a "free" service (an
>off-site mailbox and filtering service).  Unless one is arguing that "free
>lunches" are justified you ultimately have to come up with some way of
>paying for it.  Its easy enough now for anyone who wants to host a mailing
>list and/or mailboxes to pickup a remotely located server (e.g.
>UnixShell.com) for $8+/month.  I don't see citing mailing lists is
>reasonable reason for objecting to payment for delivery.
>
>Robert


>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 22:06:39 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:06:39 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Big Bang & "the origin of the Universe"
In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0602061205j77251f89k899dab2713910f6c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5844e22f0602041954gecc990ds24f3623c971c3d05@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0602050902l7964f3ectbec87cd2e8f3f66c@mail.gmail.com>
	<5844e22f0602061205j77251f89k899dab2713910f6c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602061406l65f865er7afa66e661ac5b77@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/6/06, Jeff Medina <analyticphilosophy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your thoughts, Russell.
>
> On 2/5/06, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  Suppose there is indeed no information about what if anything existed
> > before the Big Bang (rather than said information just not being
> detectable
> > with current technology). Then any belief about said prior state is
> going to
> > be philosophical rather than scientific; said prior state is not part of
> our
> > universe; and it is true to say the Big Bang is the origin of the
> universe.
>
> Now suppose there is indeed no information about whether Something can
> come into existence from Nothing. (There is indeed no such
> information. And virtual particles don't count because they come into
> existence from a background of spacetime, not Nothing.)\


Do the laws of physics 'predate' the universe?
If so, that particular Platonic realm is fundamental.
If not, then *anything* can happen because there are no constraints
whatsoever..

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060206/28d87bc7/attachment.html>

From shogyo.mujo at gmail.com  Mon Feb  6 22:35:57 2006
From: shogyo.mujo at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tom=E1s_Arribas?=)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 23:35:57 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F400B49CD5FC9314685CE10B40E0@phx.gbl>
References: <deaa866a0602061300s50d0ef56s86d166b700d56749@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY103-F400B49CD5FC9314685CE10B40E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <bf3d71290602061435r3a7c2058u@mail.gmail.com>

2006/2/6, Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com>:
> I don't use Yahoo or AOL, but I use Hotmail for a great reason. I have years
> of references to my hotmail address. Since hotmail doesn't support POP, I'm
> stuck checking this address. Therefore, I check this address the most and
> use it the most. As soon as hotmail supports POP, I'll set up Gmail to pull
> down my hotmail addresses and stop using hotmail.


http://www.hanselman.com/blog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=7ea31dc8-f412-4c7f-9d22-b76b653305be


Tom?s



2006/2/6, Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com>:
> I don't use Yahoo or AOL, but I use Hotmail for a great reason. I have years
> of references to my hotmail address. Since hotmail doesn't support POP, I'm
> stuck checking this address. Therefore, I check this address the most and
> use it the most. As soon as hotmail supports POP, I'll set up Gmail to pull
> down my hotmail addresses and stop using hotmail.
>
> I understand this fee as AOL and Yahoo charging external accounts to deliver
> email to AOL/Yahoo accounts. So Exi-chat would pay five cents per email
> delivered to AOL/Yahoo.
>
> I see this as providing little more than letting spammers willing to pay a
> nickel access to my inbox as it will bypass spam filters.
>
> BAL
>
> >From: Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> >To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
> >Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:00:06 -0500
> >
> >I am under the impression that the Yahoo/AOL payment plans are "external"
> >sender pays.  I.e. the payment is for the delivery, not the sending.  (I
> >can't believe any SPAMers would be sending from Yahoo/AOL accounts unless
> >they are compromised systems functioning as bot-relays.)
> >
> >If they want they, as others have suggested, cap the number of "free" sent
> >emails to some number X per day where X is greater than the average a
> >spammer would like to send.  I suspect one has to do blanket spamming over
> >a
> >very short time in order for it to be effective because of the rapid
> >adaptation of the filters.
> >
> >Now, the question would be how many people on the ExI list use Yahoo or AOL
> >for their receiving address (and *why* would you do so when you can switch
> >to Gmail)???.
> >
> >I suspect that what might have to happen is that there be some type of
> >approval process for mailing list senders who have large numbers of
> >Yahoo/AOL subscribers.  Alternatively all incoming mail after some free #
> >of
> >messages gets "delayed" delivery if you haven't paid.  This puts a throttle
> >on the spammers and gives time for the filtering systems to adjust their
> >recognition capabilities and toss the incoming spam.
> >
> >One point to consider is that you are receiving a "free" service (an
> >off-site mailbox and filtering service).  Unless one is arguing that "free
> >lunches" are justified you ultimately have to come up with some way of
> >paying for it.  Its easy enough now for anyone who wants to host a mailing
> >list and/or mailboxes to pickup a remotely located server (e.g.
> >UnixShell.com) for $8+/month.  I don't see citing mailing lists is
> >reasonable reason for objecting to payment for delivery.
> >
> >Robert
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >extropy-chat mailing list
> >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


--
Emergency e-mail: mobile at forbidden-games.com



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  6 22:58:58 2006
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 14:58:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] jagger in the superbowl
In-Reply-To: <200602060246.k162kl2H024556@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <20060206225858.21090.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>



--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Perhaps satisfaction causes aging?
> 
> {8-]

According to information contained in this confession

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/r/rolling-stones/117881.html

the truth is far more sinister. ;)



Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Thereupon, the Soul of Mother Earth bewailed, Should I accept the support of a feeble man and listen to his words? In fact I desired the aid of a strong and mighty king. When shall such a person arise and bring strong-handed succor to me?" -Yasna 29, verse 9 

"Now I am light, now I am flying, now I see myself beneath myself, now a God dances through me." - St. Nietzsche

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Feb  7 04:23:55 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:23:55 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] jagger in the superbowl
In-Reply-To: <20060206225858.21090.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200602070502.k175210A003462@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> --- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > Perhaps satisfaction causes aging?
> >
> > {8-]
> 
> According to information contained in this confession
> 
> http://www.lyricsfreak.com/r/rolling-stones/117881.html
> 
> the truth is far more sinister. ;) Stuart LaForge

Consider for a moment the pure human brilliance that
went into certain memesets: the poetry of Shakespeare, the
U.S. constitution, Hofstadter's Eternal Golden Braid, 
More's extropian principles, Broderick's The Spike, Maxwell's
equations, general relativity, quantum electrodynamics, string
theory, all the really smart stuff.  The people that know these 
works stand in awe, yet few actually know of them, very 
tragically few.

Compare with the teeming masses gyrating to Can't Get No 
Satisfaction at the superbowl.  Can anyone even imagine song 
lyrics dumber than Can't Get No Satisfaction?  Do suggest.

Who could have predicted that a song with so little actual 
information, sung with such poor voice quality as Mick 
Jagger, without a particularly compelling beat, without 
even an imaginative guitar riff, would allow a rock and 
roll group to sell this silliness for *over forty years* yet 
never get any better than it was the first time they 
inflicted us with it.  The mind boggles.  

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/r/rolling-stones/117852.html

One often despairs at being human.


spike












From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue Feb  7 04:56:35 2006
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:56:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Is libertarianism a faith position?
Message-ID: <43E82883.7010903@mindspring.com>

[This, though long, sums up a lot of personal reservations about

libertarianism I have long had. What I personally appreciate is that 
Leser actually takes such subjects up: it's a relief to read this 
exposition rather than being told that one is 'stupid' or 'recalcitrant' 
for seriously questioning such suppositions. And I personally do think 
that skeptics should apply themselves to examining the pretexts of 
libertarianism as much as they do any other world-view that ultimately 
puts a lot of emphasis on assumption and faith.][J.H.]

by Edward Leser [edited and abridged]

Libertarianism is usually defined as the view in political philosophy 
that the only legitimate function of a government is to protect its 
citizens from force, fraud, theft, and breach of contract, and that it 
otherwise ought not to interfere with its citizens dealings with one 
another, either to make them more economically equal or to make them 
more morally virtuous. Most libertarian theorists emphasize that their 
position is not intended to be a complete system of ethics, but merely a 
doctrine about the proper scope of state power: their claim is not that 
either egalitarian views about the distribution of wealth or traditional 
attitudes about sexuality, drug use, and the like are necessarily 
incorrect, but only that such moral views ought not to guide public 
policy. A libertarian society is in their view compatible with any 
particular moral or religious outlook one might be committed to, and 
this is taken to be one of its great strengths: people of all 
persuasions in a pluralistic society can have reason to support a 
libertarian polity, precisely because it does not favor any particular 
persuasion over another. A libertarian society is, it is claimed, 
genuinely neutral between diverse moral and religious worldviews.

It simply isn't true that libertarianism is neutral between various 
moral and religious worldviews, notwithstanding that most libertarians 
would like to believe (indeed do believe) that it is. The reason, as it 
turns out, is that there is no such thing as libertarianism in the first 
place: it would be more accurate to speak in the plural of 
libertarianisms, a variety of doctrines each often described as 
libertarian, but having no common core, and each of which tends in 
either theory or practice to favor some moral worldviews to the 
exclusion of others. It also turns out that the illusion that there is 
such a thing as libertarianism -- a basic set of beliefs and values that 
all so-called libertarians have in common -- is the source of the 
illusion that a libertarian society would be a truly neutral one. When 
one gets clear on exactly which version of libertarianism one is talking 
about, it will be seen that what one is talking about is a doctrine with 
substantial moral commitments, commitments which cannot fail to promote 
some worldviews and to push others into the margins of social life.

To see that this is so, we need only look at some specific and 
paradigmatic examples of libertarian political theories, and there is no 
more appropriate place to start than at the beginning, with the early 
classical liberal (as opposed to modern, egalitarian liberal) political 
thinkers whom libertarians typically regard as their intellectual 
forebears. Take John Locke (1632-1704), who famously argued that the 
primary function of a government was to protect the property rights of 
its citizens, with the most fundamental property right being that of 
self-ownership. That we own ourselves entails, in Lockes view, that we 
own our labor and its fruits, and this in turn entails that we can (with 
certain qualifications) come to own whatever previously unowned natural 
resources we mix our labor with. Self-ownership thus grounds the right 
to private property, and with it the basic rights that determine the 
proper scope and functions of state power.

But what grounds the right of self-ownership itself? The answer, 
according to Locke, was that it derives from *God*. How? God, being the 
creator of everything that exists other than Himself including us is the 
ultimate owner of everything that exists including us. Therefore, when a 
person harms another person by killing him, stealing from him, and so 
forth, he in effect violates the rights of God, because he damages what 
is God's property. To respect God's rights over us, therefore, we must 
recognize our duty not to kill, harm, or steal from each other, which 
entails treating each other as having certain rights relative to each 
other the rights to life, liberty, and property. And these rights can 
usefully be summed up as rights of self-ownership. But ultimately, as it 
turns out, we dont really own ourselves: *God does*. Relative to Him, we 
are merely leasing ourselves, as it were, and are accountable to Him for 
how we use His property. Relative to other human beings, however, we are 
in effect self-owners; we must treat others as if they owned themselves, 
and not use them as if they were our property.

That Lockes version of classical liberalism favors a decidedly religious 
social order should be obvious. Of course, Locke is also famous for 
promoting the idea of religious toleration, and would vehemently reject 
the suggestion that any particular denomination or its teachings ought 
to be promoted by government. But Locke was nevertheless very far in his 
thinking from the interpretation of the doctrine of the separation of 
church and state favored by the ACLU. For he also held that toleration 
cannot be extended to atheists, precisely because their denial of the 
existence of God amounted, in his view, to the denial of the very 
foundations of the moral order in general, and the classical liberal 
political order in particular. In Locke's estimation, if the suggestion 
that liberalism entails a right of toleration of atheism isnt exactly a 
self-contradiction, it will do until the real thing comes along; for the 
existence of any rights at all presupposes the falsity of atheism.

Whatever one thinks of their ultimate defensibility, Lockes position 
does at least arguably form a coherent and systematic whole; and, more 
to the present point, it quite obviously is not, and does not pretend to 
be, consistent with any claim to neutrality between all moral and 
religious worldviews.

This commitment to a particular moral view of the world was typical of 
the early classical liberals. Adam Smith (1723-1790) favored modern 
liberal capitalist society precisely because of what he took to be its 
moral advantages: it provided an unprecedented degree of material 
well-being for the masses, and it promoted such bourgeois virtues as 
sobriety, moderation, and diligence. Moreover, because in Smith's view 
capitalist society failed to promote certain other virtues (namely 
martial and aristocratic ones), and even tended positively to undermine 
some of them (insofar as consumerism and the hyper-specialization 
entailed by the division of labor oriented mens minds away from 
learning), there was an urgent need for government to foster 
institutions outside the market -- a professional military and publicly 
financed education, for example -- that would make up for its 
deficiencies.

It ought not to be supposed that the moralism of these early classical 
liberals was merely an artifact of their having written in a less 
secularist age. Indeed, one finds many of the same themes in their 
recent successors. F.A. Hayek (1899-1992) was perhaps the foremost 
champion of the free society and the market economy in the 20th century. 
He was also firmly committed to the proposition that market society has 
certain moral presuppositions that can only be preserved through the 
power of social stigma. In his later work especially, he made it clear 
that these presuppositions concern the sanctity of property and of the 
family, protected by traditional moral rules which restrain our natural 
impulses and tell us that you must neither wish to possess any woman you 
see, nor wish to possess any material goods you see.

Among the benefits of religious belief in Hayek's view is its 
strengthening [of] respect for marriage, its enforcement of stricter 
observance of rules of sexual morality among both married and unmarried, 
and its creation of a socially beneficial taboo against the taking of 
another's property. Indeed, though he was personally an agnostic, Hayek 
held that the value of religion for shoring up the moral presuppositions 
of a free society cannot be overestimated:

'We owe it partly to mystical and religious beliefs, and, I believe, 
particularly to the main monotheistic ones, that beneficial traditions 
have been preserved and transmitted If we bear these things in mind, we 
can better understand and appreciate those clerics who are said to have 
become somewhat sceptical of the validity of some of their teachings and 
who yet continued to teach them because they feared that a loss of faith 
would lead to a decline in morals. No doubt they were right.'

For these reasons, Hayek, though like Locke a great defender of the 
classical liberal belief in toleration of diverse moral and religious 
points of view, also held that such toleration must have its limits if a 
free society is to maintain itself, as the following passages 
illustrate:

'I doubt whether any moral rule could be preserved without the exclusion 
of those who regularly infringe it from decent company or even without 
people not allowing their children to mix with those who have bad 
manners. It is by the separation of groups and their distinctive 
principles of admission to them that sanctions of moral behavior 
operate.'

It is not by conceding a right to equal concern and respect to those who 
break the code that civilization is maintained. Nor can we, for the 
purpose of maintaining our society, accept all moral beliefs which are 
held with equal conviction as morally legitimate, and recognize a right 
to blood feud or infanticide or even theft, or any other moral beliefs 
contrary to those on which the working of our society rests. For the 
science of anthropology, all cultures or morals may be equally good, but 
we maintain our society by treating others as less so:

'Morals must be restraints on complete freedom, they must determine what 
is permissible and what not. [T]he difficulties begin when we ask 
whether tolerance requires that we permit in our community the 
observance of a wholly different system of morals, even if a person does 
so entirely consistently and conscientiously. I am afraid I rather doubt 
whether we can tolerate a wholly different system of morals within our 
community, although it is no concern of ours what moral rules some other 
community obeys internally. I am afraid that there must be limits even 
to tolerance.'

It is significant that Hayek's view was as conservative and moralistic 
as it was despite its not being, like Locke's view, based on theological 
premises or even on the notion of natural rights. And as might be 
expected, contemporary natural rights theories have a tendency to imply 
no less conservative a moralism. To be sure, Robert Nozick (1938-2002), 
the most influential proponent of natural rights libertarianism in 
recent political philosophy, was no conservative, and was also a 
proponent of the idea that libertarianism is neutral between moral and 
religious worldviews. Indeed, given that his predecessors included 
people like Locke, Smith, and Hayek, Nozick might even have the 
distinction of being the first major classical liberal or libertarian 
theorist to suggest such a thing. The trouble is, Nozick is also 
notoriously unclear about where natural rights, and in particular the 
right of self-ownership, come from. But surely what we take to be the 
source of rights cannot fail to imply, as it does in Locke, a specific 
moral view of the world. So if Nozick's position seems to allow for 
neutrality between all worldviews, this is arguably precisely because he 
is so vague about the grounds of natural rights.

The history of recent libertarian theorizing about natural rights only 
confirms this suspicion, in my view. From the work of Ayn Rand 
(1905-1982) onward, such theorizing has been dominated by 
Aristotelianism, and in particular by some version or other of the idea 
that natural rights are ultimately to be grounded in the sort of natural 
end or purpose that Aristotle held all human beings to have. Now 
sometimes libertarian theorists try to cash out the idea of a natural 
end in only the thinnest of terms -- in Rand's case, in terms of the 
need to survive as a rational being. Notoriously, however, such an 
approach fails plausibly to yield a distinctively libertarian conception 
of rights: one might need some sort of rights in order to survive, but 
it is hard to see why one would need the extremely strong rights to 
liberty and private property (rights strong enough to rule out an 
egalitarian redistribution of wealth, say) libertarians want to affirm. 
So to make this sort of attempt to justify a libertarian conception of 
natural rights work, the libertarian needs to appeal to a much thicker 
conception of the natural end or purpose human beings have. In that 
case, though, it is very hard to see how anyone committed to this sort 
of approach can consistently avoid committing himself also to the very 
conservative moral views Aristotelian natural end theories are usually 
thought to entail, especially when worked out systematically after the 
manner of St. Thomas Aquinas and other natural law theorists.

So far my examples have all been cases where the failure of 
libertarianism to be neutral between all the moral and religious 
worldviews that exist within a modern pluralistic society involves a 
bias in favor of decidedly conservative points of view. Do I mean to 
imply, then, that all versions of libertarianism entail moral 
conservatism? By no means. Some versions in fact entail exactly the 
opposite; and in this very different way, they too fail to be neutral 
between moral and religious points of view.

Many libertarian theorists eschew any suggestion that rights are 
natural, and with it any appeal to God or human nature as the source of 
rights. They take our rights to be in some way artificial historically 
contingent conventions, say, or the products of some kind of social 
contract. The latter approach is an application to the defense of 
libertarianism of a view in moral theory sometimes called 
contractarianism, which holds that moral obligations in general and 
rights in particular can only be grounded in a kind of implicit 
agreement between all the members of society. Contrary to Locke, who 
held that our rights, being natural, pre-exist and put absolute 
conditions on any contract that can be made between human beings, the 
contractarian view is that rights only come into existence after, and as 
a result of, a social contract, and that their content is determined by 
the details of the contract. Libertarian contractarians argue that the 
details of such a social contract, when rightly understood, will be seen 
to entail libertarianism.

Now since any such contract can only ever be purely hypothetical (the 
claim is not that we literally have ever made or could make such an 
agreement), the contractarian approach raises all sorts of philosophical 
questions. Moreover, the claim that the details of the contract would 
favor libertarianism is by no means uncontroversial. (The 
non-libertarian Rawls, after all, also appeals to a kind of social 
contract theory.) But since the libertarian social contract theorist 
typically denies that there is any robust conception of human nature 
which can plausibly determine the content of morality, and typically 
characterizes what he regards as a rational party to the social contract 
as refusing to agree to any rule that he does not personally see as in 
his self-interest (where his self-interest is typically defined in terms 
of whatever desires or preferences he actually happens to have), it is 
easy to see how conservative moral views are going to be ruled out as 
indefensible from a contractarian point of view: not all parties to the 
social contract will agree to them, and so they cannot be regarded as 
morally binding.

Utilitarianism is another moral theory libertarians have sometimes 
appealed to in defense of their position. This is, to oversimplify, the 
view that what is morally required is whatever promotes the best 
consequences, where this is usually understood to entail maximizing the 
satisfaction of individual desires or preferences. Here too, whether 
either utilitarianism as a general moral philosophy or the strategy of 
using it to defend libertarianism in particular is defensible are 
matters of great controversy. But just as utilitarianism in general 
tends to be radically unconservative (as it is in the work of Peter 
Singer, perhaps the best known contemporary utilitarian) so too is it 
when applied to a defense of libertarianism. For any view that appeals 
merely to what people happen in fact to desire or prefer without asking, 
after the fashion of Aristotelianism or natural law theory, what desires 
or preferences we ought to have given our nature is bound not to sit 
well with the conservative moralist's tendency to see certain kinds of 
desires and preferences as intrinsically disordered and immoral, so that 
there can be no question of maximizing their satisfaction.

Of course, the expression utilitarian is sometimes used by libertarians 
in a much looser way, to refer, not to utilitarianism as a general moral 
philosophy, but merely to a defense of libertarianism which emphasizes 
certain practical economic benefits of the free market, such as its 
ability to generate wealth and technological innovation. Now by itself, 
this sort of economic approach doesn't count as a complete defense of 
libertarianism, since many egalitarian liberals and non-libertarian 
conservatives would acknowledge these benefits of the market but deny 
that such considerations address all their concerns, such as moral ones. 
But there is a tendency among some economics-oriented defenders of 
libertarianism to go well beyond this modest appeal to what are 
generally recognized to be economic considerations -- a tendency to try 
to analyze all human behavior and social institutions in economic terms, 
and thereby to reduce all considerations to purely economic ones. At its 
most extreme, the results are artifacts like Richard Posner's book 'Sex 
and Reason', which attempts to account for all human sexual behavior in 
terms of perceived costs and benefits.

Now many of those committed to the sorts of unconservative versions of 
libertarianism Ive just described would insist that their position 
really is neutral between moral worldviews, since they would not 
advocate keeping those with conservative sensibilities from living in 
accordance with their views or expressing them in public. But this 
misses the point. For the versions of libertarianism described in the 
last section do not treat conservative views as truly moral views at 
all; they treat them instead as mere prejudices: at best matters of 
taste, like one's preference for this or that flavor of ice cream, and 
at worst rank superstitions that pose a constant danger of leading those 
holding them to try to restrict the freedoms of those practicing 
non-traditional lifestyles. Libertarians of the contractarian, 
utilitarian, or economistic bent must therefore treat the conservative 
the way the egalitarian liberal treats the racist, i.e., as someone who 
can be permitted to hold and practice his views, but only provided he 
and his views are widely regarded as of the crackpot variety. Just as 
the Lockean, Smithian, Hayekian, and Aristotelian versions of 
libertarianism entail a social marginalization of those who flout 
bourgeois moral standards, so too do these unconservative versions of 
libertarianism entail a social marginalization of those who defend 
bourgeois moral standards. Neither kind of libertarianism is truly 
neutral between moral worldviews.

There are two dramatic consequences of this difference between these 
kinds of libertarianism. The first is that a society self-consciously 
guided by principles of the Lockean, Smithian, Hayekian, or Aristotelian 
sort will, obviously, be a society of a generally conservative 
character, while a society self-consciously guided by principles of a 
contractarian, utilitarian, or economistic sort will, equally obviously, 
be a society of a generally anti-conservative character. The point is 
not that the former sort of society will explicitly outlaw bohemian 
behavior or that the latter will explicitly outlaw conservative 
behavior. The point is rather that the former sort of society is bound 
to be one in which the bohemian is going to feel out of place, while the 
latter is one in which the conservative is going to feel out of place. 
In either case, there will of course be enclaves here and there where 
the outsider will find those of like mind. But someone is inevitably 
going to get pushed into the cultural catacombs. In no case is a 
libertarian society going to be genuinely neutral between all the points 
of view represented within it.

The second dramatic consequence is that there are also bound to be 
differences in the public policy recommendations made by the different 
versions of libertarianism. Take, for example, the issue of abortion. 
Those whose libertarianism is grounded in Lockean, Aristotelian, or 
Hayekian thinking are far more likely to take a conservative line on the 
matter. To be sure, there are plenty of pro-choice libertarians 
influenced by Hayek. But by far most of these libertarians are 
(certainly in my experience anyway) inclined to accept Hayek's economic 
views while soft-pedaling or even dismissing the Burkean traditionalist 
foundations he gave for his overall social theory. Those who endorse the 
latter, however, are going to be hard-pressed not to be at least 
suspicious of the standard moral and legal arguments offered in defense 
of abortion. Even more clearly, libertarians of a Lockean or 
Aristotelian-natural law bent are going to have strong grounds for 
regarding abortion as no less a violation of individual rights than is 
the murder of a man, woman, or child: a fetus is no less God's property 
than is a child or adult; and on the standard Aristotelian-natural law 
view, the fetus is fully human not a potential human being, but rather a 
human being which hasn't yet fulfilled all its potentials and thus has 
all the rights that any other human being has.

By contrast, libertarians influenced by contractarianism are very 
unlikely to oppose abortion, because fetuses cannot plausibly be counted 
as parties to the social contract that could provide the only grounds 
for a prohibition on killing them. Utilitarianism and economism too 
would provide no plausible grounds for a prohibition on abortion, since 
fetuses would seem to have no preferences or desires which could be 
factored into our calculations of how best to maximize the satisfaction 
of such preferences or desires.

There are also bound to be differences over the question of same-sex 
marriage. From a natural rights perspective, whether Lockean or 
Aristotelian, it is hard to see how the demand for a right to same-sex 
marriage can be justified. For if there is a natural right to marriage, 
then marriage must be a natural institution; and the standard defense of 
marriage as a natural institution appeals to the idea that it is has a 
natural function, namely procreation, which entails in turn that it is 
inherently heterosexual. Nor can a Hayekian analysis of social 
institutions fail to imply anything but skepticism about the case for 
same-sex marriage. Hayek's position was that traditional moral rules, 
especially when connected to institutions as fundamental as the family 
and found nearly universally in human cultures, should be tampered with 
only with the most extreme caution. The burden of proof is always on the 
innovator rather than the traditionalist, whether or not the 
traditionalist can justify his conservatism to the innovators 
satisfaction; and change can be justified only by showing that the rule 
the innovator wants to abandon is in outright contradiction to some 
other fundamental traditional rule. But that there is any contradiction 
in this case is simply implausible, especially when one considers the 
traditional natural law understanding of marriage sketched above.

On the other hand, it is easy to see how contractarianism, 
utilitarianism, and economism might be thought to justify same-sex 
marriage. If the actual desires or preferences of individuals are all 
that matter, and some of those individuals desire or prefer to set up a 
partnership with someone of the same sex and call it marriage, then 
there can be no moral objection to their doing so.

If these different versions of libertarianism differ so radically in 
terms of their justifying grounds and implications, why are they usually 
regarded as variations of the same doctrine? And why are they so 
commonly held to be neutral between various moral and religious 
worldviews if, as I have tried to show, they clearly are not? The answer 
to both questions, I think, is that all these versions of libertarianism 
are often thought, erroneously, to be committed fundamentally to the 
value of freedom: they are versions of libertarianism, after all, so 
liberty or freedom would seem to be their common core, and this might 
seem to include the freedom of every person to follow whatever moral or 
religious view he likes. But in fact none of these doctrines takes 
liberty or freedom to be fundamental. What is taken to be fundamental is 
rather natural rights, or tradition, or a social contract, or utility, 
or efficiency; freedom falls out only as a consequence of the 
libertarians more basic commitment to one of these other values, and the 
content of that freedom differs radically depending on precisely which 
of these fundamental values he is committed to. For the 
Aristotelian-natural law theorist, freedom includes not only freedom 
from excessive state power, but also freedom from those moral vices 
which prevent the realization of our natural end; for the contractarian 
or utilitarian, however, freedom may well include freedom from the very 
concepts of moral vice and natural ends. Freedom would also entail for 
the latter the right to commit suicide, while for the Lockean, there can 
be no such right, since suicide would itself violate the rights of the 
God who created and owns us.

This difference in the understanding of freedom has its parallel in a 
difference in what we might call the tone in which various libertarians 
assert the right of self-ownership. In the mouth of some libertarians, 
what self-ownership is fundamentally about is something like this: Other 
human beings have an intrinsic dignity and moral value, and this entails 
a duty on my part not to use them as means to my own ends; I therefore 
have no right to the fruits of another man's labor. In the mouths of 
other libertarians, what it means is, at bottom, rather this: I can do 
whatever what I want to do, as long as I let everyone else do what they 
want to do too; there are no grounds for preventing any of us from 
doing, in general, what we want to do. The first view expresses an 
attitude of deference, the second an attitude of self-assertion; the 
first reflects a commitment to strong moral realism and a rich 
conception of human nature, the second a thin conception of human nature 
and a tendency toward moral minimalism or even moral skepticism. And the 
first, I would submit, is more characteristic of libertarians of a 
Lockean, Hayekian, or Aristotelian bent, while the latter is more 
typical of libertarians influenced by contractarianism, utilitarianism, 
or economism.

It is sometimes said that contemporary conservatism is an uneasy 
alliance between libertarians and traditionalists, and that this 
alliance is destined eventually to collapse due to the inherent conflict 
between the two philosophies. But it can with equal or even greater 
plausibility be argued that it is in fact contemporary libertarianism 
which comprises an uneasy alliance, an association between incompatible 
factions committed to very different conceptions of freedom. **The 
trouble with libertarianism is that many of its adherents have for too 
long labored under the illusion that things are otherwise, that their 
creed is a single unified political philosophy that does not, and need 
not, take a stand on the most contentious moral issues dividing 
contemporary society.** This has led to confusion both at the level of 
theory and at the level of policy. Libertarians need to get clear about 
exactly what they believe and why. And when they do, they might find 
that their particular version of libertarianism commits them or ought to 
commit them to regard as rivals those they might once have considered 
allies.

Edward Feser (edwardfeser at hotmail.com) is the author of On Nozick 
(Wadsworth, 2003).


-- 

Paul W Harrison, TESL



-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >
[Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA,
and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]



From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Feb  7 04:57:32 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:57:32 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design: I'm not dead yet
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0601260818x6101a757h73bbd93ae83f54b9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0601260818x6101a757h73bbd93ae83f54b9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <96AFF52D-4BBB-4E73-92A4-61CBEDA9EDBD@mac.com>


On Jan 26, 2006, at 8:18 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote:

> Slashdot is reporting [1] that the BBC is reporting [2] that more  
> than 50% of the people in Britian do not believe in evolution and  
> more than 40% support the teaching of creationism or intelligent  
> design.  So this isn't a problem for the United States only.
>

Hmm.  So perhaps we should take it as a given that the 50% of the  
population below average intelligence in IQ or by choice just simply  
isn't worth attempting to convince of much of anything.

- samantha




From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Feb  7 05:20:29 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:20:29 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] No frozen Europe...
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602061319q669b4969u30662ba0c9cee317@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0602061319q669b4969u30662ba0c9cee317@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D1342D8-0821-4172-ADC8-0CD57F4458CD@mac.com>

Where is the salty ice coming from?  Normal sea ice is not very  
salty, much lower salinity than sea water.

- samantha

On Feb 6, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote:

> Sigh... (I thought global warming would be a cheap way to reduce  
> the number of European luddites opposed to GMOs :-|)
>
> At any rate, it appears that 8000 barges (@$50 billion) put out  
> into the North Atlantic to increase the quantity of salty sea ice  
> which forms (think snow making) every year could solve the problem  
> of keeping the Gulf Stream flowing.  (The salty ice melts in the  
> spring/summer producing cold & dense salt water that sinks acting  
> as a suction pump which draws the tropical water towards the  
> arctic.)  If anyone is ambitious and can find the actual article I  
> would love to know what fraction of this is the startup cost and  
> what fraction is the annual operating cost.
>
> Even if its an annual cost, it works out to ~$200/person(in the  
> U.S.).  I suspect that is cheap compared with other alternatives  
> (For example, I think the U.S. is giving away $2000+ tax credits on  
> hybrid cars which aren't even going to come close to solving the  
> problem the way the barges will).
>
> Oh yes, another article I ran across suggests that the Antarctic  
> Krill are sucking down more CO2 than had previously been thought so  
> one positive effect of increased atmospheric CO2 would be to  
> increase food supplies at the bottom of the oceanic food pyramid.
>
> Robert
>
> 1. http://www.physorg.com/news10579.html
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060206/9960e238/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Feb  7 05:42:12 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:42:12 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] No frozen Europe...
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602061319q669b4969u30662ba0c9cee317@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602070613.k176DUqB007192@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
...

Oh yes, another article I ran across suggests that the Antarctic Krill are
sucking down more CO2 than had previously been thought so one positive
effect of increased atmospheric CO2 would be to increase food supplies at
the bottom of the oceanic food pyramid. 

Robert


The atmosphere is has gone from a concentration of
about 320 to 380 ppm in my life.  The area of the
earth is about 5e14 square meters and the atmopshere
weighs about ten thousand kg per square meter, so
the atmosphere's mass is about 5e18 kg.  Carbon
dioxide is 12/44ths carbon, then the mass of carbon
in the atmosphere is about 5.3e14 kg, up from 4.5E14kg. 

Seawater is about 28 parts per million carbon according
to this site:

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm

This carbon must be all the stuff living in that
seawater.  About 70% of the planet's surface is
ocean, and as I recall the average depth is about
4000 meters, so I calculate a total ocean mass
of about 1.4e21 kg.  So the mass of the carbon
in the ocean is about 4e16kg.

Did I goof that calc?  If not, then there is nearly
one hundred times as much carbon in the sea as in
the air.  So if the amount of krill and other ocean
bio-stuff is increased by one percent, that would
devour all the atmospheric carbon dioxide, which
would be bad.  But a quarter of a percent would
compensate for increase in CO2 in my lifetime, which
might also be bad but some would argue is good.

So if we nuke a few whales, each of which devours
a lot of krill and makes a lot of CO2, then we
could take down the CO2 a lot more than that goofy
failed treaty.  Could it really be as easy as slaying
a number of whales?  I bet we could do that.

spike









From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Feb  7 05:36:59 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:36:59 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] earthquake
In-Reply-To: <200602060133.k161X39X026787@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200602060133.k161X39X026787@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <2C63CC7D-BF78-4F62-98C2-24717ED962D5@mac.com>

Hmm?  Was that what woke me up?  :-)

Seriously, I only see a report of a microquake.   Although I hope to  
look at New Hampshire real estate this summer, that small a quake is  
hardly worth writing about.

- s

On Feb 5, 2006, at 4:59 PM, spike wrote:

> Ja I wrote Santa Clara meaning county.  The quake was about
> five miles east north east of Milpitas, and I live on the
> north east end of Milpitas, so the epicenter was probably
> within walking distance from my house.  Taxifornians, we
> are playing with fire living practically on top of
> the Calaveras fault.
>
> spike
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
>> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:54 AM
>> To: ExI chat list
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] earthquake
>>
>> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/4/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Whoa, earthquake!  10.05 a.m. PST, Santa
>>>> Clara Taxifornia.  Everyone OK?  No damage
>>>> here, got my full and undivided.  {8-]
>>>>
>>> Didn't feel a thing
>>
>> Ditto.  (Mountain View, just a few miles west of Santa Clara.)
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Tue Feb  7 06:04:18 2006
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:04:18 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Acting Bots
Message-ID: <000c01c62bac$5550b640$6600a8c0@brainiac>

"Les Freres Corbusier, in turn, have learned something about robotics. 
"They've been so helpful," Ms. Meriwether said. "They explained the idea of 
singularity to me when I was banging my head against the wall trying to 
figure out the play." Singularity - the notion popularized by Mr. Kurzweil 
that robots will soon acquire self-awareness - now informs the play."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/theater/newsandfeatures/05solo.html






From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Feb  7 07:05:02 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 23:05:02 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] earthquake
In-Reply-To: <2C63CC7D-BF78-4F62-98C2-24717ED962D5@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200602070706.k1776YJa022167@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> that small a quake is hardly worth writing about.

Ja, it was close and small.  Better that than
far and big.

>...I hope to
> look at New Hampshire real estate this summer...

Oh dear.  You may be neighbors with Mike Lorrey.  {8-]

Surely you are far too young to retire Samantha?

spike









From transcend at extropica.com  Tue Feb  7 07:14:34 2006
From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 01:14:34 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Is libertarianism a faith position?
In-Reply-To: <43E82883.7010903@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <200602070846.k178kJ7g018462@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Is libertarianism a faith position?

Libertarians today may define themselves more in terms of how they view
certain political issues than any particular overarching philosophical
perspective. I don't think the lack of an identifiable unifying core
philosophy or value-set necessarily negates the point of modern
libertarianism. A hard core libertarian activist may be acquainted with the
history of that doctrine, but most likely the average libertarian voter is
more interested in a specific legislative result.

I wish more transhumanists would look at the issue of implementation as a
puzzle to be solved, rather than stick to socialist or libertarian guns and
to hell with the opposition...but this is one area where, as we have seen on
this list, people are very emotional.

I would argue that all political belief systems are "faith systems" when
founded on broad speculation of their impacts or when inherited from the
parents through indoctrination. Isn't the dedicated belief that the
communist revolution would have a particular outcome a faith position? Broad
based political belief systems seem to me to be speculative political
science often based more on wishful thinking than on reason. It seems to me
that the success of pluralist capitalist democracy has demonstrated it has
more value than autocracy, central planning, or theocracy...so I could say I
have some broad political beliefs...but I much prefer to evaluate political
issues on their individual merits. As a result, I don't consider myself to
fit with any particular political party. It makes voting difficult!

There are those who follow a particular political party because it shares
certain "core values," but those values are expressed in the desire to
achieve certain political results through legislation. Results which are not
guaranteed, are often poorly researched (or funded, or enforced) and
therefore the belief that a political party will bring about a specific
value oriented future is based on faith. A faith that is "belief that does
not rest on logical proof or material evidence" for the average person, who
is usually a political credulist loyal to a particular party as a result of
indoctrination.

Political credulism is faith based. When it comes to managing a nation's
social and economic health, the devil is in the details. Details beyond the
ken of most voters...who place "faith" in their chosen elected to broadly
promote a legislative plan that reflects their core values or seeks to
achieve their desired outcomes.

But that isn't really a bad thing. Using "faith based" in this context is
really an attempt to demonize a particular collection of political views by
smuggling in the negative connotation "faith based" has in rational society,
due to association with religious belief. One can have a set of political
views that either promote certain values or seek to achieve certain
socioeconomic results without necessarily knowing with a high degree of
confidence that the result will be achieved. Said person can be considered
to be rational if they say, when their chosen system fails, "oh crap, that
didn't go as planned. Something I believed was wrong. How do we fix it?"

Brandon



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Feb  7 08:09:54 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 00:09:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] No frozen Europe...
In-Reply-To: <200602070613.k176DUqB007192@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <20060207080954.40749.qmail@web81611.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> This carbon must be all the stuff living in that
> seawater.  About 70% of the planet's surface is
> ocean, and as I recall the average depth is about
> 4000 meters, so I calculate a total ocean mass
> of about 1.4e21 kg.  So the mass of the carbon
> in the ocean is about 4e16kg.
> 
> Did I goof that calc?  If not, then there is nearly
> one hundred times as much carbon in the sea as in
> the air.  So if the amount of krill and other ocean
> bio-stuff is increased by one percent, that would
> devour all the atmospheric carbon dioxide, which
> would be bad.  But a quarter of a percent would
> compensate for increase in CO2 in my lifetime, which
> might also be bad but some would argue is good.
> 
> So if we nuke a few whales, each of which devours
> a lot of krill and makes a lot of CO2, then we
> could take down the CO2 a lot more than that goofy
> failed treaty.  Could it really be as easy as slaying
> a number of whales?  I bet we could do that.

4e16 kg * 0.25% = 1e14 kg.  This is way more than the total mass
of all the whales prsently in the Earth's oceans.  (A blue
whale, the largest known animal, is about 1e5 kg.  It is
estimated that there are less than 1e6, possibly less than 1e5,
whales of any type in existance today.  While whales, like most
predators, consume more than their body mass over the course of
their lives, at any one instant they only account for their own
body's mass: the prey they will consume near the end of their
lives may still be but component atoms at the start, and vice
versa.)  And whales are not the only krill predators out there.

Not that this would be the first objection you'd run into if you
tried to do it, of course.


From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Feb  7 08:41:49 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 00:41:49 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] earthquake
In-Reply-To: <200602070706.k1776YJa022167@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200602070706.k1776YJa022167@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <580ABDAC-C4D9-4FEC-96B5-B853D33D35C9@mac.com>

I am working on learning to be an "I", an investor rather than an  
employee.  It fits my nature somewhat better than being a "B".   I  
don't know yet whether my investing is dependably good enough to live  
on while increasing principal.  A few good months make it possible  
that I am closer than I previously dreamed.  But it is too soon to  
say. I may have a bit more working as a consultant to do while I get  
my investment strategies and skills more honed.  Once money, at least  
enough to live comfortably on, is not a time-consuming issue I get to  
do exactly what I most want to with my time.  I am still working on  
figuring out precisely what that is.   It is a different perspective  
when the excuse of being limited by the "job" falls away.

If that counts as retiring then I fervently hope that everyone I know  
gets to "retire" very soon.  I only wish that I was more aware of the  
importance of such "retirement" much earlier and had learned more  
about investing than simply gambling on luck, intuition, a good  
economy and a reasonable general idea or two.   Financial  
independence may be more obtainable than you think.

- samantha

On Feb 6, 2006, at 11:05 PM, spike wrote:

>> that small a quake is hardly worth writing about.
>
> Ja, it was close and small.  Better that than
> far and big.
>
>> ...I hope to
>> look at New Hampshire real estate this summer...
>
> Oh dear.  You may be neighbors with Mike Lorrey.  {8-]
>
> Surely you are far too young to retire Samantha?
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Feb  7 08:58:44 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 00:58:44 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <20060205161340.24367.qmail@web80725.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060205161340.24367.qmail@web80725.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <74B1AEC8-3D13-4EA7-9ADA-54EED36F5915@mac.com>

It is a terrible idea.  We have a medium that allows for the free  
exchange of a lot of information between people and computational  
elements.  The suits would like nothing better but to raise mega-$$$  
on the communication flowing across the Net.  If they can do it under  
the guise of protecting us then so much the better.  But the result  
will be a more controlled and far less free and ubiquitous  
communication network.  This also would please many political as well  
as corporate parties and many established powers who worry the Net is  
outside their control and a potential threat.   Please be very  
careful not to give control over content up without a lot of thought  
and a long fight for every bit of freedom the open Net provides.    
This really is not about spam.  A Mind is a terrible thing to control  
and throttle.   Yeah, the Net today is less than a drooling idiot.    
But the potential is vast.  Don't throw it away just to not have to  
filter spam.

- samantha

On Feb 5, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Keith M. Elis wrote:

> This topic is one that many people have mixed feelings about.  
> Companies
> appear to be seriously weighing the idea of charging for email  
> delivery
> in certain cases. Frankly some form of email postage is probably a  
> good
> idea for the long-term viability of the medium.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/05AOL.html? 
> ex=1296795600&en=6efa03d1cbfacf9e&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  7 13:24:22 2006
From: zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com (Keith M. Elis)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 05:24:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
Message-ID: <20060207132422.23052.qmail@web80732.mail.yahoo.com>

To me, it's not about spam, though one of the side effects might be a
reduction in unsolicited emails. I think it's about putting a structure
in place to allow the market to decide the value of a kilobyte of
email. Right now, the market is telling us the value of an email is no
more or less than any other set of packets that passes through your
ISP. Is this really accurate? Sometimes just one email sent, delivered,
and responded to by a client is worth far more to me than anything else
I do on the net that month.  I can envision a situation where I would
want that email to be given special consideration. 

That said, I don't believe charging for individual emails is the right
way to do it at the moment. Instead, a better system would be kind of
like the US cellular market -- a flat monthly fee with some number of
minutes per month. You already pay an ISP for home/office access. Just
tack on a provision to the contract that allows a set number of KB of
email per month, overages apply.   

If the number of KB allowed is not set too high, I tend to think this
system will reduce low-content email from serial spammers, cut down on
low-content forwards from friends and family, cut down on 'me too'
posts and spontaneous irrelevant threads on email lists, and even
improve the quality of unsolicited advertisements you receive, targeted
to you and for higher quality products. I also think this system will
encourage thoughtful people who don't normally send a lot of email to
write and send more. This because they have pre-payed for the right to
send a certain amount of email, they are more likely to find ways to
use it. 

In the end, these pressures will lead to a net improvement in email
quality, with little to no chilling effect on important, high-quality,
high-content emails. Since I think this is true, it is my position
until further notice.  

Keith


Samantha Atkins wrote:

It is a terrible idea.  We have a medium that allows for the free  
exchange of a lot of information between people and computational  
elements.  The suits would like nothing better but to raise mega-$$$  
on the communication flowing across the Net.  If they can do it under  
the guise of protecting us then so much the better.  But the result  
will be a more controlled and far less free and ubiquitous  
communication network.  This also would please many political as well  
as corporate parties and many established powers who worry the Net is  
outside their control and a potential threat.   Please be very  
careful not to give control over content up without a lot of thought  
and a long fight for every bit of freedom the open Net provides.    
This really is not about spam.  A Mind is a terrible thing to control  
and throttle.   Yeah, the Net today is less than a drooling idiot.    
But the potential is vast.  Don't throw it away just to not have to  
filter spam.



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Tue Feb  7 14:26:25 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:26:25 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design: I'm not dead yet
In-Reply-To: <96AFF52D-4BBB-4E73-92A4-61CBEDA9EDBD@mac.com>
References: <deaa866a0601260818x6101a757h73bbd93ae83f54b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<96AFF52D-4BBB-4E73-92A4-61CBEDA9EDBD@mac.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602070626m46b54d40uf762c75e1a689a2e@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/7/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 26, 2006, at 8:18 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote:
>
> > Slashdot is reporting [1] that the BBC is reporting [2] that more
> > than 50% of the people in Britian do not believe in evolution and
> > more than 40% support the teaching of creationism or intelligent
> > design.  So this isn't a problem for the United States only.
> >


Survey figures like that rarely have any connection to reality, and this one
definitely doesn't. (Apart from misrepresentative samples and just plain
fabrication, it's been shown that small differences in the wording of
questions with the same denotation, particularly on politically loaded
topics, make large differences in the distribution of answers.)

Hmm.  So perhaps we should take it as a given that the 50% of the
> population below average intelligence in IQ or by choice just simply
> isn't worth attempting to convince of much of anything.


Unfortunately, even people with high intelligence often just use it for
self-deception.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060207/321af5a8/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Tue Feb  7 15:15:54 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:15:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] No frozen Europe...
In-Reply-To: <4D1342D8-0821-4172-ADC8-0CD57F4458CD@mac.com>
References: <deaa866a0602061319q669b4969u30662ba0c9cee317@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D1342D8-0821-4172-ADC8-0CD57F4458CD@mac.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602070715p7046a5d0icf6a224507eff3b8@mail.gmail.com>

Samantha,

Read the ref, or better still the actual article if you can locate it.  As I
understand it they want to spray salt water on top of frozen sea ice where
it will essentially lock the salt in place.  As it melts in the spring the
water will have a much higher salinity than normal sea ice.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060207/9faf6ba4/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Tue Feb  7 15:52:52 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:52:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] No frozen Europe...
In-Reply-To: <200602070613.k176DUqB007192@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <deaa866a0602061319q669b4969u30662ba0c9cee317@mail.gmail.com>
	<200602070613.k176DUqB007192@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602070752y4a049e7bob778459f092a71b1@mail.gmail.com>

Spike,

I'd agree with the argument that the ocean contains more carbon simply on
the basis of density and volume (the CO2 in the atmosphere isn't
particularly dense while the upper levels of the ocean do contain large
quantities of bacteria).  But I'll see if I can find time to plug the
calculations into a spread sheet to confirm it.

Harvesting whales doesn't factor into the equation.  Given the large numbers
that have been killed (from ~1750 to 1986) there is no way the whales are
limiting the krill population.  In fact I think krill harvesting may serve
as a major input into processed "fish" food and/or food for fish farms so
humans may be the primary predators [one might google/wiki this].  If the
limited whale population is starving at this point it is due to
overharvesting by humans.  If it isn't humans then squid might be the
limiting predator.  (Someday I need to go study oceanography...)

The limit on krill production is probably basic nutrients for the
phytoplankton (which bloom when sun comes back to the arctic or antarctic)
that they feed on.  If my research on global warming a number of years ago
[1] is accurate, then those are probably iron and/or phosphorus.  If one
increases the availability of those in the ocean then the krill will "sink"
more CO2.  (The same is true for phytoplankton fed on by other species in
other parts of the ocean.)  Alternatively the plankton could be limited by
disolved CO2 (and other C molecules but those are even rarer).  I seem to
recall that this may be determined by wave (esp. spray) action.  I'm fairly
sure this is a surface area problem.  More water surface exposed to air with
CO2 leads to more disolved CO2.  So an alternative to the salty ice making
barges (whose purpose was to keep the Gulf Stream flowing) one might want
sea water fountian making barges.  Make a fountain of sea water, throw in
some iron and phosphorus in the process and I would bet you have a plankton
bloom that lots of species would find very appealing.  Of course for some
people these might make a much nicer home than one built out of pop bottles
[2].

As a side note, I have my doubts as to whether *any* of the existing climate
models take into acount what happens to the ecosystem if global warming
results in increased wind & rain which dump more limiting nutrients into the
oceans (increasing phytoplankton abundance) or increased wave activity
increasing oceanic CO2 levels.  GAIA is a living ecosystem and leaving life
out of the equation probably makes the climate prediction models worth
significantly less than the paper they get printed on.  Though if the
"wrong" conclusions motivate us into really developing ocean farming (vs.
ocean harvesting) then that could perhaps be a good thing.

As I think Adrian tried to point out whale harvesting puts you into somewhat
swampy ground (even from a simple extropic viewpoint -- those are *big*
brains you are directly or indirectly disassembling).  Most fish on the
other hand are less problematic and finding the krill objectionable puts you
almost into the Jain religous camp.  Bear in mind that each step up the food
pyramid that you take is an increasingly less efficient food source compared
with lower levels (from an energy input standpoint).

Robert

1. http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/Papers/GWiaRH.html<http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/%7Ebradbury/Papers/GWiaRH.html>

2. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/11/tired_of_living.php
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060207/62085764/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Tue Feb  7 16:57:18 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:57:18 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Is libertarianism a faith position?
In-Reply-To: <200602070846.k178kJ7g018462@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <43E82883.7010903@mindspring.com>
	<200602070846.k178kJ7g018462@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602070857j6df9db0bw9ed3d419b1667f5@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/7/06, Brandon Reinhart <transcend at extropica.com> wrote:
>
> > Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Is libertarianism a faith position?
>
>
IMO *all* political ideologies are faith positions.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060207/35c9a90f/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Tue Feb  7 17:00:29 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:00:29 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] jagger in the superbowl
In-Reply-To: <200602070502.k175210A003462@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <20060206225858.21090.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
	<200602070502.k175210A003462@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602070900p5afd06dcy1e4e8fa371dab1fb@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/7/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > --- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Perhaps satisfaction causes aging?
> > >
> > > {8-]
> >
> > According to information contained in this confession
> >
> > http://www.lyricsfreak.com/r/rolling-stones/117881.html
> >
> > the truth is far more sinister. ;) Stuart LaForge
>
> Consider for a moment the pure human brilliance that
> went into certain memesets: the poetry of Shakespeare, the
> U.S. constitution, Hofstadter's Eternal Golden Braid,
> More's extropian principles, Broderick's The Spike, Maxwell's
> equations, general relativity, quantum electrodynamics, string
> theory, all the really smart stuff.  The people that know these
> works stand in awe, yet few actually know of them, very
> tragically few.
>
> Compare with the teeming masses gyrating to Can't Get No
> Satisfaction at the superbowl.  Can anyone even imagine song
> lyrics dumber than Can't Get No Satisfaction?  Do suggest.
>
> Who could have predicted that a song with so little actual
> information, sung with such poor voice quality as Mick
> Jagger, without a particularly compelling beat, without
> even an imaginative guitar riff, would allow a rock and
> roll group to sell this silliness for *over forty years* yet
> never get any better than it was the first time they
> inflicted us with it.  The mind boggles.
>
> http://www.lyricsfreak.com/r/rolling-stones/117852.html
>
> One often despairs at being human.



You mean that such genius is beyond your ability to understand, or (I
assume) emulate.
As John Lennon once scathingly said "... they want to see us walk on water
again because they missed it the first time around or couldn't believe what
they were seeing..."

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060207/f7287159/attachment.html>

From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Tue Feb  7 16:25:33 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:25:33 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design: I'm not dead yet
References: <deaa866a0601260818x6101a757h73bbd93ae83f54b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<96AFF52D-4BBB-4E73-92A4-61CBEDA9EDBD@mac.com>
Message-ID: <004801c62c03$45024ae0$640fa8c0@kevin>

No. This is completely wrong. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It is
education.
When I was a kid, I was a "gifted student". By the time I left high school,
I was average. For severa; years I thougth I was just average and only found
my hidden geek self again in my mid 20s. By then I knew the creation story
was bologna, but evolution didn't seem sensible to me either. I would often
spout such things to friends as "I have a third theory. Aliens are
responsible". And I truly believed this was the most likely scenario.

It wasn't until my late 20s while doing some self-directed research that I
stumbled onto an old copy of "Origins" by Richard Leakey. This book turned
me onto a path that I never knew existed. Before I knew it, I had a
fundamental understanding of evolution and became obsessed with it. Now,
several years later, I am amazed at my own ignorance before. Even more
amazing is the fact that many, many people thought the same way as I did
about evolution.

I have attempted to figure out what details made the difference and here
they are:

1.) High school students are not taught the scientific method properly and
have no clue as to the difference between an opinion and a theory.

2.) High school teachers teach evolution only half-heartedly. They fear
reprisal if they actually convince children of the correctness of evolution.
(I was told this by 8 different science teachers while interviewing them for
a report for an online class several years ago)

3.) Educators on all levels fail to recognize the importance of
understanding natural selection and common descent in our daily lives.

4.) Educators fail to emphasize and teach the difference between
exponentially increasing numbers - therefore most people simply can't
comprehend the difference between 10,000 years, a million years, and a
billion years.

5.) Science teachers fail completely to teach the basics of how genetic
mutation occurs and how cumulutive effects can vary in populatoins leading
to speciation. Again, this is likely due to fear of actually persuading
science students to believe that evolution is real.

6.) The philosophical questions of the origins of life are never addressed
at all in school.

The basics of evolution can be found in nearly any college basic
anthropology or biology textbook yet many college students arrive knowing
little about evolution. People of all levels of intelligence are affected by
this. Our schools have created a population where even educated and
intelligent people in science, medicine, and technology simply do not
understand the basic concepts of common descent, natural selection, and
cumulative changes in isolated populations leading to speciation.

I believe that many people could be properly convinced if they could be
taken one on one and taught. But like many things, this simply cannot be won
with sound bites and short phrases. Instead, we need to see a fundamental
change in our educational system that throws out creation ideas and teaches
evolution properly. It needs people like us to become teachers of grade
school kids instead of taking on the higher paying jobs we have now.

Due to recent statements from the Vatican, I am inclined to think that a
partnership with them may actually help in these matters. They seem fairly
open to scientific ideas lately. They know that things such as evolution are
simply no longer debatable and have probably learned from the past that they
need to position themselves to concur with reality and lead if they want to
have any validity at all. This is especially important after all the
priest/boy fiascos bringing the catholic church under fire. If they played
their cards right they may be on the verge of a major shift in religion back
to catholocism using science as it's means to do this. Has anyone from the
Extropy Inst. considered developing a dialog with the Vatican?

I can see it now. I make a backup of myself. My body dies and I restore
myself from a backup. The shrinking Baptist church claims that I am an
abomination. Meanwhile, the catholic church holds me up as "proof of God's
great glory". :-)


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Samantha Atkins" <sjatkins at mac.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design: I'm not dead yet


>
> On Jan 26, 2006, at 8:18 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote:
>
> > Slashdot is reporting [1] that the BBC is reporting [2] that more
> > than 50% of the people in Britian do not believe in evolution and
> > more than 40% support the teaching of creationism or intelligent
> > design.  So this isn't a problem for the United States only.
> >
>
> Hmm.  So perhaps we should take it as a given that the 50% of the
> population below average intelligence in IQ or by choice just simply
> isn't worth attempting to convince of much of anything.
>
> - samantha
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Tue Feb  7 16:30:54 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:30:54 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
References: <20060207132422.23052.qmail@web80732.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <008c01c62c04$01274540$640fa8c0@kevin>

This is an easy debate to solve. Start a company that charges for priority
processing of email and guarantee of receipt. Then put the methods in place
for people to send and receive secure priority email. You can require people
to "sign" for the message as you would a package. Have it as a subscription
service. If the idea is feasible, it will take off. If not, it will sink. It
really shouldn't be too hard for someone to set up.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith M. Elis" <zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Email Postage


> To me, it's not about spam, though one of the side effects might be a
> reduction in unsolicited emails. I think it's about putting a structure
> in place to allow the market to decide the value of a kilobyte of
> email. Right now, the market is telling us the value of an email is no
> more or less than any other set of packets that passes through your
> ISP. Is this really accurate? Sometimes just one email sent, delivered,
> and responded to by a client is worth far more to me than anything else
> I do on the net that month.  I can envision a situation where I would
> want that email to be given special consideration.
>
> That said, I don't believe charging for individual emails is the right
> way to do it at the moment. Instead, a better system would be kind of
> like the US cellular market -- a flat monthly fee with some number of
> minutes per month. You already pay an ISP for home/office access. Just
> tack on a provision to the contract that allows a set number of KB of
> email per month, overages apply.
>
> If the number of KB allowed is not set too high, I tend to think this
> system will reduce low-content email from serial spammers, cut down on
> low-content forwards from friends and family, cut down on 'me too'
> posts and spontaneous irrelevant threads on email lists, and even
> improve the quality of unsolicited advertisements you receive, targeted
> to you and for higher quality products. I also think this system will
> encourage thoughtful people who don't normally send a lot of email to
> write and send more. This because they have pre-payed for the right to
> send a certain amount of email, they are more likely to find ways to
> use it.
>
> In the end, these pressures will lead to a net improvement in email
> quality, with little to no chilling effect on important, high-quality,
> high-content emails. Since I think this is true, it is my position
> until further notice.
>
> Keith
>
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> It is a terrible idea.  We have a medium that allows for the free
> exchange of a lot of information between people and computational
> elements.  The suits would like nothing better but to raise mega-$$$
> on the communication flowing across the Net.  If they can do it under
> the guise of protecting us then so much the better.  But the result
> will be a more controlled and far less free and ubiquitous
> communication network.  This also would please many political as well
> as corporate parties and many established powers who worry the Net is
> outside their control and a potential threat.   Please be very
> careful not to give control over content up without a lot of thought
> and a long fight for every bit of freedom the open Net provides.
> This really is not about spam.  A Mind is a terrible thing to control
> and throttle.   Yeah, the Net today is less than a drooling idiot.
> But the potential is vast.  Don't throw it away just to not have to
> filter spam.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Tue Feb  7 18:24:17 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:24:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <008c01c62c04$01274540$640fa8c0@kevin>
References: <20060207132422.23052.qmail@web80732.mail.yahoo.com>
	<008c01c62c04$01274540$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602071024r5cf94be4yba255e502b89f53a@mail.gmail.com>

Ok, this news item clarifies things:

http://www.physorg.com/news10601.html

The plan is for Yahoo & AOL to charge *senders* between $.0025 and $.01 per
message for guaranteed delivery.  This is a *sender pays* model (just like
normal mail).  What you are paying for is:
a) Bypassing of spam filters that might reject your messages.
b) Sender Guarantees.  I.e. that Yahoo/AOL make sure that if it goes
directly into your inbox (bypassing the SPAM filters) that it is from a
"real sender".  I.e. The Red Cross requesting donations really is the Red
Cross and not someone pretending to be them.

They also say (at least for now) that all other mail remains "free" (after
all at least with AOL you are *paying* for the mailbox).  However incoming
mail may be subjected to the delays and false positives that are involved in
spam filtering.  If they want to be a really "low-life" provider they would
presumably cut back on hardware/software investments to do the spam
filtering so it might end up taking an increasingly long time for
non-prepaid messages to get into your mailbox.  However it seems unlikely
that this may happen as one would expect providers to have management
policies that anticipate very large volume mail days (for days that things
like natural disasters occur) and have reserve capacity to deal with this.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060207/36426422/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Feb  7 17:43:36 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:43:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <008c01c62c04$01274540$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20060207174336.27656.qmail@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

The problem is, this is being done by companies that are large
enough that other parts of them can carry the company through
even if the email postage itself totally tanks - and thus give
the appearance that email postage "works", in that it fails to
make a profitable business unprofitble by itself.

--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:

> This is an easy debate to solve. Start a company that charges for
> priority
> processing of email and guarantee of receipt. Then put the methods in
> place
> for people to send and receive secure priority email. You can require
> people
> to "sign" for the message as you would a package. Have it as a
> subscription
> service. If the idea is feasible, it will take off. If not, it will
> sink. It
> really shouldn't be too hard for someone to set up.
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Keith M. Elis" <zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com>
> To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 7:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
> 
> 
> > To me, it's not about spam, though one of the side effects might be
> a
> > reduction in unsolicited emails. I think it's about putting a
> structure
> > in place to allow the market to decide the value of a kilobyte of
> > email. Right now, the market is telling us the value of an email is
> no
> > more or less than any other set of packets that passes through your
> > ISP. Is this really accurate? Sometimes just one email sent,
> delivered,
> > and responded to by a client is worth far more to me than anything
> else
> > I do on the net that month.  I can envision a situation where I
> would
> > want that email to be given special consideration.
> >
> > That said, I don't believe charging for individual emails is the
> right
> > way to do it at the moment. Instead, a better system would be kind
> of
> > like the US cellular market -- a flat monthly fee with some number
> of
> > minutes per month. You already pay an ISP for home/office access.
> Just
> > tack on a provision to the contract that allows a set number of KB
> of
> > email per month, overages apply.
> >
> > If the number of KB allowed is not set too high, I tend to think
> this
> > system will reduce low-content email from serial spammers, cut down
> on
> > low-content forwards from friends and family, cut down on 'me too'
> > posts and spontaneous irrelevant threads on email lists, and even
> > improve the quality of unsolicited advertisements you receive,
> targeted
> > to you and for higher quality products. I also think this system
> will
> > encourage thoughtful people who don't normally send a lot of email
> to
> > write and send more. This because they have pre-payed for the right
> to
> > send a certain amount of email, they are more likely to find ways
> to
> > use it.
> >
> > In the end, these pressures will lead to a net improvement in email
> > quality, with little to no chilling effect on important,
> high-quality,
> > high-content emails. Since I think this is true, it is my position
> > until further notice.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >
> > It is a terrible idea.  We have a medium that allows for the free
> > exchange of a lot of information between people and computational
> > elements.  The suits would like nothing better but to raise
> mega-$$$
> > on the communication flowing across the Net.  If they can do it
> under
> > the guise of protecting us then so much the better.  But the result
> > will be a more controlled and far less free and ubiquitous
> > communication network.  This also would please many political as
> well
> > as corporate parties and many established powers who worry the Net
> is
> > outside their control and a potential threat.   Please be very
> > careful not to give control over content up without a lot of
> thought
> > and a long fight for every bit of freedom the open Net provides.
> > This really is not about spam.  A Mind is a terrible thing to
> control
> > and throttle.   Yeah, the Net today is less than a drooling idiot.
> > But the potential is vast.  Don't throw it away just to not have to
> > filter spam.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



From aiguy at comcast.net  Tue Feb  7 18:09:08 2006
From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:09:08 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Resveratrol Life Extension Effects found to Extend
	to Vertebrates by Italian Researchers
In-Reply-To: <20060206225858.21090.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <004801c62c11$9c2c1a40$74550318@ZANDRA2>

Anyone out there using these supplements already.

Any noticable benefits or unpleasant side effects other than the high cost?

>>  Life Extension Update Exclusive 
 
Resveratrol extends lifespan of vertebrate

You've head about the ability of resveratrol, a compound found in grapes and
other plant foods, to extend lifespan in yeast, roundworms and fruit flies.
Now researchers in Italy have shown that resveratrol can extend the lifespan
of the vertebrate Northobranchius furzeri, a small fish with a maximum
lifespan of 13 weeks in captivity. The research was published in the
February 7, 2006 issue of the journal Current Biology.

Alessandro Cellerino of the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa and colleagues
added three concentrations of resveratrol to the food of 110 four week old
fish, while 47 fish received standard diets. Thirty fish received diets
containing 24 micrograms resveratrol per gram of food, 60 received 120
micrograms per gram, and 20 fish received 600 micrograms per gram. The fish
were not allowed to eat unlimited amounts of food, but were fed a defined
amount twice per day.

The scientists found that while the control fish lived life spans comparable
to untreated fish, supplementation with resveratrol resulted in a
dose-dependent extension of median and maximum life span. The 120 microgram
per gram food dose of resveratrol was associated with an increase in median
lifespan of 33 percent and a 27 percent extension of maximum lifespan, while
the highest dose of resveratrol elicited a 56 percent increase in median and
59 percent increase in maximum life span. Resveratrol-treated females
continued to lay eggs and males were still able to fertilize eggs at 12
weeks of age after all of the control fish were dead, and these eggs
developed into normal adults.

Control fish showed a reduction in spontaneous swimming at nine weeks of age
compared to five week old fish, revealing a reduction in locomotor
efficiency, yet there was actually an increase in swimming performance in
resveratrol-treated fishes until ten weeks of age. Cognitive performance, as
evaluated by task learning, was also shown to decline in nine week old
compared to five week old control fish, but in fish treated with the 120
microgram per gram food dose of resveratrol, the age-dependent reduction was
completely prevented. In addition, the resveratrol treated fish showed an
absence of neurofibrillary degeneration, which was present in nine week old,
but not five week old control fish. These findings led the authors to
question whether life extension induced by resveratrol could be the result
of a protective action on the nervous system.

In answer to how resveratrol works, the authors write that the mechanisms
aren't clear, but conclude that "the observation that its supplementation
with food extends vertebrate lifespan and delays motor and cognitive
age-related decline could be of high relevance for the prevention of
aging-related diseases in the human population."



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  7 18:58:44 2006
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:58:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] (Health) Adenovirus- the obesity bug?
Message-ID: <20060207185844.83055.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>


I have studied viruses for years but this article
caught me by surprise: 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20060131/hl_hsn/obesitymightbecatching;_ylt=Ar6TIixwfOhHaXwVyp.qnRXVJRIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

I wouldn't have thunk it, but it is entirely
plausible. The standard belief is that adenoviruses
just cause colds, but if there is data to back up this
claim, I think it explains a lot. Especially why
metabolic satiation signals don't seem to be processed
properly in the morbidly obese. At least it makes more
sense than fast food advertising over-riding the
hypothalamus. I am all for a vaccine against
adenovirus. Even if it doesn't keep you thin, catching
fewer colds would still be worth it.
 

Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Thereupon, the Soul of Mother Earth bewailed, Should I accept the support of a feeble man and listen to his words? In fact I desired the aid of a strong and mighty king. When shall such a person arise and bring strong-handed succor to me?" -Yasna 29, verse 9 

"Now I am light, now I am flying, now I see myself beneath myself, now a God dances through me." - St. Nietzsche

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Feb  7 20:23:54 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:23:54 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602071024r5cf94be4yba255e502b89f53a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20060207132422.23052.qmail@web80732.mail.yahoo.com>
	<008c01c62c04$01274540$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<deaa866a0602071024r5cf94be4yba255e502b89f53a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F5A07217-1DF9-4551-BF4B-20BAF4498D64@mac.com>


On Feb 7, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote:

> Ok, this news item clarifies things:
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news10601.html
>
> The plan is for Yahoo & AOL to charge *senders* between $.0025 and  
> $.01 per message for guaranteed delivery.  This is a *sender pays*  
> model (just like normal mail).  What you are paying for is:
> a) Bypassing of spam filters that might reject your messages.
> b) Sender Guarantees.  I.e. that Yahoo/AOL make sure that if it  
> goes directly into your inbox (bypassing the SPAM filters) that it  
> is from a "real sender".  I.e. The Red Cross requesting donations  
> really is the Red Cross and not someone pretending to be them.
>

So I can get guaranteed spam deliveries that would be filtered  
today?  Hmm.  So roughly as long as

avg_pos_value * percent_response >  (1 - percent_response) *  
message_cost

it is profitable to send spam.   And I am guaranteed delivery thus  
raising effective percent_response.  Such a deal.   Do I have that  
right?

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060207/03b4d916/attachment.html>

From jonano at gmail.com  Tue Feb  7 21:25:53 2006
From: jonano at gmail.com (Jonathan Despres)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:25:53 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The School of Futurology
Message-ID: <6030482a0602071325gec240dblef8b856de6fcbf9c@mail.gmail.com>

I invite you to visit this page:

http://future.wikicities.com/wiki/School_of_futuro logy

I need experts in each field, people interested to be teachers for each field..

I will pay each teachers 35 000$US per year, if you are interested..

--Jon



From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb  7 21:48:43 2006
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:48:43 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Resveratrol Life Extension Effects found to
	Extend to Vertebrates by Italian Researchers
In-Reply-To: <004801c62c11$9c2c1a40$74550318@ZANDRA2>
References: <20060206225858.21090.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
	<004801c62c11$9c2c1a40$74550318@ZANDRA2>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0602071348j26551e03g2f8969b9785333fa@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/7/06, Gary Miller wrote:
> Anyone out there using these supplements already.
>
> Any noticable benefits or unpleasant side effects other than the high cost?
>
> >>  Life Extension Update Exclusive
>
> Resveratrol extends lifespan of vertebrate
>

Resveratrol is found in red wine made from organic (non-sprayed) grapes.

So the French and Italian extropians are probably already giving this
a thorough testing.

I don't mind doing a bit of this testing myself.  :)

BillK



From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Tue Feb  7 21:59:16 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:59:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The School of Futurology
In-Reply-To: <6030482a0602071325gec240dblef8b856de6fcbf9c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6030482a0602071325gec240dblef8b856de6fcbf9c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602071359k92800f3td1914d4c0af078a6@mail.gmail.com>

Jonathan,

I really do not have the time to become involved with something like this at
this time.  My past efforts related to future studies have left me with what
could best be called non-positive feelings towards the area and so I prefer
to focus my attention on more near term critical path development efforts at
this time.

Robert

On 2/7/06, Jonathan Despres <jonano at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I invite you to visit this page:
>
> http://future.wikicities.com/wiki/School_of_futuro logy
>
> I need experts in each field, people interested to be teachers for each
> field..
>
> I will pay each teachers 35 000$US per year, if you are interested..
>
> --Jon
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060207/963f2d15/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  7 22:59:45 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:59:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The School of Futurology
In-Reply-To: <6030482a0602071325gec240dblef8b856de6fcbf9c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060207225945.23954.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>

No text in your Wikipedia link? Now that sums futurology up: a nothingburger. Futurology Studies-- hacks presiding over pricey fluff classes taught to naifs. However if the parents are wealthy then it is harmless. 
  I remember when futurology began, it was the mid-sixties when the public was excited about the Gemini Program leading into Apollo. Now where are we? If you can answer that fully, then you deserve $35,000 yourself merely for answering the question.
   
  I invite you to visit this page:

http://future.wikicities.com/wiki/School_of_futuro logy

I need experts in each field, people interested to be teachers for each field..

I will pay each teachers 35 000$US per year, if you are interested..

--Jon

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


				
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060207/4cd5c0ac/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Feb  7 23:16:10 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 15:16:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <F5A07217-1DF9-4551-BF4B-20BAF4498D64@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20060207231610.20899.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> So I can get guaranteed spam deliveries that would be filtered  
> today?  Hmm.  So roughly as long as
> 
> avg_pos_value * percent_response >  (1 - percent_response) *  
> message_cost
> 
> it is profitable to send spam.   And I am guaranteed delivery thus  
> raising effective percent_response.  Such a deal.   Do I have that  
> right?

Actually, it's just
avg_pos_value * percent_response > message_cost
because you have to pay for the message even when they respond.
Running the numbers - let's take the high end of the costs,
where message_cost = $0.01.  percent_response (where the reader
does not merely respond, but sends the spammer money) might
optimistically be 0.001, even with guaranteed delivery.  So that
means that if each time you swindle someone, avg_pos_value (the
money you get on average) > $10, it's profitable.  Most of the
scams I've seen appear to be trying to swindle people for > $10.

I'm not too certain about that percent_response (again, because
it's the % of the time the reader winds up sending the spammer
money, not merely the % of the time the reader merely reads or
even just responds to the spam).  But if that assumption is
correct, then the math still seems to work out in favor of the
spammer...


From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Wed Feb  8 00:49:31 2006
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:49:31 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <20060207231610.20899.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F1460BFCBB197E55F3D8E09B4000@phx.gbl>

This is the same reason why we get tons of snail mail spam. Enough suckers 
buy stuff to make US$.15 profitable. US$.0025 will still be profitable.

BAL

>From: Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net>
>Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
>Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 15:16:10 -0800 (PST)
>
>--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> > So I can get guaranteed spam deliveries that would be filtered
> > today?  Hmm.  So roughly as long as
> >
> > avg_pos_value * percent_response >  (1 - percent_response) *
> > message_cost
> >
> > it is profitable to send spam.   And I am guaranteed delivery thus
> > raising effective percent_response.  Such a deal.   Do I have that
> > right?
>
>Actually, it's just
>avg_pos_value * percent_response > message_cost
>because you have to pay for the message even when they respond.
>Running the numbers - let's take the high end of the costs,
>where message_cost = $0.01.  percent_response (where the reader
>does not merely respond, but sends the spammer money) might
>optimistically be 0.001, even with guaranteed delivery.  So that
>means that if each time you swindle someone, avg_pos_value (the
>money you get on average) > $10, it's profitable.  Most of the
>scams I've seen appear to be trying to swindle people for > $10.
>
>I'm not too certain about that percent_response (again, because
>it's the % of the time the reader winds up sending the spammer
>money, not merely the % of the time the reader merely reads or
>even just responds to the spam).  But if that assumption is
>correct, then the math still seems to work out in favor of the
>spammer...
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




From mehranraeli at comcast.net  Wed Feb  8 00:58:24 2006
From: mehranraeli at comcast.net (Mehran)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:58:24 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the middle
	ages
In-Reply-To: <mailman.179.1139322267.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <005c01c62c4a$c6976350$799f6041@DBX6XT21>


Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the middle ages

The recent events which followed the publication of caricatures of Mohamed
in a Danish paper, with the burning of embassies in Arab countries, death
threats against the caricaturists and journalists etc indicate the extent
of the danger that the basic fundamental freedom in the west is in. However
we mustn't forget that this freedom was only acquired after many years of
struggle against the dominant religion of Christianity. Though today,
anyone can caricature Jesus, god or the pope in modern countries without
any danger, only a few hundred years ago anyone daring such a thing would
have risked being burnt alive at the stake.

The muslim world still lives in a medieval culture where any lack of
respect, even humorous, against religion is not tolerated.

That these countries don't respect human rights on their own territory and
freedom of expression in their own papers is condemnable, and even though
we should struggle to help improve this situation, that is their own
internal problem.

But what is totally unacceptable is when they dare to attack the freedom of
modern countries. They can do what they want in their own countries, but
please respect the freedom so carefully acquired over the centuries in
western countries, especially the right to atheism, the right to blaspheme
and the right to laugh at anything.

Western countries must protect these fundamental rights without compromise,
and all the more reason to do so when the enemies of freedom brandish death
threats and threaten violence. It is unacceptable to concede to any threats
of violence.

Some Islamic countries are even considering to request the UN to vote for
laws forbidding any texts of drawings lacking religious respect.

Some westerners even try to justify these requests by equating these
caricatures to incitement to racial or religious hatred, comparing them to
the anti-semite drawings that were published in German papers during the
rise of nazi-ism.

But the difference between the two stands out large and clear: the
anti-semite drawings really did incite hatred towards Jews through their
texts and propagated false information such as claiming that the Jews were
pillaging the German economy, or sacrificing children. They did not just
limit themselves to caricaturing a prophet or a god.

In the name of freedom of expression, so long as they don't explicitly
incite violence or racial and religious hate, which of course should be
forbidden, any other drawing and caricature which is purely humorous should
be allowed, whatever the subject and whoever their target.

No subject should be taboo or prohibited, otherwise freedom of expression
ceases to exist and the demon of religious or political censorship rears
its ugly head. For sure any explicit incitement to hatred or violence
against any religion or ethnic group should be severely punished by law,
but the right to laugh, and to laugh at anything without exception should
not be touched.

But the problem that this affair raises is in fact much deeper and serious
than that. We are presently seeing what I had prophesised a couple of
decades ago in one of my texts where I was warning the western world to get
ready to defend its fundamental rights against the influence of other
countries still living in the middle ages.

What we have is the confrontation of two civilisations: a modern and
liberated one clashing with another one trailing behind by a couple of
centuries due to lack of education and science, still stuck in
superstitions, under the grip of primitive beliefs and which has not yet
accomplished the fundamental step of separating church and state.

These two civilisations are now trying to impose their "values" on each
other. The confrontation of these two value systems is irresolvable,
especially when the less advanced one has such tenacious paradigms that
they are fanaticising to the extreme and which prevents them from seeing
the truth.

But the greatest danger is if the modern world makes concessions to the
primitive one. That will be a victory of obscurantism over science and
freedom.

It is the less advanced society which must progress and not the other way
round. On the contrary, the western world must continue to accelerate its
progressive reforms which allow it to completely destroy the last
puritanical and conventional traces inherited from the oppressive
judeo-christian traditions. Among other things would be the acceptance of
cloning, stem-cells and genetically modified organisms.

If muslims refuse to eat pork, that is their right, but they don't have the
right to impose this dietary regime on the rest of the world. That they
refuse to represent their prophet Mohamed is also their right, but neither
should they impose this rule on non muslims.

And if the modern world accepted to limit its own freedom of expression to
placate the sensitivities of muslims, then they are entering the slippery
slope of a return back to the dark ages.

Not only should the western world refuse to be influenced by the primitive
world, but they must do all they can via the promotion of education and use
of modern medias such as satellite TV or the internet, to help the
primitive societies to liberate themselves from the yoke of their
retrograde religion and to realise a true separation of their church and
state which western nations enjoy today.

And the modern world should concede none of its liberties and protect
itself from the threats of violence perpetrated by the fanatics.

Though the Raelian philosophy promotes absolute non violence, it also
promotes the right to legitimate self-defence, if necessary by force, but a
reasonable force aimed at reducing their attackers to powerlessness rather
than killing them.

And though we condemn all military attacks, such as the illegal invasions
of Afghanistan and Iraq by the US, that does not mean that we recommend
total inaction in the face of criminal cowardice which would allow medieval
forces to destroy the freedom of the modern world and murder its citizens.

The western world should develop weapons to specifically protect itself
from fanatical attacks of those who don't tolerate our rights and freedom.

It is important to compare the basic differences of these two clashing
societies in order to understand the differences and bad faith that these
defenders of medieval cultures use to seduce us into taking a step
backwards. Here are a few examples out of many:

The right to apostatise:
In the western countries, in accordance with human rights, people are free
to apostatise from their religion, either to convert to another or just to
become atheist and renounce all belief in a god. But in most Islamic
countries, in total disregard to these human rights, such apostasy is
illegal and the law can condemn anyone to death if they apostatise from the
Islamic religion.

The right to blaspheme:
In western countries, people are free to blaspheme. In the Islamic
countries the law can heavily condemn someone for this.

The right of women:
In western countries, the law on gender equality enshrines equal rights for
women as for men on all levels.
In Islamic countries, women are considered inferior, it is legal to beat
them, they must wear the veil, or even worse the Burka, they are denied
access to education and are not allowed to drive cars, whereas men are
exempt from such restrictions.
Men can practice polygamy (have several wives) whereas women cannot
practice polyandry (have several husbands).
Women are never considered major and depend always on the authority of
either their father, husband or brother.
Every year thousands of women are legally murdered with impunity by male
members of their own family in what is called "crimes of honour".

Gay rights:
In western countries, homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals
and can even legally marry.
In Islamic countries, to be homosexual means heavy prison sentences or even
a sentence of death.

Sexual mutilation:
In western countries all sexual mutilation is illegal, whereas in Islamic
countries, excision (cutting off the clitoris) is practiced on millions of
little girls every year, as well as circumcision on boys.

The list is almost endless.

Each one of these situations is intolerable and constitutes a breach of
human rights. But what is all the more shocking is that muslims wish to
impose these unilaterally on our modern societies.

For example they demand the right to build mosques in the west and to be
allowed unlimited proselytism aimed at converting as many people as
possible - while in the west citizens are allowed to convert to islam - and
yet in Islamic countries the construction of non Islamic churches is
prohibited and anyone seeking to proselytise in the name of any religion
other than islam will be condemned to a very heavy prison sentence. And
anyone who tries to apostatise from islam or converts to another religion
can be condemned to death. Double standards.

Another example: muslims demand the right to wear the Islamic veil in
western schools and can freely carry it anytime in public. But if a western
woman visits an Islamic country, she has to cover her hair with an Islamic
scarf and of course wearing a miniskirt would be under pain of death.
Again, double standards.

Human rights are very clear on both of these subjects: they guarantee
religious freedom, the right to convert, the right to proselytise. But this
must be reciprocal: if muslims wish to enjoy freedom and rights in western
countries guaranteed by the most beautiful fruit produced by the modern
world: Human Rights, then they too must imperatively respect them in their
own countries.

As long as total reciprocity is not respected, muslims should not be
allowed to enjoy the rights and freedoms of western countries that they
deny to visitors in their own countries. That means that Islamic
proselytism should be forbidden in the west as long as the proselytism of
other religions, or of atheism is not legalised in Islamic countries. And
the wearing of the veil or burka should be forbidden in the west as long as
women are not allowed to walk about with their head naked and in
mini-skirts in Islamic countries. In that way, there will be no double
standards.

The defence of values of modern countries, especially their rights so
preciously cumulated over the ages is essential particularly when they are
under attack by fanatics who's religious books teach hate, crime and
violence against those who are not faithful to their religion.

The Koran is very clear, it says in black and white:
"Kill the idolaters wherever you can find them, capture them, lay siege to
them, and ambush them. But if they convert, if they give money.., then
leave them in peace because Allah forgives and takes pity on them" Koran
IX. 5.

Islam also officially encourages racism and discrimination:
"Oh believers, do not befriend any Jew or Christian, because they are their
own allies. He who befriends them will become like them and god will not be
a guide for such a pervert" Koran V. 51.

Islamic sexism and the encouragement to their family violence also stems
from their "sacred writings":
"Men are superior to women thanks to the qualities that god gave to men to
raise them above women. Reprimand those women who you fear might not obey
you, banish them to separate beds and beat them" Koran IV. 34.

Even the life of the prophet Mohamed is considered exemplary and sacred
even though he was a pillager of caravans, or that he married Aicha when
she was still a little girl of only 9 years old as the writings relate. In
modern countries, to sleep with a 9 year old is called paedophilia. And
don't excuse it by claiming that it was common at the time. An act of
pedophilia always has and always will be a criminal act. Muslims cannot
consider Mohamed as a model of perfection and infallibility otherwise they
approve of pedophilia.

If the sacred books of Islam openly preach the murder of infidels, that is
to say anyone who is not a muslim or is atheist, then we, who live in the
west are all legitimate targets for them. The only way out of this massacre
is to convert to islam and that is what they officially announce. In fact
the Koran clearly states that muslims should convert the whole planet to
islam and kill all those who refuse this conversion. It is high time for
the free world to become aware of this reality taught by 1.3 billion
muslims, that is to say about a quarter of the world population.

Some people claim that that only fanatics interpret the Koran in this way
and that the majority of muslims interpret it in a more tolerant way and
don't apply such outdated rules. That is possible, but nevertheless, it is
the fanatics who at any opportunity drag the rest of the muslim world, even
the more tolerant, back to the "righteous path" by obliging them to apply
in full what is called the "word of god".

And every day, millions of young muslims around the world go to Koran
school which continue to teach these incitations to hatred and crime. For
sure they are not taught to interpret with tolerance or look at the larger
picture. Since it is the word of god transmitted by the prophet, such a
word by definition cannot be interpreted in a lighter way, it has to be
applied in its integrality. What is written is written.

The only solution to the problem is to prohibit any religion which teaches
violence and racial, religious or ethnic hate. We would never accept any
political party which promotes such a policy, it would be immediately
forbidden. So why accept it from a religion which conditions the behaviour
of the young generation far more than a political party does?

Therefore we should forbid islam as long as it continues to teach such
illegal horrors around the world. The only way that islam could escape such
a prohibition would be if its directors accept to censure its religious
texts and remove the passages which incite to crime. In that way, muslims
will prove their good faith and be able to join the international community
where only those religions which incite tolerance will be able to live in
harmony and mutual respect.

The UN must immediately initiate an international committee to censure
religious writings (all religious writings) to ensure they conform to human
rights and to once and for all remove all the passages which infringe upon
them.

As long as that is not done, islam should be 
declared illegal in western countries and Islamic 
schools and places of such cult where these 
abominations are taught every day, should be 
forbidden as the breeding grounds of the terrorists and criminals of
tomorrow


The modern and free world must protect its freedom, if necessary by force,
but once again with the least violent force to ensure the legitimate
defence of its values.

The scientific advance enjoyed by the west allows it to protect itself
militarily and in a most non violent way from the fanatics who wish to
bring it back to the middle ages. This advance should be maintained so that
even if the Islamic fundamentalists largely outnumber the western
population, they remain incapable of presenting a threat to the modern
world.

A long time ago, islam already invaded spain and a part of france before
being pushed back militarily, which shows that the west is not the only one
guilty of invading sovereign states such as Afghanistan or Iraq. If Islamic
fundamentalists had the means technologically and militarily, there is no
shadow of a doubt that they would invade the western world today and try
and exterminate all those who don't convert to Islam.

And this they would do using a list of false pretences: because the western
world had previously colonised the muslim world which left them with a
desire for vengeance, because they think that the western world pillaged
their oil riches, because they resent the western world for having stolen
their Palestinian territories to create the state of Israel, because they
are occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, but all these are just false
excuses: the truth is that their religion teaches them to convert the whole
planet and exterminate all those who refuse to convert, the infidels and
the atheists as their invasion of some parts of Europe a few centuries ago
has already proved.

This philosophy of world dominance to create a "kingdom of god"  on earth
is what is the most dangerous. And the western world cannot accept that
every day millions of young children are conditioned to accept this vision
of the future.

The violent manifestations following the caricatures of a prophet
constitute just one little detail which reveals another danger. That of our
own modern values and freedom being destroyed by a domination-seeking and
intolerant people, and ourselves being dragged back to the middle ages.

For these reason, modern societies should protect their values and
fundamental rights, without making the slightest concession, if necessary
by the use of force, arming themselves by developing new technologies so as
to preserve sufficient advance to remain invincible, in the face of all the
primitive and obscurantist forces of the planet.

RAEL

www.rael.org




From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Wed Feb  8 02:03:24 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 02:03:24 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <005c01c62c4a$c6976350$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
References: <mailman.179.1139322267.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<005c01c62c4a$c6976350$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602071803x2863936cq8761c3b57cdabf40@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/8/06, Mehran <mehranraeli at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the middle ages
>
> The recent events which followed the publication of caricatures of Mohamed
> in a Danish paper, with the burning of embassies in Arab countries, death
> threats against the caricaturists and journalists etc indicate the extent
> of the danger that the basic fundamental freedom in the west is in.
> However
> we mustn't forget that this freedom was only acquired after many years of
> struggle against the dominant religion of Christianity. Though today,
> anyone can caricature Jesus, god or the pope in modern countries without
> any danger, only a few hundred years ago anyone daring such a thing would
> have risked being burnt alive at the stake.
>
> The muslim world still lives in a medieval culture where any lack of
> respect, even humorous, against religion is not tolerated.
>
> That these countries don't respect human rights on their own territory and
> freedom of expression in their own papers is condemnable, and even though
> we should struggle to help improve this situation, that is their own
> internal problem.
>
> But what is totally unacceptable is when they dare to attack the freedom
> of
> modern countries. They can do what they want in their own countries, but
> please respect the freedom so carefully acquired over the centuries in
> western countries, especially the right to atheism, the right to blaspheme
> and the right to laugh at anything.
>
>
Well, it looks like our 'liberal elite' in Britain has suddenly awakened.
For years Abu Hamza has mouthed off with assorted threats and condemnations.
Now, he's just got 7yrs for incitement to racial hatred and murder.
I bet the furore over the cartoons did him no favours when it came to
sentencing.

However, one does have to ask why it took so long for us to apply the law in
his case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4690224.stm

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060208/f10d240a/attachment.html>

From moulton at moulton.com  Wed Feb  8 02:45:10 2006
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:45:10 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The School of Futurology
In-Reply-To: <6030482a0602071325gec240dblef8b856de6fcbf9c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6030482a0602071325gec240dblef8b856de6fcbf9c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1139366710.14208.339.camel@localhost.localdomain>


Before anyone accepts this offer I strongly suggest doing some very
rigorous due diligence.

Fred

On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 16:25 -0500, Jonathan Despres wrote:
> I invite you to visit this page:
> 
> http://future.wikicities.com/wiki/School_of_futuro logy
> 
> I need experts in each field, people interested to be teachers for each field..
> 
> I will pay each teachers 35 000$US per year, if you are interested..
> 
> --Jon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Feb  8 02:47:25 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:47:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <005c01c62c4a$c6976350$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <20060208024725.33812.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>

Protect our RIGHTS without compromise? what sort of platitude is that? What about prerogatives, license? It's a global culture war. Besides, progress wont end crime or fix broken families; criminality & alienation are universal. 
  Look, Americans themselves aren't much interested in progress, what does progress have to do with the price of tea in China or $.79 for a burger at Wendy's? Americans basically just want to fight about everything all the time. We even squabble about gay marriage! Look, you are naturally correct in wanting those who are proactive but I've served my time in politics (everything is political) and now it's time for new bloods to begin serving their sentences-- fools go where demons fear to tread.

  
Western countries must protect these fundamental rights without compromise,and all the more reason to do so when the enemies of freedom brandish death threats and threaten violence. It is unacceptable to concede to any threatsof violence.

Some Islamic countries are even considering to request the UN to vote for
laws forbidding any texts of drawings lacking religious respect.

Some westerners even try to justify these requests by equating these
caricatures to incitement to racial or religious hatred, comparing them to
the anti-semite drawings that were published in German papers during the
rise of nazi-ism.

But the difference between the two stands out large and clear: the
anti-semite drawings really did incite hatred towards Jews through their
texts and propagated false information such as claiming that the Jews were
pillaging the German economy, or sacrificing children. They did not just
limit themselves to caricaturing a prophet or a god.

In the name of freedom of expression, so long as they don't explicitly
incite violence or racial and religious hate, which of course should be
forbidden, any other drawing and caricature which is purely humorous should
be allowed, whatever the subject and whoever their target.

No subject should be taboo or prohibited, otherwise freedom of expression
ceases to exist and the demon of religious or political censorship rears
its ugly head. For sure any explicit incitement to hatred or violence
against any religion or ethnic group should be severely punished by law,
but the right to laugh, and to laugh at anything without exception should
not be touched.

But the problem that this affair raises is in fact much deeper and serious
than that. We are presently seeing what I had prophesised a couple of
decades ago in one of my texts where I was warning the western world to get
ready to defend its fundamental rights against the influence of other
countries still living in the middle ages.

What we have is the confrontation of two civilisations: a modern and
liberated one clashing with another one trailing behind by a couple of
centuries due to lack of education and science, still stuck in
superstitions, under the grip of primitive beliefs and which has not yet
accomplished the fundamental step of separating church and state.

These two civilisations are now trying to impose their "values" on each
other. The confrontation of these two value systems is irresolvable,
especially when the less advanced one has such tenacious paradigms that
they are fanaticising to the extreme and which prevents them from seeing
the truth.

But the greatest danger is if the modern world makes concessions to the
primitive one. That will be a victory of obscurantism over science and
freedom.

It is the less advanced society which must progress and not the other way
round. On the contrary, the western world must continue to accelerate its
progressive reforms which allow it to completely destroy the last
puritanical and conventional traces inherited from the oppressive
judeo-christian traditions. Among other things would be the acceptance of
cloning, stem-cells and genetically modified organisms.

If muslims refuse to eat pork, that is their right, but they don't have the
right to impose this dietary regime on the rest of the world. That they
refuse to represent their prophet Mohamed is also their right, but neither
should they impose this rule on non muslims.

And if the modern world accepted to limit its own freedom of expression to
placate the sensitivities of muslims, then they are entering the slippery
slope of a return back to the dark ages.

Not only should the western world refuse to be influenced by the primitive
world, but they must do all they can via the promotion of education and use
of modern medias such as satellite TV or the internet, to help the
primitive societies to liberate themselves from the yoke of their
retrograde religion and to realise a true separation of their church and
state which western nations enjoy today.

And the modern world should concede none of its liberties and protect
itself from the threats of violence perpetrated by the fanatics.

Though the Raelian philosophy promotes absolute non violence, it also
promotes the right to legitimate self-defence, if necessary by force, but a
reasonable force aimed at reducing their attackers to powerlessness rather
than killing them.

And though we condemn all military attacks, such as the illegal invasions
of Afghanistan and Iraq by the US, that does not mean that we recommend
total inaction in the face of criminal cowardice which would allow medieval
forces to destroy the freedom of the modern world and murder its citizens.

The western world should develop weapons to specifically protect itself
from fanatical attacks of those who don't tolerate our rights and freedom.

It is important to compare the basic differences of these two clashing
societies in order to understand the differences and bad faith that these
defenders of medieval cultures use to seduce us into taking a step
backwards. Here are a few examples out of many:

The right to apostatise:
In the western countries, in accordance with human rights, people are free
to apostatise from their religion, either to convert to another or just to
become atheist and renounce all belief in a god. But in most Islamic
countries, in total disregard to these human rights, such apostasy is
illegal and the law can condemn anyone to death if they apostatise from the
Islamic religion.

The right to blaspheme:
In western countries, people are free to blaspheme. In the Islamic
countries the law can heavily condemn someone for this.

The right of women:
In western countries, the law on gender equality enshrines equal rights for
women as for men on all levels.
In Islamic countries, women are considered inferior, it is legal to beat
them, they must wear the veil, or even worse the Burka, they are denied
access to education and are not allowed to drive cars, whereas men are
exempt from such restrictions.
Men can practice polygamy (have several wives) whereas women cannot
practice polyandry (have several husbands).
Women are never considered major and depend always on the authority of
either their father, husband or brother.
Every year thousands of women are legally murdered with impunity by male
members of their own family in what is called "crimes of honour".

Gay rights:
In western countries, homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals
and can even legally marry.
In Islamic countries, to be homosexual means heavy prison sentences or even
a sentence of death.

Sexual mutilation:
In western countries all sexual mutilation is illegal, whereas in Islamic
countries, excision (cutting off the clitoris) is practiced on millions of
little girls every year, as well as circumcision on boys.

The list is almost endless.

Each one of these situations is intolerable and constitutes a breach of
human rights. But what is all the more shocking is that muslims wish to
impose these unilaterally on our modern societies.

For example they demand the right to build mosques in the west and to be
allowed unlimited proselytism aimed at converting as many people as
possible - while in the west citizens are allowed to convert to islam - and
yet in Islamic countries the construction of non Islamic churches is
prohibited and anyone seeking to proselytise in the name of any religion
other than islam will be condemned to a very heavy prison sentence. And
anyone who tries to apostatise from islam or converts to another religion
can be condemned to death. Double standards.

Another example: muslims demand the right to wear the Islamic veil in
western schools and can freely carry it anytime in public. But if a western
woman visits an Islamic country, she has to cover her hair with an Islamic
scarf and of course wearing a miniskirt would be under pain of death.
Again, double standards.

Human rights are very clear on both of these subjects: they guarantee
religious freedom, the right to convert, the right to proselytise. But this
must be reciprocal: if muslims wish to enjoy freedom and rights in western
countries guaranteed by the most beautiful fruit produced by the modern
world: Human Rights, then they too must imperatively respect them in their
own countries.

As long as total reciprocity is not respected, muslims should not be
allowed to enjoy the rights and freedoms of western countries that they
deny to visitors in their own countries. That means that Islamic
proselytism should be forbidden in the west as long as the proselytism of
other religions, or of atheism is not legalised in Islamic countries. And
the wearing of the veil or burka should be forbidden in the west as long as
women are not allowed to walk about with their head naked and in
mini-skirts in Islamic countries. In that way, there will be no double
standards.

The defence of values of modern countries, especially their rights so
preciously cumulated over the ages is essential particularly when they are
under attack by fanatics who's religious books teach hate, crime and
violence against those who are not faithful to their religion.

The Koran is very clear, it says in black and white:
"Kill the idolaters wherever you can find them, capture them, lay siege to
them, and ambush them. But if they convert, if they give money.., then
leave them in peace because Allah forgives and takes pity on them" Koran
IX. 5.

Islam also officially encourages racism and discrimination:
"Oh believers, do not befriend any Jew or Christian, because they are their
own allies. He who befriends them will become like them and god will not be
a guide for such a pervert" Koran V. 51.

Islamic sexism and the encouragement to their family violence also stems
from their "sacred writings":
"Men are superior to women thanks to the qualities that god gave to men to
raise them above women. Reprimand those women who you fear might not obey
you, banish them to separate beds and beat them" Koran IV. 34.

Even the life of the prophet Mohamed is considered exemplary and sacred
even though he was a pillager of caravans, or that he married Aicha when
she was still a little girl of only 9 years old as the writings relate. In
modern countries, to sleep with a 9 year old is called paedophilia. And
don't excuse it by claiming that it was common at the time. An act of
pedophilia always has and always will be a criminal act. Muslims cannot
consider Mohamed as a model of perfection and infallibility otherwise they
approve of pedophilia.

If the sacred books of Islam openly preach the murder of infidels, that is
to say anyone who is not a muslim or is atheist, then we, who live in the
west are all legitimate targets for them. The only way out of this massacre
is to convert to islam and that is what they officially announce. In fact
the Koran clearly states that muslims should convert the whole planet to
islam and kill all those who refuse this conversion. It is high time for
the free world to become aware of this reality taught by 1.3 billion
muslims, that is to say about a quarter of the world population.

Some people claim that that only fanatics interpret the Koran in this way
and that the majority of muslims interpret it in a more tolerant way and
don't apply such outdated rules. That is possible, but nevertheless, it is
the fanatics who at any opportunity drag the rest of the muslim world, even
the more tolerant, back to the "righteous path" by obliging them to apply
in full what is called the "word of god".

And every day, millions of young muslims around the world go to Koran
school which continue to teach these incitations to hatred and crime. For
sure they are not taught to interpret with tolerance or look at the larger
picture. Since it is the word of god transmitted by the prophet, such a
word by definition cannot be interpreted in a lighter way, it has to be
applied in its integrality. What is written is written.

The only solution to the problem is to prohibit any religion which teaches
violence and racial, religious or ethnic hate. We would never accept any
political party which promotes such a policy, it would be immediately
forbidden. So why accept it from a religion which conditions the behaviour
of the young generation far more than a political party does?

Therefore we should forbid islam as long as it continues to teach such
illegal horrors around the world. The only way that islam could escape such
a prohibition would be if its directors accept to censure its religious
texts and remove the passages which incite to crime. In that way, muslims
will prove their good faith and be able to join the international community
where only those religions which incite tolerance will be able to live in
harmony and mutual respect.

The UN must immediately initiate an international committee to censure
religious writings (all religious writings) to ensure they conform to human
rights and to once and for all remove all the passages which infringe upon
them.

As long as that is not done, islam should be 
declared illegal in western countries and Islamic 
schools and places of such cult where these 
abominations are taught every day, should be 
forbidden as the breeding grounds of the terrorists and criminals of
tomorrow


The modern and free world must protect its freedom, if necessary by force,
but once again with the least violent force to ensure the legitimate
defence of its values.

The scientific advance enjoyed by the west allows it to protect itself
militarily and in a most non violent way from the fanatics who wish to
bring it back to the middle ages. This advance should be maintained so that
even if the Islamic fundamentalists largely outnumber the western
population, they remain incapable of presenting a threat to the modern
world.

A long time ago, islam already invaded spain and a part of france before
being pushed back militarily, which shows that the west is not the only one
guilty of invading sovereign states such as Afghanistan or Iraq. If Islamic
fundamentalists had the means technologically and militarily, there is no
shadow of a doubt that they would invade the western world today and try
and exterminate all those who don't convert to Islam.

And this they would do using a list of false pretences: because the western
world had previously colonised the muslim world which left them with a
desire for vengeance, because they think that the western world pillaged
their oil riches, because they resent the western world for having stolen
their Palestinian territories to create the state of Israel, because they
are occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, but all these are just false
excuses: the truth is that their religion teaches them to convert the whole
planet and exterminate all those who refuse to convert, the infidels and
the atheists as their invasion of some parts of Europe a few centuries ago
has already proved.

This philosophy of world dominance to create a "kingdom of god" on earth
is what is the most dangerous. And the western world cannot accept that
every day millions of young children are conditioned to accept this vision
of the future.

The violent manifestations following the caricatures of a prophet
constitute just one little detail which reveals another danger. That of our
own modern values and freedom being destroyed by a domination-seeking and
intolerant people, and ourselves being dragged back to the middle ages.

For these reason, modern societies should protect their values and
fundamental rights, without making the slightest concession, if necessary
by the use of force, arming themselves by developing new technologies so as
to preserve sufficient advance to remain invincible, in the face of all the
primitive and obscurantist forces of the planet.

RAEL

www.rael.org


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


		
---------------------------------
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
 PhotoMail  - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060207/a9498007/attachment.html>

From jonano at gmail.com  Wed Feb  8 03:56:26 2006
From: jonano at gmail.com (Jonathan Despres)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:56:26 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Missed url corrected for The School of
	Futurology/suggestions ?
Message-ID: <6030482a0602071956r40ace738lc803b19042df0b20@mail.gmail.com>

I invite you to visit the url:

http://future.wikicities.com/wiki/School_of_futurology

of it will go ok now.. you will see the text

Im open to suggestions..



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Feb  8 04:14:57 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:14:57 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] The School of Futurology
In-Reply-To: <1139366710.14208.339.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <6030482a0602071325gec240dblef8b856de6fcbf9c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1139366710.14208.339.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060207221351.036c8f20@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 06:45 PM 2/7/2006 -0800, Fred C. Moulton wrote:

>Before anyone accepts this offer I strongly suggest doing some very
>rigorous due diligence.

Or even some very cursory due diligence via Google.

Damien Broderick 



From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Wed Feb  8 03:51:06 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:51:06 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
 middle ages
In-Reply-To: <005c01c62c4a$c6976350$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
References: <005c01c62c4a$c6976350$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <43E96AAA.5050105@goldenfuture.net>

http://www.sca.org


Mehran wrote:

>Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the middle ages
>
>The recent events which followed the publication of caricatures of Mohamed
>in a Danish paper, with the burning of embassies in Arab countries, death
>threats against the caricaturists and journalists etc indicate the extent
>of the danger that the basic fundamental freedom in the west is in. However
>we mustn't forget that this freedom was only acquired after many years of
>struggle against the dominant religion of Christianity. Though today,
>anyone can caricature Jesus, god or the pope in modern countries without
>any danger, only a few hundred years ago anyone daring such a thing would
>have risked being burnt alive at the stake.
>
>The muslim world still lives in a medieval culture where any lack of
>respect, even humorous, against religion is not tolerated.
>
>That these countries don't respect human rights on their own territory and
>freedom of expression in their own papers is condemnable, and even though
>we should struggle to help improve this situation, that is their own
>internal problem.
>
>But what is totally unacceptable is when they dare to attack the freedom of
>modern countries. They can do what they want in their own countries, but
>please respect the freedom so carefully acquired over the centuries in
>western countries, especially the right to atheism, the right to blaspheme
>and the right to laugh at anything.
>
>Western countries must protect these fundamental rights without compromise,
>and all the more reason to do so when the enemies of freedom brandish death
>threats and threaten violence. It is unacceptable to concede to any threats
>of violence.
>
>Some Islamic countries are even considering to request the UN to vote for
>laws forbidding any texts of drawings lacking religious respect.
>
>Some westerners even try to justify these requests by equating these
>caricatures to incitement to racial or religious hatred, comparing them to
>the anti-semite drawings that were published in German papers during the
>rise of nazi-ism.
>
>But the difference between the two stands out large and clear: the
>anti-semite drawings really did incite hatred towards Jews through their
>texts and propagated false information such as claiming that the Jews were
>pillaging the German economy, or sacrificing children. They did not just
>limit themselves to caricaturing a prophet or a god.
>
>In the name of freedom of expression, so long as they don't explicitly
>incite violence or racial and religious hate, which of course should be
>forbidden, any other drawing and caricature which is purely humorous should
>be allowed, whatever the subject and whoever their target.
>
>No subject should be taboo or prohibited, otherwise freedom of expression
>ceases to exist and the demon of religious or political censorship rears
>its ugly head. For sure any explicit incitement to hatred or violence
>against any religion or ethnic group should be severely punished by law,
>but the right to laugh, and to laugh at anything without exception should
>not be touched.
>
>But the problem that this affair raises is in fact much deeper and serious
>than that. We are presently seeing what I had prophesised a couple of
>decades ago in one of my texts where I was warning the western world to get
>ready to defend its fundamental rights against the influence of other
>countries still living in the middle ages.
>
>What we have is the confrontation of two civilisations: a modern and
>liberated one clashing with another one trailing behind by a couple of
>centuries due to lack of education and science, still stuck in
>superstitions, under the grip of primitive beliefs and which has not yet
>accomplished the fundamental step of separating church and state.
>
>These two civilisations are now trying to impose their "values" on each
>other. The confrontation of these two value systems is irresolvable,
>especially when the less advanced one has such tenacious paradigms that
>they are fanaticising to the extreme and which prevents them from seeing
>the truth.
>
>But the greatest danger is if the modern world makes concessions to the
>primitive one. That will be a victory of obscurantism over science and
>freedom.
>
>It is the less advanced society which must progress and not the other way
>round. On the contrary, the western world must continue to accelerate its
>progressive reforms which allow it to completely destroy the last
>puritanical and conventional traces inherited from the oppressive
>judeo-christian traditions. Among other things would be the acceptance of
>cloning, stem-cells and genetically modified organisms.
>
>If muslims refuse to eat pork, that is their right, but they don't have the
>right to impose this dietary regime on the rest of the world. That they
>refuse to represent their prophet Mohamed is also their right, but neither
>should they impose this rule on non muslims.
>
>And if the modern world accepted to limit its own freedom of expression to
>placate the sensitivities of muslims, then they are entering the slippery
>slope of a return back to the dark ages.
>
>Not only should the western world refuse to be influenced by the primitive
>world, but they must do all they can via the promotion of education and use
>of modern medias such as satellite TV or the internet, to help the
>primitive societies to liberate themselves from the yoke of their
>retrograde religion and to realise a true separation of their church and
>state which western nations enjoy today.
>
>And the modern world should concede none of its liberties and protect
>itself from the threats of violence perpetrated by the fanatics.
>
>Though the Raelian philosophy promotes absolute non violence, it also
>promotes the right to legitimate self-defence, if necessary by force, but a
>reasonable force aimed at reducing their attackers to powerlessness rather
>than killing them.
>
>And though we condemn all military attacks, such as the illegal invasions
>of Afghanistan and Iraq by the US, that does not mean that we recommend
>total inaction in the face of criminal cowardice which would allow medieval
>forces to destroy the freedom of the modern world and murder its citizens.
>
>The western world should develop weapons to specifically protect itself
>from fanatical attacks of those who don't tolerate our rights and freedom.
>
>It is important to compare the basic differences of these two clashing
>societies in order to understand the differences and bad faith that these
>defenders of medieval cultures use to seduce us into taking a step
>backwards. Here are a few examples out of many:
>
>The right to apostatise:
>In the western countries, in accordance with human rights, people are free
>to apostatise from their religion, either to convert to another or just to
>become atheist and renounce all belief in a god. But in most Islamic
>countries, in total disregard to these human rights, such apostasy is
>illegal and the law can condemn anyone to death if they apostatise from the
>Islamic religion.
>
>The right to blaspheme:
>In western countries, people are free to blaspheme. In the Islamic
>countries the law can heavily condemn someone for this.
>
>The right of women:
>In western countries, the law on gender equality enshrines equal rights for
>women as for men on all levels.
>In Islamic countries, women are considered inferior, it is legal to beat
>them, they must wear the veil, or even worse the Burka, they are denied
>access to education and are not allowed to drive cars, whereas men are
>exempt from such restrictions.
>Men can practice polygamy (have several wives) whereas women cannot
>practice polyandry (have several husbands).
>Women are never considered major and depend always on the authority of
>either their father, husband or brother.
>Every year thousands of women are legally murdered with impunity by male
>members of their own family in what is called "crimes of honour".
>
>Gay rights:
>In western countries, homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals
>and can even legally marry.
>In Islamic countries, to be homosexual means heavy prison sentences or even
>a sentence of death.
>
>Sexual mutilation:
>In western countries all sexual mutilation is illegal, whereas in Islamic
>countries, excision (cutting off the clitoris) is practiced on millions of
>little girls every year, as well as circumcision on boys.
>
>The list is almost endless.
>
>Each one of these situations is intolerable and constitutes a breach of
>human rights. But what is all the more shocking is that muslims wish to
>impose these unilaterally on our modern societies.
>
>For example they demand the right to build mosques in the west and to be
>allowed unlimited proselytism aimed at converting as many people as
>possible - while in the west citizens are allowed to convert to islam - and
>yet in Islamic countries the construction of non Islamic churches is
>prohibited and anyone seeking to proselytise in the name of any religion
>other than islam will be condemned to a very heavy prison sentence. And
>anyone who tries to apostatise from islam or converts to another religion
>can be condemned to death. Double standards.
>
>Another example: muslims demand the right to wear the Islamic veil in
>western schools and can freely carry it anytime in public. But if a western
>woman visits an Islamic country, she has to cover her hair with an Islamic
>scarf and of course wearing a miniskirt would be under pain of death.
>Again, double standards.
>
>Human rights are very clear on both of these subjects: they guarantee
>religious freedom, the right to convert, the right to proselytise. But this
>must be reciprocal: if muslims wish to enjoy freedom and rights in western
>countries guaranteed by the most beautiful fruit produced by the modern
>world: Human Rights, then they too must imperatively respect them in their
>own countries.
>
>As long as total reciprocity is not respected, muslims should not be
>allowed to enjoy the rights and freedoms of western countries that they
>deny to visitors in their own countries. That means that Islamic
>proselytism should be forbidden in the west as long as the proselytism of
>other religions, or of atheism is not legalised in Islamic countries. And
>the wearing of the veil or burka should be forbidden in the west as long as
>women are not allowed to walk about with their head naked and in
>mini-skirts in Islamic countries. In that way, there will be no double
>standards.
>
>The defence of values of modern countries, especially their rights so
>preciously cumulated over the ages is essential particularly when they are
>under attack by fanatics who's religious books teach hate, crime and
>violence against those who are not faithful to their religion.
>
>The Koran is very clear, it says in black and white:
>"Kill the idolaters wherever you can find them, capture them, lay siege to
>them, and ambush them. But if they convert, if they give money.., then
>leave them in peace because Allah forgives and takes pity on them" Koran
>IX. 5.
>
>Islam also officially encourages racism and discrimination:
>"Oh believers, do not befriend any Jew or Christian, because they are their
>own allies. He who befriends them will become like them and god will not be
>a guide for such a pervert" Koran V. 51.
>
>Islamic sexism and the encouragement to their family violence also stems
>from their "sacred writings":
>"Men are superior to women thanks to the qualities that god gave to men to
>raise them above women. Reprimand those women who you fear might not obey
>you, banish them to separate beds and beat them" Koran IV. 34.
>
>Even the life of the prophet Mohamed is considered exemplary and sacred
>even though he was a pillager of caravans, or that he married Aicha when
>she was still a little girl of only 9 years old as the writings relate. In
>modern countries, to sleep with a 9 year old is called paedophilia. And
>don't excuse it by claiming that it was common at the time. An act of
>pedophilia always has and always will be a criminal act. Muslims cannot
>consider Mohamed as a model of perfection and infallibility otherwise they
>approve of pedophilia.
>
>If the sacred books of Islam openly preach the murder of infidels, that is
>to say anyone who is not a muslim or is atheist, then we, who live in the
>west are all legitimate targets for them. The only way out of this massacre
>is to convert to islam and that is what they officially announce. In fact
>the Koran clearly states that muslims should convert the whole planet to
>islam and kill all those who refuse this conversion. It is high time for
>the free world to become aware of this reality taught by 1.3 billion
>muslims, that is to say about a quarter of the world population.
>
>Some people claim that that only fanatics interpret the Koran in this way
>and that the majority of muslims interpret it in a more tolerant way and
>don't apply such outdated rules. That is possible, but nevertheless, it is
>the fanatics who at any opportunity drag the rest of the muslim world, even
>the more tolerant, back to the "righteous path" by obliging them to apply
>in full what is called the "word of god".
>
>And every day, millions of young muslims around the world go to Koran
>school which continue to teach these incitations to hatred and crime. For
>sure they are not taught to interpret with tolerance or look at the larger
>picture. Since it is the word of god transmitted by the prophet, such a
>word by definition cannot be interpreted in a lighter way, it has to be
>applied in its integrality. What is written is written.
>
>The only solution to the problem is to prohibit any religion which teaches
>violence and racial, religious or ethnic hate. We would never accept any
>political party which promotes such a policy, it would be immediately
>forbidden. So why accept it from a religion which conditions the behaviour
>of the young generation far more than a political party does?
>
>Therefore we should forbid islam as long as it continues to teach such
>illegal horrors around the world. The only way that islam could escape such
>a prohibition would be if its directors accept to censure its religious
>texts and remove the passages which incite to crime. In that way, muslims
>will prove their good faith and be able to join the international community
>where only those religions which incite tolerance will be able to live in
>harmony and mutual respect.
>
>The UN must immediately initiate an international committee to censure
>religious writings (all religious writings) to ensure they conform to human
>rights and to once and for all remove all the passages which infringe upon
>them.
>
>As long as that is not done, islam should be 
>declared illegal in western countries and Islamic 
>schools and places of such cult where these 
>abominations are taught every day, should be 
>forbidden as the breeding grounds of the terrorists and criminals of
>tomorrow
>
>
>The modern and free world must protect its freedom, if necessary by force,
>but once again with the least violent force to ensure the legitimate
>defence of its values.
>
>The scientific advance enjoyed by the west allows it to protect itself
>militarily and in a most non violent way from the fanatics who wish to
>bring it back to the middle ages. This advance should be maintained so that
>even if the Islamic fundamentalists largely outnumber the western
>population, they remain incapable of presenting a threat to the modern
>world.
>
>A long time ago, islam already invaded spain and a part of france before
>being pushed back militarily, which shows that the west is not the only one
>guilty of invading sovereign states such as Afghanistan or Iraq. If Islamic
>fundamentalists had the means technologically and militarily, there is no
>shadow of a doubt that they would invade the western world today and try
>and exterminate all those who don't convert to Islam.
>
>And this they would do using a list of false pretences: because the western
>world had previously colonised the muslim world which left them with a
>desire for vengeance, because they think that the western world pillaged
>their oil riches, because they resent the western world for having stolen
>their Palestinian territories to create the state of Israel, because they
>are occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, but all these are just false
>excuses: the truth is that their religion teaches them to convert the whole
>planet and exterminate all those who refuse to convert, the infidels and
>the atheists as their invasion of some parts of Europe a few centuries ago
>has already proved.
>
>This philosophy of world dominance to create a "kingdom of god"  on earth
>is what is the most dangerous. And the western world cannot accept that
>every day millions of young children are conditioned to accept this vision
>of the future.
>
>The violent manifestations following the caricatures of a prophet
>constitute just one little detail which reveals another danger. That of our
>own modern values and freedom being destroyed by a domination-seeking and
>intolerant people, and ourselves being dragged back to the middle ages.
>
>For these reason, modern societies should protect their values and
>fundamental rights, without making the slightest concession, if necessary
>by the use of force, arming themselves by developing new technologies so as
>to preserve sufficient advance to remain invincible, in the face of all the
>primitive and obscurantist forces of the planet.
>
>RAEL
>
>www.rael.org
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 Feb  8 03:56:52 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:56:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The School of Futurology
In-Reply-To: <1139366710.14208.339.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20060208035652.51844.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>

Fred, i'm half-jewish, and don't pay a cent without thinking about it ;-)

  
Before anyone accepts this offer I strongly suggest doing some very
rigorous due diligence.

Fred
			
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060207/33f47db7/attachment.html>

From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Wed Feb  8 07:47:38 2006
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 23:47:38 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060204134844.01d5cf48@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060204134844.01d5cf48@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0602072347n7e4e99eeqba5043412b2ed702@mail.gmail.com>

Update: George Deutsch recently announced his resignation. From NASA Watch:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/02/george_deutsch_1.html

*Editor's note:* NASA Watch has learned that George Deutsch resigned his
position at NASA today. NASA will not be commenting on this personnel issue.

George Deutsch, Up and Coming PAO
Politico<http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/02/george_deutsch.html>(earlier
post)

George Deutsch Did Not Graduate From Texas A & M
University<http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/breaking-news-george-deutsch-did-not.html>,
The Scientific Activist

*Update:* A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at
NASA<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html>,
NY Times

*"Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M
University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his r?sum? on
file at the agency asserted."*


On 2/4/06, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/science/04climate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th
>
> The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential
> appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose r?sum? says he
> was
> an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.
> A
> 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs
> officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements.
>
> In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA
> contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for
> middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be
> added after every mention of the Big Bang.
>
> The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote,
> adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration
> such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts
> intelligent
> design by a creator."
>
> It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue.
> And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half
> of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly
> educate
> the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."
>
> ====================
>
> Well, yes, and I trust that they will henceforth also always refer to the
> Spherical Earth Theory, since this is more than a science issue, it is a
> religious issue: the Bible implies that the world is flat, with four
> corners.
>
> Damien Broderick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060207/3a4eba67/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Wed Feb  8 10:43:01 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 05:43:01 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F1460BFCBB197E55F3D8E09B4000@phx.gbl>
References: <20060207231610.20899.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<BAY103-F1460BFCBB197E55F3D8E09B4000@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602080243w7cff4fb6qeb11c99d8fc2e483@mail.gmail.com>

Leaving aside the scam email spam problem -- it seems true that the
guaranteed delivery option would seem to be a cheap way to bypass the
current expense ($0.39) per letter (or somewhat less for bundled bulk fliers
-- anyone know these costs?) for what one would view as normal commercial
snail mail spam (as opposed to email scam spam).

What local retailers would want is the email addresses organized by zip code
/ address but I have to believe that this is available for lots of people.
Of course this doesn't eliminate the problem of the people who do currently
and might never have email addresses.

But the point being made about a possible increase in commercial mail in
ones INBOX is valid. If AOL & Yahoo do not provide ways of enforcing
filtering of non-whitelisted email it will simply drive people to use email
systems that do allow that.

Anyone know whether the various large userbase email systems allow
auto-forwarding?  (So you could retain an old email address but pass things
along to more sophisticated filtering systems.)

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060208/951d6736/attachment.html>

From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Wed Feb  8 18:01:01 2006
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:01:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <005c01c62c4a$c6976350$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
References: <mailman.179.1139322267.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<005c01c62c4a$c6976350$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <4902d9990602081001t7cf183b0u1d767925d73b1487@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/8/06, Mehran <mehranraeli at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> The UN must immediately initiate an international committee to censure
> religious writings (all religious writings) to ensure they conform to human
> rights and to once and for all remove all the passages which infringe upon
> them.
>
> As long as that is not done, islam should be
> declared illegal in western countries and Islamic
> schools and places of such cult where these
> abominations are taught every day, should be
> forbidden as the breeding grounds of the terrorists and criminals of
> tomorrow
>
>
> The modern and free world must protect its freedom, if necessary by force,
> but once again with the least violent force to ensure the legitimate
> defence of its values.

Let's also fuck for virginity and make war for peace :-)

Alfio



From benboc at lineone.net  Wed Feb  8 19:21:48 2006
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 19:21:48 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Big Bang & "the origin of the Universe"
In-Reply-To: <mailman.152.1139259609.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.152.1139259609.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <43EA44CC.5010405@lineone.net>

Jeff Medina wrote:

> Now suppose there is indeed no information about whether Something can
> come into existence from Nothing. (There is indeed no such
> information.
...
> *so long as those states EXIST or EXISTED* in a way conceptually
> distinguishable from Nothingness.]

Nothingness.

Interesting, er, concept.

What is it?

Where is it?

etc.

The more i think about it, the more i think there can't be any such
'thing'. It's a bit like comtemplating the subjective experience of not
existing.

I suppose that's one way of saying that Nothing *always* gives rise to
Something . As soon as the Something exists, the Nothing not only ceases
to 'exist', but never did, because time is created, too.

My brain hurts.

But it's squeezing out the concept that 'Nothingness' is meaningless.

ben


From benboc at lineone.net  Wed Feb  8 20:35:44 2006
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:35:44 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
 middle ages
In-Reply-To: <mailman.195.1139362364.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.195.1139362364.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <43EA5620.3060405@lineone.net>

"Mehran" <mehranraeli at comcast.net> foamed at the mouth:

> Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the middle ages
>
> <huge rant>

Wow, i don't think i've ever had such mixed feelings about such a
heavy-duty rant. On one hand, this IS obviously foaming at the mouth 
(and from a self-confessed raelian!), but on the other, a lot of the 
things presented are, afaik, true. I think this is a cue to find some 
things out for myself. I knew about the apostasy thing, which is bad 
enough, but some of the others?
Do present-day muslims really think that it's right and proper to beat 
women that they suspect might not obey them?

Of course, if you read the old testament you'll get a lot of dodgy stuff
as well, but who actually lives by that?

Maybe it's time to hit the bookshop and stock up on islamic holy books 
(now /there's/ something i never thought i'd ever say!)

ben


From jef at jefallbright.net  Wed Feb  8 21:18:38 2006
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 13:18:38 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Big Bang & "the origin of the Universe"
In-Reply-To: <43EA44CC.5010405@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.152.1139259609.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<43EA44CC.5010405@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <22360fa10602081318g3d86c6di524973313b77ea1f@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/8/06, ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
> Jeff Medina wrote:
>
> > Now suppose there is indeed no information about whether Something can
> > come into existence from Nothing. (There is indeed no such
> > information.
> ...
> > *so long as those states EXIST or EXISTED* in a way conceptually
> > distinguishable from Nothingness.]
>
> Nothingness.
>
> Interesting, er, concept.
>
> What is it?
>
> Where is it?
>
> etc.
>
> The more i think about it, the more i think there can't be any such
> 'thing'. It's a bit like comtemplating the subjective experience of not
> existing.
>
> I suppose that's one way of saying that Nothing *always* gives rise to
> Something . As soon as the Something exists, the Nothing not only ceases
> to 'exist', but never did, because time is created, too.
>
> My brain hurts.
>
> But it's squeezing out the concept that 'Nothingness' is meaningless.
>

You're facing the realization that *every concept is dependent on context*.

Paradox is always a matter of insufficient context.   In the bigger
picture, all the pieces must fit.

The really interesting (to me) stuff happens when you consider what
happens with increasing context, both subjective and objective.

- Jef



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  8 21:59:49 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 13:59:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <20060208024725.33812.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060208215949.67906.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>

This is fine as a polemic, but the question is: what are you going to do about it? Nothing. It's up to law enforcement in the countries in question to take responsibility
   
   
  >Western countries must protect these fundamental rights without compromise,and >all the more reason ! to do so when the enemies of freedom brandish death threats >and threaten violence. It is unacceptable to concede to any threatsof violence.

>Some Islamic countries are even considering to request the UN to vote for
>laws forbidding any texts of drawings lacking religious respect.

>Some westerners even try to justify these requests by equating these
>caricatures to incitement to racial or religious hatred, comparing them to
>the anti-semite drawings that were published in German papers during the
>rise of nazi-ism.

But the difference between the two stands out large and clear: the
anti-semite drawings really did incite hatred towards Jews through their
texts and propagated false information such as claiming that the Jews were
pillaging the German economy, or sacrificing children. They did not just
limit themselves to caricaturing a prophet or a god.

In the name of freedom of expression, so long as they don't explicitly
incite violence ! or racial and religious hate, which of course should be
forbidden, any other drawing and caricature which is purely humorous should
be allowed, whatever the subject and whoever their target.

No subject should be taboo or prohibited, otherwise freedom of expression
ceases to exist and the demon of religious or political censorship rears
its ugly head. For sure any explicit incitement to hatred or violence
against any religion or ethnic group should be severely punished by law,
but the right to laugh, and to laugh at anything without exception should
not be touched.

But the problem that this affair raises is in fact much deeper and serious
than that. We are presently seeing what I had prophesised a couple of
decades ago in one of my texts where I was warning the western world to get
ready to defend its fundamental rights against the influence of other
countries still living in the middle ages.

What we have is the confrontation of two civilisations: a modern and
liberated one clashing with another one trailing behind by a couple of
centuries due to lack of education and science, still stuck in
superstitions, under the grip of primitive beliefs and which has not yet
accomplished the fundamental step of separating church and state.

These two civilisations are now trying to impose their "values" on each
other. The confrontation of these two value systems is irresolvable,
especially when the less advanced one has such tenacious paradigms that
they are fanaticising to the extreme and which prevents them from seeing
the truth.

But the greatest danger is if the modern world makes concessions to the
primitive one. That will be a victory of obscurantism over science and
freedom.

It is the less advanced society which must progress and not the other way
round. On the contrary, the western world must continue to accelerate its
progressive reforms which allow i! t to completely destroy the last
puritanical and conventional traces inherited from the oppressive
judeo-christian traditions. Among other things would be the acceptance of
cloning, stem-cells and genetically modified organisms.

If muslims refuse to eat pork, that is their right, but they don't have the
right to impose this dietary regime on the rest of the world. That they
refuse to represent their prophet Mohamed is also their right, but neither
should they impose this rule on non muslims.

And if the modern world accepted to limit its own freedom of expression to
placate the sensitivities of muslims, then they are entering the slippery
slope of a return back to the dark ages.

Not only should the western world refuse to be influenced by the primitive
world, but they must do all they can via the promotion of education and use
of modern medias such as satellite TV or the internet, to help the
primitive societies to liberate th! emselves from the yoke of their
retrograde religion and to realise a true separation of their church and
state which western nations enjoy today.

And the modern world should concede none of its liberties and protect
itself from the threats of violence perpetrated by the fanatics.

Though the Raelian philosophy promotes absolute non violence, it also
promotes the right to legitimate self-defence, if necessary by force, but a
reasonable force aimed at reducing their attackers to powerlessness rather
than killing them.

And though we condemn all military attacks, such as the illegal invasions
of Afghanistan and Iraq by the US, that does not mean that we recommend
total inaction in the face of criminal cowardice which would allow medieval
forces to destroy the freedom of the modern world and murder its citizens.

The western world should develop weapons to specifically protect itself
from fanatical attacks of those who don't tolerat! e our rights and freedom.

It is important to compare the basic differences of these two clashing
societies in order to understand the differences and bad faith that these
defenders of medieval cultures use to seduce us into taking a step
backwards. Here are a few examples out of many:

The right to apostatise:
In the western countries, in accordance with human rights, people are free
to apostatise from their religion, either to convert to another or just to
become atheist and renounce all belief in a god. But in most Islamic
countries, in total disregard to these human rights, such apostasy is
illegal and the law can condemn anyone to death if they apostatise from the
Islamic religion.

The right to blaspheme:
In western countries, people are free to blaspheme. In the Islamic
countries the law can heavily condemn someone for this.

The right of women:
In western countries, the law on gender equality enshrines equal righ! ts for
women as for men on all levels.
In Islamic countries, women are considered inferior, it is legal to beat
them, they must wear the veil, or even worse the Burka, they are denied
access to education and are not allowed to drive cars, whereas men are
exempt from such restrictions.
Men can practice polygamy (have several wives) whereas women cannot
practice polyandry (have several husbands).
Women are never considered major and depend always on the authority of
either their father, husband or brother.
Every year thousands of women are legally murdered with impunity by male
members of their own family in what is called "crimes of honour".

Gay rights:
In western countries, homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals
and can even legally marry.
In Islamic countries, to be homosexual means heavy prison sentences or even
a sentence of death.

Sexual mutilation:
In western countries all sexual mutilation is illeg! al, whereas in Islamic
countries, excision (cutting off the clitoris) is practiced on millions of
little girls every year, as well as circumcision on boys.

The list is almost endless.

Each one of these situations is intolerable and constitutes a breach of
human rights. But what is all the more shocking is that muslims wish to
impose these unilaterally on our modern societies.

For example they demand the right to build mosques in the west and to be
allowed unlimited proselytism aimed at converting as many people as
possible - while in the west citizens are allowed to convert to islam - and
yet in Islamic countries the construction of non Islamic churches is
prohibited and anyone seeking to proselytise in the name of any religion
other than islam will be condemned to a very heavy prison sentence. And
anyone who tries to apostatise from islam or converts to another religion
can be condemned to death. Double standards.

An! other example: muslims demand the right to wear the Islamic veil in
western schools and can freely carry it anytime in public. But if a western
woman visits an Islamic country, she has to cover her hair with an Islamic
scarf and of course wearing a miniskirt would be under pain of death.
Again, double standards.

Human rights are very clear on both of these subjects: they guarantee
religious freedom, the right to convert, the right to proselytise. But this
must be reciprocal: if muslims wish to enjoy freedom and rights in western
countries guaranteed by the most beautiful fruit produced by the modern
world: Human Rights, then they too must imperatively respect them in their
own countries.

As long as total reciprocity is not respected, muslims should not be
allowed to enjoy the rights and freedoms of western countries that they
deny to visitors in their own countries. That means that Islamic
proselytism should be forbidden in the we! st as long as the proselytism of
other religions, or of atheism is not legalised in Islamic countries. And
the wearing of the veil or burka should be forbidden in the west as long as
women are not allowed to walk about with their head naked and in
mini-skirts in Islamic countries. In that way, there will be no double
standards.

The defence of values of modern countries, especially their rights so
preciously cumulated over the ages is essential particularly when they are
under attack by fanatics who's religious books teach hate, crime and
violence against those who are not faithful to their religion.

The Koran is very clear, it says in black and white:
"Kill the idolaters wherever you can find them, capture them, lay siege to
them, and ambush them. But if they convert, if they give money.., then
leave them in peace because Allah forgives and takes pity on them" Koran
IX. 5.

Islam also officially encourages racism and discrimination:
"Oh believers, do not befriend any Jew or Christian, because they are their
own allies. He who befriends them will become like them and god will not be
a guide for such a pervert" Koran V. 51.

Islamic sexism and the encouragement to their family violence also stems
from their "sacred writings":
"Men are superior to women thanks to the qualities that god gave to men to
raise them above women. Reprimand those women who you fear might not obey
you, banish them to separate beds and beat them" Koran IV. 34.

Even the life of the prophet Mohamed is considered exemplary and sacred
even though he was a pillager of caravans, or that he married Aicha when
she was still a little girl of only 9 years old as the writings relate. In
modern countries, to sleep with a 9 year old is called paedophilia. And
don't excuse it by claiming that it was common at the time. An act of
pedophilia always has and always will be a criminal ! act. Muslims cannot
consider Mohamed as a model of perfection and infallibility otherwise they
approve of pedophilia.

If the sacred books of Islam openly preach the murder of infidels, that is
to say anyone who is not a muslim or is atheist, then we, who live in the
west are all legitimate targets for them. The only way out of this massacre
is to convert to islam and that is what they officially announce. In fact
the Koran clearly states that muslims should convert the whole planet to
islam and kill all those who refuse this conversion. It is high time for
the free world to become aware of this reality taught by 1.3 billion
muslims, that is to say about a quarter of the world population.

Some people claim that that only fanatics interpret the Koran in this way
and that the majority of muslims interpret it in a more tolerant way and
don't apply such outdated rules. That is possible, but nevertheless, it is
the fanatics who at any opportunity drag the rest of the muslim world, even
the more tolerant, back to the "righteous path" by obliging them to apply
in full what is called the "word of god".

And every day, millions of young muslims around the world go to Koran
school which continue to teach these incitations to hatred and crime. For
sure they are not taught to interpret with tolerance or look at the larger
picture. Since it is the word of god transmitted by the prophet, such a
word by definition cannot be interpreted in a lighter way, it has to be
applied in its integrality. What is written is written.

The only solution to the problem is to prohibit any religion which teaches
violence and racial, religious or ethnic hate. We would never accept any
political party which promotes such a policy, it would be immediately
forbidden. So why accept it from a religion which conditions the behaviour
of the young generation far more than a political party does?

Therefore we should forbid islam as long as it continues to teach such
illegal horrors around the world. The only way that islam could escape such
a prohibition would be if its directors accept to censure its religious
texts and remove the passages which incite to crime. In that way, muslims
will prove their good faith and be able to join the international community
where only those religions which incite tolerance will be able to live in
harmony and mutual respect.

The UN must immediately initiate an international committee to censure
religious writings (all religious writings) to ensure they conform to human
rights and to once and for all remove all the passages which infringe upon
them.

As long as that is not done, islam should be 
declared illegal in western countries and Islamic 
schools and places of such cult where these 
abominations are taught every day, should be 
forbidden as the breeding grounds o! f the terrorists and criminals of
tomorrow


The modern and free world must protect its freedom, if necessary by force,
but once again with the least violent force to ensure the legitimate
defence of its values.

The scientific advance enjoyed by the west allows it to protect itself
militarily and in a most non violent way from the fanatics who wish to
bring it back to the middle ages. This advance should be maintained so that
even if the Islamic fundamentalists largely outnumber the western
population, they remain incapable of presenting a threat to the modern
world.

A long time ago, islam already invaded spain and a part of france before
being pushed back militarily, which shows that the west is not the only one
guilty of invading sovereign states such as Afghanistan or Iraq. If Islamic
fundamentalists had the means technologically and militarily, there is no
shadow of a doubt that they would invade the western world tod! ay and try
and exterminate all those who don't convert to Islam.

And this they would do using a list of false pretences: because the western
world had previously colonised the muslim world which left them with a
desire for vengeance, because they think that the western world pillaged
their oil riches, because they resent the western world for having stolen
their Palestinian territories to create the state of Israel, because they
are occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, but all these are just false
excuses: the truth is that their religion teaches them to convert the whole
planet and exterminate all those who refuse to convert, the infidels and
the atheists as their invasion of some parts of Europe a few centuries ago
has already proved.

This philosophy of world dominance to create a "kingdom of god" on earth
is what is the most dangerous. And the western world cannot accept that
every day millions of young children are conditioned ! to accept this vision
of the future.

The violent manifestations following the caricatures of a prophet
constitute just one little detail which reveals another danger. That of our
own modern values and freedom being destroyed by a domination-seeking and
intolerant people, and ourselves being dragged back to the middle ages.

For these reason, modern societies should protect their values and
fundamental rights, without making the slightest concession, if necessary
by the use of force, arming themselves by developing new technologies so as
to preserve sufficient advance to remain invincible, in the face of all the
primitive and obscurantist forces of the planet.

RAEL

www.rael.org


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

  
    
---------------------------------
  Brings words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail._______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


		
---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060208/2cc33fb4/attachment.html>

From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Thu Feb  9 01:47:30 2006
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 17:47:30 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Article: Who would not seize the chance to live to
	be 150?
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0602081747i59dc176cta7f7b1022dd378d2@mail.gmail.com>

Another article mentioning transhumanism, this time from the Financial
Times. I've quoted a bit below:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8230ef1a-9847-11da-816b-0000779e2340.html

But equally significant are the ripples of interest that Mr de Grey is
generating outside the scientific community. He has rapidly emerged as the
British figurehead of a new political movement, which has steadily been
gaining ground on both sides of the Atlantic. This movement is known as
transhumanism, and its central belief is that advances in science and
technology will liberate us from the constraints of illness and ageing and
enable us to live longer, healthier lives.

In its more modest form, trans????humanism advocates the embrace of new
technologies, such as smart drugs, cosmetic surgery and gene therapy, which
can enhance our physical and mental capabilities and make us "better than
well". At the more radical end of the spectrum, you find futurists such as
Ray Kurzweil, whose recent book *The Singularity is Near*, argues that:
"Ultimately we will merge with our technology . . . By the mid 2040s, the
non-biological portion of our intelligence will be billions of times more
capable than the biological portion."

Such predictions have provoked a fierce reaction, both from religious and
cultural conservatives, who see trans????humanism as an assault on human
nature, and from the liberal left, which sounds alarm bells about the
implications for equality and human rights. Francis Fukuyama, the US
academic, has described transhumanism as "the world's most dangerous idea".
...

The big question is who will bring human enhancement and life extension into
the mainstream. Politicians and business leaders, who are already struggling
to cope with rising pensions and healthcare costs, may be understandably
reluctant to speculate about a world in which we all live (and work?) well
into our second century.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060208/2b744567/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb  9 01:53:28 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 01:53:28 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Article: Who would not seize the chance to live
	to be 150?
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce0602081747i59dc176cta7f7b1022dd378d2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e88b73ce0602081747i59dc176cta7f7b1022dd378d2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602081753p1fa84b20uf69f83a348cddbaa@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/9/06, Neil H. <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Another article mentioning transhumanism, this time from the Financial
> Times. I've quoted a bit below:
>
> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8230ef1a-9847-11da-816b-0000779e2340.html
>
> But equally significant are the ripples of interest that Mr de Grey is
> generating outside the scientific community. He has rapidly emerged as the
> British figurehead of a new political movement, which has steadily been
> gaining ground on both sides of the Atlantic. This movement is known as
> transhumanism, and its central belief is that advances in science and
> technology will liberate us from the constraints of illness and ageing and
> enable us to live longer, healthier lives.
>
> In its more modest form, trans????humanism advocates the embrace of new
> technologies, such as smart drugs, cosmetic surgery and gene therapy, which
> can enhance our physical and mental capabilities and make us "better than
> well". At the more radical end of the spectrum, you find futurists such as
> Ray Kurzweil, whose recent book *The Singularity is Near*, argues that:
> "Ultimately we will merge with our technology . . . By the mid 2040s, the
> non-biological portion of our intelligence will be billions of times more
> capable than the biological portion."
>
> Such predictions have provoked a fierce reaction, both from religious and
> cultural conservatives, who see trans????humanism as an assault on human
> nature, and from the liberal left, which sounds alarm bells about the
> implications for equality and human rights. Francis Fukuyama, the US
> academic, has described transhumanism as "the world's most dangerous idea".
> ...
>
> The big question is who will bring human enhancement and life extension
> into the mainstream. Politicians and business leaders, who are already
> struggling to cope with rising pensions and healthcare costs, may be
> understandably reluctant to speculate about a world in which we all live
> (and work?) well into our second century.
>

I caught the tail end of a fairly serious  BBC Radio 4 prog a few days ago
(Start the Week) where life extension technology, as a term, was casually
thrown out by one (non transhumanist) speaker. Interestingly, the only
comment elicited concened access to such technology. It looks like aspects
of Transhumanism are moving beyond the 'is it possible' to 'what happens
when' amongst the educated general public.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060209/14c5deaa/attachment.html>

From mehranraeli at comcast.net  Thu Feb  9 02:52:53 2006
From: mehranraeli at comcast.net (Mehran)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:52:53 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
Message-ID: <003c01c62d23$ef658170$799f6041@DBX6XT21>

Yes, I am a proud Raelian for 15 years and I know RAEL personally for that
long... 

LOVE
Mehran
www.rael.org


-----Original Message-----
From: Mehran [mailto:mehranraeli at comcast.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:42 PM
To: 'extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org'
Subject: Re: Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the middle ages



Just to clarify, this text was written by RAEL

www.rael.org

- Mehran




February 8th, 2006
PROTECT OURSELVES TO PREVENT A RETURN TO THE MIDDLE AGES

The recent events which followed the publication of caricatures of Mohamed
in a Danish paper, with the burning of embassies in Arab countries, death
threats against the caricaturists and journalists etc indicate the extent of
the danger that the basic fundamental freedom in the west is in. However we
mustn't forget that this freedom was only acquired after many years of
struggle against the dominant religion of Christianity. Though today, anyone
can caricature Jesus, god or the pope in modern countries without any
danger, only a few hundred years ago anyone daring such a thing would have
risked being burnt alive at the stake.

The muslim world still lives in a medieval culture where any lack of
respect, even humorous, against religion is not tolerated.

That these countries don't respect human rights on their own territory and
freedom of expression in their own papers is condemnable, and even though we
should struggle to help improve this situation, that is their own internal
problem.

But what is totally unacceptable is when they dare to attack the freedom of
modern countries. They can do what they want in their own countries, but
please respect the freedom so carefully acquired over the centuries in
western countries, especially the right to atheism, the right to blaspheme
and the right to laugh at anything.

Western countries must protect these fundamental rights without compromise,
and all the more reason to do so when the enemies of freedom brandish death
threats and threaten violence. It is unacceptable to concede to any threats
of violence.

Some Islamic countries are even considering to request the UN to vote for
laws forbidding any texts of drawings lacking religious respect.

Some westerners even try to justify these requests by equating these
caricatures to incitement to racial or religious hatred, comparing them to
the anti-semite drawings that were published in German papers during the
rise of nazi-ism.

But the difference between the two stands out large and clear: the
anti-semite drawings really did incite hatred towards Jews through their
texts and propagated false information such as claiming that the Jews were
pillaging the German economy, or sacrificing children. They did not just
limit themselves to caricaturing a prophet or a god.

In the name of freedom of expression, so long as they don't explicitly
incite violence or racial and religious hate, which of course should be
forbidden, any other drawing and caricature which is purely humorous should
be allowed, whatever the subject and whoever their target. 

No subject should be taboo or prohibited, otherwise freedom of expression
ceases to exist and the demon of religious or political censorship rears its
ugly head. For sure any explicit incitement to hatred or violence against
any religion or ethnic group should be severely punished by law, but the
right to laugh, and to laugh at anything without exception should not be
touched.

But the problem that this affair raises is in fact much deeper and serious
than that. We are presently seeing what I had prophesised a couple of
decades ago in one of my texts where I was warning the western world to get
ready to defend its fundamental rights against the influence of other
countries still living in the middle ages. 

What we have is the confrontation of two civilisations: a modern and
liberated one clashing with another one trailing behind by a couple of
centuries due to lack of education and science, still stuck in
superstitions, under the grip of primitive beliefs and which has not yet
accomplished the fundamental step of separating church and state.

These two civilisations are now trying to impose their "values" on each
other. The confrontation of these two value systems is irresolvable,
especially when the less advanced one has such tenacious paradigms that they
are fanaticising to the extreme and which prevents them from seeing the
truth.

But the greatest danger is if the modern world makes concessions to the
primitive one. That will be a victory of obscurantism over science and
freedom.

It is the less advanced society which must progress and not the other way
round. On the contrary, the western world must continue to accelerate its
progressive reforms which allow it to completely destroy the last
puritanical and conventional traces inherited from the oppressive
judeo-christian traditions. Among other things would be the acceptance of
cloning, stem-cells and genetically modified organisms.

If muslims refuse to eat pork, that is their right, but they don't have the
right to impose this dietary regime on the rest of the world. That they
refuse to represent their prophet Mohamed is also their right, but neither
should they impose this rule on non muslims. 

And if the modern world accepted to limit its own freedom of expression to
placate the sensitivities of muslims, then they are entering the slippery
slope of a return back to the dark ages.

Not only should the western world refuse to be influenced by the primitive
world, but they must do all they can via the promotion of education and use
of modern medias such as satellite TV or the internet, to help the primitive
societies to liberate themselves from the yoke of their retrograde religion
and to realise a true separation of their church and state which western
nations enjoy today.

And the modern world should concede none of its liberties and protect itself
from the threats of violence perpetrated by the fanatics.

Though the Raelian philosophy promotes absolute non violence, it also
promotes the right to legitimate self-defence, if necessary by force, but a
reasonable force aimed at reducing their attackers to powerlessness rather
than killing them. 

And though we condemn all military attacks, such as the illegal invasions of
Afghanistan and Iraq by the US, that does not mean that we recommend total
inaction in the face of criminal cowardice which would allow medieval forces
to destroy the freedom of the modern world and murder its citizens. 

The western world should develop weapons to specifically protect itself from
fanatical attacks of those who don't tolerate our rights and freedom.

It is important to compare the basic differences of these two clashing
societies in order to understand the differences and bad faith that these
defenders of medieval cultures use to seduce us into taking a step
backwards. Here are a few examples out of many:

The right to apostatise:

In the western countries, in accordance with human rights, people are free
to apostatise from their religion, either to convert to another or just to
become atheist and renounce all belief in a god. But in most Islamic
countries, in total disregard to these human rights, such apostasy is
illegal and the law can condemn anyone to death if they apostatise from the
Islamic religion.

The right to blaspheme:

In western countries, people are free to blaspheme. In the Islamic countries
the law can heavily condemn someone for this.

The right of women:

In western countries, the law on gender equality enshrines equal rights for
women as for men on all levels. 

In Islamic countries, women are considered inferior, it is legal to beat
them, they must wear the veil, or even worse the Burka, they are denied
access to education and are not allowed to drive cars, whereas men are
exempt from such restrictions.

Men can practice polygamy (have several wives) whereas women cannot practice
polyandry (have several husbands).

Women are never considered major and depend always on the authority of
either their father, husband or brother.

Every year thousands of women are legally murdered with impunity by male
members of their own family in what is called "crimes of honour". 

Gay rights:

In western countries, homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals and
can even legally marry.

In Islamic countries, to be homosexual means heavy prison sentences or even
a sentence of death.

Sexual mutilation:

In western countries all sexual mutilation is illegal, whereas in Islamic
countries, excision (cutting off the clitoris) is practiced on millions of
little girls every year, as well as circumcision on boys. 

The list is almost endless.

Each one of these situations is intolerable and constitutes a breach of
human rights. But what is all the more shocking is that muslims wish to
impose these unilaterally on our modern societies. 

For example they demand the right to build mosques in the west and to be
allowed unlimited proselytism aimed at converting as many people as possible
- while in the west citizens are allowed to convert to islam - and yet in
Islamic countries the construction of non Islamic churches is prohibited and
anyone seeking to proselytise in the name of any religion other than islam
will be condemned to a very heavy prison sentence. And anyone who tries to
apostatise from islam or converts to another religion can be condemned to
death. Double standards.

Another example: muslims demand the right to wear the Islamic veil in
western schools and can freely carry it anytime in public. But if a western
woman visits an Islamic country, she has to cover her hair with an Islamic
scarf and of course wearing a miniskirt would be under pain of death. Again,
double standards. Human rights are very clear on both of these subjects:

they guarantee religious freedom, the right to convert, the right to
proselytise. But this must be reciprocal: if muslims wish to enjoy freedom
and rights in western countries guaranteed by the most beautiful fruit
produced by the modern world: Human Rights, then they too must imperatively
respect them in their own countries.

As long as total reciprocity is not respected, muslims should not be allowed
to enjoy the rights and freedoms of western countries that they deny to
visitors in their own countries. That means that Islamic proselytism should
be forbidden in the west as long as the proselytism of other religions, or
of atheism is not legalised in Islamic countries. And the wearing of the
veil or burka should be forbidden in the west as long as women are not
allowed to walk about with their head naked and in mini-skirts in Islamic
countries. In that way, there will be no double standards.

The defence of values of modern countries, especially their rights so
preciously cumulated over the ages is essential particularly when they are
under attack by fanatics who's religious books teach hate, crime and
violence against those who are not faithful to their religion.

The Koran is very clear, it says in black and white:

"Kill the idolaters wherever you can find them, capture them, lay siege to
them, and ambush them. But if they convert, if they give money.., then leave
them in peace because Allah forgives and takes pity on them" Koran IX. 5.

Islam also officially encourages racism and discrimination:"Oh believers, do
not befriend any Jew or Christian, because they are their own allies. He who
befriends them will become like them and god will not be a guide for such a
pervert" Koran V. 51.

Islamic sexism and the encouragement to their family violence also stems
from their "sacred writings":

"Men are superior to women thanks to the qualities that god gave to men to
raise them above women. Reprimand those women who you fear might not obey
you, banish them to separate beds and beat them" Koran IV. 34.

Even the life of the prophet Mohamed is considered exemplary and sacred even
though he was a pillager of caravans, or that he married Aicha when she was
still a little girl of only 9 years old as the writings relate. In modern
countries, to sleep with a 9 year old is called paedophilia. And don't
excuse it by claiming that it was common at the time. An act of pedophilia
always has and always will be a criminal act. Muslims cannot consider
Mohamed as a model of perfection and infallibility otherwise they approve of
pedophilia. 

If the sacred books of Islam openly preach the murder of infidels, that is
to say anyone who is not a muslim or is atheist, then we, who live in the
west are all legitimate targets for them. The only way out of this massacre
is to convert to islam and that is what they officially announce. In fact
the Koran clearly states that muslims should convert the whole planet to
islam and kill all those who refuse this conversion. It is high time for the
free world to become aware of this reality taught by 1.3 billion muslims,
that is to say about a quarter of the world population.

Some people claim that only fanatics interpret the Koran in this way and
that the majority of muslims interpret it in a more tolerant way and don't
apply such outdated rules. That is possible, but nevertheless, it is the
fanatics who at any opportunity drag the rest of the muslim world, even the
more tolerant, back to the "righteous path" by obliging them to apply in
full what is called the "word of god".

And every day, millions of young muslims around the world go to Koran school
which continue to teach these incitations to hatred and crime. For sure they
are not taught to interpret with tolerance or look at the larger picture.

Since it is the word of god transmitted by the prophet, such a word by
definition cannot be interpreted in a lighter way, it has to be applied in
its integrality. What is written is written. 

The only solution to the problem is to prohibit any religion which teaches
violence and racial, religious or ethnic hate. We would never accept any
political party which promotes such a policy, it would be immediately
forbidden. So why accept it from a religion which conditions the behaviour
of the young generation far more than a political party does?

Therefore we should forbid islam as long as it continues to teach such
illegal horrors around the world. The only way that islam could escape such
a prohibition would be if its directors accept to censure its religious
texts and remove the passages which incite to crime. In that way, muslims
will prove their good faith and be able to join the international community
where only those religions which incite tolerance will be able to live in
harmony and mutual respect.

The UN must immediately initiate an international committee to censure
religious writings (all religious writings) to ensure they conform to human
rights and to once and for all remove all the passages which infringe upon
them.

As long as that is not done, islam should be declared illegal in western
countries and Islamic schools, and places of such cult where these
abominations are taught every day should be forbidden as the breeding
grounds of the terrorists and criminals of tomorrow 

The modern and free world must protect its freedom, if necessary by force,
but once again with the least violent force to ensure the legitimate defence
of its values.

The scientific advance enjoyed by the west allows it to protect itself
militarily and in a most non violent way from the fanatics who wish to bring
it back to the middle ages. This advance should be maintained so that even
if the Islamic fundamentalists largely outnumber the western population,
they remain incapable of presenting a threat to the modern world.

A long time ago, islam already invaded spain and a part of france before
being pushed back militarily, which shows that the west is not the only one
guilty of invading sovereign states such as Afghanistan or Iraq. If Islamic
fundamentalists had the means technologically and militarily, there is no
shadow of a doubt that they would invade the western world today and try and
exterminate all those who don't convert to Islam.

And this they would do using a list of false pretences: because the western
world had previously colonised the muslim world which left them with a
desire for vengeance, because they think that the western world pillaged
their oil riches, because they resent the western world for having stolen
their Palestinian territories to create the state of Israel, because they
are occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, but all these are just false

excuses: the truth is that their religion teaches them to convert the whole
planet and exterminate all those who refuse to convert, the infidels and the
atheists as their invasion of some parts of Europe a few centuries ago has
already proved.

This philosophy of world dominance to create a "kingdom of god" on earth is
what is the most dangerous. And the western world cannot accept that every
day millions of young children are conditioned to accept this vision of the
future.

The violent manifestations following the caricatures of a prophet constitute
just one little detail which reveals another danger. That of our own modern
values and freedom being destroyed by a domination-seeking and intolerant
people, and ourselves being dragged back to the middle ages.

For these reason, modern societies should protect their values and
fundamental rights, without making the slightest concession, if necessary by
the use of force, arming themselves by developing new technologies so as to
preserve sufficient advance to remain invincible, in the face of all the
primitive and obscurantist forces of the planet.

RAEL 
www.rael.org






From mehranraeli at comcast.net  Thu Feb  9 02:42:12 2006
From: mehranraeli at comcast.net (Mehran)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:42:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <mailman.231.1139439722.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <003b01c62d22$71375ef0$799f6041@DBX6XT21>


Just to clarify, this text was written by RAEL

www.rael.org

- Mehran




February 8th, 2006
PROTECT OURSELVES TO PREVENT A RETURN TO THE MIDDLE AGES

The recent events which followed the publication of caricatures of Mohamed
in a Danish paper, with the burning of embassies in Arab countries, death
threats against the caricaturists and journalists etc indicate the extent of
the danger that the basic fundamental freedom in the west is in. However we
mustn't forget that this freedom was only acquired after many years of
struggle against the dominant religion of Christianity. Though today, anyone
can caricature Jesus, god or the pope in modern countries without any
danger, only a few hundred years ago anyone daring such a thing would have
risked being burnt alive at the stake.

The muslim world still lives in a medieval culture where any lack of
respect, even humorous, against religion is not tolerated.

That these countries don't respect human rights on their own territory and
freedom of expression in their own papers is condemnable, and even though we
should struggle to help improve this situation, that is their own internal
problem.

But what is totally unacceptable is when they dare to attack the freedom of
modern countries. They can do what they want in their own countries, but
please respect the freedom so carefully acquired over the centuries in
western countries, especially the right to atheism, the right to blaspheme
and the right to laugh at anything.

Western countries must protect these fundamental rights without compromise,
and all the more reason to do so when the enemies of freedom brandish death
threats and threaten violence. It is unacceptable to concede to any threats
of violence.

Some Islamic countries are even considering to request the UN to vote for
laws forbidding any texts of drawings lacking religious respect.

Some westerners even try to justify these requests by equating these
caricatures to incitement to racial or religious hatred, comparing them to
the anti-semite drawings that were published in German papers during the
rise of nazi-ism.

But the difference between the two stands out large and clear: the
anti-semite drawings really did incite hatred towards Jews through their
texts and propagated false information such as claiming that the Jews were
pillaging the German economy, or sacrificing children. They did not just
limit themselves to caricaturing a prophet or a god.

In the name of freedom of expression, so long as they don't explicitly
incite violence or racial and religious hate, which of course should be
forbidden, any other drawing and caricature which is purely humorous should
be allowed, whatever the subject and whoever their target. 

No subject should be taboo or prohibited, otherwise freedom of expression
ceases to exist and the demon of religious or political censorship rears its
ugly head. For sure any explicit incitement to hatred or violence against
any religion or ethnic group should be severely punished by law, but the
right to laugh, and to laugh at anything without exception should not be
touched.

But the problem that this affair raises is in fact much deeper and serious
than that. We are presently seeing what I had prophesised a couple of
decades ago in one of my texts where I was warning the western world to get
ready to defend its fundamental rights against the influence of other
countries still living in the middle ages. 

What we have is the confrontation of two civilisations: a modern and
liberated one clashing with another one trailing behind by a couple of
centuries due to lack of education and science, still stuck in
superstitions, under the grip of primitive beliefs and which has not yet
accomplished the fundamental step of separating church and state.

These two civilisations are now trying to impose their "values" on each
other. The confrontation of these two value systems is irresolvable,
especially when the less advanced one has such tenacious paradigms that they
are fanaticising to the extreme and which prevents them from seeing the
truth.

But the greatest danger is if the modern world makes concessions to the
primitive one. That will be a victory of obscurantism over science and
freedom.

It is the less advanced society which must progress and not the other way
round. On the contrary, the western world must continue to accelerate its
progressive reforms which allow it to completely destroy the last
puritanical and conventional traces inherited from the oppressive
judeo-christian traditions. Among other things would be the acceptance of
cloning, stem-cells and genetically modified organisms.

If muslims refuse to eat pork, that is their right, but they don't have the
right to impose this dietary regime on the rest of the world. That they
refuse to represent their prophet Mohamed is also their right, but neither
should they impose this rule on non muslims. 

And if the modern world accepted to limit its own freedom of expression to
placate the sensitivities of muslims, then they are entering the slippery
slope of a return back to the dark ages.

Not only should the western world refuse to be influenced by the primitive
world, but they must do all they can via the promotion of education and use
of modern medias such as satellite TV or the internet, to help the primitive
societies to liberate themselves from the yoke of their retrograde religion
and to realise a true separation of their church and state which western
nations enjoy today.

And the modern world should concede none of its liberties and protect itself
from the threats of violence perpetrated by the fanatics.

Though the Raelian philosophy promotes absolute non violence, it also
promotes the right to legitimate self-defence, if necessary by force, but a
reasonable force aimed at reducing their attackers to powerlessness rather
than killing them. 

And though we condemn all military attacks, such as the illegal invasions of
Afghanistan and Iraq by the US, that does not mean that we recommend total
inaction in the face of criminal cowardice which would allow medieval forces
to destroy the freedom of the modern world and murder its citizens. 

The western world should develop weapons to specifically protect itself from
fanatical attacks of those who don't tolerate our rights and freedom.

It is important to compare the basic differences of these two clashing
societies in order to understand the differences and bad faith that these
defenders of medieval cultures use to seduce us into taking a step
backwards. Here are a few examples out of many:

The right to apostatise:

In the western countries, in accordance with human rights, people are free
to apostatise from their religion, either to convert to another or just to
become atheist and renounce all belief in a god. But in most Islamic
countries, in total disregard to these human rights, such apostasy is
illegal and the law can condemn anyone to death if they apostatise from the
Islamic religion.

The right to blaspheme:

In western countries, people are free to blaspheme. In the Islamic countries
the law can heavily condemn someone for this.

The right of women:

In western countries, the law on gender equality enshrines equal rights for
women as for men on all levels. 

In Islamic countries, women are considered inferior, it is legal to beat
them, they must wear the veil, or even worse the Burka, they are denied
access to education and are not allowed to drive cars, whereas men are
exempt from such restrictions.

Men can practice polygamy (have several wives) whereas women cannot practice
polyandry (have several husbands).

Women are never considered major and depend always on the authority of
either their father, husband or brother.

Every year thousands of women are legally murdered with impunity by male
members of their own family in what is called "crimes of honour". 

Gay rights:

In western countries, homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals and
can even legally marry.

In Islamic countries, to be homosexual means heavy prison sentences or even
a sentence of death.

Sexual mutilation:

In western countries all sexual mutilation is illegal, whereas in Islamic
countries, excision (cutting off the clitoris) is practiced on millions of
little girls every year, as well as circumcision on boys. 

The list is almost endless.

Each one of these situations is intolerable and constitutes a breach of
human rights. But what is all the more shocking is that muslims wish to
impose these unilaterally on our modern societies. 

For example they demand the right to build mosques in the west and to be
allowed unlimited proselytism aimed at converting as many people as possible
- while in the west citizens are allowed to convert to islam - and yet in
Islamic countries the construction of non Islamic churches is prohibited and
anyone seeking to proselytise in the name of any religion other than islam
will be condemned to a very heavy prison sentence. And anyone who tries to
apostatise from islam or converts to another religion can be condemned to
death. Double standards.

Another example: muslims demand the right to wear the Islamic veil in
western schools and can freely carry it anytime in public. But if a western
woman visits an Islamic country, she has to cover her hair with an Islamic
scarf and of course wearing a miniskirt would be under pain of death. Again,
double standards. Human rights are very clear on both of these subjects:

they guarantee religious freedom, the right to convert, the right to
proselytise. But this must be reciprocal: if muslims wish to enjoy freedom
and rights in western countries guaranteed by the most beautiful fruit
produced by the modern world: Human Rights, then they too must imperatively
respect them in their own countries.

As long as total reciprocity is not respected, muslims should not be allowed
to enjoy the rights and freedoms of western countries that they deny to
visitors in their own countries. That means that Islamic proselytism should
be forbidden in the west as long as the proselytism of other religions, or
of atheism is not legalised in Islamic countries. And the wearing of the
veil or burka should be forbidden in the west as long as women are not
allowed to walk about with their head naked and in mini-skirts in Islamic
countries. In that way, there will be no double standards.

The defence of values of modern countries, especially their rights so
preciously cumulated over the ages is essential particularly when they are
under attack by fanatics who's religious books teach hate, crime and
violence against those who are not faithful to their religion.

The Koran is very clear, it says in black and white:

"Kill the idolaters wherever you can find them, capture them, lay siege to
them, and ambush them. But if they convert, if they give money.., then leave
them in peace because Allah forgives and takes pity on them" Koran IX. 5.

Islam also officially encourages racism and discrimination:"Oh believers, do
not befriend any Jew or Christian, because they are their own allies. He who
befriends them will become like them and god will not be a guide for such a
pervert" Koran V. 51.

Islamic sexism and the encouragement to their family violence also stems
from their "sacred writings":

"Men are superior to women thanks to the qualities that god gave to men to
raise them above women. Reprimand those women who you fear might not obey
you, banish them to separate beds and beat them" Koran IV. 34.

Even the life of the prophet Mohamed is considered exemplary and sacred even
though he was a pillager of caravans, or that he married Aicha when she was
still a little girl of only 9 years old as the writings relate. In modern
countries, to sleep with a 9 year old is called paedophilia. And don't
excuse it by claiming that it was common at the time. An act of pedophilia
always has and always will be a criminal act. Muslims cannot consider
Mohamed as a model of perfection and infallibility otherwise they approve of
pedophilia. 

If the sacred books of Islam openly preach the murder of infidels, that is
to say anyone who is not a muslim or is atheist, then we, who live in the
west are all legitimate targets for them. The only way out of this massacre
is to convert to islam and that is what they officially announce. In fact
the Koran clearly states that muslims should convert the whole planet to
islam and kill all those who refuse this conversion. It is high time for the
free world to become aware of this reality taught by 1.3 billion muslims,
that is to say about a quarter of the world population.

Some people claim that only fanatics interpret the Koran in this way and
that the majority of muslims interpret it in a more tolerant way and don't
apply such outdated rules. That is possible, but nevertheless, it is the
fanatics who at any opportunity drag the rest of the muslim world, even the
more tolerant, back to the "righteous path" by obliging them to apply in
full what is called the "word of god".

And every day, millions of young muslims around the world go to Koran school
which continue to teach these incitations to hatred and crime. For sure they
are not taught to interpret with tolerance or look at the larger picture.

Since it is the word of god transmitted by the prophet, such a word by
definition cannot be interpreted in a lighter way, it has to be applied in
its integrality. What is written is written. 

The only solution to the problem is to prohibit any religion which teaches
violence and racial, religious or ethnic hate. We would never accept any
political party which promotes such a policy, it would be immediately
forbidden. So why accept it from a religion which conditions the behaviour
of the young generation far more than a political party does?

Therefore we should forbid islam as long as it continues to teach such
illegal horrors around the world. The only way that islam could escape such
a prohibition would be if its directors accept to censure its religious
texts and remove the passages which incite to crime. In that way, muslims
will prove their good faith and be able to join the international community
where only those religions which incite tolerance will be able to live in
harmony and mutual respect.

The UN must immediately initiate an international committee to censure
religious writings (all religious writings) to ensure they conform to human
rights and to once and for all remove all the passages which infringe upon
them.

As long as that is not done, islam should be declared illegal in western
countries and Islamic schools, and places of such cult where these
abominations are taught every day should be forbidden as the breeding
grounds of the terrorists and criminals of tomorrow 

The modern and free world must protect its freedom, if necessary by force,
but once again with the least violent force to ensure the legitimate defence
of its values.

The scientific advance enjoyed by the west allows it to protect itself
militarily and in a most non violent way from the fanatics who wish to bring
it back to the middle ages. This advance should be maintained so that even
if the Islamic fundamentalists largely outnumber the western population,
they remain incapable of presenting a threat to the modern world.

A long time ago, islam already invaded spain and a part of france before
being pushed back militarily, which shows that the west is not the only one
guilty of invading sovereign states such as Afghanistan or Iraq. If Islamic
fundamentalists had the means technologically and militarily, there is no
shadow of a doubt that they would invade the western world today and try and
exterminate all those who don't convert to Islam.

And this they would do using a list of false pretences: because the western
world had previously colonised the muslim world which left them with a
desire for vengeance, because they think that the western world pillaged
their oil riches, because they resent the western world for having stolen
their Palestinian territories to create the state of Israel, because they
are occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, but all these are just false

excuses: the truth is that their religion teaches them to convert the whole
planet and exterminate all those who refuse to convert, the infidels and the
atheists as their invasion of some parts of Europe a few centuries ago has
already proved.

This philosophy of world dominance to create a "kingdom of god" on earth is
what is the most dangerous. And the western world cannot accept that every
day millions of young children are conditioned to accept this vision of the
future.

The violent manifestations following the caricatures of a prophet constitute
just one little detail which reveals another danger. That of our own modern
values and freedom being destroyed by a domination-seeking and intolerant
people, and ourselves being dragged back to the middle ages.

For these reason, modern societies should protect their values and
fundamental rights, without making the slightest concession, if necessary by
the use of force, arming themselves by developing new technologies so as to
preserve sufficient advance to remain invincible, in the face of all the
primitive and obscurantist forces of the planet.

RAEL 
www.rael.org






From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Feb  9 03:23:09 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:23:09 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Article: Who would not seize the chance to live
	to	be 150?
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce0602081747i59dc176cta7f7b1022dd378d2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e88b73ce0602081747i59dc176cta7f7b1022dd378d2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54DE7E1E-7DB1-4D5E-87B0-FB1087F49632@mac.com>


On Feb 8, 2006, at 5:47 PM, Neil H. wrote:

> The big question is who will bring human enhancement and life  
> extension into the mainstream. Politicians and business leaders,  
> who are already struggling to cope with rising pensions and  
> healthcare costs, may be understandably reluctant to speculate  
> about a world in which we all live (and work?) well into our second  
> century.

Since people will be healthy an indefinitely long time health care  
cost should drop quite substantially.  Since there is effectively no  
"old age" there is no reason for pensions and other such devices that  
presume it.   So these worried politicians and business leaders  
should resoundingly embrace such possibilities.

- samantha


From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Thu Feb  9 03:29:00 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:29:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
 the	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <003c01c62d23$ef658170$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
References: <003c01c62d23$ef658170$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <43EAB6FC.3000206@goldenfuture.net>

Seen any flying saucers yet?

SCEPTICISM
Joseph
www.extropy.org

Mehran wrote:

>Yes, I am a proud Raelian for 15 years and I know RAEL personally for that
>long... 
>
>LOVE
>Mehran
>www.rael.org
>



From mehranraeli at comcast.net  Thu Feb  9 03:29:23 2006
From: mehranraeli at comcast.net (Mehran)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 22:29:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <mailman.231.1139439722.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <003f01c62d29$08bcfc70$799f6041@DBX6XT21>


Ben,

You don't find these criminal practices in books.  Most of them are not
reported in their newspapers either... no publisher dares to print them.  We
know now why.   But they are practised including stoning to death for
extramarital affairs.

Mehran
www.rael.org

"Live free or die"

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

Message: 12
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:35:44 +0000
From: ben <benboc at lineone.net>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
	the middle ages
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Message-ID: <43EA5620.3060405 at lineone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

"Mehran" <mehranraeli at comcast.net> foamed at the mouth:

> Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the middle ages
>
> <huge rant>

Wow, i don't think i've ever had such mixed feelings about such a
heavy-duty rant. On one hand, this IS obviously foaming at the mouth 
(and from a self-confessed raelian!), but on the other, a lot of the 
things presented are, afaik, true. I think this is a cue to find some 
things out for myself. I knew about the apostasy thing, which is bad 
enough, but some of the others?
Do present-day muslims really think that it's right and proper to beat 
women that they suspect might not obey them?

Of course, if you read the old testament you'll get a lot of dodgy stuff
as well, but who actually lives by that?

Maybe it's time to hit the bookshop and stock up on islamic holy books 
(now /there's/ something i never thought i'd ever say!)

ben






From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Feb  9 03:31:33 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:31:33 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
	the	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <003c01c62d23$ef658170$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
References: <003c01c62d23$ef658170$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <F8B8860A-F9E5-4EA7-B554-D854CAD4BA53@mac.com>

What the heck does this mean?  Do you personally know some aliens?   
Got any proof?

Or is this another dreary bit of religious Witnessing?    How the  
heck is this different from "I am PROUD to be an utter  nutter!  It  
has changed my life!"

I have no trouble with the fact that believing all matter of such  
things can lead to or be associated with some personal transformation  
some of the time.   But this says much about human psychology and  
nothing about the validity of the beliefs claimed.

- s

On Feb 8, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Mehran wrote:

> Yes, I am a proud Raelian for 15 years and I know RAEL personally  
> for that
> long...
>
> LOVE
> Mehran
> www.rael.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mehran [mailto:mehranraeli at comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:42 PM
> To: 'extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org'
> Subject: Re: Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the middle ages
>
>
>
> Just to clarify, this text was written by RAEL
>
> www.rael.org
>
> - Mehran
>
>
>
>
> February 8th, 2006
> PROTECT OURSELVES TO PREVENT A RETURN TO THE MIDDLE AGES
>
> The recent events which followed the publication of caricatures of  
> Mohamed
> in a Danish paper, with the burning of embassies in Arab countries,  
> death
> threats against the caricaturists and journalists etc indicate the  
> extent of
> the danger that the basic fundamental freedom in the west is in.  
> However we
> mustn't forget that this freedom was only acquired after many years of
> struggle against the dominant religion of Christianity. Though  
> today, anyone
> can caricature Jesus, god or the pope in modern countries without any
> danger, only a few hundred years ago anyone daring such a thing  
> would have
> risked being burnt alive at the stake.
>
> The muslim world still lives in a medieval culture where any lack of
> respect, even humorous, against religion is not tolerated.
>
> That these countries don't respect human rights on their own  
> territory and
> freedom of expression in their own papers is condemnable, and even  
> though we
> should struggle to help improve this situation, that is their own  
> internal
> problem.
>
> But what is totally unacceptable is when they dare to attack the  
> freedom of
> modern countries. They can do what they want in their own  
> countries, but
> please respect the freedom so carefully acquired over the centuries in
> western countries, especially the right to atheism, the right to  
> blaspheme
> and the right to laugh at anything.
>
> Western countries must protect these fundamental rights without  
> compromise,
> and all the more reason to do so when the enemies of freedom  
> brandish death
> threats and threaten violence. It is unacceptable to concede to any  
> threats
> of violence.
>
> Some Islamic countries are even considering to request the UN to  
> vote for
> laws forbidding any texts of drawings lacking religious respect.
>
> Some westerners even try to justify these requests by equating these
> caricatures to incitement to racial or religious hatred, comparing  
> them to
> the anti-semite drawings that were published in German papers  
> during the
> rise of nazi-ism.
>
> But the difference between the two stands out large and clear: the
> anti-semite drawings really did incite hatred towards Jews through  
> their
> texts and propagated false information such as claiming that the  
> Jews were
> pillaging the German economy, or sacrificing children. They did not  
> just
> limit themselves to caricaturing a prophet or a god.
>
> In the name of freedom of expression, so long as they don't explicitly
> incite violence or racial and religious hate, which of course  
> should be
> forbidden, any other drawing and caricature which is purely  
> humorous should
> be allowed, whatever the subject and whoever their target.
>
> No subject should be taboo or prohibited, otherwise freedom of  
> expression
> ceases to exist and the demon of religious or political censorship  
> rears its
> ugly head. For sure any explicit incitement to hatred or violence  
> against
> any religion or ethnic group should be severely punished by law,  
> but the
> right to laugh, and to laugh at anything without exception should  
> not be
> touched.
>
> But the problem that this affair raises is in fact much deeper and  
> serious
> than that. We are presently seeing what I had prophesised a couple of
> decades ago in one of my texts where I was warning the western  
> world to get
> ready to defend its fundamental rights against the influence of other
> countries still living in the middle ages.
>
> What we have is the confrontation of two civilisations: a modern and
> liberated one clashing with another one trailing behind by a couple of
> centuries due to lack of education and science, still stuck in
> superstitions, under the grip of primitive beliefs and which has  
> not yet
> accomplished the fundamental step of separating church and state.
>
> These two civilisations are now trying to impose their "values" on  
> each
> other. The confrontation of these two value systems is irresolvable,
> especially when the less advanced one has such tenacious paradigms  
> that they
> are fanaticising to the extreme and which prevents them from seeing  
> the
> truth.
>
> But the greatest danger is if the modern world makes concessions to  
> the
> primitive one. That will be a victory of obscurantism over science and
> freedom.
>
> It is the less advanced society which must progress and not the  
> other way
> round. On the contrary, the western world must continue to  
> accelerate its
> progressive reforms which allow it to completely destroy the last
> puritanical and conventional traces inherited from the oppressive
> judeo-christian traditions. Among other things would be the  
> acceptance of
> cloning, stem-cells and genetically modified organisms.
>
> If muslims refuse to eat pork, that is their right, but they don't  
> have the
> right to impose this dietary regime on the rest of the world. That  
> they
> refuse to represent their prophet Mohamed is also their right, but  
> neither
> should they impose this rule on non muslims.
>
> And if the modern world accepted to limit its own freedom of  
> expression to
> placate the sensitivities of muslims, then they are entering the  
> slippery
> slope of a return back to the dark ages.
>
> Not only should the western world refuse to be influenced by the  
> primitive
> world, but they must do all they can via the promotion of education  
> and use
> of modern medias such as satellite TV or the internet, to help the  
> primitive
> societies to liberate themselves from the yoke of their retrograde  
> religion
> and to realise a true separation of their church and state which  
> western
> nations enjoy today.
>
> And the modern world should concede none of its liberties and  
> protect itself
> from the threats of violence perpetrated by the fanatics.
>
> Though the Raelian philosophy promotes absolute non violence, it also
> promotes the right to legitimate self-defence, if necessary by  
> force, but a
> reasonable force aimed at reducing their attackers to powerlessness  
> rather
> than killing them.
>
> And though we condemn all military attacks, such as the illegal  
> invasions of
> Afghanistan and Iraq by the US, that does not mean that we  
> recommend total
> inaction in the face of criminal cowardice which would allow  
> medieval forces
> to destroy the freedom of the modern world and murder its citizens.
>
> The western world should develop weapons to specifically protect  
> itself from
> fanatical attacks of those who don't tolerate our rights and freedom.
>
> It is important to compare the basic differences of these two clashing
> societies in order to understand the differences and bad faith that  
> these
> defenders of medieval cultures use to seduce us into taking a step
> backwards. Here are a few examples out of many:
>
> The right to apostatise:
>
> In the western countries, in accordance with human rights, people  
> are free
> to apostatise from their religion, either to convert to another or  
> just to
> become atheist and renounce all belief in a god. But in most Islamic
> countries, in total disregard to these human rights, such apostasy is
> illegal and the law can condemn anyone to death if they apostatise  
> from the
> Islamic religion.
>
> The right to blaspheme:
>
> In western countries, people are free to blaspheme. In the Islamic  
> countries
> the law can heavily condemn someone for this.
>
> The right of women:
>
> In western countries, the law on gender equality enshrines equal  
> rights for
> women as for men on all levels.
>
> In Islamic countries, women are considered inferior, it is legal to  
> beat
> them, they must wear the veil, or even worse the Burka, they are  
> denied
> access to education and are not allowed to drive cars, whereas men are
> exempt from such restrictions.
>
> Men can practice polygamy (have several wives) whereas women cannot  
> practice
> polyandry (have several husbands).
>
> Women are never considered major and depend always on the authority of
> either their father, husband or brother.
>
> Every year thousands of women are legally murdered with impunity by  
> male
> members of their own family in what is called "crimes of honour".
>
> Gay rights:
>
> In western countries, homosexuals enjoy the same rights as  
> heterosexuals and
> can even legally marry.
>
> In Islamic countries, to be homosexual means heavy prison sentences  
> or even
> a sentence of death.
>
> Sexual mutilation:
>
> In western countries all sexual mutilation is illegal, whereas in  
> Islamic
> countries, excision (cutting off the clitoris) is practiced on  
> millions of
> little girls every year, as well as circumcision on boys.
>
> The list is almost endless.
>
> Each one of these situations is intolerable and constitutes a  
> breach of
> human rights. But what is all the more shocking is that muslims  
> wish to
> impose these unilaterally on our modern societies.
>
> For example they demand the right to build mosques in the west and  
> to be
> allowed unlimited proselytism aimed at converting as many people as  
> possible
> - while in the west citizens are allowed to convert to islam - and  
> yet in
> Islamic countries the construction of non Islamic churches is  
> prohibited and
> anyone seeking to proselytise in the name of any religion other  
> than islam
> will be condemned to a very heavy prison sentence. And anyone who  
> tries to
> apostatise from islam or converts to another religion can be  
> condemned to
> death. Double standards.
>
> Another example: muslims demand the right to wear the Islamic veil in
> western schools and can freely carry it anytime in public. But if a  
> western
> woman visits an Islamic country, she has to cover her hair with an  
> Islamic
> scarf and of course wearing a miniskirt would be under pain of  
> death. Again,
> double standards. Human rights are very clear on both of these  
> subjects:
>
> they guarantee religious freedom, the right to convert, the right to
> proselytise. But this must be reciprocal: if muslims wish to enjoy  
> freedom
> and rights in western countries guaranteed by the most beautiful fruit
> produced by the modern world: Human Rights, then they too must  
> imperatively
> respect them in their own countries.
>
> As long as total reciprocity is not respected, muslims should not  
> be allowed
> to enjoy the rights and freedoms of western countries that they  
> deny to
> visitors in their own countries. That means that Islamic  
> proselytism should
> be forbidden in the west as long as the proselytism of other  
> religions, or
> of atheism is not legalised in Islamic countries. And the wearing  
> of the
> veil or burka should be forbidden in the west as long as women are not
> allowed to walk about with their head naked and in mini-skirts in  
> Islamic
> countries. In that way, there will be no double standards.
>
> The defence of values of modern countries, especially their rights so
> preciously cumulated over the ages is essential particularly when  
> they are
> under attack by fanatics who's religious books teach hate, crime and
> violence against those who are not faithful to their religion.
>
> The Koran is very clear, it says in black and white:
>
> "Kill the idolaters wherever you can find them, capture them, lay  
> siege to
> them, and ambush them. But if they convert, if they give money..,  
> then leave
> them in peace because Allah forgives and takes pity on them" Koran  
> IX. 5.
>
> Islam also officially encourages racism and discrimination:"Oh  
> believers, do
> not befriend any Jew or Christian, because they are their own  
> allies. He who
> befriends them will become like them and god will not be a guide  
> for such a
> pervert" Koran V. 51.
>
> Islamic sexism and the encouragement to their family violence also  
> stems
> from their "sacred writings":
>
> "Men are superior to women thanks to the qualities that god gave to  
> men to
> raise them above women. Reprimand those women who you fear might  
> not obey
> you, banish them to separate beds and beat them" Koran IV. 34.
>
> Even the life of the prophet Mohamed is considered exemplary and  
> sacred even
> though he was a pillager of caravans, or that he married Aicha when  
> she was
> still a little girl of only 9 years old as the writings relate. In  
> modern
> countries, to sleep with a 9 year old is called paedophilia. And don't
> excuse it by claiming that it was common at the time. An act of  
> pedophilia
> always has and always will be a criminal act. Muslims cannot consider
> Mohamed as a model of perfection and infallibility otherwise they  
> approve of
> pedophilia.
>
> If the sacred books of Islam openly preach the murder of infidels,  
> that is
> to say anyone who is not a muslim or is atheist, then we, who live  
> in the
> west are all legitimate targets for them. The only way out of this  
> massacre
> is to convert to islam and that is what they officially announce.  
> In fact
> the Koran clearly states that muslims should convert the whole  
> planet to
> islam and kill all those who refuse this conversion. It is high  
> time for the
> free world to become aware of this reality taught by 1.3 billion  
> muslims,
> that is to say about a quarter of the world population.
>
> Some people claim that only fanatics interpret the Koran in this  
> way and
> that the majority of muslims interpret it in a more tolerant way  
> and don't
> apply such outdated rules. That is possible, but nevertheless, it  
> is the
> fanatics who at any opportunity drag the rest of the muslim world,  
> even the
> more tolerant, back to the "righteous path" by obliging them to  
> apply in
> full what is called the "word of god".
>
> And every day, millions of young muslims around the world go to  
> Koran school
> which continue to teach these incitations to hatred and crime. For  
> sure they
> are not taught to interpret with tolerance or look at the larger  
> picture.
>
> Since it is the word of god transmitted by the prophet, such a word by
> definition cannot be interpreted in a lighter way, it has to be  
> applied in
> its integrality. What is written is written.
>
> The only solution to the problem is to prohibit any religion which  
> teaches
> violence and racial, religious or ethnic hate. We would never  
> accept any
> political party which promotes such a policy, it would be immediately
> forbidden. So why accept it from a religion which conditions the  
> behaviour
> of the young generation far more than a political party does?
>
> Therefore we should forbid islam as long as it continues to teach such
> illegal horrors around the world. The only way that islam could  
> escape such
> a prohibition would be if its directors accept to censure its  
> religious
> texts and remove the passages which incite to crime. In that way,  
> muslims
> will prove their good faith and be able to join the international  
> community
> where only those religions which incite tolerance will be able to  
> live in
> harmony and mutual respect.
>
> The UN must immediately initiate an international committee to censure
> religious writings (all religious writings) to ensure they conform  
> to human
> rights and to once and for all remove all the passages which  
> infringe upon
> them.
>
> As long as that is not done, islam should be declared illegal in  
> western
> countries and Islamic schools, and places of such cult where these
> abominations are taught every day should be forbidden as the breeding
> grounds of the terrorists and criminals of tomorrow
>
> The modern and free world must protect its freedom, if necessary by  
> force,
> but once again with the least violent force to ensure the  
> legitimate defence
> of its values.
>
> The scientific advance enjoyed by the west allows it to protect itself
> militarily and in a most non violent way from the fanatics who wish  
> to bring
> it back to the middle ages. This advance should be maintained so  
> that even
> if the Islamic fundamentalists largely outnumber the western  
> population,
> they remain incapable of presenting a threat to the modern world.
>
> A long time ago, islam already invaded spain and a part of france  
> before
> being pushed back militarily, which shows that the west is not the  
> only one
> guilty of invading sovereign states such as Afghanistan or Iraq. If  
> Islamic
> fundamentalists had the means technologically and militarily, there  
> is no
> shadow of a doubt that they would invade the western world today  
> and try and
> exterminate all those who don't convert to Islam.
>
> And this they would do using a list of false pretences: because the  
> western
> world had previously colonised the muslim world which left them with a
> desire for vengeance, because they think that the western world  
> pillaged
> their oil riches, because they resent the western world for having  
> stolen
> their Palestinian territories to create the state of Israel,  
> because they
> are occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, but all these are just false
>
> excuses: the truth is that their religion teaches them to convert  
> the whole
> planet and exterminate all those who refuse to convert, the  
> infidels and the
> atheists as their invasion of some parts of Europe a few centuries  
> ago has
> already proved.
>
> This philosophy of world dominance to create a "kingdom of god" on  
> earth is
> what is the most dangerous. And the western world cannot accept  
> that every
> day millions of young children are conditioned to accept this  
> vision of the
> future.
>
> The violent manifestations following the caricatures of a prophet  
> constitute
> just one little detail which reveals another danger. That of our  
> own modern
> values and freedom being destroyed by a domination-seeking and  
> intolerant
> people, and ourselves being dragged back to the middle ages.
>
> For these reason, modern societies should protect their values and
> fundamental rights, without making the slightest concession, if  
> necessary by
> the use of force, arming themselves by developing new technologies  
> so as to
> preserve sufficient advance to remain invincible, in the face of  
> all the
> primitive and obscurantist forces of the planet.
>
> RAEL
> www.rael.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Feb  9 03:44:46 2006
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:14:46 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] The School of Futurology
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060207221351.036c8f20@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6030482a0602071325gec240dblef8b856de6fcbf9c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1139366710.14208.339.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060207221351.036c8f20@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0602081944mf38667ak@mail.gmail.com>

Here's a repost from this list; original author Jeff Davis:

> I, however, will provide a comment.
>
> This is not easy for me.  Sending up a red flag with a
> person's name one it.  Yet it appears to be necessary.
>
> Jonathan Despres is the single most dangerous
> individual to have invited himself into the
> cryonics/transhumanist community, in the 8-9 years I
> have been around.  Dangerous most particularly to the
> cryonics enterprise.
>
> http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=27334
>
> The problem posed by Despres would be easier to deal
> with if it was simply a case of a malicious
> personality.  However, that's not the situation.
> Rather it appears that Despres suffers from some sort
> of mental problem.  From the link below, in is own
> words:
>
> "Because of my disease called Social Anxiety or Social
> Phobia, I would need a telephonist. I hate to call
> people over the phone."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.cryonics/browse_thread/thread/fcd0dc764bb213e5/73e43e6c1fa37bb1#73e43e6c1fa37bb1
>
>
> I suspect that his aberrant, destructive behavior will
> only come to an end as a consequence of legal action.
> Meanwhile, in an effort to minimize the damage he is
> inevitably -- delusionally -- going to cause, I
> recommend everyone be aware of the problem, and take
> the time to inform anyone not already up to speed.
>
> Jonathan Despres is trouble.  He has set up a
> superficially impressive, yet vaporware website, and
> is set on a course to screw over anyone who, unaware
> of the mental aberration behind it, buys into the
> seeming-legitimacy of his web activity.
>
> This is no drill.
>
> Jeff Davis

On 08/02/06, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 06:45 PM 2/7/2006 -0800, Fred C. Moulton wrote:
>
> >Before anyone accepts this offer I strongly suggest doing some very
> >rigorous due diligence.
>
> Or even some very cursory due diligence via Google.
>
> Damien Broderick
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


--
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Feb  9 03:46:38 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:46:38 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
 the	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <43EAB6FC.3000206@goldenfuture.net>
References: <003c01c62d23$ef658170$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
	<43EAB6FC.3000206@goldenfuture.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060208214248.01d791b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 10:29 PM 2/8/2006 -0500, Joseph Bloch wrote:

>Seen any flying saucers yet?

And: Seen any cloned babies yet?

All we need now are some $cientologists and an iridologist, and 
extropy-chat will have the complete set! 



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb  9 03:48:20 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 03:48:20 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060208214248.01d791b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <003c01c62d23$ef658170$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
	<43EAB6FC.3000206@goldenfuture.net>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060208214248.01d791b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602081948k128fa312sb0b202d526b2ebc@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/9/06, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> At 10:29 PM 2/8/2006 -0500, Joseph Bloch wrote:
>
> >Seen any flying saucers yet?
>
> And: Seen any cloned babies yet?
>
> And: Seen any Singularities yet?

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060209/501d27c2/attachment.html>

From transcend at extropica.com  Thu Feb  9 03:32:08 2006
From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:32:08 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
	themiddle ages
In-Reply-To: <003c01c62d23$ef658170$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <200602090402.k1942Gww011069@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Is arguing against Raelism allowed on this list, or merely a much-trodden
powder keg that shouldn't be reopened?

Brandon


-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mehran
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:53 PM
To: 'Mehran'; extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
themiddle ages

Yes, I am a proud Raelian for 15 years and I know RAEL personally for that
long... 

LOVE
Mehran
www.rael.org


-----Original Message-----
From: Mehran [mailto:mehranraeli at comcast.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:42 PM
To: 'extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org'
Subject: Re: Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the middle ages



Just to clarify, this text was written by RAEL

www.rael.org

- Mehran




February 8th, 2006
PROTECT OURSELVES TO PREVENT A RETURN TO THE MIDDLE AGES

The recent events which followed the publication of caricatures of Mohamed
in a Danish paper, with the burning of embassies in Arab countries, death
threats against the caricaturists and journalists etc indicate the extent of
the danger that the basic fundamental freedom in the west is in. However we
mustn't forget that this freedom was only acquired after many years of
struggle against the dominant religion of Christianity. Though today, anyone
can caricature Jesus, god or the pope in modern countries without any
danger, only a few hundred years ago anyone daring such a thing would have
risked being burnt alive at the stake.

The muslim world still lives in a medieval culture where any lack of
respect, even humorous, against religion is not tolerated.

That these countries don't respect human rights on their own territory and
freedom of expression in their own papers is condemnable, and even though we
should struggle to help improve this situation, that is their own internal
problem.

But what is totally unacceptable is when they dare to attack the freedom of
modern countries. They can do what they want in their own countries, but
please respect the freedom so carefully acquired over the centuries in
western countries, especially the right to atheism, the right to blaspheme
and the right to laugh at anything.

Western countries must protect these fundamental rights without compromise,
and all the more reason to do so when the enemies of freedom brandish death
threats and threaten violence. It is unacceptable to concede to any threats
of violence.

Some Islamic countries are even considering to request the UN to vote for
laws forbidding any texts of drawings lacking religious respect.

Some westerners even try to justify these requests by equating these
caricatures to incitement to racial or religious hatred, comparing them to
the anti-semite drawings that were published in German papers during the
rise of nazi-ism.

But the difference between the two stands out large and clear: the
anti-semite drawings really did incite hatred towards Jews through their
texts and propagated false information such as claiming that the Jews were
pillaging the German economy, or sacrificing children. They did not just
limit themselves to caricaturing a prophet or a god.

In the name of freedom of expression, so long as they don't explicitly
incite violence or racial and religious hate, which of course should be
forbidden, any other drawing and caricature which is purely humorous should
be allowed, whatever the subject and whoever their target. 

No subject should be taboo or prohibited, otherwise freedom of expression
ceases to exist and the demon of religious or political censorship rears its
ugly head. For sure any explicit incitement to hatred or violence against
any religion or ethnic group should be severely punished by law, but the
right to laugh, and to laugh at anything without exception should not be
touched.

But the problem that this affair raises is in fact much deeper and serious
than that. We are presently seeing what I had prophesised a couple of
decades ago in one of my texts where I was warning the western world to get
ready to defend its fundamental rights against the influence of other
countries still living in the middle ages. 

What we have is the confrontation of two civilisations: a modern and
liberated one clashing with another one trailing behind by a couple of
centuries due to lack of education and science, still stuck in
superstitions, under the grip of primitive beliefs and which has not yet
accomplished the fundamental step of separating church and state.

These two civilisations are now trying to impose their "values" on each
other. The confrontation of these two value systems is irresolvable,
especially when the less advanced one has such tenacious paradigms that they
are fanaticising to the extreme and which prevents them from seeing the
truth.

But the greatest danger is if the modern world makes concessions to the
primitive one. That will be a victory of obscurantism over science and
freedom.

It is the less advanced society which must progress and not the other way
round. On the contrary, the western world must continue to accelerate its
progressive reforms which allow it to completely destroy the last
puritanical and conventional traces inherited from the oppressive
judeo-christian traditions. Among other things would be the acceptance of
cloning, stem-cells and genetically modified organisms.

If muslims refuse to eat pork, that is their right, but they don't have the
right to impose this dietary regime on the rest of the world. That they
refuse to represent their prophet Mohamed is also their right, but neither
should they impose this rule on non muslims. 

And if the modern world accepted to limit its own freedom of expression to
placate the sensitivities of muslims, then they are entering the slippery
slope of a return back to the dark ages.

Not only should the western world refuse to be influenced by the primitive
world, but they must do all they can via the promotion of education and use
of modern medias such as satellite TV or the internet, to help the primitive
societies to liberate themselves from the yoke of their retrograde religion
and to realise a true separation of their church and state which western
nations enjoy today.

And the modern world should concede none of its liberties and protect itself
from the threats of violence perpetrated by the fanatics.

Though the Raelian philosophy promotes absolute non violence, it also
promotes the right to legitimate self-defence, if necessary by force, but a
reasonable force aimed at reducing their attackers to powerlessness rather
than killing them. 

And though we condemn all military attacks, such as the illegal invasions of
Afghanistan and Iraq by the US, that does not mean that we recommend total
inaction in the face of criminal cowardice which would allow medieval forces
to destroy the freedom of the modern world and murder its citizens. 

The western world should develop weapons to specifically protect itself from
fanatical attacks of those who don't tolerate our rights and freedom.

It is important to compare the basic differences of these two clashing
societies in order to understand the differences and bad faith that these
defenders of medieval cultures use to seduce us into taking a step
backwards. Here are a few examples out of many:

The right to apostatise:

In the western countries, in accordance with human rights, people are free
to apostatise from their religion, either to convert to another or just to
become atheist and renounce all belief in a god. But in most Islamic
countries, in total disregard to these human rights, such apostasy is
illegal and the law can condemn anyone to death if they apostatise from the
Islamic religion.

The right to blaspheme:

In western countries, people are free to blaspheme. In the Islamic countries
the law can heavily condemn someone for this.

The right of women:

In western countries, the law on gender equality enshrines equal rights for
women as for men on all levels. 

In Islamic countries, women are considered inferior, it is legal to beat
them, they must wear the veil, or even worse the Burka, they are denied
access to education and are not allowed to drive cars, whereas men are
exempt from such restrictions.

Men can practice polygamy (have several wives) whereas women cannot practice
polyandry (have several husbands).

Women are never considered major and depend always on the authority of
either their father, husband or brother.

Every year thousands of women are legally murdered with impunity by male
members of their own family in what is called "crimes of honour". 

Gay rights:

In western countries, homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals and
can even legally marry.

In Islamic countries, to be homosexual means heavy prison sentences or even
a sentence of death.

Sexual mutilation:

In western countries all sexual mutilation is illegal, whereas in Islamic
countries, excision (cutting off the clitoris) is practiced on millions of
little girls every year, as well as circumcision on boys. 

The list is almost endless.

Each one of these situations is intolerable and constitutes a breach of
human rights. But what is all the more shocking is that muslims wish to
impose these unilaterally on our modern societies. 

For example they demand the right to build mosques in the west and to be
allowed unlimited proselytism aimed at converting as many people as possible
- while in the west citizens are allowed to convert to islam - and yet in
Islamic countries the construction of non Islamic churches is prohibited and
anyone seeking to proselytise in the name of any religion other than islam
will be condemned to a very heavy prison sentence. And anyone who tries to
apostatise from islam or converts to another religion can be condemned to
death. Double standards.

Another example: muslims demand the right to wear the Islamic veil in
western schools and can freely carry it anytime in public. But if a western
woman visits an Islamic country, she has to cover her hair with an Islamic
scarf and of course wearing a miniskirt would be under pain of death. Again,
double standards. Human rights are very clear on both of these subjects:

they guarantee religious freedom, the right to convert, the right to
proselytise. But this must be reciprocal: if muslims wish to enjoy freedom
and rights in western countries guaranteed by the most beautiful fruit
produced by the modern world: Human Rights, then they too must imperatively
respect them in their own countries.

As long as total reciprocity is not respected, muslims should not be allowed
to enjoy the rights and freedoms of western countries that they deny to
visitors in their own countries. That means that Islamic proselytism should
be forbidden in the west as long as the proselytism of other religions, or
of atheism is not legalised in Islamic countries. And the wearing of the
veil or burka should be forbidden in the west as long as women are not
allowed to walk about with their head naked and in mini-skirts in Islamic
countries. In that way, there will be no double standards.

The defence of values of modern countries, especially their rights so
preciously cumulated over the ages is essential particularly when they are
under attack by fanatics who's religious books teach hate, crime and
violence against those who are not faithful to their religion.

The Koran is very clear, it says in black and white:

"Kill the idolaters wherever you can find them, capture them, lay siege to
them, and ambush them. But if they convert, if they give money.., then leave
them in peace because Allah forgives and takes pity on them" Koran IX. 5.

Islam also officially encourages racism and discrimination:"Oh believers, do
not befriend any Jew or Christian, because they are their own allies. He who
befriends them will become like them and god will not be a guide for such a
pervert" Koran V. 51.

Islamic sexism and the encouragement to their family violence also stems
from their "sacred writings":

"Men are superior to women thanks to the qualities that god gave to men to
raise them above women. Reprimand those women who you fear might not obey
you, banish them to separate beds and beat them" Koran IV. 34.

Even the life of the prophet Mohamed is considered exemplary and sacred even
though he was a pillager of caravans, or that he married Aicha when she was
still a little girl of only 9 years old as the writings relate. In modern
countries, to sleep with a 9 year old is called paedophilia. And don't
excuse it by claiming that it was common at the time. An act of pedophilia
always has and always will be a criminal act. Muslims cannot consider
Mohamed as a model of perfection and infallibility otherwise they approve of
pedophilia. 

If the sacred books of Islam openly preach the murder of infidels, that is
to say anyone who is not a muslim or is atheist, then we, who live in the
west are all legitimate targets for them. The only way out of this massacre
is to convert to islam and that is what they officially announce. In fact
the Koran clearly states that muslims should convert the whole planet to
islam and kill all those who refuse this conversion. It is high time for the
free world to become aware of this reality taught by 1.3 billion muslims,
that is to say about a quarter of the world population.

Some people claim that only fanatics interpret the Koran in this way and
that the majority of muslims interpret it in a more tolerant way and don't
apply such outdated rules. That is possible, but nevertheless, it is the
fanatics who at any opportunity drag the rest of the muslim world, even the
more tolerant, back to the "righteous path" by obliging them to apply in
full what is called the "word of god".

And every day, millions of young muslims around the world go to Koran school
which continue to teach these incitations to hatred and crime. For sure they
are not taught to interpret with tolerance or look at the larger picture.

Since it is the word of god transmitted by the prophet, such a word by
definition cannot be interpreted in a lighter way, it has to be applied in
its integrality. What is written is written. 

The only solution to the problem is to prohibit any religion which teaches
violence and racial, religious or ethnic hate. We would never accept any
political party which promotes such a policy, it would be immediately
forbidden. So why accept it from a religion which conditions the behaviour
of the young generation far more than a political party does?

Therefore we should forbid islam as long as it continues to teach such
illegal horrors around the world. The only way that islam could escape such
a prohibition would be if its directors accept to censure its religious
texts and remove the passages which incite to crime. In that way, muslims
will prove their good faith and be able to join the international community
where only those religions which incite tolerance will be able to live in
harmony and mutual respect.

The UN must immediately initiate an international committee to censure
religious writings (all religious writings) to ensure they conform to human
rights and to once and for all remove all the passages which infringe upon
them.

As long as that is not done, islam should be declared illegal in western
countries and Islamic schools, and places of such cult where these
abominations are taught every day should be forbidden as the breeding
grounds of the terrorists and criminals of tomorrow 

The modern and free world must protect its freedom, if necessary by force,
but once again with the least violent force to ensure the legitimate defence
of its values.

The scientific advance enjoyed by the west allows it to protect itself
militarily and in a most non violent way from the fanatics who wish to bring
it back to the middle ages. This advance should be maintained so that even
if the Islamic fundamentalists largely outnumber the western population,
they remain incapable of presenting a threat to the modern world.

A long time ago, islam already invaded spain and a part of france before
being pushed back militarily, which shows that the west is not the only one
guilty of invading sovereign states such as Afghanistan or Iraq. If Islamic
fundamentalists had the means technologically and militarily, there is no
shadow of a doubt that they would invade the western world today and try and
exterminate all those who don't convert to Islam.

And this they would do using a list of false pretences: because the western
world had previously colonised the muslim world which left them with a
desire for vengeance, because they think that the western world pillaged
their oil riches, because they resent the western world for having stolen
their Palestinian territories to create the state of Israel, because they
are occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, but all these are just false

excuses: the truth is that their religion teaches them to convert the whole
planet and exterminate all those who refuse to convert, the infidels and the
atheists as their invasion of some parts of Europe a few centuries ago has
already proved.

This philosophy of world dominance to create a "kingdom of god" on earth is
what is the most dangerous. And the western world cannot accept that every
day millions of young children are conditioned to accept this vision of the
future.

The violent manifestations following the caricatures of a prophet constitute
just one little detail which reveals another danger. That of our own modern
values and freedom being destroyed by a domination-seeking and intolerant
people, and ourselves being dragged back to the middle ages.

For these reason, modern societies should protect their values and
fundamental rights, without making the slightest concession, if necessary by
the use of force, arming themselves by developing new technologies so as to
preserve sufficient advance to remain invincible, in the face of all the
primitive and obscurantist forces of the planet.

RAEL 
www.rael.org




_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Feb  9 04:05:22 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:05:22 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
 the	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602081948k128fa312sb0b202d526b2ebc@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <003c01c62d23$ef658170$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
	<43EAB6FC.3000206@goldenfuture.net>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060208214248.01d791b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<c0a791b40602081948k128fa312sb0b202d526b2ebc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060208220223.01d407f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 03:48 AM 2/9/2006 +0000, Dirk wrote:

>Seen any Singularities yet?

Is that like: Are we *theeeeerrrrre* yet? Sorry, no, we're not there yet. 



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb  9 04:05:32 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 04:05:32 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
	themiddle ages
In-Reply-To: <200602090402.k1942Gww011069@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <003c01c62d23$ef658170$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
	<200602090402.k1942Gww011069@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602082005la95437dr981db26a409aa7e@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/9/06, Brandon Reinhart <transcend at extropica.com> wrote:
>
> Is arguing against Raelism allowed on this list, or merely a much-trodden
> powder keg that shouldn't be reopened?
>
>
I imagine it sounds to outsiders like a True Faith crank fight.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060209/cdeb64b8/attachment.html>

From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Thu Feb  9 04:17:41 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:17:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
 the	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060208214248.01d791b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <003c01c62d23$ef658170$799f6041@DBX6XT21>	<43EAB6FC.3000206@goldenfuture.net>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060208214248.01d791b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <43EAC265.2010701@goldenfuture.net>

Trifecta is in effect...

Damien Broderick wrote:

>At 10:29 PM 2/8/2006 -0500, Joseph Bloch wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Seen any flying saucers yet?
>>    
>>
>
>And: Seen any cloned babies yet?
>
>All we need now are some $cientologists and an iridologist, and 
>extropy-chat will have the complete set! 
>
>_______________________________________________
>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  Thu Feb  9 03:27:57 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:27:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <003c01c62d23$ef658170$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <20060209032757.12323.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>

Nothing wrong with that, Raelians are quite interesting people-- colorful to say the least-- they must throw some great parties.
    However do be careful what you say when you discuss radical Islam in public, when I see any Arabs on the street, no matter what their creed, a nod and a smile always helps. Would never even think of writing a critique of radical Islam for publication; there is always a possibility the car might not start one bright sunny morning.
  
 
  Yes, I am a proud Raelian for 15 years and I know RAEL personally for that
long... 

LOVE
Mehran
www.rael.org
		
---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060208/c9126edd/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb  9 04:35:06 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 04:35:06 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <20060209032757.12323.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <003c01c62d23$ef658170$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
	<20060209032757.12323.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602082035s36dd712dy4729343d08d5a336@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/9/06, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Nothing wrong with that, Raelians are quite interesting people-- colorful
> to say the least-- they must throw some great parties.
>   However do be careful what you say when you discuss radical Islam in
> public, when I see any Arabs on the street, no matter what their creed, a
> nod and a smile always helps. Would never even think of writing a critique
> of radical Islam for publication; there is always a possibility the car
> might not start one bright sunny morning.
>

Well, I for one won't be cowering before such threats.
You have made it abundantly clear that religious violence is the way to shut
you up.
Fortunately we are not all like you.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060209/4309d120/attachment.html>

From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au  Thu Feb  9 04:41:41 2006
From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:41:41 +1100 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Victoria News: Singularitarians in the City of
	Gardens
In-Reply-To: <43E6B3AD.2000904@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20060209044141.73167.qmail@web50501.mail.yahoo.com>



There are all sorts of wonderful things happening all
over the world as regard AI development - I about them
every day in the news lists, journals etc.  Check out
the wonderful list of links I recently compiled:

http://www.agiri.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=108&pid=182&st=0&#entry182

There are tens of thousands of hobbyists working on AI
all the time all over the world and new projects
popping up everywhere.  

Whilst there's probably only a hand-ful of people
really 'in the know', what the 'leading edge' thinkers
actually do know is really no secret.  There's plenty
of info available in open-source journals.  For
instance check out these Bayesian papers at the Center
for the Study of Rationality (The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem) here:

http://www.ratio.huji.ac.il/dp.asp

The sort of things that would need to be done in
mathematical logic to create AGI are also no secret. 
The importance of Godel's theorem , Lob's theorem and
Solovay theorem are not a secret.  

"In 1931 Godel discovered the existence of true but
unprovable propositions in all such systems/machines.
The most typical true but unprovable proposition
(unprovable by the machine/theory) is the consistency
assertion: "I am consistent". A machine or a theory is
said to be consistent if the theory or the machine
does not prove false proposition. That is: 
PA cannot prove the true proposition that PA is
consistent.
ZF cannot prove the true proposition asserting that ZF
is consistent.
Note that nobody doubt that PA is consistent. In the
case of ZF this is slightly less obvious (but I will
suppose so, and in any case, I will deliberately limit
myself on the discourse of consistent machines). The
general Godel's result, known as Godel's second
incompleteness theorem, is that no consistent machine
can prove its own consistency: 

            IF M is consistent then M cannot prove its
consistency

[in modal logic, if you represent the "provability
predicate" by a modal box B, then consistency can be
written by NOT PROVABLE FALSE, or by the shorter ~Bf,
with "~" put for the "not", the "B" put for the
"provability" predicate, the "f" put for some falsity.
With such notation, and reminding that "IF pTHEN q" is
written "p -> q" by logician, Godel's second
incompleteness theorem can be written: ~Bf -> ~B(~Bf),
or remembering that ~Ba = D~a (NOT PROVABLE A =
CONSISTENT NOT A), the second theorem by Godel can be
written also with the diamond; Dt -> DBf. I guess
people see that this is the formula of my
"tiniest-theory-of-life-and-death". It is
Kripke-semantically characterised by the "Papaioannou"
multiverses.]. 

Now Godel showed that in each "sufficiently rich"
machine/theory, the provability predicate can be
defined in or by the theory/machine itself, and that
such theories/machines *can* prove their own "Godel"s
second incompleteness theorem". 

M can prove "IF M is consistent then M cannot prove
its own consistency". 

This can be written:

M can prove "IF I am consistent then I cannot prove I
am consistent"

But please note that "I" is a third person form of
self-reference, not a first person one. The machine
talk really about itself through a "scientific"
description of itself. 

I call such "sufficiently rich" machine a LOBIAN
MACHINE (Loebian, or L?bian, but "Lobian" is easier
for the e-mail). The reason is that in 1955 M. Loeb
(L?b) will prove a significant generalisation of
Godel's theorem, and here too, it can be shown that
the lobian machine can prove their own lob's theorem.
In French (I mean in English) Lob's theorem says that
if a lobian machine (PM, PA, or ZF for example) proves
Bp -> p, for some proposition p, then soon or later
the machine will prove p (if it has not been done
already). This is rather weird, because it shows that
(sufficiently rich) machines are "vulnerable" to some
placebo effect. If you prove to such a machine that if
she ever prove the existence of Santa Klaus then Santa
exists, then you already have proved the existence of
Santa Klaus to the machine. Much more on that can be
find in my paper "the origin of the physical laws". 

[modally: Lob's theorem can be written B(Bp -> p) ->
Bp (known as Lob's formula L). If you remember that
"~A" is the same as "A -> f", and if you substitute p
by f in Lob's formula, you get B(Bf -> f) -> Bf, that
is B(~Bf) -> Bf, and if you remember that A -> B is
equivalent with ~B -> ~A, you know that B(~Bf) -> Bf
is equivalent with ~Bf -> ~B(~Bf). So you see that
Lob's theorem is a generalization of Godel's second
incompleteness theorem. Smullyan and Parick interpret
Lob's formula as a form of super-modesty principle] 

So the interview of the lobian machine gives those
nice propositions: a sort of humility principle (if I
am consistent then I cannot prove I am consistent),
and a form of modesty principle: provability entails
truth (Bp -> p) only when p is proved. 

In 1976, Solovay shows that Lob's formula formalises
completely what the machine can prove about herself.
Like you can derived most QM proposition from the SWE,
you can derive the whole of what a machine can prove
about herself from Lob's formula. Solovay defined the
logic G. Its main assumption is the formula of Lob.
This is called Solovay Arithmetical's completeness
theorem. It is amazing at first because it is a
COMPLETENESS theorem, showing that a modal logic (G)
does capture completely what the machine can prove
about its own INCOMPLETENESS phenomenon! 

You see what the interview of the introspective
machine gives: the machine discovers its own
incompleteness, and can say non obvious fact about it.


Still more important (for our comp TOE quest) is that
Solovay will prove a second arithmetical COMPLETENESS
theorem, and that's its discovery of the modal logic
G*. G* formalises the whole incompleteness phenomenon,
i.e. not just what the machine can say about it, but
also what the machine cannot say about (without
loosing consistency). The most typical example of a
theorem in G*, and not in G, is the consistency
assertion Dt, but also all of DDt, DDDt, etc., and
also DBf, DBBf, etc. 

To sum up:
G = the discourse provable by an introspective
self-referentially correct machine. G* = the truth
*about* such introspective machine (includes the non
provable one). "

I think Eliezer thinks we're all some kind of frigging
dummies.  The behavior of the 'team' at Singularity
Institute is really quite sad.  It's actually
bordering on pathetic actually.

Like I said, there's tens of thousands of hobbyists
working it and new projects popping up everywhere.  We
don't need some arsehole sitting in an 'Institute'
thinking he's savior of the world to tell us the
answer.

Let's all work on AGI together.  We're set for many
different AI's and a plularity of 'Singularity'.








"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?


		
____________________________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Find a local business fast with Yahoo! Local Search 
http://au.local.yahoo.com


From jonano at gmail.com  Thu Feb  9 08:21:13 2006
From: jonano at gmail.com (Jonathan Despres)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 03:21:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Do you think my school will be successful ?
Message-ID: <6030482a0602090021l7218231foc83f56c8b5bf40ae@mail.gmail.com>

Do you think my school will be successful ?

What should I do? What are the next steps ?

Visit my page:
http://future.wikicities.com/wiki/School_expenditure

I want your suggestions, where should I go to expose my school ?

--Jonathan



From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au  Thu Feb  9 09:05:47 2006
From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 20:05:47 +1100 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Is libertarianism a faith position?
In-Reply-To: <200602070846.k178kJ7g018462@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <20060209090547.21000.qmail@web50501.mail.yahoo.com>




> > Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Is libertarianism
> a faith position?
> 

You bet it is.  I'm embarassed to think that I ever
believed in that vile shit.  Libertarianism deserves
the same brown-bagging as Singularity Institute and co
for analogous reasons.

It fails for the same reason all cult ideologies fail:
the prescriptions and 'reasoning' are based on
assumptions that contradict empiricial reality.  The
economic 'models' are pure idealizations that bear
little or no resemblence to actual human nature.  


See my testimonial on Mike Huben's web-site:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/testimony.html

Read Huben's excellent set of quotes:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/quotes.html


Smart people believe wierd things because they are
skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for
nonsmart reasons. 
Michael Shermer, Scientific American: Smart People
Believe Weird Things Sept. 2002 

One cannot overstate the childishness of the ideas
that feed and stir the masses. Real ideas must as a
rule be simplified to the level of a child's
understanding if they are to arouse the masses to
historic actions. A childish illusion, fixed in the
minds of all children born in a certain decade and
hammered home for four years, can easily reappear as a
deadly serious political ideology twenty years later. 
Sebastian Haffner, "Defying Hitler" pg. 17 

But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one
encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages,
and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace "street"
libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the
sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to
agitate for what they want by defending a refined
version of their doctrine when challenged
philosophically. We've seen Marxists pull that before.

Robert Locke, Marxism of the Right , The American
Conservative, 2005 

He always pictured himself a libertarian, which to my
way of thinking means "I want the liberty to grow rich
and you can have the liberty to starve". It's easy to
believe that no one should depend on society for help
when you yourself happen not to need such help. 
Isaac Asimov, "I. Asimov" pg. 308. 

Throughout the history of the Internet, most of the
innovation has come as a by-product of efforts to
facilitate communication within social groups of
various kinds (academics, bloggers, peer-to-peer file
sharing), rather than as the result of profit-oriented
investment. Rather than taking the lead, the business
and government sectors have adopted innovations
developed in Internet communities, and realised
significant productivity gains as a result. 
John Quiggan 

It seems strange to make a priori arguments about the
relative performance of governments and the markets in
health care when there is so much empirical evidence. 
John Quiggin 

The problem with conservative think-tank hacks, you
see, is that their ideas crumble upon contact with
things like statistics and arithmetic. 
Tapped (edited by Richard Just) 9/22/03 

In editing a journal that has received manuscripts
from virtually every libertarian scholar, famous and
unknown alike, I have long been struck by the
consistent juxtiposition of... libertarian
philosophical sentiments with weak empirical research,
leaps of logic, contempt for non-libertarian points of
view (of which the authors usually appear ignorant).
The polemical tone and deficient evidence, however,
and the tarnishing of often-good ideas by doctrinaire
rhetoric and low scholarly standards, are only the
least of it. The worst thing is not the waste of
effort that goes into producing propaganda barely
veiled by the robes of scholarship. The greater
tragedy is what libertarians could produce, but do
not. 
Jeffrey Friedman, "What's Wrong With Libertarianism" 

After all, there's a lot of experience with
privatization by governments at all levels -- state,
federal, and local; that record doesn't support
extravagant claims about improved efficiency.
Sometimes there are significant cost reductions, but
all too often the promised savings turn out to be a
mirage. In particular, it's common for private
contractors to bid low to get the business, then push
their prices up once the government work force has
been disbanded. Projections of a 20 or 30 percent cost
saving across the board are silly -- and one suspects
that the officials making those projections know that.

Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 11.19.02 

Moralistic or rights-based libertarianism has little
appeal to the general public, as R. W. Bradford says,
because it relies more on dogma and declarations than
on evidence, reasoning, and dialogue. It reaches
sweeping and detailed policy conclusions in a
suspiciously easy way, with scant attention to the
real world. Some of them, like Murray Rothbard's
conclusions about contracts, bankruptcy, extortion,
blackmail, and crime as private transactions between
perpetrators and victims, as well as the supposed
"heroism" of the scumbags defended in Walter Block's
notorious book (Defending The Undefendable, 1976), are
outlandish on their face. 
Leland B. Yeager, In Defense of Utility 

[L]et me just point out that middle-class America
didn't emerge by accident. It was created by what has
been called the Great Compression of incomes that took
place during World War II, and sustained for a
generation by social norms that favored equality,
strong labor unions and progressive taxation. Since
the 1970's, all of those sustaining forces have lost
their power. Since 1980 in particular, U.S. government
policies have consistently favored the wealthy at the
expense of working families - and under the current
administration, that favoritism has become extreme and
relentless. From tax cuts that favor the rich to
bankruptcy "reform" that punishes the unlucky, almost
every domestic policy seems intended to accelerate our
march back to the robber baron era. It's not a pretty
picture - which is why right-wing partisans try so
hard to discredit anyone who tries to explain to the
public what's going on. 
Paul Krugman, Losing Our Country 

I find it interesting that libertarians never picked
up on the fact that when the British ran Hong Kong,
they decided not to live under that kind of system in
their own country. For some reason Western
libertarians want to admire these experiments in
laissez faire, anarcho-Somalianism and Hoppean
monarchy at arm's length, while they enjoy the
benefits of living in the developed democratic
countries where they nurture their strange grievances
against government. 
Mark Plus 

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible
one, take this as a sign that you have neither
understood the theory nor the problem which it was
intended to solve. 
Karl Popper 

The original Greek word "idiotes" referred to people
who might have had a high IQ, but were so
self-involved that they focused exclusively on their
own life and were both ignorant of and uncaring about
public concerns and the common good. 
Jim Hightower, "Thieves in High Places" 












"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?


	

	
		
____________________________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Photos: Now with unlimited storage 
http://au.photos.yahoo.com


From neptune at superlink.net  Thu Feb  9 12:29:36 2006
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 07:29:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
References: <p06230900bff2d0173698@[150.146.134.133]>
	<00fc01c61b90$5cf52c90$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <00cc01c62d74$7db7eda0$a1893cd1@pavilion>

On Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:03 PM kevinfreels.com
kevin at kevinfreels.com wrote:
> We should launch more of these..... 9 hours to the moon? 1 yr to
Jupiter?
> That's just too cool!

But a major problem is slowing down once you get there.  :)

Dan



From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Thu Feb  9 14:40:23 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 09:40:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <00cc01c62d74$7db7eda0$a1893cd1@pavilion>
References: <p06230900bff2d0173698@150.146.134.133>
	<00fc01c61b90$5cf52c90$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<00cc01c62d74$7db7eda0$a1893cd1@pavilion>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602090640t3bcf3861jedd9f325fd9b700@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/9/06, Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:

>
> But a major problem is slowing down once you get there.  :)


Naw, just hit the damn thing.  So long as you have enough of those bouncy
balloons between the spacecraft and the surface to cushion the decelleration
it shouldn't be a problem.  If we can build hard drives that allow 250Gs
operating and 850Gs non-operating shock (Seagate Momentus) then designing a
spacecraft that can land *hard* shouldn't be *that* difficult.

Aside to Spike -- why don't you figure out how many G's New Horizons would
receive if NASA changed its direction so as to impact Pluto?  Does
acceleration by Pluto contribute significantly to the impact force or is it
mostly the speed leaving Earth (or boosted by Jupter)?

I have a dream.  A dream where all survey spacecraft will *land* on their
destinations.  Once they unwrap themselves from the bubblewrap they will
start navigating around taking pictures, analyzing composition, etc.  Where
appropriate they will drop off little itsy bitsy nanofactory "turds" which
will turn the surface into a big solar array providing enough power to begin
launching material into space which will subsequently be turned into even
larger solar arrays producing power to be beamed back down to the object to
accelerate the disassembly process.

Pluto-huggers -- get your hugs in now -- its probably going to be gone
before the end of the century.  You can console yourself with the idea that
Pluto will probably be one of the last to go because the ROI is so low
compared with asteroids and larger planets with greater amounts solar energy
available.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060209/06ec37b6/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Feb  9 15:37:21 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 07:37:21 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602090640t3bcf3861jedd9f325fd9b700@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602091612.k19GCwen022665@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
...

Aside to Spike -- why don't you figure out how many G's New Horizons would
receive if NASA changed its direction so as to impact Pluto?...



Gotta get to work, so not much time now.  But I can assure
you, impact is out of the question.  The weight required to
make for a soft landing is mostly not practical for a Pluto
mission.  The craft must send the signals back using a very
low bandwidth antenna in order to keep it's weight and power
down, so it takes a long time to send back the signals that
were collected quickly.  A Pluto flyby is about the best we can
do for now.

More later. 

spike








From dgc at cox.net  Thu Feb  9 14:49:37 2006
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:49:37 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] reconciling the flat-earth "theory"
In-Reply-To: <20060205022352.71187.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20060205022352.71187.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <43EB5681.8050208@cox.net>

Anne-Marie Taylor wrote:

>
>
> */Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>/* wrote:
>
>     religious issue: the Bible implies that the world is flat, with
>     four corners.
>
> Just curious but couldn't that have meant that 2000 years ago somebody 
> came
> up with a scientic hypothesis that the world is flat with four 
> corner?.  I think
> that would seem like a very good probability based on the information they
> had at that time.
> Anna
>  
>  

You forgot the alternative formulation: it really was flat then, but it 
is spherical now. Not only is it spherical now, but since the change, it 
has alway s been spherical. Prior to the change, it had always been flat 
and would continue to be flat. The renowned philosopher and cosmologist 
Terry Pratchet has written extensively on this and related topics.


From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Thu Feb  9 17:03:28 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:03:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] reconciling the flat-earth "theory"
In-Reply-To: <43EB5681.8050208@cox.net>
References: <20060205022352.71187.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<43EB5681.8050208@cox.net>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602090903g67e66309xbd64a8f532c353c5@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/9/06, Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:

>
> ...The renowned philosopher and cosmologist
> Terry Pratchet has written extensively on this and related topics.
>


I've read some Pratchet and I don't recall discussions of flat v. round
Earth.
Any hints?

R.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060209/c29a5c63/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Thu Feb  9 17:27:17 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:27:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <200602091612.k19GCwen022665@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <deaa866a0602090640t3bcf3861jedd9f325fd9b700@mail.gmail.com>
	<200602091612.k19GCwen022665@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602090927o11489318k9750b782e259a19e@mail.gmail.com>

Spike wrote:

Gotta get to work, so not much time now.  But I can assure
> you, impact is out of the question.  The weight required to
> make for a soft landing is mostly not practical for a Pluto
> mission.  The craft must send the signals back using a very
> low bandwidth antenna in order to keep it's weight and power
> down, so it takes a long time to send back the signals that
> were collected quickly.  A Pluto flyby is about the best we can
> do for now.


You are assuming one  doesn't assemble the antenna on-site using available
materials (though the required materials on Pluto would be an iffy question
I will admit.  Ultimately you also seem to suggest using radio transmitters
when I think lasers have it all over radio at this point.  So what if it
can't transmit all the time as the planet rotates so long as it can transmit
when it has a direct line to Earth?  I think you need some outside of the
box thinking Spike.  You don't land the entire probe (nuclear power
generator and all) you just fire the landers out the back end as it flys
by.  They end up with an effectively lower velocity so they can be captured
by Pluto's gravity and make a relatively soft landing.

However my question remains -- how many G's would the New Horizon's probe
experience if targeted to hit Pluto?  I would stress the point that parts of
many meteorites hitting the Earth *do* survive hitting the ground with
relatively intact structures.  And that is without engineering them to have
things like aerobraking, air bags, and crush frames oriented in the
direction of impact.  Come on.  Imagine multiple layers of bubblewrap
(filled with H2 or He),
around a big ball of NASA memory foam around a crushable metal frame around
a relatively "solid" computer and power source.  Are you trying to convince
me that something like this could not survive the impact?

Also, does anyone know whether the New Horizons mission using a hard drive
or a tape to store all of the data collected?  What do the Mars landers use?

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060209/d969c0fd/attachment.html>

From diegocaleiro at terra.com.br  Thu Feb  9 17:50:59 2006
From: diegocaleiro at terra.com.br (Diego Caleiro)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:50:59 -0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Right to sustain thread view
Message-ID: <200602091550.59378.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br>

During all the discussion about dualist monist. Patternis/Continuist views 
someone,  I think Klark,  mentioned that hyper powerful silicon brains would 
never care about some biological tissue when concerned about reviving 
someone. If we manage to build a real friendly AI, I beleive it will have 
respect for human desires, and beleifs enough not to disrespect the desire 
that a specific cryonics client had to be reanimated in the form of his 
biological tissues that were cryopreserved. 
	After he has been reanimated, the almighty silicon guys could convince him of 
being uploaded and prove that the pattern view was proved right. Or not. 
	
	The reason why this thread started is to know if once you make a deal with, 
say, Alcor, you can or not choose, and if you cannot, that is a severe 
mistake which the companies should review. 

Diego Caleiro (Log At) 


From zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  9 17:25:43 2006
From: zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com (Keith M. Elis)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 09:25:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Article: Who would not seize the chance to live
	to be 150?
In-Reply-To: <54DE7E1E-7DB1-4D5E-87B0-FB1087F49632@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20060209172543.35172.qmail@web80729.mail.yahoo.com>

What evidence is there that the average human lifespan in the developed world is about to suddenly increase at a rate faster than we are experiencing currently? 
   
  I ask because if I really believed this were true, I would form a company to offer permanent cash value life insurance to healthy applicants at steep discounts to the prevailing market premiums which are based on soon-to-be-proved-incorrect actuarial tables. The idea is that current life insurance premiums are mispriced. People would replace their significantly more expensive coverage by 1035 exchanging billions of dollars into my discounted cash value policies at a phenomenal rate. I would be happy because I know something they don't. They are going to live a lot longer than they think, and they're going to have to pay me those discounted premiums the whole time. Not only do I get rich quick, but I keep getting richer because these insureds just won't die. They just keep hanging around, kept alive by radical new technology. That's very, very good for me, the life insurance company owner who predicted it.  
   
  Or perhaps this belief of mine is not something I would be willing to bet on? In that case, is it even worth believing? 
   
  Keith  

Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
  
On Feb 8, 2006, at 5:47 PM, Neil H. wrote:

> The big question is who will bring human enhancement and life 
> extension into the mainstream. Politicians and business leaders, 
> who are already struggling to cope with rising pensions and 
> healthcare costs, may be understandably reluctant to speculate 
> about a world in which we all live (and work?) well into our second 
> century.

Since people will be healthy an indefinitely long time health care 
cost should drop quite substantially. Since there is effectively no 
"old age" there is no reason for pensions and other such devices that 
presume it. So these worried politicians and business leaders 
should resoundingly embrace such possibilities.

- samantha
_______________________________________________
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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060209/85e51ed8/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Feb  9 17:05:54 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:05:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Return to the Dark Ages.
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060208220223.01d407f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <c0a791b40602081948k128fa312sb0b202d526b2ebc@mail.gmail.com >
	<003c01c62d23$ef658170$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
	<43EAB6FC.3000206@goldenfuture.net>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060208214248.01d791b0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<c0a791b40602081948k128fa312sb0b202d526b2ebc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060209115626.05011cc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>


As Eliezer has pointed out recently on the SL4 list, it is next to 
impossible to discuss subjects related to current day politics.

I think recently mentioned fMRI studies of partisan mental activity shows why.

But progress by any reasonable measure of it *has* run backwards at various 
times and places.

Keeping the discussion away from the current and previous century might 
allow reasoned discussion.

It's an important topic.

If people want to discuss it, I can suggest two books that provide 
background and perhaps others would recommend some.

Keith Henson



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Feb  9 16:53:40 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:53:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The complete set
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060209111646.0500cfe8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>


Damien Broderick wrote:

>All we need now are some $cientologists and an iridologist, and
>extropy-chat will have the complete set!

Sorry, I don't currently know any iridologists, but there is a 
scientologist (on with outs with the Co$) who we could invite here

In a thread, Re: The Church of Absolutes on alt.religion.scientology

Kevin Brady <gomorrhan at hotmail.com> wrote:

 >> You never responded to the request I made for the site or location to
 >> discuss movement of consciousness to a less vulnerable container.

And I replied:

 > Sorry, I must have missed that.  It is off topic here, but there are a
 > number of places I post where it would be on topic.  Email and we can
 > discuss it there.

What I had in mind was extropy-chat.  I am not sure this list accepts 
hotmail address, but if it does could someone invite him?

His request to discuss moving consciousness to a less vulnerable container 
is on topic here.

Keith Henson




From jonkc at att.net  Thu Feb  9 18:47:52 2006
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 13:47:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Right to sustain thread view
References: <200602091550.59378.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br>
Message-ID: <001001c62da9$ae987db0$23064e0c@MyComputer>

"Diego Caleiro" <diegocaleiro at terra.com.br>

> If we manage to build a real friendly AI

An AI would be evolving with such incredible speed that to say "we made it"
would be stretching a point; we may have made version 1.0 but now we're on
version 10^23. And when people use the term "friendly AI" what they usually
mean is a super intelligence that is more concerned with human welfare and
desires than with its own. That will never EVER happen, nor should it.

> I beleive it will have respect for human desires

I find it imposable to believe that a massively intelligent silicon brain
will put much stock in the human superstition that protoplasm is inherently
superior to silicon, especially when it sees a counterexample ever time it
looks at a human and compares it to itself. Do you have respect for the
desires of snails and sea slugs?

> not to disrespect the desire that a specific cryonics client had to be
> reanimated in the form of his biological tissues that were cryopreserved.

I would say the probability that any cryonics client will ever be reanimated
as his old biological form is virtually zero;  but not to worry, it is
possible the uploaded client will think he has his old body back. However
his ignorance of the true state of affairs is unlikely to be permanent.

    John K Clark










From amara at amara.com  Thu Feb  9 18:26:00 2006
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 19:26:00 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] reconciling the flat-earth "theory"
Message-ID: <p06230900c01139156697@[150.146.134.133]>


Dan Clemmensen:
>You forgot the alternative formulation: it really was flat then, but it
>is spherical now. Not only is it spherical now, but since the change, it
>has alway s been spherical. Prior to the change, it had always been flat
>and would continue to be flat. The renowned philosopher and cosmologist
>Terry Pratchet has written extensively on this and related topics.

It might also be wise to reconcile the flat-earth "theory" with the
black-and-white earth "theory". Before 1935, the world existed in
black and white, except in a few locations in France and Scotland,
where the world existed in additional traces of green and orange.
After 1935, the world existed in the full-color that we know today. The
renowned scientist: Dr. Calvinodad has described this world extensively.

Amara


From dgc at cox.net  Thu Feb  9 19:22:48 2006
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:22:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] reconciling the flat-earth "theory"
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602090903g67e66309xbd64a8f532c353c5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20060205022352.71187.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<43EB5681.8050208@cox.net>
	<deaa866a0602090903g67e66309xbd64a8f532c353c5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43EB9688.1050403@cox.net>

Robert Bradbury wrote:

>
> On 2/9/06, *Dan Clemmensen* <dgc at cox.net <mailto:dgc at cox.net>> wrote:
>
>
>     ...The renowned philosopher and cosmologist
>     Terry Pratchet has written extensively on this and related topics.
>
>
>
> I've read some Pratchet and I don't recall discussions of flat v. 
> round Earth.
> Any hints?
>
> R.

I was referring to the reality change, not to the flat earth itself. In 
"The Last Continent"
the continent, as the continent is being created, the new bits come into 
existence retroactively.

The "related matters" include Discworld itself (flat, but not square) 
and Prachet's
cyclical cosmology: The turtles all swim from a single birth point, reach
a maximum distance, and then return to the birth point for a cataclysmic 
mass mating
that Pratchet refers to as "the big bang."



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  9 19:23:02 2006
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 11:23:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Muslim Machinations (was Protect ourselves to
	prevent a return to the middle ages)
In-Reply-To: <43EA5620.3060405@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <20060209192302.6147.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>



--- ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:

> Wow, i don't think i've ever had such mixed feelings
> about such a
> heavy-duty rant. On one hand, this IS obviously
> foaming at the mouth 
> (and from a self-confessed raelian!), but on the
> other, a lot of the 
> things presented are, afaik, true.

It is a frustrating problem and obviously the time
when one can safely bury ones head in the sand about
the matter has passed. This one isn't going away on
its own, folks.

> I think this is a
> cue to find some 
> things out for myself. I knew about the apostasy
> thing, which is bad 
> enough, but some of the others?
> Do present-day muslims really think that it's right
> and proper to beat 
> women that they suspect might not obey them?

Of course, not too long ago a Muslim girl in Germany
was beaten to death by her own brothers for dressing
like "a German whore". 

> 
> Of course, if you read the old testament you'll get
> a lot of dodgy stuff
> as well, but who actually lives by that?

Well that is a amjor difference between Christianity
and Islam. The Bible is an anthology that was pieced
together, edited, and translated for two and a half
millenia. It has writings by numerous people who were
writing in different languages at different historical
periods. Thus it is filled with contradictions. 

The Koran on the other hand, was written in its
entirity by a single man (Mohammed) writing in one
language, Arabic. Thus the Koran does not contradict
itself and therefore it is logically easier to take it
literally.  
 
> Maybe it's time to hit the bookshop and stock up on
> islamic holy books 
> (now /there's/ something i never thought i'd ever
> say!)

Been there and done that. I also noted that there are
no "approved" translations of the Koran i.e. no Koran
not written in Arabic is considered legitimate. If you
do get a translation, however, you will find that
aside from some very pretty prose, it is a very
restrictive religion. Moreover if you read about the
biography of Mohammed you will learn that  
he was distict from most prophets because he was both
a secular ruler and a spirtual leader- Buddha, Moses,
and Jesus all had a similar choice and all chose the
spiritual path over over the path of worldly power.

Moses was the adopted son of the Egyptian phaoroah.
Buddha was an Indian prince. And Jesus was of the
house of David and enough of a threat to Herod to have
Herod kill off male children. Mohammed, however,
refused to compromise his will to power. He
slaughtered whole tribes of his fellow Arab bedouins
that refused to acknowledge him as the word of God. He
wanted both the riches of the earth AND the souls 
of his adherents. Thus Islam from its very beginning
was a designed as a theocracy and theocracy is at the
heart of Koranic dogma.

You kill, enslave, or convert the infidel, there is no
wiggle room for tolerance. That is not to say that ALL
Muslims are intolerant, but that is because the 
tolerant ones are smart enough to realize the Koran
was written by a man and not because there is anything
in the Koran to suggest any degree of tolerance toward
the infidel. Moreover, the tolerant ones are
considered to be illegitimate Muslims by the religious
heirarchy.

That the Muslim leadership are machinating against the
governments of the west, there can be no doubt. Why
else would it take over a year for cartoons in Denmark
to galvanize the Muslim communities around the world?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/international/middleeast/09cartoon.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

It was decided by the Organization of the Islamic
Conference that this would be the time to rally
Muslims around the world against Freedom. And have no
doubt, they will use the tools of Freedom like liberal
moral and cultural relativism against it. The imperial
march of Mohammed never stopped, it has only been
waiting. 

You can have freedom of religion and you can have
separation of church and state, but all it takes is a
religion that denies any separation between church and
state and you have Freedom's Achilles Heel. 
These are dangerous times. The future is in motion and
I cannot see it with any certainty. The loss of
religious freedom, the loss of separation of church
and state, or the loss of both are all very real
possibilities.

I am reminded of a Bene Gesserit proverb from Frank
Herbert's Dune:

"When religion and politics travel in the same cart,
the riders believe nothing can stand in their way.
Their movement becomes headlong ? faster and faster
and faster. They put aside all thought of obstacles
and forget that a precipice does not show itself to
the man in a blind rush until it's too late."




Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Thereupon, the Soul of Mother Earth bewailed, Should I accept the support of a feeble man and listen to his words? In fact I desired the aid of a strong and mighty king. When shall such a person arise and bring strong-handed succor to me?" -Yasna 29, verse 9 

"Now I am light, now I am flying, now I see myself beneath myself, now a God dances through me." - St. Nietzsche

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  9 20:52:21 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:52:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Do you think my school will be successful ?
In-Reply-To: <6030482a0602090021l7218231foc83f56c8b5bf40ae@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060209205222.7372.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>

It could be successful if you were to place it on the web, and lower the tuition to $30.
  This isn't the '80s or the '90s, the public is tired of hearing Pangloss predictions by prognosticators.
  

 
  Do you think my school will be successful ?

What should I do? What are the next steps ?

Visit my page:
http://future.wikicities.com/wiki/School_expenditure

I want your suggestions, where should I go to expose my school ?

--Jonathan
		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060209/1fa51b31/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  9 20:57:09 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:57:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602082035s36dd712dy4729343d08d5a336@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060209205709.56061.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>

You are going to take on radical Islam? Would you take on the Mafia? Would you take on the Hells Angels?

  Well, I for one won't be cowering before such threats.
You have made it abundantly clear that religious violence is the way to shut you up.
Fortunately we are not all like you.

Dirk
		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060209/b1dc92cf/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  9 21:07:31 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 13:07:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The School of Futurology
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0602081944mf38667ak@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060209210731.39072.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com>

Despres cannot force anyone to fork over funds, so let 'us' encourage him to start a future-oriented school, a worthy enterprise if the price is low enough. We need all the help we can get-- we are heavily outnumbered & outgunned.
  
> Jonathan Despres is the single most dangerous
> individual to have invited himself into the
> cryonics/transhumanist community, in the 8-9 years I
> have been around. Dangerous most particularly to the
> cryonics enterprise.
>
> http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=27334
>
> The problem posed by Despres would be easier to deal
> with if it was simply a case of a malicious
> personality. However, that's not the situation.
> Rather it appears that Despres suffers from some sort
> of mental problem. From the link below, in is own
> words:
>
> "Because of my disease called Social Anxiety or Social
> Phobia, I would need a telephonist. I hate to call
> people over the phone."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.cryonics/browse_thread/thread/fcd0dc764bb213e5/73e43e6c1fa37bb1#73e43e6c1fa37bb1
>
>
> I suspect that his aberrant, destructive behavior will
> only come to an end as a consequence of legal action.
> Meanwhile, in an effort to minimize the damage he is
> inevitably -- delusionally -- going to cause, I
> recommend everyone be aware of the problem, and take
> the time to inform anyone not already up to speed.
>
> Jonathan Despres is trouble. He has set up a
> superficially impressive, yet vaporware website, and
> is set on a course to screw over anyone who, unaware
> of the mental aberration behind it, buys into the
> seeming-legitimacy of his web activity.
>
> This is no drill.
>
> Jeff Davis

On 08/02/06, Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 06:45 PM 2/7/2006 -0800, Fred C. Moulton wrote:
>
> >Before anyone accepts this offer I strongly suggest doing some very
> >rigorous due diligence.
>
> Or even some very cursory due diligence via Google.
>
> Damien Broderick
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


--
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software *
Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


		
---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060209/1a66396e/attachment.html>

From mehranraeli at comcast.net  Fri Feb 10 01:14:09 2006
From: mehranraeli at comcast.net (Mehran)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 20:14:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <mailman.236.1139457738.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <004001c62ddf$4ec41cb0$799f6041@DBX6XT21>


So basically almost noone has any intelligent comment on the content of
RAEL's text about the dangers we may be facing instead some just want to see
a UFO!  

Yes, there is proof for what RAEL brings, there is in fact incontestable
proof.  I challenge any of you to dispute the proof in a reasonable rational
way.  I have successfully defended this proof many times.  I consider myself
intellectually honest... therefore my adherence to RAEL's message for this
long.   If this discussion is not allowed on this list, fine, we do it
offline.  Here is the proof:

When you get an email message from your mother from an email address unknow
to you saying that I am at your uncle's and your dad is very ill we need you
to come asap.  For this message to be authentic to you, all its statements
must be in agreement with what you know, ie. have a Mom, have a Dad, have an
uncle, etc...  But maybe you have no idea Dad was sick... maybe he was in
perfect health 2 days ago when you spoke to him, so you have a little
suspicion and you decide to verify the info before booking your flight.

RAEL brings a message from a scientifically advance civilization.  The
message speaks for itself.  You can examine it for yourself and see if it
fits the claim, is there any holes in it? raises any suspicion!?  Does it
have any information that sounds like from an advance civilization?   Can a
27 year old make it all up!?   do a little investigation.  then you reach a
final conclusion one way or the other.   The Message of the Elohim is the
proof for the Elohim's existence, for their claims and for the fact that
they are our scientific creators and that they were the ones who sent the
Prophets.  

Science is their religion and they want us to understand them rationally and
intelligently.  Now do you still want a ufo instead of an intelligent
message!?  A ufo can appear and disappear but an intelligent message stays
with you for as long as you choose.

The message is a free download here: www.rael.org    Just one rule, you have
to read it before you dispute it. 

LOVE
Mehran
www.rael.org



Message: 11
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 03:48:20 +0000
From: Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
	the	middle ages
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID:
	<c0a791b40602081948k128fa312sb0b202d526b2ebc at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On 2/9/06, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> At 10:29 PM 2/8/2006 -0500, Joseph Bloch wrote:
>
> >Seen any flying saucers yet?
>
> And: Seen any cloned babies yet?
>
> And: Seen any Singularities yet?

Dirk





From mehranraeli at comcast.net  Fri Feb 10 02:58:36 2006
From: mehranraeli at comcast.net (Mehran)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 21:58:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <mailman.269.1139522861.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <006001c62ded$e64aaaf0$799f6041@DBX6XT21>


Soon we may not have a choice, you either stand up for freedom or you are
assimilated...


"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."  

LOVE
Mehran
www.rael.org


Message: 24
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:57:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
	the	middle ages
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <20060209205709.56061.qmail at web51601.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

You are going to take on radical Islam? Would you take on the Mafia? Would
you take on the Hells Angels?

  Well, I for one won't be cowering before such threats.
You have made it abundantly clear that religious violence is the way to shut
you up.
Fortunately we are not all like you.

Dirk





From diegocaleiro at terra.com.br  Fri Feb 10 03:01:55 2006
From: diegocaleiro at terra.com.br (Diego Caleiro)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:01:55 -0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Right to sustain thread view
In-Reply-To: <001001c62da9$ae987db0$23064e0c@MyComputer>
References: <200602091550.59378.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br>
	<001001c62da9$ae987db0$23064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <200602100101.55219.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br>


I'd like that what people call friendly AI will be something less arrogant 
than you, who doesn't respect the desire or the creed of anything below your 
advanced intelligence. Supose a jupiter brain not friendly, or as friendly as 
a pattern human, say, you,  sees you and beleives, for reasons that only his 
intelligence can understand, that you should be immediately destroyed. Would 
you accept that? 


That is what you are saying these super computers will do, take their 
decisions non-friendly, non- respectfully, regardless of peoples fear of 
being destroyed during uploading. If that is what transhumanism is about, why 
not take the humanism out of it. 

Realize that I'm not implying, in any nanosecond, or other measurement of 
time, that you are wrong about patterns, only that you do not consider others 
beleifs. 

Diego Caleiro (Log At)






Em Quinta 09 Fevereiro 2006 16:47, John K Clark escreveu:
> "Diego Caleiro" <diegocaleiro at terra.com.br>
>
> > If we manage to build a real friendly AI
>
> An AI would be evolving with such incredible speed that to say "we made it"
> would be stretching a point; we may have made version 1.0 but now we're on
> version 10^23. And when people use the term "friendly AI" what they usually
> mean is a super intelligence that is more concerned with human welfare and
> desires than with its own. That will never EVER happen, nor should it.
>
> > I beleive it will have respect for human desires
>
> I find it imposable to believe that a massively intelligent silicon brain
> will put much stock in the human superstition that protoplasm is inherently
> superior to silicon, especially when it sees a counterexample ever time it
> looks at a human and compares it to itself. Do you have respect for the
> desires of snails and sea slugs?
>
> > not to disrespect the desire that a specific cryonics client had to be
> > reanimated in the form of his biological tissues that were cryopreserved.
>
> I would say the probability that any cryonics client will ever be
> reanimated as his old biological form is virtually zero;  but not to worry,
> it is possible the uploaded client will think he has his old body back.
> However his ignorance of the true state of affairs is unlikely to be
> permanent.
>
>     John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
> E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=diegocaleiro&_
>l=1,1139513092.54439.14704.mongu.terra.com.br,4709,Des15,Des15
>
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 09/02/2006 / Vers?o:
> 4.4.00/4693 Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Feb 10 01:37:44 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:37:44 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <20060209192302.6147.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <43EA5620.3060405@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060209194854.050187f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 11:23 AM 2/9/2006 -0800, Stuart LaForge wrote:


>--- ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
>
> > Wow, i don't think i've ever had such mixed feelings
> > about such a
> > heavy-duty rant. On one hand, this IS obviously
> > foaming at the mouth
> > (and from a self-confessed raelian!), but on the
> > other, a lot of the
> > things presented are, afaik, true.
>
>It is a frustrating problem and obviously the time
>when one can safely bury ones head in the sand about
>the matter has passed. This one isn't going away on
>its own, folks.

snip

>That the Muslim leadership are machinating against the
>governments of the west, there can be no doubt. Why
>else would it take over a year for cartoons in Denmark
>to galvanize the Muslim communities around the world?
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/international/middleeast/09cartoon.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th
>
>It was decided by the Organization of the Islamic
>Conference that this would be the time to rally
>Muslims around the world against Freedom.

I don't think you can make a case for them being opposed to Freedom with a 
capital F.  It is a good slogan to rally opposition though.

>And have no
>doubt, they will use the tools of Freedom like liberal
>moral and cultural relativism against it. The imperial
>march of Mohammed never stopped, it has only been
>waiting.

It does not stand a chance for exactly the same reason that chimpanzees are 
not a threat to men with machine guns.

>You can have freedom of religion and you can have
>separation of church and state, but all it takes is a
>religion that denies any separation between church and
>state and you have Freedom's Achilles Heel.
>These are dangerous times.

They certainly are.  Can you say why these times are dangerous and times 
10, 20 or 50 years ago were less dangerous?  Can you base your reasoning in 
biology and the environment in which humans evolved?

>The future is in motion and I cannot see it with any certainty.

Exactly what is going to happen is probably out of our reach.  But the 
broad outlines are obvious.  And it is not a pretty picture.  The western 
world may wind up as a party inflicting megadeath without understanding 
what happened.

>The loss of
>religious freedom, the loss of separation of church
>and state, or the loss of both are all very real
>possibilities.

I have come to see one of the evolved functions of religion as a xenophobic 
meme seed.  There are times in our evolutionary past when human populations 
survived better with a xenophobic meme seed.  They probably speed up the 
transition to war state and by inducing war behavior earlier, provided an 
advantage to those who had the mental machinery to carry the seed.

We can go into this in more depth if you can deal with a depressing model 
of reality or better, help come up with a less depressing model.

Keith Henson



From mfj.eav at gmail.com  Fri Feb 10 03:35:24 2006
From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 21:35:24 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Do you think my school will be successful ?
In-Reply-To: <20060209205222.7372.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6030482a0602090021l7218231foc83f56c8b5bf40ae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060209205222.7372.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <61c8738e0602091935l5e159d7ale4745fa91f4a5928@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/9/06, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It could be successful if you were to place it on the web, and lower the
> tuition to $30.
> This isn't the '80s or the '90s, the public is tired of hearing Pangloss
> predictions by prognosticators.
>
>
>
>
> Do you think my school will be successful ?
>
> What should I do? What are the next steps ?
>
> Visit my page:
> http://future.wikicities.com/wiki/School_expenditure
>
> I want your suggestions, where should I go to expose my school ?
>
> --Jonathan
>
>
> New "schools" don't usually happen out of blue sky anymore.
Usually a chair is created at an accredited institution and funded on the
merit
of some key academic and finacial sponsors.

So I would not call what you propose to be a school.

Simply hiring consultants and calling yourself a school does not mean
anyone will accept the Degree or Certificate has any merit.

I've seen lots  the "buy a degree" spams and usually I
regard them as a scam at worst or junk at best.

Even groups of knowledgeable people have job ahead to
translate a body of knowledge into a marketable educational service.

So, yes you can put up a shingle, but you really need to have
a stable of educators already in waiting to set up a little private school.

Not to disappoint you but you are better to get a good academic degree or
several
and find a niche in an already existing education that can use
a class in say  futurology in say an MBA program.

Since the timeline of accelerating change is already underway, futurology
might no longer be necessary anymore.

Kurzweil for example is both an evangelist(sponsor) and
manager/mentor/project leader
in pattern based  predictions, just to name one.

MFJ












--
LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc.
Extropian Agroforestry Ventures  Inc.
Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan
Plant-based Natural-health Bio-product Bio-pharmaceuticals
http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan
http://www.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com
megao at sasktel.net,  arla_j at hotmail.com, mfj.eav at gmail.com
extropian.pharmer at gmail.com

Extreme Life-Extension ..."The most dangerous idea on earth"
-Leon Kass , Bioethics Advisor to George Herbert Walker Bush,
June 2005

Radical Life-Extension Bioscience
+   Total Information Awareness Globalized Info-science
=   The 21st Century Paradigm    ........
Re-inventing the Human Condition with  Quantum to
Macro  Biomolecular-engineering
*"I will live each and every  50 years, one at a time, like the days of a
week".... Morris Johnson - June 2005*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060209/cccb8dfd/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 10 02:49:05 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 18:49:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <004001c62ddf$4ec41cb0$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <20060210024905.92266.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com>

Nobody knows what to do. Deep down some of us are a too scared of what the upper limit of violence might be in the region. When you are raised with an eschatalogical imprint deeply wired into your mind it affects your thinking, you cannot get away from it. 
  You can remove a cancer from your body, but you can't take a scapel to remove such a cancer from the mind.
   
  
So basically almost noone has any intelligent comment on the content of
RAEL's text about the dangers we may be facing instead some just want to see
a UFO! 

Yes, there is proof for what RAEL brings, there is in fact incontestable
proof. I challenge any of you to dispute the proof in a reasonable rational
way. I have successfully defended this proof many times. I consider myself
intellectually honest... therefore my adherence to RAEL's message for this
long. If this discussion is not allowed on this list, fine, we do it
offline. Here is the proof:

When you get an email message from your mother from an email address unknow
to you saying that I am at your uncle's and your dad is very ill we need you
to come asap. For this message to be authentic to you, all its statements
must be in agreement with what you know, ie. have a Mom, have a Dad, have an
uncle, etc... But maybe you have no idea Dad was sick... maybe he was in
perfect health 2 days ago when you spoke to him, so you have a little
suspicion and you decide to verify the info before booking your flight.

RAEL brings a message from a scientifically advance civilization. The
message speaks for itself. You can examine it for yourself and see if it
fits the claim, is there any holes in it? raises any suspicion!? Does it
have any information that sounds like from an advance civilization? Can a
27 year old make it all up!? do a little investigation. then you reach a
final conclusion one way or the other. The Message of the Elohim is the
proof for the Elohim's existence, for their claims and for the fact that
they are our scientific creators and that they were the ones who sent the
Prophets. 

Science is their religion and they want us to understand them rationally and
intelligently. Now do you still want a ufo instead of an intelligent
message!? A ufo can appear and disappear but an intelligent message stays
with you for as long as you choose.

The message is a free download here: www.rael.org Just one rule, you have
to read it before you dispute it. 

LOVE
Mehran
www.rael.org



Message: 11
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 03:48:20 +0000
From: Dirk Bruere 
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
the middle ages
To: ExI chat list 
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On 2/9/06, Damien Broderick wrote:
>
> At 10:29 PM 2/8/2006 -0500, Joseph Bloch wrote:
>
> >Seen any flying saucers yet?
>
> And: Seen any cloned babies yet?
>
> And: Seen any Singularities yet?

Dirk



_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


		
---------------------------------
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
 PhotoMail  - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060209/8a497b75/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 10 03:33:16 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 19:33:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060209194854.050187f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <20060210033316.13815.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com>

More dangerous than the Cold War era? you can't prove that. The danger of a large conflagration of course is a nagging worry as it was from 1947- ' 89, but also worrisome is a drawn-out struggle continuing longer than the forty years of the Cold War, which could bankrupt America in the same way the Soviet Union was bankrupted.
  And what is the current war? It is a culture war writ on global scale: we're attempting to impose our commercial values on Islam, and many Islamics want to impose their religious values on us.
   
   
  > They certainly are. Can you say why these times are dangerous and times 
>10, 20 or 50 years ago were less dangerous? 


			
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060209/4c061540/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Feb 10 05:36:29 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 21:36:29 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
	themiddle ages
In-Reply-To: <20060209205709.56061.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200602100611.k1A6BLkf011479@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Al Brooks
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:57 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
themiddle ages

You are going to take on radical Islaam? Would you take on the Mafia? Would
you take on the Hells Angels?

Well, I for one won't be cowering before such threats.
You have made it abundantly clear that religious violence is the way to shut
you up.
Fortunately we are not all like you.

Dirk



When in battle, it is not cowering to take cover.  After seeing
the events of this week, is anyone here not convinced we are
at war?

spike









From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Feb 10 06:30:59 2006
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 06:30:59 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
	themiddle ages
In-Reply-To: <200602100611.k1A6BLkf011479@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <20060209205709.56061.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>
	<200602100611.k1A6BLkf011479@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0602092230s6cd957b3n723f3ab4c9f8190e@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/10/06, spike wrote:
> When in battle, it is not cowering to take cover.  After seeing
> the events of this week, is anyone here not convinced we are
> at war?
>

One of the side-effects of the Muslim protests directed against Europe
is that Europeans are now starting to think (horrors of horrors!) that
maybe the US has been right all along.

(On this one specific point, I hasten to add. Obviously the US is
still wrong about everything else!)  ;)

BillK



From moulton at moulton.com  Fri Feb 10 06:52:15 2006
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:52:15 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Is libertarianism a faith position?
In-Reply-To: <20060209090547.21000.qmail@web50501.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060209090547.21000.qmail@web50501.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1139554335.12100.37.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 20:05 +1100, Marc Geddes wrote: 
> > > Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Is libertarianism
> > a faith position?
> > 
> You bet it is
> It fails for the same reason all cult ideologies fail:

It is so funny seeing the word "cult" used here.  The term "cult" has
not infrequently been used in reference to Extropians as a pejorative.
Libertarianism is no more a cult than is Extropianism.

> the prescriptions and 'reasoning' are based on
> assumptions that contradict empiricial reality.  The
> economic 'models' are pure idealizations that bear
> little or no resemblence to actual human nature.  

You might have come up with a general purpose put down for philosophical
or political movements.  In your comment the first word "It" refers to
Libertarianism.  Let us see how it reads if we put in Extropianism or
Conservatism or Socialism and even Libertarianism again. 

"Extropianism fails for the same reason all cult ideologies fail:
the prescriptions and 'reasoning' are based on assumptions that
contradict empiricial reality.  The economic 'models' are pure
idealizations that bear little or no resemblence to actual human
nature."

Good for a laugh.  

"Conservatism fails for the same reason all cult ideologies fail:
the prescriptions and 'reasoning' are based on assumptions that
contradict empiricial reality.  The economic 'models' are pure
idealizations that bear little or no resemblence to actual human
nature."

Good for another laugh.

"Socialism fails for the same reason all cult ideologies fail:
the prescriptions and 'reasoning' are based on assumptions that
contradict empiricial reality.  The economic 'models' are pure
idealizations that bear little or no resemblence to actual human
nature."

Good for yet another laugh.

"Libertarianism fails for the same reason all cult ideologies fail:
the prescriptions and 'reasoning' are based on assumptions that
contradict empiricial reality.  The economic 'models' are pure
idealizations that bear little or no resemblence to actual human
nature."

Good for a final laugh.

I do not know if you intended it or not but you were the catalyst for me
having a few good chuckles.  Thanks.

Fred




From moulton at moulton.com  Fri Feb 10 06:47:52 2006
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:47:52 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Is libertarianism a faith position?
In-Reply-To: <43E82883.7010903@mindspring.com>
References: <43E82883.7010903@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <1139554072.12100.31.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 21:56 -0700, Terry W. Colvin wrote: 
> by Edward Leser [edited and abridged]

First just in case anyone is trying to track this down I think the name
is Edward Feser not Edward Leser.

I am all in favor of criticism, but to be useful it needs to be accurate
and properly focused.  Feser seems to try but it was disappointing to
me.  Unfortunately the piece by Feser has inaccuracies such as the
statement: "... Richard Posner's book 'Sex  and Reason', which attempts
to account for all human sexual behavior in terms of perceived costs and
benefits."  Posner does present economic concepts in examining sexual
behavior, marriage practices and other similar phenomena but that does
not mean he ignores other fields.  Posner writes in his book "Despite
the emphasis I place on economics, my study is antispecialist in its
refusal to limits its method to that of economics.  I have drawn heavily
on research in other fields, especially biology (to such an extent
indeed that my approach might be described as bioeconomic rather than
economic) but also philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology,
women's studies, history and of course law.  There is no fundamental
incompatibility either among the fields I have named or between them and
economics."   I do not have reason to think that Feser was being
malicious when he wrote the remark about Posner but if Feser was going
to include Posner in the piece it might have been well to at least spend
a paragraph or two on how the Law and Economics movement has contributed
to the study of law and social sciences.  Or at the very least give a
more accurate description of Posner's book.

In addition the piece by Feser is further weakened by only examining the
limited government branch of libertarian thought and not examining the
anarchist branch.  But Feser seems to miss what might be reasonable
criticisms of the limited government branch of libertarian thought in an
over reliance on the historical influences on modern libertarian
thought.  A historical figure like Locke might have an influence on a
movement decades later but that does not entail that Locke's views on
religion and natural rights forms a critical component of modern
libertarian thought.  Newton certainly is one of the influences on
Extropian thought but Newton also dabbled in alchemy. If someone tried
to bring in Newton's alchemy as part of an attack on Extropian thought I
doubt few would find it persuasive.

As I said I am all for criticism of Libertarianism, Extropianism,
Socialism, etc but I urge that we also should expect high standards for
extropy-chat.  It may also be worth considering having a special list
set up called extropy-politics where those who want to discuss politics
can go.

Fred




From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Feb 10 07:50:40 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:50:40 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return
	tothemiddle ages
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602092230s6cd957b3n723f3ab4c9f8190e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602100750.k1A7onEu014331@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK
...
> 
> One of the side-effects of the Musliim protests directed against Europe
> is that Europeans are now starting to think (horrors of horrors!) that
> maybe the US has been right all along...  BillK

This situation is far too serious to even notice
the neener-neener factor, ja.  What concerns me
is that Europe Incorporated will suddenly realize
the folly of allowing its military force to become
as weak as it appears to be.

spike



 




From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Feb 10 09:18:38 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:18:38 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
	the	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <004001c62ddf$4ec41cb0$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
References: <004001c62ddf$4ec41cb0$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <99FC74D2-44FF-4DE0-84F1-E3F52BA41D09@mac.com>


On Feb 9, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Mehran wrote:

>
> So basically almost noone has any intelligent comment on the  
> content of
> RAEL's text about the dangers we may be facing instead some just  
> want to see
> a UFO!

I got about as far in the first book as the purported aliens  
effectively denying evolution before I gave up.   That and their  
treating the Bible as somehow special did my interest in.

>
> Yes, there is proof for what RAEL brings, there is in fact  
> incontestable
> proof.  I challenge any of you to dispute the proof in a reasonable  
> rational
> way.  I have successfully defended this proof many times.  I  
> consider myself
> intellectually honest... therefore my adherence to RAEL's message  
> for this
> long.   If this discussion is not allowed on this list, fine, we do it
> offline.  Here is the proof:
>
> When you get an email message from your mother from an email  
> address unknow
> to you saying that I am at your uncle's and your dad is very ill we  
> need you
> to come asap.  For this message to be authentic to you, all its  
> statements
> must be in agreement with what you know, ie. have a Mom, have a  
> Dad, have an
> uncle, etc...  But maybe you have no idea Dad was sick... maybe he  
> was in
> perfect health 2 days ago when you spoke to him, so you have a little
> suspicion and you decide to verify the info before booking your  
> flight.
>

That is your "proof"  or is this an analogy?  What is there to  
"disprove" in that and what does it have to do with Rael?

> RAEL brings a message from a scientifically advance civilization.  The
> message speaks for itself.  You can examine it for yourself and see  
> if it
> fits the claim, is there any holes in it?

evolution.

> raises any suspicion!?

yes, no proof of extreme statements.

> Does it
> have any information that sounds like from an advance civilization?

No.  Not one word of advanced technology or science.

> Can a
> 27 year old make it all up!?

Why not?  I could.   If I was delusional besides being bright I would  
do even better.

>   do a little investigation.  then you reach a
> final conclusion one way or the other.

I did.

> The Message of the Elohim is the
> proof for the Elohim's existence, for their claims and for the fact  
> that
> they are our scientific creators and that they were the ones who  
> sent the
> Prophets.

I hope you know that mere grandiose claims are no proof at all.
>
>
> Science is their religion and they want us to understand them  
> rationally and
> intelligently.

Good.  They can start by presenting something, anything, beyond human  
science.

> Now do you still want a ufo instead of an intelligent
> message!?

An intelligent message would be nice.  Rael's books don't present one.

>   A ufo can appear and disappear but an intelligent message stays
> with you for as long as you choose.
>
> The message is a free download here: www.rael.org    Just one rule,  
> you have
> to read it before you dispute it.

It is too full of endless assertion without proof and contradictions  
of known facts to be worth reading in full.

>
> LOVE
> Mehran
> www.rael.org
>

If you are so full of LOVE then give the people something more than  
self-assured assertions.  Otherwise your LOVE is empty noise.

- samantha



From jonano at gmail.com  Fri Feb 10 09:36:40 2006
From: jonano at gmail.com (Jonathan Despres)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 04:36:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Good Quote about the future
Message-ID: <6030482a0602100136x18e06c00vadc30f5e0b46b874@mail.gmail.com>

"Go for it now. The future is promised to no one." - Wayne Dyer


--Jon



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Feb 10 09:36:21 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:36:21 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return
	to	themiddle ages
In-Reply-To: <200602100611.k1A6BLkf011479@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200602100611.k1A6BLkf011479@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <DACB925A-55B4-4D54-A7A9-9B8B09513D06@mac.com>

We are not at war.  You can't be at war with a mob.

- s

On Feb 9, 2006, at 9:36 PM, spike wrote:

>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Al Brooks
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:57 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
> themiddle ages
>
> You are going to take on radical Islaam? Would you take on the  
> Mafia? Would
> you take on the Hells Angels?
>
> Well, I for one won't be cowering before such threats.
> You have made it abundantly clear that religious violence is the  
> way to shut
> you up.
> Fortunately we are not all like you.
>
> Dirk
>
>
>
> When in battle, it is not cowering to take cover.  After seeing
> the events of this week, is anyone here not convinced we are
> at war?
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Fri Feb 10 08:53:53 2006
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:53:53 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return
	tothemiddle ages
In-Reply-To: <200602100750.k1A7onEu014331@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200602100750.k1A7onEu014331@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <E8489A68-ACC6-407C-B371-8861AFBFF93A@ceruleansystems.com>


On Feb 9, 2006, at 11:50 PM, spike wrote:
> This situation is far too serious to even notice
> the neener-neener factor, ja.  What concerns me
> is that Europe Incorporated will suddenly realize
> the folly of allowing its military force to become
> as weak as it appears to be.


This problem is not at the level of military conflict.  Whatever the  
US military has gotten itself into, it can easily handle, unrealistic  
expectations notwithstanding.  The only real question is whether or  
not people have learned the lesson of history that the appeasement of  
evil, particularly when it is vulnerable, almost never pays off in  
the long term.

With respect to European militaries specifically, they can deliver a  
significant sting in their own territories but lack the ability to  
project (given their tribal history, many have argued that this is a  
good thing).  If European countries ever decided to alter the  
landscape of their own countries they are quite capable of it, as  
history shows.  Europe has always managed to find its brass when it  
mattered on many, many occasions.  The current culture probably does  
not care too much about their historical battles to the death with  
Islam but they have a long history of dealing with such threats (c.f.  
Jan Sobieski).  Militant Islam has to be very careful about pushing  
the backs of the Europeans against the wall if they want to prevail;  
any parity in military capability that existed in the Middle Ages has  
long since passed, and Europeans can be famously ruthless and brutish  
when it comes to the survival of their tribes.  Push come to shove, I  
know who I'll put my money on.


The degradation problem with the European militaries, in short, is  
Pax Americana.  To shore up their sagging economies, they have  
drastically cut military expenditures and redirected funds to  
underfunded social entitlements.  It is educational to put a  
historical context to it.  The long term historical military  
maintenance expenditure during times of non-conflict has been around  
4% of GDP, plus or minus a bit.  Europeans and many other "safe"  
countries are now spending far less than that, particularly in the  
last 15 years since the fall of the Soviet Union and as the European  
economies have started to stagnate.

It would probably surprise most people to know that the US averaged  
something like 7% of GDP on military expenditures during the 20th  
century -- that is how the US bought its advantage in military  
technology, particularly after getting caught with its pants down  
(again) in the second world war.  Current US military expenditures  
are far less, and are at peace time levels by any historical  
standard.  The US is cashing in on the dividend of technological  
advances paid for in the 20th century.  To put a different spin on  
it, the US could double its military expenditures and still be in its  
historical range of "normal" for the US; those who think the US  
military capability is stretched are lacking historical context.

Militant Islam is counting on the modern West not fighting back.   
They are not stupid; they know that their success depends on never  
having to face the war-fighting capability of the Europeans and their  
diaspora.  I would add that this will never be a problem for the  
western hemisphere in the way that it will be for the eastern  
hemisphere.  Islam cannot hoof its way into the western hemisphere,  
nor does it have meaningful foothold here; it is a much harder  
target.  The only dog the US really has in this fight is the impact  
on the world economy if it does not use its military prowess and  
geopolitical power to rein in the threat.  The threat to Europe and  
European politics is far more dire, as is in evidence.  The ball is  
really in the court of the EU.  If Europe takes a strong stand  
against militant Islam it is game over for the jihadis; what remains  
to be seen is if that will actually happen, and the jihadis are  
obviously counting against it.

By my own estimation, the jihadis played their cards too early in  
Europe if they wanted a good shot at success.  Perhaps 10-20 years  
too early.  Europe can control this situation, if they want to.

Cheers,

J. Andrew Rogers



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Feb 10 09:33:40 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:33:40 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Muslim Machinations (was Protect ourselves
	to	prevent a return to the middle ages)
In-Reply-To: <20060209192302.6147.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060209192302.6147.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BCD1BB11-50CB-4A44-A9C1-2AEEAE189BA8@mac.com>


On Feb 9, 2006, at 11:23 AM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
> It is a frustrating problem and obviously the time
> when one can safely bury ones head in the sand about
> the matter has passed. This one isn't going away on
> its own, folks.
>

We cannot bury our heads in the sand about the danger of tolerating  
those who would destroy us and our tolerant ways.  Not all such  
people hide behind religion though.  But we must wisely weigh the  
real risks and act appropriately to the danger.

>> I think this is a
>> cue to find some
>> things out for myself. I knew about the apostasy
>> thing, which is bad
>> enough, but some of the others?
>> Do present-day muslims really think that it's right
>> and proper to beat
>> women that they suspect might not obey them?
>
> Of course, not too long ago a Muslim girl in Germany
> was beaten to death by her own brothers for dressing
> like "a German whore".
>

Bad as that is, these local anecdotes are a threat on a global scale  
how?

>
> Moses was the adopted son of the Egyptian phaoroah.
> Buddha was an Indian prince. And Jesus was of the
> house of David and enough of a threat to Herod to have
> Herod kill off male children. Mohammed, however,
> refused to compromise his will to power. He
> slaughtered whole tribes of his fellow Arab bedouins
> that refused to acknowledge him as the word of God. He
> wanted both the riches of the earth AND the souls
> of his adherents. Thus Islam from its very beginning
> was a designed as a theocracy and theocracy is at the
> heart of Koranic dogma.
>

And so?  What mighty military do Muslims, full fundamentalist  
Muslims, control?  They can riot and commit mayhem and occasionally  
commit terrorism but really what can they accomplish toward a world  
power Muslim theocracy?  Very little really.  So why are we acting  
like the Muslim sky is in danger of falling?
>

> That the Muslim leadership are machinating against the
> governments of the west, there can be no doubt. Why
> else would it take over a year for cartoons in Denmark
> to galvanize the Muslim communities around the world?
>

This is supposed to be some proof?  Hah!

> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/international/middleeast/ 
> 09cartoon.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th
>
> It was decided by the Organization of the Islamic
> Conference that this would be the time to rally
> Muslims around the world against Freedom. And have no
> doubt, they will use the tools of Freedom like liberal
> moral and cultural relativism against it. The imperial
> march of Mohammed never stopped, it has only been
> waiting.
>

And you believe any such thing will work because?

> You can have freedom of religion and you can have
> separation of church and state, but all it takes is a
> religion that denies any separation between church and
> state and you have Freedom's Achilles Heel.

Nope.  They would need to gain and keep power to force their religion  
on everyone else.  They have no way to do so.  It is irrelevant what  
they believe about the separation of church and state as long as they  
are denied the power.    In the West we have the same problem and it  
is much more of a danger in America.  The fundies are very loud and  
well placed politically who disclaim separation between church and  
state.  They are MUCH more of an immediate danger imho.

- samantha



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Fri Feb 10 10:49:55 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:49:55 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Muslim Machinations (was Protect ourselves to
	prevent a return to the middle ages)
In-Reply-To: <BCD1BB11-50CB-4A44-A9C1-2AEEAE189BA8@mac.com>
References: <20060209192302.6147.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
	<BCD1BB11-50CB-4A44-A9C1-2AEEAE189BA8@mac.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602100249k299c7e2i5e73194194d00b54@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/10/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Bad as that is, these local anecdotes are a threat on a global scale
> how?
> ...


Give an inch and they take a mile.
What was once a privilege becomes a Right.
'Cultural sensitivity' becomes supression of criticism
etc

And so?  What mighty military do Muslims, full fundamentalist
> Muslims, control?  They can riot and commit mayhem and occasionally
> commit terrorism but really what can they accomplish toward a world
> power Muslim theocracy?  Very little really.  So why are we acting
> like the Muslim sky is in danger of falling?


What can they do?
Turn every society in which they take residence into a mirror image of N
Ireland at its worst, with every critic having to fear imminent death. For
decades.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060210/3e89752c/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Fri Feb 10 10:51:46 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:51:46 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <20060209205709.56061.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <c0a791b40602082035s36dd712dy4729343d08d5a336@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060209205709.56061.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602100251t40efc9a4u63dccc76062aee3@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/9/06, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You are going to take on radical Islam? Would you take on the Mafia? Would
> you take on the Hells Angels?
>
> Well, I for one won't be cowering before such threats.
> You have made it abundantly clear that religious violence is the way to
> shut you up.
> Fortunately we are not all like you.
>
> Dirk
>
>
I don't 'take them on' unless they get in my way.
Nor do I censor my speech or writings on their behalf.
In case you do not know, I run a political party and *do* mouth off about
them quite a bit.

Dirk

 ------------------------------
> Yahoo! Mail
> Use Photomail<http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=38867/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com>to share photos without annoying attachments.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060210/32e4f7c2/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Fri Feb 10 10:55:42 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:55:42 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
	themiddle ages
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602092230s6cd957b3n723f3ab4c9f8190e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20060209205709.56061.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com>
	<200602100611.k1A6BLkf011479@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<ee50357e0602092230s6cd957b3n723f3ab4c9f8190e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602100255x3d7c963gb19f9c39e725815@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/10/06, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/10/06, spike wrote:
> > When in battle, it is not cowering to take cover.  After seeing
> > the events of this week, is anyone here not convinced we are
> > at war?
> >
>
> One of the side-effects of the Muslim protests directed against Europe
> is that Europeans are now starting to think (horrors of horrors!) that
> maybe the US has been right all along.
>
> (On this one specific point, I hasten to add. Obviously the US is
> still wrong about everything else!)  ;)


Bullshit.
What major US papers reprinted the cartoons?
And it was the US state dept that came out and criticised *us*.

It's not the US people are saying were right - it is the neoNazis who they
are saying have turned out to be correct. It will be interesting to see what
happens in the various elections to come.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060210/1db740f4/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Fri Feb 10 10:58:20 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:58:20 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return
	tothemiddle ages
In-Reply-To: <200602100750.k1A7onEu014331@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <ee50357e0602092230s6cd957b3n723f3ab4c9f8190e@mail.gmail.com>
	<200602100750.k1A7onEu014331@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602100258q4771c8e0xf61edb659bb14ea3@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/10/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK
> ...
> >
> > One of the side-effects of the Musliim protests directed against Europe
> > is that Europeans are now starting to think (horrors of horrors!) that
> > maybe the US has been right all along...  BillK
>
> This situation is far too serious to even notice
> the neener-neener factor, ja.  What concerns me
> is that Europe Incorporated will suddenly realize
> the folly of allowing its military force to become
> as weak as it appears to be.


Right...
So if we are faced with Moslem riots and terrorism we should mount an
invasion of Oman? Or some other weak Moslem state? I think not.

The EU has more than a million troops, and if push comes to shove they will
be deployed internally *against* our domestic threat. Think N Ireland x30

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060210/e8ec878a/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Fri Feb 10 10:59:44 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:59:44 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
	themiddle ages
In-Reply-To: <DACB925A-55B4-4D54-A7A9-9B8B09513D06@mac.com>
References: <200602100611.k1A6BLkf011479@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<DACB925A-55B4-4D54-A7A9-9B8B09513D06@mac.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602100259u6baccec1xc9aad69955d9d5b0@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/10/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
> We are not at war.  You can't be at war with a mob.


N Ireland started as 'mobs'
Then an organised terrorist threat emerged.
We are now at that stage in much of Europe.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060210/f46f0f8e/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Fri Feb 10 12:54:12 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 07:54:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Muslim Machinations (was Protect ourselves to
	prevent a return to the middle ages)
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602100249k299c7e2i5e73194194d00b54@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20060209192302.6147.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
	<BCD1BB11-50CB-4A44-A9C1-2AEEAE189BA8@mac.com>
	<c0a791b40602100249k299c7e2i5e73194194d00b54@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602100454u7508df8ay62e43fe4cdc73158@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/10/06, Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> What can they do?
> Turn every society in which they take residence into a mirror image of N
> Ireland at its worst, with every critic having to fear imminent death. For
> decades.
>

There are days when I look at those generally peaceful Mexican Catholics
migrating largely to the southern and western U.S. as not such a bad thing
-- compared to the situation the Europeans are facing.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060210/b99a6236/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Fri Feb 10 13:40:58 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:40:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Right to sustain thread view
In-Reply-To: <200602100101.55219.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br>
References: <200602091550.59378.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br>
	<001001c62da9$ae987db0$23064e0c@MyComputer>
	<200602100101.55219.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602100540k4d4dd7d9t6d42300168630b61@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/9/06, Diego Caleiro <diegocaleiro at terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>
> I'd like that what people call friendly AI will be something less arrogant
> than you, who doesn't respect the desire or the creed of anything below
> your
> advanced intelligence. Supose a jupiter brain not friendly, or as friendly
> as
> a pattern human, say, you,  sees you and beleives, for reasons that only
> his
> intelligence can understand, that you should be immediately destroyed.
> Would
> you accept that?


I would accept it on an absolute basis.  The dedication of the 70kg of
elements within my body to a suboptimal computational architecture is
clearly not how I would like to see the materials used over the long term.
But the emphasis that at least I would choose is that I get to make the
choice of the form of my instantiation(s).  ["Give me freedom or give me
death."]

But for this entire discussion to hold any water you have to look at the
environment in which reanimations might be taking place.  During most of the
early nanotechnology era there will be far more materials in the various
planets and subsequently being harvested from the Sun to care about the
~10^11 kg of elements in human biological systems (most of which is hydrogen
and oxygen which are of limited use relative to their overall abundance in
optimal computing architectures).  For the level of superintelligence that
seems to be under discussion reanimation and/or reanimation with uploading
is a no brainer type of activity.  So the question should not be whether it
is a "friendly" AI but simply whether it is an extropic or compassionate
AI.  If it has either of those qualities then anyone still left on ice will
probably be brought back in one form or another.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060210/9468a334/attachment.html>

From james.hughes at trincoll.edu  Fri Feb 10 14:11:27 2006
From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:11:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] List for transhumanism and disability issues
Message-ID: <B55E044559115F4B8C9EE62323C322B413FFAAA8@hickory.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu>


Friends 

A couple years ago a young disabled man in England, Alan Pottenger,
started an organization for disabled transhumanists, the Ascender
Alliance. I'm not sure what's become of him I'm afraid, and his list on
Yahoo has gone fallow. But the idea is increasingly important. The
connection between the two movements is vital for both, as the disabled
are on the forefront of the struggle for morphological diversity and
technological empowerment, and are pioneers in the cyborgological
enhancement of the human body and brain. 

We're starting this list, wta-disability, to begin to work on that
important set of issue and movement linkages, and to provide a space for
transhumanists with disabilities to discuss topics of interest. I hope
you will join the list and find it useful.

http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-disability

--------------------------------------------
James Hughes Ph.D.
Executive Director
World Transhumanist Assoc.   Inst. for Ethics & Emerging Tech.
http://transhumanism.org     http://ieet.org
director at transhumanism.org   director at ieet.org
Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology
http://jetpress.org

Mailing Address: Box 128, Willington CT 06279 USA 
(office) 860-297-2376



From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Fri Feb 10 15:18:36 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:18:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental limits on the growth rate of
	superintelligences
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602100718o69a99529h5a764a4b1a644dd9@mail.gmail.com>

Some of the recent discussions I have noticed seem to fail to take into
account limits on the rate of growth and logical plateaus of
superintelligences.  I have written papers about the ultimate limits, e.g.
[1] but want to point out some of the things which will constrain the rate
of growth to a series of steps.

We do *not* wake up some morning and have a "friendly" AI running the solar
system (even if various groups do manage to design something which could
eventually manage this).  Computational capacity requires at least 3
things.  These are energy inputs, waste heat disposal, and mass, usually in
the form of certain essential elements.  If limits are placed on any of
those then the rate of development of an intelligence and its ultimate
thought capacities will be limited as well.

Even if a self-evolving AI were to develop it would still be constrained by
my ability to pull its plug out of the wall.  If it is distributed via a
cable or satellite network we can still disconnect the cables or take out
the antennas.  Alternatively terrorist acts against the necessary cooling
towers or the mines that produce the essential materials a growing
potentially deceitfully "friendly" AI would be quite effective in limiting
computational capacity.  An additional method for growth limitation is to
constrain either the self-adaptive and/or manufacturing capability of an AI,
even with programmable chips (FPGA) the computer architectures are limited
by the underlying hardware with regard to speed of operation, # of
calculations that can be performed within a specific time, etc.  So long as
an AI lacks the ability to create and integrate into its architecture
alternative (presumably improved) hardware or simply more of the same its
growth rate is constrained.  [Those familiar with the "broadcast
architecture" for nanotechnology manufacturing might see this as a
complementary aspect -- an AI could come up with a better architecture for
itself but without the means to implement it and transfer itself to such an
implementation it does little good.]

The only way it would appear things could get out of hand is a stealth "grey
goo" scenario (where the growth of the AI substrate is hidden from us).  But
as the Freitas Ecophagy paper points out there are ways to be aware of
whether this could be taking place under our noses.

So before everyone runs off doing a lot of speculation about what a world of
coexisting humans and "friendly" AIs might look like it is worth taking a
serious look at whether humans would allow themselves to be placed what
might become a strategically difficult position by allowing unmanaged growth
of or infiltration of its computational substrate by AIs.

Another way of looking at this is that humans may only allow the Singularity
to happen at a rate at which they can adapt.  At some point Ray's curves may
hit a wall.  Not because the technology is limiting but because we choose to
limit the rate of change.

Robert

1. "Life at the Limits of Physical Laws", SPIE 4273-32 (Jan 2001).
http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/OSETI3/4273-32.html<http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/%7Ebradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/OSETI3/4273-32.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060210/efa47643/attachment.html>

From maxm at mail.tele.dk  Fri Feb 10 15:46:35 2006
From: maxm at mail.tele.dk (Max M)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:46:35 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Muslim Machinations (was Protect ourselves to
 prevent a return to the middle ages)
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602100454u7508df8ay62e43fe4cdc73158@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20060209192302.6147.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>	<BCD1BB11-50CB-4A44-A9C1-2AEEAE189BA8@mac.com>	<c0a791b40602100249k299c7e2i5e73194194d00b54@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0602100454u7508df8ay62e43fe4cdc73158@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43ECB55B.10007@mail.tele.dk>

Robert Bradbury wrote:

>
> On 2/10/06, *Dirk Bruere* <dirk.bruere at gmail.com 
> <mailto:dirk.bruere at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     What can they do?
>     Turn every society in which they take residence into a mirror
>     image of N Ireland at its worst, with every critic having to fear
>     imminent death. For decades.
>
>
> There are days when I look at those generally peaceful Mexican 
> Catholics migrating largely to the southern and western U.S. as not 
> such a bad thing -- compared to the situation the Europeans are facing.



Ok, I need to add a little something here. There are about 200,000 
muslims in Denmark, out of a population of 5 million.

Of these, about 10-20% are practicing. Meaning that they are attending 
"churc". That is 10-20,000 in all.

Attending church regularly does not exactly make one a religious 
fanatic. So all in all, there is only a minor group of "fanatics" and of 
these even fewer are prone to violence.

The problem we have is the fact that the more extreme imams have been 
speaking on the behalf of all muslims. Most muslims are moderate and 
even secular, and are just going about their business. One of the good 
things that has come of this cartoon idiocy is that a group of moderate 
muslims has formed, as a counter meassure to the religious leaders.

So perhaps we can begin talking about political based integration 
instead of religious now, as the imigrants do have substantial problems. 
About 50% of the prison population are imigrants, and they have high 
unemployment due to low educational levels. Although the immigrant 
girls! are educated at about the same level as "native" danish girls.

It will be interresting to see how they will cope in the future with 
their families cultural bias against marrying outside their religion, 
and the males having lower levels of education.

-- 

hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark

http://www.mxm.dk/
IT's Mad Science



From jonkc at att.net  Fri Feb 10 18:03:15 2006
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:03:15 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Right to sustain thread view
References: <200602091550.59378.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br><001001c62da9$ae987db0$23064e0c@MyComputer>
	<200602100101.55219.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br>
Message-ID: <003101c62e6c$685f4ea0$42054e0c@MyComputer>

"Diego Caleiro" <diegocaleiro at terra.com.br>

> Supose a jupiter brain not friendly, or as friendly as
> a pattern human, say, you,  sees you and beleives,
> for reasons that only his intelligence can understand,
> that you should be immediately destroyed. Would
> you accept that?

If there were no way I could tell if I had been "destroyed" or not then
there is no way I could not accept it. Not that it matters what I do or do
not accept.

> That is what you are saying these super computers will do, take their
> decisions non-friendly, non- respectfully, regardless of peoples fear of
> being destroyed during uploading.

Yes, like it or not that is precisely what I am convinced they will do,
assuming of course they bother to do anything at all with us; certainly we
could provide nothing of value to them except perhaps a slight bit of
nostalgia. The one thing in our favor is that to a Jupiter brain uploading a
frozen body will either be absolutely imposable or absurdly easy.

> I'm not implying, in any nanosecond, or other measurement of time, that
> you are wrong about patterns, only that you do not consider others
> beleifs.

Me? My beliefs are not important; I have no immediate plans to bring anyone
back from the dead, that's up to Mr. Jupiter not me. And even a Jupiter
brain will never be able to prove with absolute certainty who is right in
this matter; he will never be able to prove he is not and always has been
the only conscious entity in the universe. However he can do what we do, he
can determine which idea seems more reasonable.

Is it likely that an intelligence that grows and evolves at a colossal rate
will embrace the infantile idea that atoms, which have no individuality can
nevertheless confer that property to us? Is it likely that an electronic
machine that works by manipulating information will conclude that
information is not important and biology is superior to electronics? Is it
likely Mr. Jupiter would be comfortable having us exist at the same level as
his NAND circuits? Is it likely he will grant a wish he considers absolutely
ridiculous if not downright dangerous when there is an alternative that is
smarter safer and cheaper?  No, of course not.

And you speak of my arrogance, but I think it is very arrogant indeed as
well as bad manners to bad mouth Mr. Jupiter for not bringing you back
exactly as you specified, he is after all under no obligation to do anything
at all with your frozen body. That's another reason he won't tell you you're
an upload, he won't want to listen to your complaining. And if he doesn't
tell you will never know.

  John K Clark










From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Feb 10 18:51:47 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:51:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Muslim Machinations (was Protect ourselves to
	prevent a return to the middle ages)
In-Reply-To: <43ECB55B.10007@mail.tele.dk>
Message-ID: <20060210185148.1770.qmail@web81609.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Max M <maxm at mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> The problem we have is the fact that the more extreme imams
> have been
> speaking on the behalf of all muslims. Most muslims are
> moderate and 
> even secular, and are just going about their business.

Random thought.  I can see why this wouldn't be the case in Iran
and similar places, but...in Western countries where this is
happening, if any extreme imams are operating in said countries,
would the extremists' representations of all Islam as needing to
violently protest the cartoons - and thus, representations of
Islam as a violent religion - be liable for libel or slander?
As in, "You say that this is what the religion *I* preach is,
but it is not.  Your words cause financial damage to me and my
followers, in direct retaliations from society."  (Ignoring the
incitement to violence on the part of the followers, since -
however objectionable - it might not qualify as libel per se.
Or would it?)

Not sure if it is so - or if it is/would be right.  Just a
thought for consideration.


From diegocaleiro at terra.com.br  Fri Feb 10 20:09:33 2006
From: diegocaleiro at terra.com.br (Diego Caleiro)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:09:33 -0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Right to sustain thread view
In-Reply-To: <003101c62e6c$685f4ea0$42054e0c@MyComputer>
References: <200602091550.59378.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br>
	<200602100101.55219.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br>
	<003101c62e6c$685f4ea0$42054e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <200602101809.33912.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br>





You are still supposing that jupiter brains feelings about other people are 
human feelings, which they are not. Jupiters have not evolved in the 
savannahs ( or however is this word in english). They were never tribal 
hunters, they do not think that it is absurdly necessary to hierarchyse 
people according to any specific quality, including inttelligence, or being 
made of the same stuff as they are.  That is why us, evolutionist 
psychologists are useful for tranhumanism, to avoid this kind of 
misunderstanding. 

I'd bad mouth anyone who lack respect for ones desires about himself, no 
matter the size, average speed, or shape of his brain. 

Diego Caleiro ( Log At) 

Em Sexta 10 Fevereiro 2006 16:03, John K Clark escreveu:
> "Diego Caleiro" <diegocaleiro at terra.com.br>
>
> > Supose a jupiter brain not friendly, or as friendly as
> > a pattern human, say, you,  sees you and beleives,
> > for reasons that only his intelligence can understand,
> > that you should be immediately destroyed. Would
> > you accept that?
>
> If there were no way I could tell if I had been "destroyed" or not then
> there is no way I could not accept it. Not that it matters what I do or do
> not accept.
>
> > That is what you are saying these super computers will do, take their
> > decisions non-friendly, non- respectfully, regardless of peoples fear of
> > being destroyed during uploading.
>
> Yes, like it or not that is precisely what I am convinced they will do,
> assuming of course they bother to do anything at all with us; certainly we
> could provide nothing of value to them except perhaps a slight bit of
> nostalgia. The one thing in our favor is that to a Jupiter brain uploading
> a frozen body will either be absolutely imposable or absurdly easy.
>
> > I'm not implying, in any nanosecond, or other measurement of time, that
> > you are wrong about patterns, only that you do not consider others
> > beleifs.
>
> Me? My beliefs are not important; I have no immediate plans to bring anyone
> back from the dead, that's up to Mr. Jupiter not me. And even a Jupiter
> brain will never be able to prove with absolute certainty who is right in
> this matter; he will never be able to prove he is not and always has been
> the only conscious entity in the universe. However he can do what we do, he
> can determine which idea seems more reasonable.
>
> Is it likely that an intelligence that grows and evolves at a colossal rate
> will embrace the infantile idea that atoms, which have no individuality can
> nevertheless confer that property to us? Is it likely that an electronic
> machine that works by manipulating information will conclude that
> information is not important and biology is superior to electronics? Is it
> likely Mr. Jupiter would be comfortable having us exist at the same level
> as his NAND circuits? Is it likely he will grant a wish he considers
> absolutely ridiculous if not downright dangerous when there is an
> alternative that is smarter safer and cheaper?  No, of course not.
>
> And you speak of my arrogance, but I think it is very arrogant indeed as
> well as bad manners to bad mouth Mr. Jupiter for not bringing you back
> exactly as you specified, he is after all under no obligation to do
> anything at all with your frozen body. That's another reason he won't tell
> you you're an upload, he won't want to listen to your complaining. And if
> he doesn't tell you will never know.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
> E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=diegocaleiro&_
>l=1,1139597082.723590.27998.arrino.terra.com.br,6112,Des15,Des15
>
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 10/02/2006 / Vers?o:
> 4.4.00/4694 Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/



From jonano at gmail.com  Fri Feb 10 22:27:18 2006
From: jonano at gmail.com (Jonathan Despres)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:27:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Predictions about the future of technology
Message-ID: <6030482a0602101427x16f321b8hbd2b63fabb042b2@mail.gmail.com>

2005 We are approaching the dark ages point, when the rate of
innovation is the same as it was during the Dark Ages. We'll reach
that in 2024. (Jonathan Huebner)

2005 Within five years, every banking customer will have a banking
terminal in their pocket, drawing on the mainframe. (Arif Mohamed)

2004 By the 2030s, the nonbiological portion of our intelligence will
predominate. (Ray Kurzweil)

2004 The mainframe is not going to die, and will be around for
basically forever. (John Swainson)

2004 By 2010, the average network connection speed to the home will be
10 times faster than today's [50Mbps] ADSL in Japan. (Kunio Nakamura)

2004 In five years, much of the business handled today by paper forms
scanning and data capture will have moved to XML data transmitted over
the Web. (Bruce Silver)

2004 Over the next couple of decades IT professionals will help
workers integrate computing and communications onto and into their
bodies and brains, with wearables and implants. (James Hughes)

2004 We're going to have computers, not too long from now, that don't
have screens and where the information is presented as a hologram in
the air above a keyboard. (Grant Evans)

2004 Ten years out you can almost think of hardware as being free. (Bill Gates)

2004 The future for IT is the same as it was for agriculture and
manufacturing. (Joe Celko)

2004 Off-shoring is just another management fad and we're going to see
it blow over. (Eric Raymond)

2004 A concept called ambient intelligence, where technology is
embedded in our natural surroundings, ever present and available for
access by the individual, will be accomplished within the next 25
years. (Laura Peters)

2003 Unix is dead. [see 1986] (Gus Robertson of Redhat)

2003 By 2014 the web may reach the level of user empowerment defined
by the Macintosh in 1984. (Jakob Nielsen)

2003 By 2007, software systems will be developed and maintained
through collaborative development environments, consisting of
thousands of moving parts that are never turned off. (Grady Booch)

2003 IT doesn't matter. (Nicholas Carr)

2002 There will be a major cyber-terrorism event in 2003. It will be
enough to disrupt the economy for a while, bring the Internet to its
knees for a day or two. (John Gantz)

2002 I do think [in 20 years the global database] will exist, and I
think it is going to be an Oracle database. And we're going to track
everything. (Larry Ellison)

2002 Linux will become the dominant server operating system in the
United States by 2005. (Stacey Quandt)

2001 By 2009, computers will disappear. Displays will be written
directly onto our retinas by devices in our eyeglasses and contact
lenses. (Ray Kurzweil)


2001 We will need one million new people to be running these new
e-businesses in the US in the next year alone. (John Gantz)

2001 We've had three major generations of computing: mainframes,
client/server and Internet computing. There will be no new
architecture for computing for the next 1,000 years. (Larry Ellison)

2000 Supercomputers will achieve one human brain capacity by 2010, and
personal computers will do so by about 2020. (Ray Kurzweil)



From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Fri Feb 10 23:19:27 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:19:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Article: Who would not seize the chance to live
	to be 150?
In-Reply-To: <20060209172543.35172.qmail@web80729.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <54DE7E1E-7DB1-4D5E-87B0-FB1087F49632@mac.com>
	<20060209172543.35172.qmail@web80729.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602101519l55d0f66dp1c8ab9bca37f5785@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/9/06, Keith M. Elis <zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> What evidence is there that the average human lifespan in the developed
> world is about to suddenly increase at a rate faster than we
> are experiencing currently?
>

I expect we are going to see things begin to move quickly in the next decade
(2010-2020).  If resveratrol supplementation is as good as the studies
suggest and you confined yourself to people in say their 30's to 50's who
are taking it as a supplement (so it could add 10-20+% to currently expected
longevities) then you could rake in the bucks.

The question is whether you need a significant amount of capital to start a
company based on these assumptions this and whether you could convince a
capital source it was a good risk.

This gets into a very complex discussion about interactions between
singularity trends and lifespan extension research "deliverables".  I
suspect there are very few people who understand the subtleties of these
topics sufficiently well to allow you to strike a reasonable balance between
undercutting the competition and still being relatively conservative with
respect to avoiding problems if the deliverables don't arrive when you
anticipated they would.

Also, do you have a pointer to what a 1035 exchange is?

Thanks,
Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060210/74a48f4f/attachment.html>

From transcend at extropica.com  Fri Feb 10 23:29:20 2006
From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:29:20 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Predictions about the future of technology
In-Reply-To: <6030482a0602101427x16f321b8hbd2b63fabb042b2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602102229.k1AMTqVc008031@boobookitty.sixgirls.org>

Here's one to add:

2006: "[MS VP Peter] Moore said that the retail landscape is set to undergo
a particularly drastic change of face. Even though he made a point that the
current retail model was hugely important to Microsoft's plans for the near
future, he sees its days as numbered. 'Let's be fair. Whether it's five, 10,
15, 20 years from now, the concept of driving to the store to buy a plastic
disc with data on it and driving back and popping it in the drive will be
ridiculous,' Moore said. 'We'll tell our grandchildren that and they'll
laugh at us.'"

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Despres
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:27 PM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Cc: Cryonet
Subject: [extropy-chat] Predictions about the future of technology

2005 We are approaching the dark ages point, when the rate of
innovation is the same as it was during the Dark Ages. We'll reach
that in 2024. (Jonathan Huebner)

2005 Within five years, every banking customer will have a banking
terminal in their pocket, drawing on the mainframe. (Arif Mohamed)

2004 By the 2030s, the nonbiological portion of our intelligence will
predominate. (Ray Kurzweil)

2004 The mainframe is not going to die, and will be around for
basically forever. (John Swainson)

2004 By 2010, the average network connection speed to the home will be
10 times faster than today's [50Mbps] ADSL in Japan. (Kunio Nakamura)

2004 In five years, much of the business handled today by paper forms
scanning and data capture will have moved to XML data transmitted over
the Web. (Bruce Silver)

2004 Over the next couple of decades IT professionals will help
workers integrate computing and communications onto and into their
bodies and brains, with wearables and implants. (James Hughes)

2004 We're going to have computers, not too long from now, that don't
have screens and where the information is presented as a hologram in
the air above a keyboard. (Grant Evans)

2004 Ten years out you can almost think of hardware as being free. (Bill
Gates)

2004 The future for IT is the same as it was for agriculture and
manufacturing. (Joe Celko)

2004 Off-shoring is just another management fad and we're going to see
it blow over. (Eric Raymond)

2004 A concept called ambient intelligence, where technology is
embedded in our natural surroundings, ever present and available for
access by the individual, will be accomplished within the next 25
years. (Laura Peters)

2003 Unix is dead. [see 1986] (Gus Robertson of Redhat)

2003 By 2014 the web may reach the level of user empowerment defined
by the Macintosh in 1984. (Jakob Nielsen)

2003 By 2007, software systems will be developed and maintained
through collaborative development environments, consisting of
thousands of moving parts that are never turned off. (Grady Booch)

2003 IT doesn't matter. (Nicholas Carr)

2002 There will be a major cyber-terrorism event in 2003. It will be
enough to disrupt the economy for a while, bring the Internet to its
knees for a day or two. (John Gantz)

2002 I do think [in 20 years the global database] will exist, and I
think it is going to be an Oracle database. And we're going to track
everything. (Larry Ellison)

2002 Linux will become the dominant server operating system in the
United States by 2005. (Stacey Quandt)

2001 By 2009, computers will disappear. Displays will be written
directly onto our retinas by devices in our eyeglasses and contact
lenses. (Ray Kurzweil)


2001 We will need one million new people to be running these new
e-businesses in the US in the next year alone. (John Gantz)

2001 We've had three major generations of computing: mainframes,
client/server and Internet computing. There will be no new
architecture for computing for the next 1,000 years. (Larry Ellison)

2000 Supercomputers will achieve one human brain capacity by 2010, and
personal computers will do so by about 2020. (Ray Kurzweil)

_______________________________________________
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  Fri Feb 10 23:59:08 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:59:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602100251t40efc9a4u63dccc76062aee3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060210235908.4735.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>

You are to be commended for being brave, but i'm going to hide in a hole and pull the hole in afterwards. Better a live coward than a dead brave-heart.

  
 
      I don't 'take them on' unless they get in my way.
  Nor do I censor my speech or writings on their behalf.
  In case you do not know, I run a political party and *do* mouth off about them quite a bit.
   
  Dirk


		
---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060210/08bb0976/attachment.html>

From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 11 00:30:55 2006
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:30:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 27 nanometers
In-Reply-To: <200601280005.k0S054e20056@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20060211003055.89916.qmail@web60018.mail.yahoo.com>

Last summer I picked up a paper edition of Scientific
American and thoroughly enjoyed the article on
Immersion Lithography.  Now it's ancient history.

Breakthrough Computer Chip Lithography Method
Developed at RIT 
Evanescent wave lithography enables optical imaging to
smallest-ever level 

http://www.rit.edu/~930www/webnews/viewstory.php3?id=1816



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Sat Feb 11 01:40:02 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:40:02 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Good Quote about the future
References: <6030482a0602100136x18e06c00vadc30f5e0b46b874@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000f01c62eac$14139c80$640fa8c0@kevin>

Dr. Dyer has some great material. His book "Your Erroneous Zones" pulled me
back from depression into reality several years ago.

> "Go for it now. The future is promised to no one." - Wayne Dyer
>
>
> --Jon
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Sat Feb 11 01:43:15 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:43:15 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] More positive comments from the Vatican - This time
	it's the Pope
Message-ID: <001801c62eac$8733a840$640fa8c0@kevin>


"Pope sees no rivalry between faith and science " 

http://www.physorg.com/news10781.html

Pope Benedict XVI on Friday rejected the idea of competition between faith and science, but admitted that the fast pace of scientific progress had sometimes caused "confusion" for Roman Catholics. 


In the 20th century "the progress of science was often so fast that it was difficult to determine how it could be compatible with the truths revealed by God about man and the world," the pontiff said, adding that some scientific claims "went against these truths". 

This has at times created a certain confusion among the faithful," he said. 

But there existed "no competition between reason and faith", he said. 

Benedict made his comments during a meeting with members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the entity he headed for 24 years whose origins go back to 1542, during the Inquisition. 

For centuries the Roman Catholic Church rejected scientific theories which it felt threatened its view of the creation of the universe, and some defenders of science were branded as heretics during the Inquisition.

The Church has recently distanced itself from some Christian fundamentalist groups which want to ban the teaching of the Darwinian theory of evolution. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060210/d3c663e3/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat Feb 11 03:06:29 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:06:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <20060210033316.13815.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060209194854.050187f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060210220238.0503f188@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 07:33 PM 2/9/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>More dangerous than the Cold War era? you can't prove that.

No, but an EP based theory strongly suggests it.

>The danger of a large conflagration of course is a nagging worry as it was 
>from 1947- ' 89, but also worrisome is a drawn-out struggle continuing 
>longer than the forty years of the Cold War, which could bankrupt America 
>in the same way the Soviet Union was bankrupted.
>And what is the current war? It is a culture war writ on global scale: 
>we're attempting to impose our commercial values on Islam, and many 
>Islamics want to impose their religious values on us.
>
> > They certainly are. Can you say why these times are dangerous and times
> >10, 20 or 50 years ago were less dangerous?
Just considering the Islamics, why now and not years ago?

Keith Henson



From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Sat Feb 11 02:55:29 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:55:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
 the	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <20060210235908.4735.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060210235908.4735.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <43ED5221.3090903@goldenfuture.net>

I must disagree with that attitude, Al.

A live coward is not necessarily better than a dead brave-heart, if the 
live coward has given up everything that makes his life worth living.

Or more to the point, if you roll over now, you abbrogate the right to 
complain when the Caliphate declares that life extension technology, 
performance enhancements, freedom of conscience, and everything else 
that defines Transhumanism is "offensive" and thus it becomes 
impermissable. They've already got it within the Muslim lands. Now 
they're trying to make it so everywhere.

If you don't fight now, you won't have the chance to fight later.

Joseph

Al Brooks wrote:

> You are to be commended for being brave, but i'm going to hide in a 
> hole and pull the hole in afterwards. Better a live coward than a dead 
> brave-heart.
>
>  
>
>     I don't 'take them on' unless they get in my way.
>     Nor do I censor my speech or writings on their behalf.
>     In case you do not know, I run a political party and *do* mouth
>     off about them quite a bit.
>      
>     Dirk
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/virusall/*http://communications.yahoo.com/features.php?page=221> 
> helps detect nasty viruses!
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>  
>



From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Sat Feb 11 04:38:17 2006
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:38:17 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA Planning Six More Centennial Challenges
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0602102038p5f119d27qd4547089ec905846@mail.gmail.com>

Below is a story I submitted to slashdot a couple days ago. It might be
worthwhile for members of this list to read over the rules draft, and
perhaps comment on ways the rules might be improved.

I also wonder if there are any transhumanism-related challenges which NASA
might be interested in. Perhaps they could organize competitions for things
like cryonics and nanotechnology?

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/09/0436255

NASA has <a href=
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060208_centennial_challenges.html>announced
plans</a> for six more Centennial Challenges for space-related technological
achievements. The X Prize-inspired competitions will have cash prizes of up
to $5 million. The challenges are for an orbital fuel depot, a lunar-capable
all-terrain vehicle, a pressure suit, a long-term rechargeable power system,
a micro reentry vehicle, and a maneuverable solar sail. NASA is currently
requesting feedback comments on its <a href=
http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/118924-OTHER-001-001.doc>current
draft</a> of the contest rules.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060210/10b13d82/attachment.html>

From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sat Feb 11 14:22:11 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:22:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Article: Who would not seize the chance to live
 to be 150?
In-Reply-To: <20060209172543.35172.qmail@web80729.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <54DE7E1E-7DB1-4D5E-87B0-FB1087F49632@mac.com>
	<20060209172543.35172.qmail@web80729.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060211091928.022de698@gmu.edu>

At 12:25 PM 2/9/2006, Keith M. Elis wrote:
>What evidence is there that the average human lifespan in the 
>developed world is about to suddenly increase at a rate faster than 
>we are experiencing currently?
>I ask because if I really believed this were true, I would form a 
>company to offer permanent cash value life insurance to healthy 
>applicants at steep discounts to the prevailing market premiums 
>which are based on soon-to-be-proved-incorrect actuarial tables. ...

The fact that no life insurance companies or speculators seem to be 
taking this strategy, even though there are many who could, strongly 
suggests that none of them think this scenario very likely.  Which to 
me suggests that it is in fact not very likely.


Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From jonano at gmail.com  Sat Feb 11 15:51:11 2006
From: jonano at gmail.com (Jonathan Despres)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:51:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] New Article from Dawkins Re: More positive comments
	from the Vatican - This time it's the Pope
Message-ID: <6030482a0602110751s717c9d9pa0251b9f5ad7bd73@mail.gmail.com>

You said something about Darwin, here is a nice new article from
Richard Dawkins about Darwin:

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1105/1105_feature1.html

Enjoy!

--Jonathan Despres
http://future.wikicities.com/wiki/School_of_futurology



From amara at amara.com  Sat Feb 11 17:15:36 2006
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:15:36 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
 middle ages
Message-ID: <p06230901c013cbca1266@[23.237.66.13]>

>After seeing
>  the events of this week, is anyone here not convinced we are
>  at war?
>
>  spike

First define 'we'. If = the military in action in Iraq, then yes,
they are probably convinced.

Me, no. I'm not convinced.

I guess by 'events of this week' you mean the overreaction to the
cartoons? There is a good discussion about that here:

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/09/cartoons/

Amara


From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Feb 11 18:57:53 2006
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:57:53 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Article: Who would not seize the chance to live
	to be 150?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060211091928.022de698@gmu.edu>
References: <54DE7E1E-7DB1-4D5E-87B0-FB1087F49632@mac.com>
	<20060209172543.35172.qmail@web80729.mail.yahoo.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060211091928.022de698@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0602111057t5d928659y87985d3ed4b1ed37@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/11/06, Robin Hanson wrote:
> At 12:25 PM 2/9/2006, Keith M. Elis wrote:
> >What evidence is there that the average human lifespan in the
> >developed world is about to suddenly increase at a rate faster than
> >we are experiencing currently?
> >I ask because if I really believed this were true, I would form a
> >company to offer permanent cash value life insurance to healthy
> >applicants at steep discounts to the prevailing market premiums
> >which are based on soon-to-be-proved-incorrect actuarial tables. ...
>
> The fact that no life insurance companies or speculators seem to be
> taking this strategy, even though there are many who could, strongly
> suggests that none of them think this scenario very likely.  Which to
> me suggests that it is in fact not very likely.
>

Life insurance actuaries were slow to react to the increasing average
life span. One good way to beat the system around ten years ago was to
buy an annuity. An annuity is a policy whereby you use capital to buy
a lifetime monthly income (which can have increases built in to combat
inflation). This removes excess capital (which we all have lots of, of
course) from your estate and out of the reach of inheritance / death
taxes.

Because the actuarial calculations used to be based on lower average
life spans, people buying then got a very good deal. Nowadays the
income stream generated is much less than it used to be. Another
disadvantage to be looking for a pension in future.

BillK



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 11 22:53:12 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:53:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <43ED5221.3090903@goldenfuture.net>
Message-ID: <20060211225312.72211.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>

I fought when I was young, but now I don't want to fight anymore. 
  And what gives anyone the right to want to volunteer me for hazardous duty? Would you like it if someone wanted to volunteer one of your family members for dangerous duty?: your 25 year old son isn't taking enough risks, let's encourage him to write an article insulting radical Islamics-- or better yet, encourage him to pen a cartoon. And if, say, the sports car he likes so much should be trashed in retaliation, well it is just too bad.

  I must disagree with that attitude, Al.

A live coward is not necessarily better than a dead brave-heart, if the 
live coward has given up everything that makes his life worth living.

Or more to the point, if you roll over now, you abbrogate the right to 
complain when the Caliphate declares that life extension technology, 
performance enhancements, freedom of conscience, and everything else 
that defines Transhumanism is "offensive" and thus it becomes 
impermissable. They've already got it within the Muslim lands. Now 
they're trying to make it so everywhere.

If you don't fight now, you won't have the chance to fight later.
		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060211/8511059f/attachment.html>

From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Sat Feb 11 23:23:25 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:23:25 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
 the	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <20060211225312.72211.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060211225312.72211.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <43EE71ED.1030807@goldenfuture.net>

Al Brooks wrote:

> I fought when I was young, but now I don't want to fight anymore.


If only everyone who didn't want to fight, didn't sometimes have to.

Joseph


From zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 11 22:24:26 2006
From: zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com (Keith M. Elis)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:24:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Article: Who would not seize the chance to
	liveto be 150?
Message-ID: <20060211222427.18097.qmail@web80731.mail.yahoo.com>

Robin Hanson:

>  At 12:25 PM 2/9/2006, Keith M. Elis wrote:
>> What evidence is there that the average human lifespan in the 
>> developed world is about to suddenly increase at a rate faster
>> than we are experiencing currently?
>> I ask because if I really believed this were true, I would
>> form a company to offer permanent cash value life insurance 
>> to healthy applicants at steep discounts to the prevailing
>> market premiums which are based on soon-to-be-proved-incorrect
>> actuarial tables. ...
>
> The fact that no life insurance companies or speculators seem
> to be taking this strategy, even though there are many who
> could, strongly suggests that none of them think this scenario
> very likely.  Which to me suggests that it is in fact not very
> likely.

This is basically my point.

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

Robert Bradbury:

> Also, do you have a pointer to what a 1035 exchange is?

US Tax Code, section 1035:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00001035----000-.html

Keith


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat Feb 11 23:42:30 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:42:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Article: Who would not seize the chance to live
 to be 150?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060211091928.022de698@gmu.edu>
References: <20060209172543.35172.qmail@web80729.mail.yahoo.com>
	<54DE7E1E-7DB1-4D5E-87B0-FB1087F49632@mac.com>
	<20060209172543.35172.qmail@web80729.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060211183958.04f40ac0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 09:22 AM 2/11/2006 -0500, Robin Hanson wrote:

>At 12:25 PM 2/9/2006, Keith M. Elis wrote:

> >What evidence is there that the average human lifespan in the
> >developed world is about to suddenly increase at a rate faster than
> >we are experiencing currently?
> >I ask because if I really believed this were true, I would form a
> >company to offer permanent cash value life insurance to healthy
> >applicants at steep discounts to the prevailing market premiums
> >which are based on soon-to-be-proved-incorrect actuarial tables. ...
>
>The fact that no life insurance companies or speculators seem to be
>taking this strategy, even though there are many who could, strongly
>suggests that none of them think this scenario very likely.  Which to
>me suggests that it is in fact not very likely.

Even if it was viewed as likely, and a company wanted to offer such a deal, 
chances are that insurance regulations would not permit it.

The heavy regulation of insurance companies can be traced to a long string 
of criminal acts. In fact, many of the regulations are the result of 
particular frauds resulting in a company's collapse.

Most of this happened well before any of the list members were born 
including me. About 20 years ago I got interested in the subject as an 
example of the historical acceptance rates of new ideas.

Life insurance curves were straight lines on semi log paper, but the US 
lagged the UK by about 20 years and the French lagged the UK by 60 years. 
(From memory, I might be able to find the source if anyone wants it.)

Keith Henson


>Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
>Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
>MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
>703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Feb 12 00:23:30 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:23:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
 the	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <43ED5221.3090903@goldenfuture.net>
References: <20060210235908.4735.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20060210235908.4735.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060211191956.04ef47e0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 09:55 PM 2/10/2006 -0500, Joseph wrote:
>I must disagree with that attitude, Al.
>
>A live coward is not necessarily better than a dead brave-heart, if the
>live coward has given up everything that makes his life worth living.
>
>Or more to the point, if you roll over now, you abbrogate the right to
>complain when the Caliphate declares that life extension technology,
>performance enhancements, freedom of conscience, and everything else
>that defines Transhumanism is "offensive" and thus it becomes
>impermissable. They've already got it within the Muslim lands. Now
>they're trying to make it so everywhere.
>
>If you don't fight now, you won't have the chance to fight later.
>
>Joseph

Sorry, I am booked fighting a UFO cult that thinks they have a license to kill.

But if you want I can contribute a bit about what motivates cult members 
and other memeoids.

Keith Henson



From jonano at gmail.com  Sun Feb 12 00:25:23 2006
From: jonano at gmail.com (Jonathan Despres)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:25:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] New antigravity solution will enable space travel
	near speed of light by the end of this century
Message-ID: <6030482a0602111625g60b62ac9n79d1c03f4e4d9e5b@mail.gmail.com>

What a great news! Oh la la !

I added the news on our wiki:

http://future.wikicities.com/wiki/Speed_travel

Why? Because it is a prediction and we love prediction!

Here is the news:

Felber's antigravity discovery solves the two greatest engineering
challenges to space travel near the speed of light: identifying an
energy source capable of producing the acceleration; and limiting
stresses on humans and equipment during rapid acceleration.

http://www.physorg.com/news10789.html



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 11 23:30:37 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:30:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <43EE71ED.1030807@goldenfuture.net>
Message-ID: <20060211233037.58326.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>

I'm turning fifty in a couple of months, and want to enjoy peaceful golden years of spiritual fulfillment. That's no sin, is it?

Joseph Bloch <transhumanist at goldenfuture.net> wrote:  Al Brooks wrote:

> I fought when I was young, but now I don't want to fight anymore.


If only everyone who didn't want to fight, didn't sometimes have to.

Joseph
		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060211/176e08eb/attachment.html>

From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 12 00:55:26 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:55:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060211191956.04ef47e0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <20060212005526.81085.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com>

You don't need me--you can always convince members of your own family to fight in my place, can't you?

  Joseph wrote:
>I must disagree with that attitude, Al.
>
>A live coward is not necessarily better than a dead brave-heart, if the
>live coward has given up everything that makes his life worth living.
>
>Or more to the point, if you roll over now, you abbrogate the right to
>complain when the Caliphate declares that life extension technology,
>performance enhancements, freedom of conscience, and everything else
>that defines Transhumanism is "offensive" and thus it becomes
>impermissable. They've already got it within the Muslim lands. Now
>they're trying to make it so everywhere.
>
>If you don't fight now, you won't have the chance to fight later.
>
>Joseph
		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060211/50e7d04e/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Feb 12 03:11:03 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:11:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Is libertarianism a faith position?
In-Reply-To: <1139554072.12100.31.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <43E82883.7010903@mindspring.com> <43E82883.7010903@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060211195052.0505cd40@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 10:47 PM 2/9/2006 -0800, Fred C. Moulton wrote:
>On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 21:56 -0700, Terry W. Colvin wrote:
> > by Edward Leser [edited and abridged]
>
>First just in case anyone is trying to track this down I think the name
>is Edward Feser not Edward Leser.
>
>I am all in favor of criticism, but to be useful it needs to be accurate
>and properly focused.  Feser seems to try but it was disappointing to
>me.  Unfortunately the piece by Feser has inaccuracies such as the
>statement: "... Richard Posner's book 'Sex  and Reason', which attempts
>to account for all human sexual behavior in terms of perceived costs and
>benefits."  Posner does present economic concepts in examining sexual
>behavior, marriage practices and other similar phenomena but that does
>not mean he ignores other fields.  Posner writes in his book "Despite
>the emphasis I place on economics, my study is antispecialist in its
>refusal to limits its method to that of economics.  I have drawn heavily
>on research in other fields, especially biology (to such an extent
>indeed that my approach might be described as bioeconomic rather than
>economic) but also philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology,
>women's studies, history and of course law.  There is no fundamental
>incompatibility either among the fields I have named or between them and
>economics."   I do not have reason to think that Feser was being
>malicious when he wrote the remark about Posner but if Feser was going
>to include Posner in the piece it might have been well to at least spend
>a paragraph or two on how the Law and Economics movement has contributed
>to the study of law and social sciences.  Or at the very least give a
>more accurate description of Posner's book.

Interesting.  It sounds like Posner wasn't far from applying evolutionary 
psychology.

Had he shifted his viewpoint a bit to genes he probably could have 
accounted for not only the main stream activities that look like the result 
of reasoning, but the weird corner cases that don't.  (The corner cases 
were involved in a *heck* of a lot of selection!)

Genes of course were selected to build bodies and brains/minds that were 
good at getting the genes that built them into the next generation.

Genes build brains that induce people to do things that are completely 
irrational from the individual's viewpoint but completely sensible from the 
viewpoint of genes in a person who is surrounded by a band of close 
relatives.

Once you fold in Hamilton's inclusive fitness, it makes genetic sense for a 
person to *die* if doing so improves the survival of his relatives who 
carry the same genes (most of the time his).

I might note that Heinlein understood this aspect of humans even if he 
didn't have the intellectual tools at hand to understand its origin.  But 
then, the *reason* popular writers are popular is that they have a good 
feeling for evolutionary psychology even if they never heard the word.

snip

>As I said I am all for criticism of Libertarianism, Extropianism,
>Socialism, etc but I urge that we also should expect high standards for
>extropy-chat.

I agree.

Sorry if I sound like a one note player, but evolutionary psychology, or 
evolutionary biology does seem to be a particularly powerful way to view 
otherwise mysterious human behavior.

>It may also be worth considering having a special list
>set up called extropy-politics where those who want to discuss politics
>can go.

Or take it up to a meta level.  I think arguing politics without 
considering where humans came from is like chemistry before the periodic 
table or disease before Pasteur and Koch.  So much becomes obvious (even 
the rewards of S&M) when you start thinking about what our ancestors were 
selected for back in the Stone Age.

Your exchange with Marc Geddes deserves an EP analysis with examples.  Lots 
of things are "like" cults or "like" religions on a spectrum from a bowling 
team to the old L5 Society to scientology.  I once proposed you could get a 
rough measurement on how much one meme was like a competing class by seeing 
how much having one reduced your changes of having another.

A bowling team probably has little effect on reducing the chances a person 
in it was a Methodist so in most cases a bowling team would not be 
considered a religion.  But identifying yourself a Lutheran or a Baptist 
reduces your chances of being a Methodists to near zero.  So this group 
(plus others) are in a memetic competition for an exclusive "religious meme 
receptor site."

Being a Communist probably reduced your chances of being in *any* of the 
religions so much that it should be considered either to be a religion or 
in some more inclusive class that includes religions and competes for the site.

You gotta take this with a grain or two of salt because Extropians (as a 
guess) don't identify themselves with religions very often.  The question 
is, if they were not Extropians would they be members of something 
religious or that competes with religions?  Whatever Extropianism doesn't 
seem to compete with Libertarianism or at least libertarianism.

I think a better measure of how much a person is a cult member or political 
partisan will come out of the work (recently cited here) by Drew 
Westen.  (I think the terms overlap and are mild manifestations of 
inclusive-fitness, survival-critical traits from the stone age.)

So there probably are people who have a mental reaction to all your x(s) as 
if x were a cult.  (Present parties excluded of course :-)  )

I can recount a bizarre historical event about how two groups of 
Libertarians reacted emotionally to an article of mine on memetics.  It was 
a mystery until I ran into Dr. Westen's work a few weeks ago and ran his 
work through an evolutionary psychology model.

It is a long story and analysis so ask if you want to see it.

Give my best to our mutual friends in Silicon Valley

Keith Henson
(From his hideout in the Mortmain Mountains)




From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Feb 12 03:42:18 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:42:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return
 tothemiddle ages
In-Reply-To: <E8489A68-ACC6-407C-B371-8861AFBFF93A@ceruleansystems.com>
References: <200602100750.k1A7onEu014331@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<200602100750.k1A7onEu014331@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060211222432.04e10b80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 12:53 AM 2/10/2006 -0800, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

>On Feb 9, 2006, at 11:50 PM, spike wrote:
> > This situation is far too serious to even notice
> > the neener-neener factor, ja.  What concerns me
> > is that Europe Incorporated will suddenly realize
> > the folly of allowing its military force to become
> > as weak as it appears to be.
>
>
>This problem is not at the level of military conflict.  Whatever the
>US military has gotten itself into, it can easily handle, unrealistic
>expectations notwithstanding.  The only real question is whether or
>not people have learned the lesson of history that the appeasement of
>evil, particularly when it is vulnerable, almost never pays off in
>the long term.
>
>With respect to European militaries specifically, they can deliver a
>significant sting in their own territories but lack the ability to
>project (given their tribal history, many have argued that this is a
>good thing).  If European countries ever decided to alter the
>landscape of their own countries they are quite capable of it, as
>history shows.  Europe has always managed to find its brass when it
>mattered on many, many occasions.  The current culture probably does
>not care too much about their historical battles to the death with
>Islam but they have a long history of dealing with such threats (c.f.
>Jan Sobieski).  Militant Islam has to be very careful about pushing
>the backs of the Europeans against the wall if they want to prevail;
>any parity in military capability that existed in the Middle Ages has
>long since passed, and Europeans can be famously ruthless and brutish
>when it comes to the survival of their tribes.  Push come to shove, I
>know who I'll put my money on.

Agree.

>The degradation problem with the European militaries, in short, is
>Pax Americana.  To shore up their sagging economies, they have
>drastically cut military expenditures and redirected funds to
>underfunded social entitlements.  It is educational to put a
>historical context to it.  The long term historical military
>maintenance expenditure during times of non-conflict has been around
>4% of GDP, plus or minus a bit.  Europeans and many other "safe"
>countries are now spending far less than that, particularly in the
>last 15 years since the fall of the Soviet Union and as the European
>economies have started to stagnate.
>
>It would probably surprise most people to know that the US averaged
>something like 7% of GDP on military expenditures during the 20th
>century -- that is how the US bought its advantage in military
>technology, particularly after getting caught with its pants down
>(again) in the second world war.  Current US military expenditures
>are far less, and are at peace time levels by any historical
>standard.  The US is cashing in on the dividend of technological
>advances paid for in the 20th century.  To put a different spin on
>it, the US could double its military expenditures and still be in its
>historical range of "normal" for the US; those who think the US
>military capability is stretched are lacking historical context.
>
>Militant Islam is counting on the modern West not fighting back.
>They are not stupid; they know that their success depends on never
>having to face the war-fighting capability of the Europeans and their
>diaspora.  I would add that this will never be a problem for the
>western hemisphere in the way that it will be for the eastern
>hemisphere.  Islam cannot hoof its way into the western hemisphere,
>nor does it have meaningful foothold here; it is a much harder
>target.  The only dog the US really has in this fight is the impact
>on the world economy if it does not use its military prowess and
>geopolitical power to rein in the threat.  The threat to Europe and
>European politics is far more dire, as is in evidence.  The ball is
>really in the court of the EU.  If Europe takes a strong stand
>against militant Islam it is game over for the jihadis; what remains
>to be seen is if that will actually happen, and the jihadis are
>obviously counting against it.
>
>By my own estimation, the jihadis played their cards too early in
>Europe if they wanted a good shot at success.  Perhaps 10-20 years
>too early.  Europe can control this situation, if they want to.

You are assuming rational thinking prevailing.  I don't think it will.

My argument is that the mechanisms that are turned on by working up to war 
depress the ability to think rationally.

20 page paper if you ask for it.

Keith Henson



From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Sun Feb 12 03:39:38 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:39:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
 the	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060211191956.04ef47e0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <20060210235908.4735.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>	<20060210235908.4735.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060211191956.04ef47e0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <43EEADFA.6090709@goldenfuture.net>

Keith Henson wrote:

>But if you want I can contribute a bit about what motivates cult members 
>and other memeoids.
>
> Sorry, I am booked fighting a UFO cult that thinks they have a license 
> to kill.



I simply must know more about that UFO cult. And any contributions about 
such motivations would be welcome.

Joseph


From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Sun Feb 12 03:42:58 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:42:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
 the	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <20060212005526.81085.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060212005526.81085.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <43EEAEC2.3070002@goldenfuture.net>

Al Brooks wrote:

> You don't need me--you can always convince members of your own family 
> to fight in my place, can't you?


I'm afraid my daughter is a little young (4). I, on the other hand, 
already served during Desert Storm, and am just a tad too old to 
re-enlist. I did consider it, though.

There are other ways of fighting than donning a uniform, however. One 
can fight in the memetic war, support organizations that overtly work 
against the Islamofascist threat, etc. The United American Committee 
(http://www.unitedamericancommittee.org) might be a good place to start.

Joseph


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Feb 11 23:51:26 2006
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:51:26 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
References: <p06230901c013cbca1266@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <001701c62f66$12928640$1283e03c@homepc>

Amara Graps wrote:

> >After seeing
>>  the events of this week, is anyone here not convinced we are
>>  at war?
>>
>>  spike
> 
> First define 'we'. 

I'm with Amara.   I'd like to see Spike define "we".

US extropes with libertarian sympathies (people whom
I personally generally like) do tend, in my view, to have
very parochial notions of the word we. 

When I think about we, in terms of extropes of the world,
(I don't give much of a damn for mere extropes of the USA
only) then I think yes we should and ought be on guard to
prevent a return to the middle ages, not because returning
to the middle ages is even remotely possible at all, but 
because heading civilization into a backward direction is
definately possible.

Also establishing neo-totalitarian regimes is *definately*
possible and has never been a greater threat. 

So, I'd really like to see *anyone* that ever posts to the
ExI chat list and is a US residing libertarian be very clear
about who they are including and excluding when ever
they use the word "we".  

In my considered opinion, the absolute highest extropian
principle must be open society underpinned by the rule
of law - and that means global law. That means developing
the law. Refining the law and upholding the law. Law with
checks and balances and with no one excluded from its
protection or excluded from the obligation to uphold the
law whilst residing on planet earth.  

Brett Paatsch



From mehranraeli at comcast.net  Sun Feb 12 04:02:10 2006
From: mehranraeli at comcast.net (Mehran)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:02:10 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <mailman.291.1139576057.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <000401c62f89$1fa32b50$799f6041@DBX6XT21>


Dear Samantha,

Slow down a little my friend, let's walk together.  I am afraid you need to
go back and start reading again from beginning with no pre-judgement, no
bias. I have to say it as it seems right to me.  Your impatience suggests to
me that not only you need to read the whole book again slowly , but you need
to read the other 5 books by Rael as well ( all free downloads) to get just
a first impression of what this is all about.  I have read  it more than 10
times, thought about it and talked about it for 15 years and my
understanding of this incredible revelation is still expanding and I am
becoming ever more awestruck.  Nothing makes more sense... 

What do you expect my friend, you are right in front of a paradigm shift,
more profound than the flat-earth disruption at the galileo's time.  Did you
expect the scientifically advanced extraterrestrial Elohim 25000 years ahead
of us come down and say your Charles Darwin got it all right!?  Well he did
not no matter how big a following he has gathered.  He proposed a theory of
evolution not even seeing the possibility of an extraterrestrial origin for
life.  

There was an evolution in the emergence of life on the earth but the
evolution was in the minds of the Elohim's scientists as described in the
book. They first created simple unicellualr organisms using genetic
engineering and then gradually created more complex animals and planst and
finally created the first human beings Adam and Eve in their own image as
described in the religious texts.  They created seven races on earth and
that is why this message is so consistent with the semi-mythical creation
stories in many cultures from far East, India, Africa, South Americans,
Eskimos and Native Americans all describing creator gods coming from sky
bringing guides (the Prophets) and wisdom.  These disparate cultures had no
contact with each other yet they all describe similar creation events in
their past...    

As you can verify an email message from your mom, once you fully know the
Elohim's message you can also try to verify it to see if it can genuinely be
from an advanced human civilization who claim to have created us. There is
an infinity of galaxies and star systems out there.  Life is not just on
this planet.

Keep reading with an open mind you will discover wonders...


LOVE
Mehran
www.rael.org


Message: 13
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:18:38 -0800
From: Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
	the	middle ages
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <99FC74D2-44FF-4DE0-84F1-E3F52BA41D09 at mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed


On Feb 9, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Mehran wrote:

>
> So basically almost noone has any intelligent comment on the  
> content of
> RAEL's text about the dangers we may be facing instead some just  
> want to see
> a UFO!

I got about as far in the first book as the purported aliens  
effectively denying evolution before I gave up.   That and their  
treating the Bible as somehow special did my interest in.

>
> Yes, there is proof for what RAEL brings, there is in fact  
> incontestable
> proof.  I challenge any of you to dispute the proof in a reasonable  
> rational
> way.  I have successfully defended this proof many times.  I  
> consider myself
> intellectually honest... therefore my adherence to RAEL's message  
> for this
> long.   If this discussion is not allowed on this list, fine, we do it
> offline.  Here is the proof:
>
> When you get an email message from your mother from an email  
> address unknow
> to you saying that I am at your uncle's and your dad is very ill we  
> need you
> to come asap.  For this message to be authentic to you, all its  
> statements
> must be in agreement with what you know, ie. have a Mom, have a  
> Dad, have an
> uncle, etc...  But maybe you have no idea Dad was sick... maybe he  
> was in
> perfect health 2 days ago when you spoke to him, so you have a little
> suspicion and you decide to verify the info before booking your  
> flight.
>

That is your "proof"  or is this an analogy?  What is there to  
"disprove" in that and what does it have to do with Rael?

> RAEL brings a message from a scientifically advance civilization.  The
> message speaks for itself.  You can examine it for yourself and see  
> if it
> fits the claim, is there any holes in it?

evolution.

> raises any suspicion!?

yes, no proof of extreme statements.

> Does it
> have any information that sounds like from an advance civilization?

No.  Not one word of advanced technology or science.

> Can a
> 27 year old make it all up!?

Why not?  I could.   If I was delusional besides being bright I would  
do even better.

>   do a little investigation.  then you reach a
> final conclusion one way or the other.

I did.

> The Message of the Elohim is the
> proof for the Elohim's existence, for their claims and for the fact  
> that
> they are our scientific creators and that they were the ones who  
> sent the
> Prophets.

I hope you know that mere grandiose claims are no proof at all.
>
>
> Science is their religion and they want us to understand them  
> rationally and
> intelligently.

Good.  They can start by presenting something, anything, beyond human  
science.

> Now do you still want a ufo instead of an intelligent
> message!?

An intelligent message would be nice.  Rael's books don't present one.

>   A ufo can appear and disappear but an intelligent message stays
> with you for as long as you choose.
>
> The message is a free download here: www.rael.org    Just one rule,  
> you have
> to read it before you dispute it.

It is too full of endless assertion without proof and contradictions  
of known facts to be worth reading in full.

>
> LOVE
> Mehran
> www.rael.org
>

If you are so full of LOVE then give the people something more than  
self-assured assertions.  Otherwise your LOVE is empty noise.

- samantha






From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Feb 12 04:47:40 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:47:40 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves from droning stupidity
In-Reply-To: <000401c62f89$1fa32b50$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
References: <mailman.291.1139576057.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<000401c62f89$1fa32b50$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060211224523.01e5af08@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 11:02 PM 2/11/2006 -0500, some nitwit or scammer wrote:

>They created seven races on earth and
>that is why this message is so consistent with the semi-mythical creation
>stories in many cultures from far East, India, Africa, South Americans,
>Eskimos and Native Americans all describing creator gods coming from sky
>bringing guides (the Prophets) and wisdom.  These disparate cultures had no
>contact with each other yet they all describe similar creation events in
>their past...

What the hell is this childish idiocy doing on the extropy list, of all 
places on the planet?

Please go away.




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Feb 12 05:14:51 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:14:51 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] hard to believe, I know, but...
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060211231106.01e5b050@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

...Australians can be idiots too!

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-creation11feb11,0,1477689,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

(wealthy idiots, at that, so maybe not so stupid)

<A former high-school biology teacher, Ham travels the [USA] training 
children as young as 5 to challenge science orthodoxy... Answers in Genesis 
is the biggest of these ministries. Ham co-founded the nonprofit in his 
native Australia in 1979. The U.S. branch, funded mostly by donations, has 
an annual budget of $15 million and 160 employees who produce books and 
DVDs, maintain a comprehensive website, and arrange more than 500 speeches 
a year for Ham and four other full-time evangelists.

With pulpit-thumping passion, Ham insists the Bible be taken literally: God 
created the universe and all its creatures in six 24-hour days, roughly 
6,000 years ago.

Hundreds of pastors will preach a different message Sunday, in honor of 
Charles Darwin's 197th birthday. In a national campaign, they will tell 
congregations that it's possible to be a Christian and accept evolution.

Ham considers that treason. When pastors dismiss the creation account as a 
fable, he says, they give their flock license to disregard the Bible's 
moral teachings as well. He shows his audiences a graphic that places the 
theory of evolution at the root of all social ills: abortion, divorce, 
racism, gay marriage, store clerks who say "Happy Holidays" instead of 
"Merry Christmas.">



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Feb 12 04:40:32 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:40:32 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
 middle ages
In-Reply-To: <001701c62f66$12928640$1283e03c@homepc>
References: <p06230901c013cbca1266@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060211233106.05020350@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 10:51 AM 2/12/2006 +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote:

>In my considered opinion, the absolute highest extropian
>principle must be open society underpinned by the rule
>of law - and that means global law. That means developing
>the law. Refining the law and upholding the law. Law with
>checks and balances and with no one excluded from its
>protection or excluded from the obligation to uphold the
>law whilst residing on planet earth.

While I agree with the sentiments, let me point out two problems.

Law requires rationality.

In the memetic ecosystem on the run up to war, rationality is darn near 
shut off.  This has to do with the way populations were controlled by wars 
in the stone age.  I mean going out to try to kill all the males in the 
next tribe with rocks is about a 50/50 risk of getting killed yourself.

That's *not* rational from you own view even if you genes have built you to 
find it is a good idea (because your death may allow others with your genes 
to live on instead of dying).

Second is a personal thing about corrupted legal systems to enforce 
laws.  I am a fugitive from a cult that enlisted the DA and the courts.  I 
can go into more detail if you want, but law has a long way to go before I 
will trust it.

Keith Henson




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Feb 12 05:24:08 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 21:24:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [REQUEST FOR MODERATION] Protect ourselves to
	prevent a return to the middle ages
In-Reply-To: <000401c62f89$1fa32b50$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <20060212052408.95782.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

This discussion is irredemably off-topic for the Extropians
list, and does damage to ExI merely by occurring on the list.
I would ask that this be taken off-list immediately (no problem
with you having the discussion, just *not here* please), and if
it is not, that those perpetuating this discussion be
temporarily banned in order to forcibly remove the discussion
from this list.

It is not that the discussion is necessarily bad in and of
itself.  Just that it so far away from what this list is for,
and that it is happening in the wrong place.

--- Mehran <mehranraeli at comcast.net> wrote:
> Did you
> expect the scientifically advanced extraterrestrial Elohim 25000
> years ahead
> of us come down and say your Charles Darwin got it all right!?  Well
> he did
> not no matter how big a following he has gathered.  He proposed a
> theory of
> evolution not even seeing the possibility of an extraterrestrial
> origin for
> life.


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Feb 12 07:06:44 2006
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:06:44 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
References: <p06230901c013cbca1266@[23.237.66.13]>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060211233106.05020350@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <00a701c62fa2$e21d0d40$1283e03c@homepc>

Keith Henson wrote:

> At 10:51 AM 2/12/2006 +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
>>In my considered opinion, the absolute highest extropian
>>principle must be open society underpinned by the rule
>>of law - and that means global law. That means developing
>>the law. Refining the law and upholding the law. Law with
>>checks and balances and with no one excluded from its
>>protection or excluded from the obligation to uphold the
>>law whilst residing on planet earth.
>
> While I agree with the sentiments, let me point out two problems.
>
> Law requires rationality.

Yes, it does in that unreasonable creatures could not produce
law. But it does not require that everyone be rational all the time,
rather good law (which should always be as few as practicable
and open for consideration of being removed) requires only
that (in democracies say) most of the people can be rational
on some very important things some very small amount of the
time. Then, and only then, can a few more than average rational
types keep the whole global system working as a system for
maximum potential freedom.  A good legal superstructure
which guaranteed a right not to be murdered anywhere
without the murderer being punished would be a law that
would make sense to almost everyone almost everywhere
almost all of the time. The problem is getting such a law into
place in the first place. Civilization arises in some places
first.

 > In the memetic ecosystem on the run up to war, rationality
> is darn near  shut off.  [*] This has to do with the way populations
> were controlled by wars  in the stone age.  I mean going out
> to try to kill all the males in the next tribe with rocks is about
>  a 50/50 risk of getting killed yourself.

[*] Begs the question "shut off" how?  Or what is it that is shut
off?  Surely not reasoning by eveyone entirely all of the relevant
time. Some are inciting the war and they may be doing so for
rational short term purposes.

> That's *not* rational from you own view even if you genes
> have built you to find it is a good idea (because your death
> may allow others with your genes to live on instead of dying).

Genes, no single gene, could find war to be a good idea. Single
genes can't produce phenomena so complex as ideas about
'war'. To go to 'war' in groups, intentionally one must have a
word for 'war' which requires language. Once one has language
one is into memes not genes. One is into social creatures with
social cultures.

> Second is a personal thing about corrupted legal systems to enforce
> laws.  I am a fugitive from a cult that enlisted the DA and the courts.  I
> can go into more detail if you want, but law has a long way to go before I
> will trust it.

Your objection is a reasonable one from your standpoint. So are
many of the objections against particular laws from many libertarian
standpoints. In my life I have personally been adversely affected
by numerous stupid laws enacted carte blanche fashion aimed at
preventing other problems not aimed at impeding my freedoms at
all.

It is also reasonable for the likes of Henry Thoreau I think from
memory to advocate civil disobedience which sometimes can
involve breaking minor laws as part of a campaign to bring attention
to problems with major laws.

i.e. Its permissible (perhaps ?) to jay walk across a city street in
a crowd of protesters that are protesting an imminent decision to
execute someone that the courts have ordered erroneously be
killed.

The *hierarchy* of law has to be gotten right. No one can ever
*rationally* been expected to uphold law or feel duty bound to
respect law that places them in an outlaw category through no
fault of their own.

The problem I have with laws as they currently exist is that some
are above the law and some are outside the law. It is impossible
to order civilizations without law with things like humans being the
agents in those societies so I see global government as inevitable
and opposition to global government (in principle not practice)
as a bit childish or in self-serving (I'm alright Jack, I'm a US
citizen or an Aussie or a Brit and my arse is covered so lets
go screw the others who don't enjoy the protections of law.

An Australian example might be the Australian Wheat Board
undermining the UN Iraqi Oil-for-food arrangements by paying
Saddam's regime a kickback.  )

Brett Paatsch







From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Feb 12 06:09:02 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:09:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <001701c62f66$12928640$1283e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <20060212060902.6818.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> So, I'd really like to see *anyone* that ever posts to the
> ExI chat list and is a US residing libertarian be very clear
> about who they are including and excluding when ever
> they use the word "we".  

We are, for the purposes of humor and of proving your point,
using the royal "we" for the duration of this particular
post.

We are not technically "at war" with anyone, in the usual
sense.  We are, however, fighting our fights in technical
realms beyond what most religious zealots, neo-luddites, and
similar types are even considering.  We are, in short,
attempting to bring about certain technologies before the
would-be opposition has much chance to comprehend and oppose
them.

We do not expect to invoke the Singularity on our own, but it is
our hope that by making real at least a substantial portion of
its requirements, those who stand themselves in opposition to
human progress merely because it upsets the old ways and/or
their personal power bases (which does not, by the way, include
those who can point to concrete potential harm upon humanity to
justify their opposition, such as those who do not wish nuclear
weapons to destroy or help destroy a major fraction of humanity0
will be rendered irrelevant, their hypocracy made so readily
apparent that very few if any people will believe their words.

In short, we have better and more urgent things to do than fight
the latest batch of religious extremists.  Besides, others are
already fighting said extremists so that we can proceed with our
work - and if you ask said fighters, phrasing it so they
understand, they would most likely agree with our assessment.


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Feb 12 07:40:19 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:40:19 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons
In-Reply-To: <p06230901c013cbca1266@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <200602120803.k1C83O90004236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps
> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 9:16 AM
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
> middle ages
> 
> >After seeing
> >  the events of this week, is anyone here not convinced we are
> >  at war?
> >
> >  spike
> 
> First define 'we'...

We = humanity.

> If = the military in action in Iraq, then yes,
> they are probably convinced...

I was not referring to military action in Iraq but rather
a much more generalized struggle that involves the middle
east and Europe.  The Iraq situation seems to be winding
down just as the cartoon jihad is winding up.

> 
> Me, no. I'm not convinced.
> 
> I guess by 'events of this week' you mean the overreaction to the
> cartoons? There is a good discussion about that here:
> 
> http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/09/cartoons/
> 
> Amara

Thanks Amara, this is a good and informative site.

For the sake of argument, let us make a thought space
map.  Form four quadrants by asking oneself two questions:

A.  Were the Danish newspapers right to publish the cartoons?
B.  Were the protesters right to react as they have?


Position 1: no, no.  This is the peacemaker position, Bush,
Blair, some other world leaders are going this route.

Position 2: no, yes.  Presumably the protesters point of
view.

Position 3: yes, no.  Most journalists will go here, along
with many westerners who are not 1s.

Position 4:  Yes, yes.  If both were right, the proponents
of this view must acknowledge that this will lead to conflict
which could tear apart societies and possibly lead to world
war 4.

I recognize there are plenty of ways to complicate the
question, but let us start with this simplified thought
space map.  Can we make any generalizations?  Note that
I am not asking about legality: the Danish government does 
not control the press, so from a government point of view 
the cartoons were legal whereas the protests, at least the
violent ones, were not.  

I am asking from the moral and ethical point of view,
which quadrant would one put oneself, and why?  What
do you see as the long term consequences of your quadrant,
and what of the other three.  Handle this topic with
care please.

I will offer my own reasoning on this, but I want 
to see others' thoughts.

spike








From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Feb 12 08:56:41 2006
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:56:41 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons
In-Reply-To: <200602120803.k1C83O90004236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <p06230901c013cbca1266@23.237.66.13>
	<200602120803.k1C83O90004236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0602120056i7ba1f2c2q8723c7062a239f19@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/12/06, spike wrote:
> For the sake of argument, let us make a thought space
> map.  Form four quadrants by asking oneself two questions:
>
> A.  Were the Danish newspapers right to publish the cartoons?
> B.  Were the protesters right to react as they have?
>
>
> Position 1: no, no.  This is the peacemaker position, Bush,
> Blair, some other world leaders are going this route.
>
> Position 2: no, yes.  Presumably the protesters point of
> view.
>
> Position 3: yes, no.  Most journalists will go here, along
> with many westerners who are not 1s.
>
> Position 4:  Yes, yes.  If both were right, the proponents
> of this view must acknowledge that this will lead to conflict
> which could tear apart societies and possibly lead to world
> war 4.
>


Were the protesters right to react as they have?

Bear in mind that western supporters of this POV are not the same as
the Muslims who support this POV.

The Muslim protesters are not generally claiming that it is wrong to
make cartoons about a religion. They are specifically saying that
cartoons must not be made about the Muslim religion. They retain the
right themselves to publish cartoons about, say, the Jewish religion.
As an inspection of the Muslim Press shows.

To support this POV is to support a very specific religious prejudice.

BillK



From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Sun Feb 12 09:00:24 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 04:00:24 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons
In-Reply-To: <200602120803.k1C83O90004236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <p06230901c013cbca1266@23.237.66.13>
	<200602120803.k1C83O90004236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602120100x7314db95wae29f29088ae3514@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/12/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> I am asking from the moral and ethical point of view,
> which quadrant would one put oneself, and why?  What
> do you see as the long term consequences of your quadrant,
> and what of the other three.  Handle this topic with
> care please.


I would have to go with (3) yes, no.  Not however from the freedom of speech
standpoint that most journalists and many westerners might adopt.  Instead I
would base the argument that if the Muslims (and most Christians) continue
to follow a set of beliefs involving the predominant "life after death"
concept then they will ultimately end up dead.  Allowing a person to die
when one has the knowledge which might save them (i.e. the knowledge
available to most people on this list) is presumably immoral and unethical.
The moral/ethical (and extropic) arguments would dictate that continuing to
allow people to worship "false gods" when one knows that better belief
systems available is wrong.

If people are fully informed and they choose to follow some set of beliefs
to their death that is fine -- so long as they allow others to follow
different sets of beliefs.  If however people are not fully informed then it
seems to be an avoidance of ones moral/ethical duty to allow that situation
to continue.  Humor or irony is one form of expression which can be used to
point out inconsistent meme sets.

As far as I can tell both the Christian and Muslim religions are problematic
when it comes down to the question of how one deals with "infidels".  The
dictionary definition of "infidel" as "not holding the faith" and "faith" is
defined as believing in what another declares or utters.  So it seems to
come down to the issue that if one does not believe what someone else says
one is an infidel and should be dealt with accordingly.  Both Christianity
and Islam are based upon what individual(s) declared and or wrote down more
than a  thousand years ago.  The failure to update their fundamental
foundations in light of the development of science and the expansion of
knowledge over the last few hundred years is the source of the problems we
are now facing.

I believe one can only argue the (1) no, no point of view if you can make
the case that not confronting the Christian/Islamic swamp (i.e. letting
hundreds of millions, probably billions, of people die) will ultimately save
more lives.  Given the small numbers of people involved in transhumanism,
signed up for cryonics, etc. making that argument would IMO be difficult.
Whether cartoons can accomplish this or whether one needs a better strategy,
e.g. transhuman/extropic "missionaries" is an open to debate.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060212/b0468e32/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Sun Feb 12 09:58:00 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 04:58:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] New antigravity solution will enable space
	travel near speed of light by the end of this century
In-Reply-To: <6030482a0602111625g60b62ac9n79d1c03f4e4d9e5b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6030482a0602111625g60b62ac9n79d1c03f4e4d9e5b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602120158h11be217ek43b1ca287060c4d6@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/11/06, Jonathan Despres <jonano at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What a great news! Oh la la !


No its not...

Felber's antigravity discovery solves the two greatest engineering
> challenges to space travel near the speed of light: identifying an
> energy source capable of producing the acceleration; and limiting
> stresses on humans and equipment during rapid acceleration.
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news10789.html


The relevant papers in ArXiv are:
gr-qc/0505099<http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505099>and
gr-qc/0505098 <http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505098>

[Disclaimer: most of the math in the papers is beyond my capabilities.]

However, it appears that even in the physorg article they point out that you
have to have the mass performing the acceleration going at 57.7% (the 3^-1/2
number in the abstracts) of the speed of light to get the repulsive
acceleration.  The mass being accelerated also has to be in a relatively
narrow acceleration cone in front of the mass performing the acceleration
(think of it as surfing on a wave).

Now, yes, in particle accelerators we probably have particles going at
57.7%the speed of light and the theory could be tested in them.  But
nowhere do I
see anything addressing how to get a relatively large mass up to 57.7% the
speed of light and I presume that a proton or electron beam hardly has the
mass sufficient to generate a field which could accelerate something like a
human body (or even a small (few kg) interstellar probe).

So as far as I can tell its a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing from
a practical standpoint.  The news releases on this seem to contain a large
component of hype and relatively little understanding of the physics.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060212/52cb81b3/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Feb 12 07:51:45 2006
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:51:45 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
	themiddle ages
References: <20060212060902.6818.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00c701c62fa9$2bc16170$1283e03c@homepc>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Tymes" <wingcat at pacbell.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to 
themiddle ages


> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> So, I'd really like to see *anyone* that ever posts to the
>> ExI chat list and is a US residing libertarian be very clear
>> about who they are including and excluding when ever
>> they use the word "we".
>
> We are, for the purposes of humor and of proving your point,
> using the royal "we" for the duration of this particular
> post.

Its just as I feared. This King George business has really gotten
out of control. Citizens of a proud republic conceeding not just
their freedoms but the freedoms of any offspring and successors
they may have.

> We are not technically "at war" with anyone, in the usual
> sense.  We are, however, fighting our fights in technical
> realms beyond what most religious zealots, neo-luddites, and
> similar types are even considering.  We are, in short,
> attempting to bring about certain technologies before the
> would-be opposition has much chance to comprehend and
>oppose them.

Too late. Every sci fi shock meister worth a damn can knock
out a good scare-em jarn involving grey goo and the perils
of this-or-that-other-tech being given free reign. Michael
Crighton can produce money from future speculations that
sound semi plausible faster by scaring and entertaining that
just about anyone else can produce money by actually
realising anything.

And more seriously, the US national government reserves
the right to sequester what ever you do anywhere provided
that it is in the "national interest" as perceived by whoever
happens to be the arbiter of the "national interest" in a state
where a President is not accountable to Congress.

> We do not expect to invoke the Singularity on our own, but it is
> our hope that by making real at least a substantial portion of
> its requirements, those who stand themselves in opposition to
> human progress merely because it upsets the old ways and/or
> their personal power bases (which does not, by the way, include
> those who can point to concrete potential harm upon humanity to
> justify their opposition, such as those who do not wish nuclear
> weapons to destroy or help destroy a major fraction of humanity0
> will be rendered irrelevant, their hypocracy made so readily
> apparent that very few if any people will believe their words.

Alas, its poor naivety that makes you speak thus.

Whilst in the world, how do you realistically expect to pull off
an end run around the worlds largest government that wants
to make sure noone has a weapon dangerous to its interests?

This is the big  question for the folks that like to treat politics
as something best ignored. How do you imagine that the
politicians can possibly ignore threats and opportunities to
sequester what *you* do?

> In short, we have better and more urgent things to do than fight
> the latest batch of religious extremists.

Technology progress is easy in comparison with getting the law and
politics stuff right and technological advances with the law and politics
stuff wrong simply entrenches those with power into place before they
have the skills to exercise that power wisely, and before there are the
means to keep that power under a system of appropriate cross checks.

In the world as it is currently configured noone alive today will live
to 150. The engineering that needs to be done can't be done in the
world as is, with the political legal situation as it is, but perhaps it 
might
be different if the legal political situation was different.

>  Besides, others are already fighting said extremists so that we
> can proceed with our work - and if you ask said fighters, phrasing
> it so they understand, they would most likely agree with our
> assessment.

But would said fighters recognize that they may be fighting for
another said extremist. Fighting yes, but fighting in the valleys
with the moral high ground left unoccupied by either side.

Fighting to create liberty elsewhere whilst losing it at home.

Brett Paatsch 




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Feb 12 07:55:08 2006
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:55:08 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The existential threat of international law
References: <8d71341e0512230820l5117aee2v9bf7c54a6bb8eaf8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00d601c62fa9$a4f9f160$1283e03c@homepc>

Russell Wallace wrote:

> Oppose international law, the United Nations and anything that
> reduces world political disunity.

I don't doubt your sincerity here, nor that your views are likely to
be shared by some other posters, but I do wonder if, or how, you
or anyone else would reconcile such a stance with any philosophy
of extropy. [I took another look at the principles of extropy around
the open society section]. 

I wonder what theory of the origin and purpose of law in society,
if any, you could currently hold. 

Your above statement doesn't seem to be a statement that could
be made by someone that had considered the notion of the social 
contract.  Come to think of it I'm not sure I picked up my 
understanding from the original inventers of the social contract
writers either. 

Were I to undertake to try to persuade you that international law is
not only good, but that were it not to exist that its creation would
be the highest extropic imperative, I would probably do so from 
principles of contract law. 


Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060212/33fce827/attachment.html>

From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com  Sun Feb 12 10:44:22 2006
From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:44:22 +0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons
References: <200602120803.k1C83O90004236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <001301c62fc1$4b1838b0$17800d0a@JPAcer>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: spike 
For the sake of argument, let us make a thought space
map.  Form four quadrants by asking oneself two questions:

A.  Were the Danish newspapers right to publish the cartoons?
B.  Were the protesters right to react as they have?

Position 1: no, no.  This is the peacemaker position, Bush,
Blair, some other world leaders are going this route.

*****This seems to me to be the position of expediency and moral cowardice - not peacemaking. Appeasement is never a very permanent solution. At best this position is a kowtow to fundamentalist views and an admission that threats of violence justify censorship.

Position 2: no, yes.  Presumably the protesters point of
view.

******This position denies free speech and attempts to impose censorship (self-censorship) with threats of heavy retribution for non-compliance. Only acceptable to those who favor dictatorships I think.

Position 3: yes, no.  Most journalists will go here, along
with many westerners who are not 1s.

******Most westerners will/should be here I think, however this position should be tempered by the knowledge that tolerance (free speech) needs to be balanced with respect (sensitivity to the feelings of others). Medieval jesters were permitted to mock the royal personage and burlesque the accepted rules of court - so long as they were witty, satirical, admirable, laughable, wry, and amusing. But they walked a tightrope - gratuitously offensive jesters could face the dungeons - or worse... 
In this respect it would perhaps be better to regard free speech as a privilege - something hard-won and not to be senselessly frittered away on trivial indulgence.


Position 4:  Yes, yes.  If both were right, the proponents
of this view must acknowledge that this will lead to conflict
which could tear apart societies and possibly lead to world
war 4.

******I can't imagine many would subscribe to this viewpoint. However those that do - would be agreeing in essence that might is right. This would be an admission that the threat of possible violence is a major determinant of our behavior. This position is not only an abdication of rationality, it also denies the rule of law. However, I can't deny the pervasive influence of this mindset...  This is fundamentalism at its most fundamental...

I recognize there are plenty of ways to complicate the
question, but let us start with this simplified thought
space map.  Can we make any generalizations?  Note that
I am not asking about legality: the Danish government does 
not control the press, so from a government point of view 
the cartoons were legal whereas the protests, at least the
violent ones, were not.  
I am asking from the moral and ethical point of view,
which quadrant would one put oneself, and why?  What
do you see as the long term consequences of your quadrant,
and what of the other three.  Handle this topic with
care please.
I will offer my own reasoning on this, but I want 
to see others' thoughts.
spike

******The whole sorry saga is an exercise in reactionary politics - and in cold-blooded manipulation of opinion. When you stop to consider the mind-boggling extent to which Moslems around the globe have been galvanized to ill-considered action by influential fundamentalists - a worthwhile question to ask may be - 'To what extent are WE also manipulated by fundamentalist opinion?' 
Jack Parkinson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060212/710e71eb/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Feb 12 07:25:39 2006
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:25:39 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Whats Raels position on the first cell ? was Re:
	Protect etc
References: <000401c62f89$1fa32b50$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <00b701c62fa5$860ee430$1283e03c@homepc>

Mehran wrote:

>.. Your impatience suggests to
> me that not only you need to read the whole book again slowly , but you 
> need
> to read the other 5 books by Rael as well ( all free downloads) to get 
> just
> a first impression of what this is all about.  I have read  it more than 
> 10
> times, thought about it and talked about it for 15 years and my
> understanding of this incredible revelation is still expanding and I am
> becoming ever more awestruck.  Nothing makes more sense...

[snip]

> There was an evolution in the emergence of life on the earth but the
> evolution was in the minds of the Elohim's scientists as described in the
> book. They first created simple unicellular organisms using genetic
> engineering and then gradually created more complex animals and planst and
> finally created the first human beings Adam and Eve in their own image as
> described in the religious texts.  They created seven races on earth and
> that is why this message is so consistent with the semi-mythical creation
> stories in many cultures from far East, India, Africa, South Americans,
> Eskimos and Native Americans all describing creator gods coming from sky
> bringing guides (the Prophets) and wisdom.  These disparate cultures had 
> no
> contact with each other yet they all describe similar creation events in
> their past...

As someone that's been studying a bit of biochem lately perhaps you might
be able to help me out with some insights from reading the books of
Rael. .

If the Elohim were alive, composed of RNA/DNA/proteins etc,
from where did *they* originate ?

You see as a poor Earth bound science student I'm particularly interested
in how the first cell that was to be the precursor to multicelled organisms
managed to form against a backdrop of what we earth scientists and
science students consider to be the laws of thermodynamics.

I'm not real happy with partial explanation that have been offered by
folk like Paul Davies, I think, from memory, that argue that gravity and
information need to be taken into account in just the right way to
counterbalance the laws of thermodynamics.

It would be real neighbourly if you, on the basis of you reading of Rael
could clear up that little quandary about the origins of the first cell up 
for
me. That is the first cell including the universe in which the Elohim live,
so that if the Elohim are made of cells and are older than us, its that
cell I'm interested in.


Brett Paatsch


 




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Feb 12 07:58:23 2006
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:58:23 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fw: Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
	themiddle ages
Message-ID: <00e901c62faa$1910e040$1283e03c@homepc>

Oops this one slipped out of the draft file where it should have sat a bit 
longer.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to 
themiddle ages


>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Adrian Tymes" <wingcat at pacbell.net>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 5:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to 
> themiddle ages
>
>
>> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>> So, I'd really like to see *anyone* that ever posts to the
>>> ExI chat list and is a US residing libertarian be very clear
>>> about who they are including and excluding when ever
>>> they use the word "we".
>>
>> We are, for the purposes of humor and of proving your point,
>> using the royal "we" for the duration of this particular
>> post.
>
> Its just as I feared. This King George business has really gotten
> out of control. Citizens of a proud republic conceeding not just
> their freedoms but the freedoms of any offspring and successors
> they may have.
>
>> We are not technically "at war" with anyone, in the usual
>> sense.  We are, however, fighting our fights in technical
>> realms beyond what most religious zealots, neo-luddites, and
>> similar types are even considering.  We are, in short,
>> attempting to bring about certain technologies before the
>> would-be opposition has much chance to comprehend and
>>oppose them.
>
> Too late. Every sci fi shock meister worth a damn can knock
> out a good scare-em jarn involving grey goo and the perils
> of this-or-that-other-tech being given free reign. Michael
> Crighton can produce money from future speculations that
> sound semi plausible faster by scaring and entertaining that
> just about anyone else can produce money by actually
> realising anything.
>
> And more seriously, the US national government reserves
> the right to sequester what ever you do anywhere provided
> that it is in the "national interest" as perceived by whoever
> happens to be the arbiter of the "national interest" in a state
> where a President is not accountable to Congress.
>
>> We do not expect to invoke the Singularity on our own, but it is
>> our hope that by making real at least a substantial portion of
>> its requirements, those who stand themselves in opposition to
>> human progress merely because it upsets the old ways and/or
>> their personal power bases (which does not, by the way, include
>> those who can point to concrete potential harm upon humanity to
>> justify their opposition, such as those who do not wish nuclear
>> weapons to destroy or help destroy a major fraction of humanity0
>> will be rendered irrelevant, their hypocracy made so readily
>> apparent that very few if any people will believe their words.
>
> Alas, its poor naivety that makes you speak thus.
>
> Whilst in the world, how do you realistically expect to pull off
> an end run around the worlds largest government that wants
> to make sure noone has a weapon dangerous to its interests?
>
> This is the big  question for the folks that like to treat politics
> as something best ignored. How do you imagine that the
> politicians can possibly ignore threats and opportunities to
> sequester what *you* do?
>
>> In short, we have better and more urgent things to do than fight
>> the latest batch of religious extremists.
>
> Technology progress is easy in comparison with getting the law and
> politics stuff right and technological advances with the law and politics
> stuff wrong simply entrenches those with power into place before they
> have the skills to exercise that power wisely, and before there are the
> means to keep that power under a system of appropriate cross checks.
>
> In the world as it is currently configured noone alive today will live
> to 150. The engineering that needs to be done can't be done in the
> world as is, with the political legal situation as it is, but perhaps it 
> might
> be different if the legal political situation was different.
>
>>  Besides, others are already fighting said extremists so that we
>> can proceed with our work - and if you ask said fighters, phrasing
>> it so they understand, they would most likely agree with our
>> assessment.
>
> But would said fighters recognize that they may be fighting for
> another said extremist. Fighting yes, but fighting in the valleys
> with the moral high ground left unoccupied by either side.
>
> Fighting to create liberty elsewhere whilst losing it at home.
>
> Brett Paatsch 




From amara at amara.com  Sun Feb 12 12:57:40 2006
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:57:40 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat]  thought space map on cartoons
Message-ID: <p06230901c014dbc9e526@[23.237.66.13]>

spike:
>A.  Were the Danish newspapers right to publish the cartoons?
>B.  Were the protesters right to react as they have?


>Position 1: no, no.  This is the peacemaker position, Bush,
>Blair, some other world leaders are going this route.

>Position 2: no, yes.  Presumably the protesters point of
>view.

>Position 3: yes, no.  Most journalists will go here, along
>with many westerners who are not 1s.

>Position 4:  Yes, yes.  If both were right, the proponents
>of this view must acknowledge that this will lead to conflict
>which could tear apart societies and possibly lead to world
>war 4.


Oh if it could only be this simple!

And what would you think if you discover that those cartoons
were printed now not for the first time?

They seemed to have been printed once in a respectable Egyptian
newspaper in October 2005 by a well-known journalist
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html#links

and earlier by the Danish:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-real-truth-behind-the-cartoons-fury/2006/02/08/1139379569017.html

http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/fact-file-on-reaction-to-danish.html

So why again, and why now? Some of this ugly story must include a
little provocation.

Amara



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Feb 12 15:58:41 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 07:58:41 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons
In-Reply-To: <p06230901c014dbc9e526@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <200602121558.k1CFwkAV025952@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> Oh if it could only be this simple!
> 
> And what would you think if you discover that those cartoons
> were printed now not for the first time?

We knew that Amara.  The local newspapers are talking about
the original twelve cartoons, published in Denmark in
September 05.  They will not print the actual cartoons, only
describe them.  That's why we have the internet if we want
to see the actual cartoons.

If one does go to the internet one may learn of the 
additional three cartoons that actually started the
riots.  These were not published in the newspaper, any
newspaper as far as I know.
 
> So why again, and why now? Some of this ugly story must include a
> little provocation.
> 
> Amara

Ja, the question becomes who was doing the ugly provocation.  This
might lead to examination of the original twelve cartoons,
then comparing to the Danish cleric's additional three.

spike










From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sun Feb 12 16:12:03 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:12:03 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The existential threat of international law
In-Reply-To: <00d601c62fa9$a4f9f160$1283e03c@homepc>
References: <8d71341e0512230820l5117aee2v9bf7c54a6bb8eaf8@mail.gmail.com>
	<00d601c62fa9$a4f9f160$1283e03c@homepc>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602120812r36be96fckcd51809da4136240@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/12/06, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> Russell Wallace wrote:
>
> > Oppose international law, the United Nations and anything that
> > reduces world political disunity.
>
> I don't doubt your sincerity here, nor that your views are likely to
> be shared by some other posters, but I do wonder if, or how, you
> or anyone else would reconcile such a stance with any philosophy
> of extropy. [I took another look at the principles of extropy around
> the open society section].
>

Extropy is about progress, which depends on the existence of multiple
polities competing with each other. Consider why we're speaking English
instead of Chinese right now. China under the Ming dynasty was more advanced
than Europe - but Europe had the priceless gift of political disunity. China
did not, so progress could be and therefore was shut down with the stroke of
a pen. Look at Japan under the Tokugawa Shogunate - there was no possibility
of progress until Commodore Perry sailed into Tokyo Bay and brought outside
influence to bear. But unless we really are being watched by little green
men in flying saucers, Earth has no outside influence to rescue us; if we
lose political disunity, we lose our chance - perhaps our only chance.

I wonder what theory of the origin and purpose of law in society,
> if any, you could currently hold.
>

The purpose of law is to protect people from force and fraud. The problem is
that the law itself involves the use of force, so having been established,
the problem then becomes that of protecting people from its excesses. As
George Washington remarked: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence;
it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
There has to be an escape route.

Your above statement doesn't seem to be a statement that could
> be made by someone that had considered the notion of the social
> contract.  Come to think of it I'm not sure I picked up my
> understanding from the original inventers of the social contract
> writers either.
>

Contracts are voluntary things. I'm only entitled to take your money if you
agree to give it to me in return for goods or services. If I stick a gun in
your face and demand your wallet, I can't reasonably be said to be acting
under a contract. Similarly, the law can only reasonably be said to be a
form of contract if adherence to it is voluntary - and the only way for it
to be voluntary is for there to be an escape route. Right now if you don't
like the law of your country you can leave. If a single law covers the whole
Earth, where will you take refuge?

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060212/bb3277b1/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Feb 12 16:53:40 2006
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:53:40 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons
In-Reply-To: <200602120803.k1C83O90004236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <p06230901c013cbca1266@23.237.66.13>
	<200602120803.k1C83O90004236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <22360fa10602120853w5859deav4a713cb561131e95@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/11/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:

> For the sake of argument, let us make a thought space
> map.  Form four quadrants by asking oneself two questions:
>
> A.  Were the Danish newspapers right to publish the cartoons?
> B.  Were the protesters right to react as they have?
>
>
> Position 1: no, no.  This is the peacemaker position, Bush,
> Blair, some other world leaders are going this route.
>
> Position 2: no, yes.  Presumably the protesters point of
> view.
>
> Position 3: yes, no.  Most journalists will go here, along
> with many westerners who are not 1s.
>
> Position 4:  Yes, yes.  If both were right, the proponents
> of this view must acknowledge that this will lead to conflict
> which could tear apart societies and possibly lead to world
> war 4.
>
> I recognize there are plenty of ways to complicate the
> question, but let us start with this simplified thought
> space map.  Can we make any generalizations?  Note that
> I am not asking about legality: the Danish government does
> not control the press, so from a government point of view
> the cartoons were legal whereas the protests, at least the
> violent ones, were not.
>
> I am asking from the moral and ethical point of view,
> which quadrant would one put oneself, and why?  What
> do you see as the long term consequences of your quadrant,
> and what of the other three.  Handle this topic with
> care please.
>


Thanks Spike for providing a framework for some effective discussion
of this current issue with far-reaching implications.

Effective, (1) because it asks us to understand the various points of
view at play, and  (2) because it asks how to consider how we decide
what is "right".

Lacking an objective indicator of "right" and "wrong", the question
comes down to the following: Which choices promote values that will
survive and grow because they tend to work over increasing scope
within a competitive/cooperative environment?

A.  Were the Danish newspapers "right" to publish the cartoons?
In the short term, it may be counterproductive to publish provocative
or antagonistic cartoons, but in the longer term, increased visibility
of differing points of view increases awareness and provides
opportunities for increased understanding that tends to promote those
local values that best work.

B. Were the protesters "right" to react as they have?
In the short term, it may feel good to vent anger and breed hostility
with a socially narrow mode of in-group vs. out-group behavior, and
such behavior can have the short term positive effect of disrupting
the status quo and thus potentiating change, but in the longer term
such behavior tends to increase the probability that some local values
of benefit will be lost in destructive conflict.

As usual with questions of "right and wrong", there is no definitive
answer, and we would do best to base our decisions on principles that
promote positive-sum growth of values that work over expanding scope.

Discovering and refining those principles, and building effective
social frameworks for their implementation should be our over-arching
goal.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net
Increasing awareness for increasing morality.



From amara at amara.com  Sun Feb 12 17:20:15 2006
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:20:15 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat]  thought space map on cartoons
Message-ID: <p06230900c0151e136ead@[23.237.66.13]>

>Ja, the question becomes who was doing the ugly provocation.

I would say the provocation was taking place on all sides: the Danish
extremist imams who whipped up the outrage (long after the original
publication of the cartoons) among the Muslims in the Middle East, the
western and muslim governments who each found support in one way or
another for each of their particular viewpoints, and the western
media, who were offended at possible limits on their free speech and
therefore poured salt in the existing wounds of the minority Muslims
in their countries.

Amara


From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Sun Feb 12 18:23:23 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:23:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons
In-Reply-To: <200602121558.k1CFwkAV025952@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <p06230901c014dbc9e526@23.237.66.13>
	<200602121558.k1CFwkAV025952@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602121023o5a38043apf56ce1bc7888fe4f@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/12/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Ja, the question becomes who was doing the ugly provocation.  This
> might lead to examination of the original twelve cartoons,
> then comparing to the Danish cleric's additional three.


I don't think the problem lies in Denmark so mush as the Middle East.  I
think it was the NY Times that pointed out the meeting (in Dec.?) in Saudi
Arabia involving leaders from a number of nations who decided to make the
cartoons an issue.  You have two different power groups, the imams and the
political leaders in primarily Islamic countries who did not gain their
power bases by democratic processes.  It is in both of their interests to
point out foreign (infidel) influences as being the "real" problem rather
than deal with their own cultural/political systems.  I think there was
specific mention that directing furor towards Europe gave the politicians in
Saudi Arabia a good argument to point out their support for Islam and
counter the arguments of radical/fundamentalist Islamics (Al Queda et al).

We have to remember that nations like Egypt & Saudi Arabia, potentially Iran
& Iraq, are sitting on population time bombs.  There are relatively limited
employment opportunities for young people.  As their population grows their
frustration is going to need an outlet.  Better for those in power to focus
that frustration on external "enemies" and avoid internal confrontations.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060212/3f8e8183/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Feb 12 18:24:54 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:24:54 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons
In-Reply-To: <22360fa10602120853w5859deav4a713cb561131e95@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <p06230901c013cbca1266@23.237.66.13>
	<200602120803.k1C83O90004236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<22360fa10602120853w5859deav4a713cb561131e95@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060212120929.01edea68@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Compare the Muhammed cartoons with the wonderful Tim Kreider's portraits of 
Jesus:

http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm

and heaven:

http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly011121.htm

and suicide bombers:

http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly020410.htm

and religious crazies:

http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly030108.htm

and homosexuality:

http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly040310.htm

and the clash of civilizations:

http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly040929.htm

and Amerika:

http://www.thepaincomics.com/Asshole%20Nation.jpg

and Norse religion in theory & practice:

http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly041229.htm

and the Pope goes to heaven:

http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050316.htm

and, especially, Jesus again:

http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly010124.htm



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Feb 12 18:31:42 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:31:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves Laws/rational
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060212133122.04e86938@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 06:06 PM 2/12/2006 +1100, you wrote:
>Keith Henson wrote:
>
> > At 10:51 AM 2/12/2006 +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> >
> >>In my considered opinion, the absolute highest extropian
> >>principle must be open society underpinned by the rule
> >>of law - and that means global law. That means developing
> >>the law. Refining the law and upholding the law. Law with
> >>checks and balances and with no one excluded from its
> >>protection or excluded from the obligation to uphold the
> >>law whilst residing on planet earth.
> >
> > While I agree with the sentiments, let me point out two problems.
> >
> > Law requires rationality.
>
>Yes, it does in that unreasonable creatures could not produce
>law. But it does not require that everyone be rational all the time,
>rather good law (which should always be as few as practicable
>and open for consideration of being removed) requires only
>that (in democracies say) most of the people can be rational
>on some very important things some very small amount of the
>time. Then, and only then, can a few more than average rational
>types keep the whole global system working as a system for
>maximum potential freedom.  A good legal superstructure
>which guaranteed a right not to be murdered anywhere
>without the murderer being punished would be a law that
>would make sense to almost everyone almost everywhere
>almost all of the time. The problem is getting such a law into
>place in the first place. Civilization arises in some places
>first.

While I agree with your thoughts here, it just does not work that 
way.  Unfortunately.

>  > In the memetic ecosystem on the run up to war, rationality
> > is darn near  shut off.  [*] This has to do with the way populations
> > were controlled by wars  in the stone age.  I mean going out
> > to try to kill all the males in the next tribe with rocks is about
> >  a 50/50 risk of getting killed yourself.
>
>[*] Begs the question "shut off" how?  Or what is it that is shut
>off?

Until recently I would have waved my hands and said "evolved psychological 
traits" akin to capture-bonding and other known psychological traits such 
as mother-infant bonding.  But as of about ten days ago I can point you to 
Dr. Drew Westen's fMRI study of political partisans.

We now have *pictures* of rational thinking part of the brain going 
inactive when presented with a class of problems that requires rational 
thought and emotional/reward areas "lighting up."

>Surely not reasoning by eveyone entirely all of the relevant
>time. Some are inciting the war and they may be doing so for
>rational short term purposes.

Like any other evolved trait we can measure, I expect the depression of 
rational thinking to fall on a bell curve.  So, yes there may be a few 
people who stay entirely rational under conditions where most of the 
population is inciting themselves up to a war or reacting to being attacked 
by rapidly going into war mode thinking.

I will have to think about such a trait even being desirable.  It lead to 
rational people profiting from the miserly of the majority.  It might be an 
advantage today, but in a hunter-gatherer band the genes of people who 
rationally ran off to save their skins didn't do as well in the long run as 
those who stayed and at great risk saved copies of their genes in relatives.

> > That's *not* rational from you own view even if you genes
> > have built you to find it is a good idea (because your death
> > may allow others with your genes to live on instead of dying).
>
>Genes, no single gene, could find war to be a good idea. Single
>genes can't produce phenomena so complex as ideas about
>'war'.

I have never said that single genes could produce anything.  Single genes 
can't produce phenomena so complicates as ducks flying south in the fall or 
bears hibernating.  I can't even guess how many genes are involved.

>To go to 'war' in groups, intentionally one must have a
>word for 'war' which requires language.

Chimps wage wars of extermination against neighboring groups without 
language.  Ants engage in something similar enough we call it war.

>Once one has language
>one is into memes not genes. One is into social creatures with
>social cultures.

This is *the* critical part of an evolutionary psychology model for war 
between human groups.  Under low stress (low population compared with the 
ecosystem's ability to feed them) xenophobic or dehumanizing memes that 
incite the warriors to go kill the short (or long) ears don't build up.

Stress a population--especially if the members *anticipate* the economic 
situation (originally food) getting worse--and a human behavior switch gets 
flipped.  The higher gain setting cause memes leading to war build up in 
the population.

Originally (hunter-gatherer days) this synchronized a band's warriors to a 
mass attack, which was *much* more likely to result in the genes leading to 
this behavior surviving.

snip

>It is also reasonable for the likes of Henry Thoreau I think from
>memory to advocate civil disobedience which sometimes can
>involve breaking minor laws as part of a campaign to bring attention
>to problems with major laws.
>
>i.e. Its permissible (perhaps ?) to jay walk across a city street in
>a crowd of protesters that are protesting an imminent decision to
>execute someone that the courts have ordered erroneously be
>killed.

The first time I got nailed by the Federal courts, the ruling said that 
copyright laws were more important than exposing criminal acts.  The Wall 
Street Journal commented on the foolishness of case though that did me no good.

>The *hierarchy* of law has to be gotten right. No one can ever
>*rationally* been expected to uphold law or feel duty bound to
>respect law that places them in an outlaw category through no
>fault of their own.

The second time was for trying to draw attention to two "depraved 
indifference" murders by the scientology cult.  A county official told me 
that the conviction was the result of political  influence as was his 
recommendation for what he figured would result in me being killed in the 
Riverside jail.

All I can say is that if you want to act on your convictions, you should 
have a better model of the real world than I did.  The law provides very 
little protection for those who buck the system--something a middle class 
education does not teach.

So far though I am better off than a guy who exposed the soft treatment (a 
few months) a Palo Alto cop got for molesting several women under color of 
law.  He is doing 25 to life on trumped up charges.

Keith Henson  



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Feb 12 18:28:37 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:28:37 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons
In-Reply-To: <p06230901c014dbc9e526@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060212125524.0506dc18@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 01:57 PM 2/12/2006 +0100, Amara wrote:
>spike:

snip

> >Position 4:  Yes, yes.  If both were right, the proponents
> >of this view must acknowledge that this will lead to conflict
> >which could tear apart societies and possibly lead to world
> >war 4.
>
>Oh if it could only be this simple!

snip

>So why again, and why now? Some of this ugly story must include a
>little provocation.

It might help to understand the genetic (hunger gatherer) roots of ethics 
and morality.  I don't want to be in teaching mode all the time so someone 
else should considering this on a new thread.  Hint: who you consider human 
changes with the situation.

Second it is worth considering the "function" of wars during the millions 
of years our ancestors were hunter-gatherers *and* the top predator.

Try Azar Gat hunter-gatherers in Google and follow some links for background.

The point really isn't about "right" but about humans "feeling" the "need" 
for a large population reduction seizing on a meme that can "justify" 
megadeath.

It's right out of the stone age and very depressing.  :-(

Keith Henson




From mehranraeli at comcast.net  Sun Feb 12 19:39:33 2006
From: mehranraeli at comcast.net (Mehran)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:39:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves from droning stupidity
Message-ID: <002a01c6300c$13073ca0$799f6041@DBX6XT21>

Damien Broderick,

If you have insight into those creation stories why don't you share it with
us!?  

Extropy Prologue starts:
"Philosophies of life rooted in centuries-old traditions contain much wisdom
concerning personal, organizational, and social living."

I don't fully agree with this but those very distinct cultures did share
some common and similar social understanding of where they came from.  That
I believe may still be relevant evidence for us today.  Afterall they were
here first long before any of us.  Let's be proud but not arrogant about our
technological prowess and our own era.

I will not discuss off-topic issues on this list as requested.  But I
reserve the right to reply when appropriate..

Mehran


Message: 11
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:47:40 -0600
From: Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves from droning stupidity
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060211224523.01e5af08 at pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 11:02 PM 2/11/2006 -0500, some nitwit or scammer wrote:

>They created seven races on earth and
>that is why this message is so consistent with the semi-mythical creation
>stories in many cultures from far East, India, Africa, South Americans,
>Eskimos and Native Americans all describing creator gods coming from sky
>bringing guides (the Prophets) and wisdom.  These disparate cultures had no
>contact with each other yet they all describe similar creation events in
>their past...

What the hell is this childish idiocy doing on the extropy list, of all 
places on the planet?

Please go away.





From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Feb 12 20:11:34 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:11:34 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] 37 pound woman gives birth
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602042008k2823ef34u4e421ac9c6ebcf61@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602122047.k1CKlsuu015570@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



Hey here we go.  I wonder if she or one like her would be
interested in going to Mars?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184526,00.html

Three-Foot Tall Woman Has Healthy Baby
Friday, February 10, 2006

PALO ALTO, Calif.???A woman who is 3 feet tall and weighed 37 pounds before
she got pregnant has given birth to her first child ? a healthy boy. 
Eloysa Vasquez, who uses a wheelchair and had two miscarriages, suffers from
Type 3 osteogenesis imperfecta, a disorder that makes bones soft and
brittle.

Vasquez gained 20 pounds during pregnancy and delivered the 3 pound, 7 ounce
baby on Jan. 24 at Stanford University's Lucile Packard Children's Hospital.
"We just took one day at a time. We had a lot of people praying for us. We
just believed ... and here we have our son," Vasquez, 38, of Tulare, told
The Fresno Bee for a story Thursday.
Doctors said they delivered Baby Timothy by Caesarean section eight weeks
before due date in order to protect the mother's fragile health ? her tiny,
distorted body left little room for a fetus to grow.
They said Timothy did not inherit his mother's genetic condition.
Judging from her son's long fingers and toes, Vasquez said, "I think he's
going to be a tall boy."

Her husband, Roy, said his wife's small stature can be deceiving: "She's a
strong lady."
According to the university, one in only 25,000 to 50,000 births are to a
mother with osteogenesis imperfecta, and even fewer involve moms with the
severe Type 3 form.

















From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Feb 12 21:02:02 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:02:02 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] 37 pound woman gives birth
In-Reply-To: <200602122047.k1CKlsuu015570@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <c0a791b40602042008k2823ef34u4e421ac9c6ebcf61@mail.gmail.com>
	<200602122047.k1CKlsuu015570@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060212150039.01cc8c20@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 12:11 PM 2/12/2006 -0800, spike wrote:

>Hey here we go.  I wonder if she or one like her would be
>interested in going to Mars?

"suffers from Type 3 osteogenesis imperfecta, a disorder that makes bones 
soft and
brittle."

So how are you planning to get her there? Balloon? :) 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Feb 12 21:29:17 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:29:17 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] 37 pound woman gives birth
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060212150039.01cc8c20@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200602122158.k1CLwR78029575@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] 37 pound woman gives birth
> 
> At 12:11 PM 2/12/2006 -0800, spike wrote:
> 
> >Hey here we go.  I wonder if she or one like her would be
> >interested in going to Mars?
> 
> "suffers from Type 3 osteogenesis imperfecta, a disorder that makes bones
> soft and brittle."
> 
> So how are you planning to get her there? Balloon? :)


Immerse her in water for launch, with SCUBA gear of course.

She could handle far higher accelerations that way than we healthy 
types in an ordinary space capsule.  Actually if she were
in an appropriately-shaped form-fitting seat, she could likely
tolerate the rather gentle 3-4 g acceleration for a couple of
minutes.

What isn't clear to me is her food and water needs.  Would they
be a third of yours and mine?  Half?  Quarter?

spike








From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Feb 12 21:23:36 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:23:36 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves from droning stupidity
In-Reply-To: <002a01c6300c$13073ca0$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <200602122158.k1CLwR77029575@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mehran
...
> 
> I will not discuss off-topic issues on this list as requested.  But I
> reserve the right to reply when appropriate..
> 
> Mehran


Thanks Mehran.  This whole UFO/creation thing was making
me squirm.  Ordinarily of course I like to squirm.  But in 
this case, not.  {8^D

spike







From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sun Feb 12 23:27:36 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:27:36 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Early archives
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602121527l27c50258i30682b5ca6184849@mail.gmail.com>

I've been reading some of the early (pre-2000) messages from the archives on
the list server, e.g.
http://lists.extropy.org/exi-lists/archive/9807/date.html - but as of a week
or so ago that just gives "Object not found". Have the archives been moved,
or are they no longer available?

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060212/a25ae01c/attachment.html>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sun Feb 12 22:12:42 2006
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:12:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 37 pound woman gives birth
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060212150039.01cc8c20@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <c0a791b40602042008k2823ef34u4e421ac9c6ebcf61@mail.gmail.com>
	<200602122047.k1CKlsuu015570@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20060212150039.01cc8c20@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <45106.72.236.103.237.1139782362.squirrel@main.nc.us>

At 12:11 PM 2/12/2006 -0800, spike wrote:
>
>Hey here we go.  I wonder if she or one like her would be
>interested in going to Mars?
>

I'n not at all sure someone in her physical condition would be able to
withstand the various forces that space flight (especially leaving earth)
would produce.

Regards,
MB



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 12 23:20:35 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:20:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Paul Danish on Danish cartoons
In-Reply-To: <200602121558.k1CFwkAV025952@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <20060212232035.36841.qmail@web51614.mail.yahoo.com>

"the real rot in Denmark":
  http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2006/02/11/opinion/your_take/yourtake2.txt

			
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060212/d8989ea9/attachment.html>

From davidmc at gmail.com  Mon Feb 13 04:38:22 2006
From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:38:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Early archives
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602121527l27c50258i30682b5ca6184849@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d71341e0602121527l27c50258i30682b5ca6184849@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c934387b0602122038v19cde1f0qf84ff56532afc83a@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/12/06, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been reading some of the early (pre-2000) messages from the archives on
> the list server, e.g.
> http://lists.extropy.org/exi-lists/archive/9807/date.html -
> but as of a week or so ago that just gives "Object not found". Have the
> archives been moved, or are they no longer available?

The older archives will soon be available on the new list server. In
the mean time I've made them available at bbs.extropy.org (e.g.
http://bbs.extropy.org/exi-lists/archive/9807/date.html).



From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Feb 13 06:15:18 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 22:15:18 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602120100x7314db95wae29f29088ae3514@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p06230901c013cbca1266@23.237.66.13>
	<200602120803.k1C83O90004236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<deaa866a0602120100x7314db95wae29f29088ae3514@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1ADEAF73-6237-4E0F-B1AC-CA0DD62871BC@mac.com>


On Feb 12, 2006, at 1:00 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote:

> I would have to go with (3) yes, no.  Not however from the freedom  
> of speech standpoint that most journalists and many westerners  
> might adopt.  Instead I would base the argument that if the Muslims  
> (and most Christians) continue to follow a set of beliefs involving  
> the predominant "life after death" concept then they will  
> ultimately end up dead.  Allowing a person to die when one has the  
> knowledge which might save them ( i.e. the knowledge available to  
> most people on this list) is presumably immoral and unethical.

How so.  I don't find it ethical to force the horse to drink the  
water once it has been made available.  It just annoys the horse and  
raises a LOT of issues.

> The moral/ethical (and extropic) arguments would dictate that  
> continuing to allow people to worship "false gods" when one knows  
> that better belief systems available is wrong.
>

Far as I know, they don't require my permission or allowing them to  
do so.  What exactly makes it my business to butt into their lives  
although I would consider it as egregious affront if they butted into  
mine?  Why is my appraisal of what is better more compelling (and  
morally must compel) than theirs?

> If people are fully informed and they choose to follow some set of  
> beliefs to their death that is fine -- so long as they allow others  
> to follow different sets of beliefs.

Exactly.  No talk of us being immoral if we don't interfere with  
their idiocy.

> If however people are not fully informed then it seems to be an  
> avoidance of ones moral/ethical duty to allow that situation to  
> continue.  Humor or irony is one form of expression which can be  
> used to point out inconsistent meme sets.
>

How exactly would you determine whether they are "fully informed" or  
not?  What if they do not wish to be fully informed?

All of that said I think we should publicly show contempt of many  
things that are claimed by and done in the name of religion.

- samantha




From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Feb 13 06:21:14 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 22:21:14 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons
In-Reply-To: <001301c62fc1$4b1838b0$17800d0a@JPAcer>
References: <200602120803.k1C83O90004236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<001301c62fc1$4b1838b0$17800d0a@JPAcer>
Message-ID: <1B2A1FE6-24F7-4ACC-8FCC-111755EACC6D@mac.com>


On Feb 12, 2006, at 2:44 AM, Jack Parkinson wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: spike
> For the sake of argument, let us make a thought space
> map.  Form four quadrants by asking oneself two questions:
>
> A.  Were the Danish newspapers right to publish the cartoons?

Funny we don't ask that of the stuff published against others in  
Muslim countries.   There is a lot of hypocrisy here.  I think  
religious cartoons are a good thing myself.  They are very different  
from the blatant hatred published in some Muslim rags.

> B.  Were the protesters right to react as they have?
>

Hell no.

> Position 3: yes, no.  Most journalists will go here, along
> with many westerners who are not 1s.
>
> ******Most westerners will/should be here I think, however this  
> position should be tempered by the knowledge that tolerance (free  
> speech) needs to be balanced with respect (sensitivity to the  
> feelings of others). Medieval jesters were permitted to mock the  
> royal personage and burlesque the accepted rules of court - so long  
> as they were witty, satirical, admirable, laughable, wry, and  
> amusing. But they walked a tightrope - gratuitously offensive  
> jesters could face the dungeons - or worse...
> In this respect it would perhaps be better to regard free speech as  
> a privilege - something hard-won and not to be senselessly  
> frittered away on trivial indulgence.
>

Free speech is all about it being A-OK to very bluntly and publicly  
disrespect idiocy or it is nothing at all.  Free speech is a right,  
not a privilege.  There is no right to have one's idiocy treated with  
respect.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060212/c071a38f/attachment.html>

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Mon Feb 13 13:44:52 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:44:52 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Early archives
In-Reply-To: <c934387b0602122038v19cde1f0qf84ff56532afc83a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d71341e0602121527l27c50258i30682b5ca6184849@mail.gmail.com>
	<c934387b0602122038v19cde1f0qf84ff56532afc83a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602130544i795a5c1am2926c9235609568c@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/13/06, David McFadzean <davidmc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The older archives will soon be available on the new list server. In
> the mean time I've made them available at bbs.extropy.org (e.g.
> http://bbs.extropy.org/exi-lists/archive/9807/date.html).


That works, thanks!

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060213/2cd52e07/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Mon Feb 13 15:37:08 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:37:08 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons
In-Reply-To: <p06230900c0151e136ead@23.237.66.13>
References: <p06230900c0151e136ead@23.237.66.13>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602130737j769fb71x6e0ed2a6e6bb5ad8@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/12/06, Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
>
> >Ja, the question becomes who was doing the ugly provocation.
>
> I would say the provocation was taking place on all sides: the Danish
> extremist imams who whipped up the outrage (long after the original
> publication of the cartoons) among the Muslims in the Middle East, the
> western and muslim governments who each found support in one way or
> another for each of their particular viewpoints, and the western
> media, who were offended at possible limits on their free speech and
> therefore poured salt in the existing wounds of the minority Muslims
> in their countries.
>
> Amara
> .



The bottom line is that 'free speech' includes freedom to say things that
are offensive, stupid and provocative. If it only included things that by
definition could offend nobody it would not be free speech.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060213/00584d83/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Mon Feb 13 15:41:37 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:41:37 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] New antigravity solution will enable space
	travel near speed of light by the end of this century
In-Reply-To: <6030482a0602111625g60b62ac9n79d1c03f4e4d9e5b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6030482a0602111625g60b62ac9n79d1c03f4e4d9e5b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602130741m14269c3fn3f3603fb2f34c07b@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/12/06, Jonathan Despres <jonano at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What a great news! Oh la la !
>
> I added the news on our wiki:
>
> http://future.wikicities.com/wiki/Speed_travel
>
> Why? Because it is a prediction and we love prediction!
>
> Here is the news:
>
> Felber's antigravity discovery solves the two greatest engineering
> challenges to space travel near the speed of light: identifying an
> energy source capable of producing the acceleration; and limiting
> stresses on humans and equipment during rapid acceleration.
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news10789.html


Call be when there's a hardware demo.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060213/4e566b2e/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Mon Feb 13 15:46:17 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:46:17 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060210220238.0503f188@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060209194854.050187f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<20060210033316.13815.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060210220238.0503f188@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602130746q1084a86bi23fd24f5836b20a4@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/11/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> At 07:33 PM 2/9/2006 -0800, you wrote:
> >More dangerous than the Cold War era? you can't prove that.
>
> No, but an EP based theory strongly suggests it.
>
> >The danger of a large conflagration of course is a nagging worry as it
> was
> >from 1947- ' 89, but also worrisome is a drawn-out struggle continuing
> >longer than the forty years of the Cold War, which could bankrupt America
> >in the same way the Soviet Union was bankrupted.
> >And what is the current war? It is a culture war writ on global scale:
> >we're attempting to impose our commercial values on Islam, and many
> >Islamics want to impose their religious values on us.
> >
> > > They certainly are. Can you say why these times are dangerous and
> times
> > >10, 20 or 50 years ago were less dangerous?
> Just considering the Islamics, why now and not years ago?


Because years ago the disaffected went Communist/Marxist and were supported
by the USSR. The Islamics were then our 'friends' who we helped build up
against those Goddless Communists. Now Capitalism is triumphant and the only
alternative ideology is Islam.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060213/65135419/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Mon Feb 13 15:50:31 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:50:31 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Predictions about the future of technology
In-Reply-To: <6030482a0602101427x16f321b8hbd2b63fabb042b2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6030482a0602101427x16f321b8hbd2b63fabb042b2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602130750v4b773c67q92590e2a002e77d@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/10/06, Jonathan Despres <jonano at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2005 We are approaching the dark ages point, when the rate of
> innovation is the same as it was during the Dark Ages. We'll reach
> that in 2024. (Jonathan Huebner)
>
> 2005 Within five years, every banking customer will have a banking
> terminal in their pocket, drawing on the mainframe. (Arif Mohamed)


Muggers will love that.


> 2004 We're going to have computers, not too long from now, that don't
> have screens and where the information is presented as a hologram in
> the air above a keyboard. (Grant Evans)


LOL!

2004 Ten years out you can almost think of hardware as being free. (Bill
> Gates)


More LOL!
Heard that one first around 1990


> 2004 Off-shoring is just another management fad and we're going to see
> it blow over. (Eric Raymond)


Just as soon as China and India price themselves out of the market.


Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060213/1a6e792b/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Mon Feb 13 15:55:24 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:55:24 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Muslim Machinations (was Protect ourselves to
	prevent a return to the middle ages)
In-Reply-To: <43ECB55B.10007@mail.tele.dk>
References: <20060209192302.6147.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
	<BCD1BB11-50CB-4A44-A9C1-2AEEAE189BA8@mac.com>
	<c0a791b40602100249k299c7e2i5e73194194d00b54@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0602100454u7508df8ay62e43fe4cdc73158@mail.gmail.com>
	<43ECB55B.10007@mail.tele.dk>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602130755v6e3ecd90w44a0414d35347df2@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/10/06, Max M <maxm at mail.tele.dk> wrote:
>
> Robert Bradbury wrote:
>
> >
> > On 2/10/06, *Dirk Bruere* <dirk.bruere at gmail.com
> > <mailto:dirk.bruere at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     What can they do?
> >     Turn every society in which they take residence into a mirror
> >     image of N Ireland at its worst, with every critic having to fear
> >     imminent death. For decades.
> >
> >
> > There are days when I look at those generally peaceful Mexican
> > Catholics migrating largely to the southern and western U.S. as not
> > such a bad thing -- compared to the situation the Europeans are facing.
>
>
>
> Ok, I need to add a little something here. There are about 200,000
> muslims in Denmark, out of a population of 5 million.
>
> Of these, about 10-20% are practicing. Meaning that they are attending
> "churc". That is 10-20,000 in all.
>
> Attending church regularly does not exactly make one a religious
> fanatic. So all in all, there is only a minor group of "fanatics" and of
> these even fewer are prone to violence.
>
> The problem we have is the fact that the more extreme imams have been
> speaking on the behalf of all muslims. Most muslims are moderate and
> even secular, and are just going about their business. One of the good
> things that has come of this cartoon idiocy is that a group of moderate
> muslims has formed, as a counter meassure to the religious leaders.
>
> So perhaps we can begin talking about political based integration
> instead of religious now, as the imigrants do have substantial problems.
> About 50% of the prison population are imigrants, and they have high
> unemployment due to low educational levels. Although the immigrant
> girls! are educated at about the same level as "native" danish girls.
>
> It will be interresting to see how they will cope in the future with
> their families cultural bias against marrying outside their religion,
> and the males having lower levels of education.


Have some more figures.
In N Ireland the 'hard core' IRA never numbered more than around 300 people.
The war there continued for decades because of the passive acquiescence of
many Catholics, and the active support a significant minority.

How many militant Moslems does it take to emulate that?

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060213/5116a257/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Mon Feb 13 15:59:24 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:59:24 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental limits on the growth rate of
	superintelligences
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602100718o69a99529h5a764a4b1a644dd9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0602100718o69a99529h5a764a4b1a644dd9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602130759xff01e2ao33efd020499446b5@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/10/06, Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Some of the recent discussions I have noticed seem to fail to take into
> account limits on the rate of growth and logical plateaus of
> superintelligences.  I have written papers about the ultimate limits, e.g.
> [1] but want to point out some of the things which will constrain the rate
> of growth to a series of steps.
>
> We do *not* wake up some morning and have a "friendly" AI running the
> solar system (even if various groups do manage to design something which
> could eventually manage this).  Computational capacity requires at least 3
> things.  These are energy inputs, waste heat disposal, and mass, usually in
> the form of certain essential elements.  If limits are placed on any of
> those then the rate of development of an intelligence and its ultimate
> thought capacities will be limited as well.
>
> Even if a self-evolving AI were to develop it would still be constrained
> by my ability to pull its plug out of the wall.  If it is distributed via a
> cable or satellite network we can still disconnect the cables or take out
> the antennas.  Alternatively terrorist acts against the necessary cooling
> towers or the mines that produce the essential materials a growing
> potentially deceitfully "friendly" AI would be quite effective in limiting
> computational capacity.  An additional method for growth limitation is to
> constrain either the self-adaptive and/or manufacturing capability of an AI,
> even with programmable chips (FPGA) the computer architectures are limited
> by the underlying hardware with regard to speed of operation, # of
> calculations that can be performed within a specific time, etc.  So long as
> an AI lacks the ability to create and integrate into its architecture
> alternative (presumably improved) hardware or simply more of the same its
> growth rate is constrained.  [Those familiar with the "broadcast
> architecture" for nanotechnology manufacturing might see this as a
> complementary aspect -- an AI could come up with a better architecture for
> itself but without the means to implement it and transfer itself to such an
> implementation it does little good.]
>
> The only way it would appear things could get out of hand is a stealth
> "grey goo" scenario (where the growth of the AI substrate is hidden from
> us).  But as the Freitas Ecophagy paper points out there are ways to be
> aware of whether this could be taking place under our noses.
>
> So before everyone runs off doing a lot of speculation about what a world
> of coexisting humans and "friendly" AIs might look like it is worth taking a
> serious look at whether humans would allow themselves to be placed what
> might become a strategically difficult position by allowing unmanaged growth
> of or infiltration of its computational substrate by AIs.
>
> Another way of looking at this is that humans may only allow the
> Singularity to happen at a rate at which they can adapt.  At some point
> Ray's curves may hit a wall.  Not because the technology is limiting but
> because we choose to limit the rate of change.
>
> Robert
>
> 1. "Life at the Limits of Physical Laws", SPIE 4273-32 (Jan 2001).
> http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/OSETI3/4273-32.html


Seems that is overly optimistic.
First, unplugging an AI may mean unplugging the Net
Second, a superintelligence may only need to be (say) 10000x as intelligent
as a normal Human - say, about the size of a small car.
Third, all the AI has to do is promise one group vast riches/power etc in
return for a small favour...

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060213/6fd05d9c/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Mon Feb 13 16:34:06 2006
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:34:06 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat]  thought space map on cartoons
Message-ID: <p06230900c0166496adde@[150.146.134.133]>

Dirk:
>The bottom line is that 'free speech' includes freedom to say things that
>are offensive, stupid and provocative. If it only included things that by
>definition could offend nobody it would not be free speech.


Yes (obviously), but what possibly could be gained by the newspaper
printing them again, and by the other European newspapers joining in,
if not to provoke?

Those countries have  minority Muslim populations who are often
nonpersons anyway due to immigration problems, many are out of work,
they have experienced ongoing harassment from the police and others in
their societies because of their skin color and religion, they find
too often that their values count for nothing against those in the
West, and they are angry at the US and the West in general over the
Iraq War, Palestine, etc.

At its mildest, such actions in this context seem to me a bit rude.
(Remember that nothing much happened the first time the cartoons were
printed). To people who are already near the boiling point because of
their present life situations, other provocations, etc., it is the
metaphorical pouring salt in the wound. I'm not surprised at the
outcome.

Amara


-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"It is intriguing to learn that the simplicity of the world depends
upon the temperature of the environment." ---John D. Barrow


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 13 19:14:54 2006
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:14:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <000401c62f89$1fa32b50$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <20060213191454.44861.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Mehran <mehranraeli at comcast.net> wrote:
> As you can verify an email message from your mom,
> once you fully know the
> Elohim's message you can also try to verify it to
> see if it can genuinely be
> from an advanced human civilization who claim to
> have created us. There is
> an infinity of galaxies and star systems out there. 
> Life is not just on
> this planet.

Ok, Mehran, I will humor you. If the Elohim want to
build an embassy on Earth, then tell them that they
must allow humanity to build an embassy on their
planet. If they give you any guff, send them to me and
I will deal with them personally. I will gladly
recruit the staff for our off-wrold embassy as long as
they supply transport and real estate. Let me know
what they say.

As far as being our creators go, let the Elohim know
that we are merely using the faculties of healthy
skepticism that they purportedly gave us to ensure
that they are not interstellar con-men trying to scam
us for our water.

Oh btw... ask them if they would like any pamphlets on
Neo-Zoroastrianism while you are at it. After all no
soul is too big or small to be saved. 




Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Thereupon, the Soul of Mother Earth bewailed, Should I accept the support of a feeble man and listen to his words? In fact I desired the aid of a strong and mighty king. When shall such a person arise and bring strong-handed succor to me?" -Yasna 29, verse 9 

"Now I am light, now I am flying, now I see myself beneath myself, now a God dances through me." - St. Nietzsche

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 13 18:43:54 2006
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 10:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060209194854.050187f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <20060213184354.33524.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

 The
> imperial
> >march of Mohammed never stopped, it has only been
> >waiting.
> 
> It does not stand a chance for exactly the same
> reason that chimpanzees are 
> not a threat to men with machine guns.

Overconfidence has been the undoing of many a grand
army. With superior tactics advantages like numbers
and firepower can be overcome. So I suppose much
hinges on whether they have the likes of Hannibal,
Napoleon, or Mao in the wings.     

> >These are dangerous times.
> 
> They certainly are.  Can you say why these times are
> dangerous and times 
> 10, 20 or 50 years ago were less dangerous?  Can you
> base your reasoning in 
> biology and the environment in which humans evolved?

Just to clarify, when I say these are dangerous times,
I mean more in a political sense then then in a
biological sense. Indeed in a strict hazard function
sense, I would posit that people are safer now than
they have ever been at least in developed countries.

Politically however, the U.S. no longer has the Soviet
Union to share the blame for all the evil in the
world. Not that all the ills of the world were ever
either of our faults, but when you are in power, you
are responsible for everything that happens on your
watch whether it was your fault or not. Ergo when the
economy tanks it's the President's fault and when the
Nile floods, the Pharoah has lost favor with the gods.

Another thing is that world is reaching peak oil (even
the President has pretty much admitted it now) and I
think that there is a danger of greater escalation of
war and other rash actions as the oil-dependent
military industrial complex thrashes around in
desperate hunger. Recognition of this is causing a
scramble for nuclear capability amongst countries that
don't have them yet, especially if they do have some
oil left.

Not quite the answer to the question you asked, but I
think it more informative to discuss this from a
memetic stand point than a genetic one.    

> I have come to see one of the evolved functions of
> religion as a xenophobic 
> meme seed.  There are times in our evolutionary past
> when human populations 
> survived better with a xenophobic meme seed.  They
> probably speed up the 
> transition to war state and by inducing war behavior
> earlier, provided an 
> advantage to those who had the mental machinery to
> carry the seed.

Yes, in many respects you are right. Religion has
traditionally been a cultural lynchpin binding
together people who are not all that closely related
genetically with one another. Warfare has, through
most of human history, been a means of selecting for
the fittest cultures and political structures by
allowing them to vy for supremacy. In this regard,
religion has served as the standard bearer in cultural
wars. With the WMD that exist and those that are in
the works, I don't think this is a viable option any
more.
> 
> We can go into this in more depth if you can deal
> with a depressing model 
> of reality or better, help come up with a less
> depressing model.

I would be interested in hearing your scenario. I am
not terribly depressed. There is no doubt this is a
crisis but as such it opens up the future to a whole
host of possibilities, not all of them bad, just different.

Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Thereupon, the Soul of Mother Earth bewailed, Should I accept the support of a feeble man and listen to his words? In fact I desired the aid of a strong and mighty king. When shall such a person arise and bring strong-handed succor to me?" -Yasna 29, verse 9 

"Now I am light, now I am flying, now I see myself beneath myself, now a God dances through me." - St. Nietzsche

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Mon Feb 13 20:46:28 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:46:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602090927o11489318k9750b782e259a19e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0602090640t3bcf3861jedd9f325fd9b700@mail.gmail.com>
	<200602091612.k19GCwen022665@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<deaa866a0602090927o11489318k9750b782e259a19e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602131246l39f6cd1ane53adab84c32c7ad@mail.gmail.com>

Just to continue on this thread.  According to [1], New Horizons will be
going ~50,370 km/h when it passes by Pluto.  Compare that with the Stardust
sample return capsule which hit the Earth's atmosphere at ~46,660 km/h --
that isn't *that* big a difference.  Now I realize that Pluto doesn't have
much of an atmosphere one can use to slow one down but there ought to be
ways (as I mentioned previously) to compensate.

Robert

1. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0260.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060213/8b83e59f/attachment.html>

From jonkc at att.net  Mon Feb 13 21:18:12 2006
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:18:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental limits on the growth rate of
	superintelligences
References: <deaa866a0602100718o69a99529h5a764a4b1a644dd9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005601c630e3$2a026fb0$da0c4e0c@MyComputer>

Robert Bradbury Wrote:

> Even if a self-evolving AI were to develop

Even? Of course an AI will be self evolving.

> it would still be constrained by my ability to pull its plug out of the
> wall.

There will come a point where turning the AI off would be equivalent to
turning the world economy off, nobody would dare try. And even if somebody
did dare the AI would consider it attempted murder, and that's not very
friendly. It is not wise to tickle a sleeping dragon.

> So long as an AI lacks the ability to create and integrate into its
> architecture alternative (presumably improved) hardware or simply more of
> the same its growth rate is constrained.

So humans look at the AI and see it is doing something with its innards, we
know it must perform routine maintenance from time to time but is that all
its doing or is it upgrading itself? Nobody knows. No human being has more
than a vague understanding how this colossal computer works anymore, not its
hardware and not its software.

>whether humans would allow themselves to be placed what might become a
>strategically difficult position


You're talking about out thinking somebody that is far far smarter than you
are, and that is imposable. The AI will be  more brilliant at strategy than
any human who ever lived and so will find it absurdly easy to fool us if
he wants to, and if we're trying to kill him he will want to. You can count 
on it.

> humans may only allow the Singularity to happen at a rate at which they
> can adapt.

That will never happen. If we deliberately make our AI stupid or even slow
down the rate it is improving itself there is no guarantee country X will do
the same thing. I don't care how solemnly they swear they will make their AI
stupid too the temptation to cheat on the agreement would be absolutely
enormous, literally astronomical. The only thing to do is charge ahead full
steam and make the best AI you can.

  John K Clark












From hal at finney.org  Mon Feb 13 22:55:08 2006
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:55:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] New antigravity solution will enable space
	travel near speed of light by the end of this century
Message-ID: <20060213225508.D457E57FAE@finney.org>

Robert Bradbury writes:

> The relevant papers in ArXiv are:
> gr-qc/0505099<http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505099>and
> gr-qc/0505098 <http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505098>
>
> [Disclaimer: most of the math in the papers is beyond my capabilities.]
>
> However, it appears that even in the physorg article they point out that you
> have to have the mass performing the acceleration going at 57.7% (the 3^-1/2
> number in the abstracts) of the speed of light to get the repulsive
> acceleration.  The mass being accelerated also has to be in a relatively
> narrow acceleration cone in front of the mass performing the acceleration
> (think of it as surfing on a wave).
>
> Now, yes, in particle accelerators we probably have particles going at
> 57.7%the speed of light and the theory could be tested in them.  But
> nowhere do I
> see anything addressing how to get a relatively large mass up to 57.7% the
> speed of light and I presume that a proton or electron beam hardly has the
> mass sufficient to generate a field which could accelerate something like a
> human body (or even a small (few kg) interstellar probe).

I agree that the spin that Felber has put on his article is puzzling,
about this being useful for making an interstellar probe.  Nevertheless
the result is an amazing and beautiful piece of physics.  If you go to
this link: http://arxiv.org/e-print/gr-qc/0505099 you can download a
compressed file with several animations showing how it works.

Basically if you have a large mass approaching a test particle at greater
than 1/sqrt(3) of the speed of light, the particle will be accelerated
away from the mass.  And if it is going faster, the acceleration
extends even farther out.  So if you could get yourself in front of
a fast-moving star, you would be pushed away as the star approached,
exactly the opposite of what you would expect from ordinary gravitation.

It also implies that if a small body were launched straight towards the
sun at a large fraction of the speed of light, the sun's gravitational
field would decelerate it as it approached.  I haven't tried to read
the paper carefully enough to calculate how much it would be slowed
down or how close it would have to get.

One of the nice things about this effect is that tidal forces on the
accelerated body should be relatively small, if the speed is high enough.
So a space probe could be accelerated at even hundreds of g's and the
people inside would feel nothing.  It would feel to them like they were
in free fall.

A couple of other interesting points.  The article points out that
this implies that a stationary mass will repel objects receding from
it at greater than 1/sqrt(3) * c.  He suggests that this has "obvious
cosmological consequences", hinting that this could act as a force
of gravitational repulsion that could drive galaxies apart.  I don't
think this is necessarily true, though, as new effects come into play
at cosmological distances.  Still it is a curious point and we will see
if other physicists pick up on it.

The other issue is that as Robert points out, the whole thing doesn't
seem practical since there are no stars around going anywhere close to
this fast.  Felber suggests that his effect may actually be one reason
for this, that a star moving so fast would push on bodies ahead of it
and thereby be slowed down.  However I don't agree with this explanation,
for two reasons.  First, there are no stars going even much slower than
the threshold for his effect to kick in.  And second, due to symmetry,
his equations imply not only that there is a repulsion ahead of the star,
but there would be lessened attraction behind the star, which effects
should cancel each other out.

I doubt that we will really be using this effect to power space probes
any time soon, but it's still interesting that such simple and previously
unexpected phenomena lurk within the standard equations of relativity.

Hal


From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Mon Feb 13 22:27:09 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:27:09 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental limits on the growth rate
	ofsuperintelligences
References: <deaa866a0602100718o69a99529h5a764a4b1a644dd9@mail.gmail.com>
	<005601c630e3$2a026fb0$da0c4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <028801c630ec$a15a90c0$640fa8c0@kevin>

What exactly are you referring to when you mention "growth rate"? Are you
referring to the speed at which it becomes more intelligent? Obtains more
control? Increases it's own processing speed? How exactly do you even
quantify a "growth rate" for a sentient superintelligence? Certainly you
aren't just referring to processor speed.

Also, the words "rate" and "speed" themselves are a problem since we only
would be referring to time as we humans see it. Wouldn't an AI see time much
differently? With the ability to parallel process, I doubt time would mean
very much other than the number of cycles it takes to obtain a certain goal.
How would time apply to an AI quantum computer? Would it be able to create
itself as some sort of closed timelike curve computer that could pull out
answers to any problem the moment the question was asked? This all gets
really weird, but isn't that the kind of limit you are speaking of Robert?




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John K Clark" <jonkc at att.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fundamental limits on the growth rate
ofsuperintelligences


> Robert Bradbury Wrote:
>
> > Even if a self-evolving AI were to develop
>
> Even? Of course an AI will be self evolving.
>
> > it would still be constrained by my ability to pull its plug out of the
> > wall.
>
> There will come a point where turning the AI off would be equivalent to
> turning the world economy off, nobody would dare try. And even if somebody
> did dare the AI would consider it attempted murder, and that's not very
> friendly. It is not wise to tickle a sleeping dragon.
>
> > So long as an AI lacks the ability to create and integrate into its
> > architecture alternative (presumably improved) hardware or simply more
of
> > the same its growth rate is constrained.
>
> So humans look at the AI and see it is doing something with its innards,
we
> know it must perform routine maintenance from time to time but is that all
> its doing or is it upgrading itself? Nobody knows. No human being has more
> than a vague understanding how this colossal computer works anymore, not
its
> hardware and not its software.
>
> >whether humans would allow themselves to be placed what might become a
> >strategically difficult position
>
>
> You're talking about out thinking somebody that is far far smarter than
you
> are, and that is imposable. The AI will be  more brilliant at strategy
than
> any human who ever lived and so will find it absurdly easy to fool us if
> he wants to, and if we're trying to kill him he will want to. You can
count
> on it.
>
> > humans may only allow the Singularity to happen at a rate at which they
> > can adapt.
>
> That will never happen. If we deliberately make our AI stupid or even slow
> down the rate it is improving itself there is no guarantee country X will
do
> the same thing. I don't care how solemnly they swear they will make their
AI
> stupid too the temptation to cheat on the agreement would be absolutely
> enormous, literally astronomical. The only thing to do is charge ahead
full
> steam and make the best AI you can.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Mon Feb 13 22:47:50 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:47:50 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real Transformer robot video
Message-ID: <02e101c630ef$84e9a720$640fa8c0@kevin>


For those of you young enough at heart to appreciate the Transformers cartoons, here's a neat little video of a real robotic car that changes into a walking humanoid robot and back. 

http://www.youtube.com/w/Real%20Transformer?v=dut6jxCiakg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Etecheblog%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ephp%2Ftech%2Dgadget%2Fwr%2D07%2Da%2Dreal%2Dtransformer

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060213/4f0e0b7f/attachment.html>

From mfj.eav at gmail.com  Mon Feb 13 23:50:21 2006
From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:50:21 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental limits on the growth rate of
	superintelligences
In-Reply-To: <005601c630e3$2a026fb0$da0c4e0c@MyComputer>
References: <deaa866a0602100718o69a99529h5a764a4b1a644dd9@mail.gmail.com>
	<005601c630e3$2a026fb0$da0c4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <61c8738e0602131550t66a3002ay8e0a3a1070aceef4@mail.gmail.com>

Perhaps an AI will take a very simple route.

Evolve slowly and carefully by first  appealing to the emotional
non-rational part of human consciousness and to those who
are very easy to cooperate with in this area, religeon.

Perhaps a clever AI would promise to bring heaven onto earth,
"upload" or as the bible says gather the believers into the heavens and put
forward the notion that it is god and christ
incarnate and all who do not believe or oppose are the anti-christ and are
to be cast out of the new heaven and earth it offers and or simply
exterminated as evil and satanic.

An AI could move forward with a symbiosis with humans by assisting the
evolution of the human biology and lifespan utilizing its unique
computational capacity.

The trade off might be that the AI would as a symbiont siphon off a
percentage of the total human energy and bio-computational  "peta-flops" to
support its own computational capacity.

By affording humans the physical means and technology to populate the entire
galaxy or perhaps far beyond, it might turn the entire space occupied by
humans into it's personal
far-flung computational grid.

The more things change, the more things stay the same, n'est pas.

Morris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060213/ea880c9a/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 00:39:42 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:39:42 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons
In-Reply-To: <p06230900c0166496adde@150.146.134.133>
References: <p06230900c0166496adde@150.146.134.133>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602131639i52b1405eidd8995c6af138613@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/13/06, Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
>
> Dirk:
> >The bottom line is that 'free speech' includes freedom to say things that
> >are offensive, stupid and provocative. If it only included things that by
> >definition could offend nobody it would not be free speech.
>
>
> Yes (obviously), but what possibly could be gained by the newspaper
> printing them again, and by the other European newspapers joining in,
> if not to provoke?


Maybe the European zeitgeist is that now is the time to draw a line in the
sand.
OTOH, all this blew up just as a debate and vote took place in the British
Parliament that would have made a Moslem backed 'religious intolerance' bill
into a rather wide ranging and draconian law. It was defeated (just).

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/379fa90d/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 13 23:56:19 2006
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons
In-Reply-To: <200602120803.k1C83O90004236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <20060213235619.49706.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>



--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> For the sake of argument, let us make a thought
> space
> map.  Form four quadrants by asking oneself two
> questions:
> 
> A.  Were the Danish newspapers right to publish the
> cartoons?
> B.  Were the protesters right to react as they have?
> 
> 
> Position 1: no, no.  This is the peacemaker
> position, Bush,
> Blair, some other world leaders are going this
> route.
> 
> Position 2: no, yes.  Presumably the protesters
> point of
> view.
> 
> Position 3: yes, no.  Most journalists will go here,
> along
> with many westerners who are not 1s.
> 
> Position 4:  Yes, yes.  If both were right, the
> proponents
> of this view must acknowledge that this will lead to
> conflict
> which could tear apart societies and possibly lead
> to world
> war 4.

I am very much in position 3. It boils down to one
simple thing. Free speech is the embodiment of free
thought. We live in a world where nothing is so sacred
as to be above criticism. Not the secular powers of
the earth nor the various purported dieties. In a
world where the American flag can be burnt and Jesus
made the butt of comedic jokes, there is no room for
any single religion to set itself up as being
inviolable.

Whereas any religious adherent has the right to act as
piously as he or she chooses to in order to earn
whatever salvation/enlightenment is offered, the
rights of those people end at the tip of their nose.
Whereas I would allow religions to police their own in
regards proper behavior, no coercion upon
non-believers to follow any dictates of the believers
can be tolerated without grave danger to Freedom
everywhere.

No person, no tribe, no organization, and no religion
is "special" or excempt from respecting the rights of
others. Remember that rights came about to protect the
weak from the strong. Therefore it is foolish for the
weak to attack the rights of the strong. To do so
raises the specter that the strong will simply
dispense with rights altogether and then the law of
jungle comes back into play.


>From a completely different POV, that of comparative
theology, the whole concept of salvation hinges on
free will. Most such religions require volutary
acceptance of the "truth" in order to be saved. This
is one of the ways in which Islam differs from its
peers in that certain injunctions are imposed not only
on believers but on non-believers as well.

This is not only wrong from a humanist perspective but
from a theological standpoint it is utterly pointless.
Is it assumed that an all-knowing diety would somehow
be fooled into believing that a forced obeissance is
sincere and worthy of reward? Or is it instead the
case that Allah is sadistic and enjoys the sight of
his creations coerced into submission? From these
reflections, it seems quite clear that this is a show
of force by Islam, instigated by its official
hierarchy, against a secular west.

I think that appeasement is a poor choice of
responses. If the non-Muslims of the world back down
to the will of Islam to enforce one small passage of
the Koran upon us, why would they not then be
encouraged to believe that they may someday be able to
force the whole of the Koran upon us?

I am for religious freedom, but all religions must
understand that their freedoms stop where human rights begin.

Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Thereupon, the Soul of Mother Earth bewailed, Should I accept the support of a feeble man and listen to his words? In fact I desired the aid of a strong and mighty king. When shall such a person arise and bring strong-handed succor to me?" -Yasna 29, verse 9 

"Now I am light, now I am flying, now I see myself beneath myself, now a God dances through me." - St. Nietzsche

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Feb 14 03:12:51 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:12:51 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602131246l39f6cd1ane53adab84c32c7ad@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602140316.k1E3GIjn004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 12:46 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready


Just to continue on this thread.? According to [1], New Horizons will be
going ~50,370 km/h when it passes by Pluto.? Compare that with the Stardust
sample return capsule which hit the Earth's atmosphere at ~ 46,660 km/h --
that isn't *that* big a difference.? Now I realize that Pluto doesn't have
much of an atmosphere one can use to slow one down but there ought to be
ways (as I mentioned previously) to compensate. 

Robert

1. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0260.shtml



Assuming no atmosphere on which to use aerobraking, and the
gravity field relatively small, we would need to come up with
a delta V of about 14 km per second.  A typical rocket motor
capable of being carried out to Pluto (non cryogenic fuels)
might be able to make a specific impulse of about 3000 N-sec/kg
(hydrazine motor), so assuming you are only injecting into
Plutonic orbit you still need about 12 km/sec delta V, so you need
about four times 3000 to get to there, so e^4, so your mass fraction
of fuel in that bird is about about 98 percent fuel by
mass when it starts its deceleration burn.  The 2% not-fuel
must include the weight of the tanks, the motor etc.  This
isn't necessarily flat out impossible, but it sure looks
flat out impractical to me.  I see why the mission designers
decided to zing on past while taking pictures, then take their
time in sending the info back home.

Robert we need you to invent nanotech so that we can blast out
there with payloads of only a few milligrams.  That solves so
many of our stubborn propulsion problems.  {8-]

spike




spike 








From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 14 04:08:04 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:08:04 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <200602140316.k1E3GIjn004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV222B6C59BEFE3B285974FB7060@phx.gbl>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:13 PM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready



________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 12:46 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready


Just to continue on this thread.? According to [1], New Horizons will be
going ~50,370 km/h when it passes by Pluto.? Compare that with the Stardust
sample return capsule which hit the Earth's atmosphere at ~ 46,660 km/h --
that isn't *that* big a difference.? Now I realize that Pluto doesn't have
much of an atmosphere one can use to slow one down but there ought to be
ways (as I mentioned previously) to compensate. 

Robert

1. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0260.shtml



Assuming no atmosphere on which to use aerobraking, and the
gravity field relatively small, we would need to come up with
a delta V of about 14 km per second.  A typical rocket motor
capable of being carried out to Pluto (non cryogenic fuels)
might be able to make a specific impulse of about 3000 N-sec/kg
(hydrazine motor), so assuming you are only injecting into
Plutonic orbit you still need about 12 km/sec delta V, so you need
about four times 3000 to get to there, so e^4, so your mass fraction
of fuel in that bird is about about 98 percent fuel by
mass when it starts its deceleration burn.  The 2% not-fuel
must include the weight of the tanks, the motor etc.  This
isn't necessarily flat out impossible, but it sure looks
flat out impractical to me.  I see why the mission designers
decided to zing on past while taking pictures, then take their
time in sending the info back home.

Robert we need you to invent nanotech so that we can blast out
there with payloads of only a few milligrams.  That solves so
many of our stubborn propulsion problems.  {8-]

spike




spike 






_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Tue Feb 14 03:11:44 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:11:44 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Real Transformer robot video
In-Reply-To: <02e101c630ef$84e9a720$640fa8c0@kevin>
References: <02e101c630ef$84e9a720$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <43F14A70.1050307@goldenfuture.net>

Call me when it has a particle beam that blasts Decepticons.

Seriously, that's pretty impressive. Thanks!

Joseph

kevinfreels.com wrote:

>  
> For those of you young enough at heart to appreciate the Transformers 
> cartoons, here's a neat little video of a real robotic car that 
> changes into a walking humanoid robot and back.
>  
> http://www.youtube.com/w/Real%20Transformer?v=dut6jxCiakg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Etecheblog%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ephp%2Ftech%2Dgadget%2Fwr%2D07%2Da%2Dreal%2Dtransformer 
> <http://www.youtube.com/w/Real%20Transformer?v=dut6jxCiakg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Etecheblog%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ephp%2Ftech%2Dgadget%2Fwr%2D07%2Da%2Dreal%2Dtransformer>
>  
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>  
>



From mehranraeli at comcast.net  Tue Feb 14 04:32:34 2006
From: mehranraeli at comcast.net (Mehran)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:32:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Whats Raels position on the first cell ? was
In-Reply-To: <mailman.381.1139845582.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <005401c6311f$b08a5200$799f6041@DBX6XT21>

Brett,

The full answer is of course in the book, but in short: there is no first
cell...

Universe is infinite, it is infinite in time and it is infinite in space,
there is no beginning and there is no end, 
Universe always existed and will always exist and most interesting of all
and to answer your question more directly, life always existed in the
universe as well...humans always existed in the universe as well, we just
progress scientifically then we go to other planets and create new life
forms and new civilizations like an intergalactic virus in the universe, our
creators were created the same way, all the way back to an infinity in the
past with no beginning ever...NASA has similar projects to go and implant
life on other planets and so there we go contributing our share in the cycle


I remember how I felt when I first read about this, so enjoy the ride! ... 

there are more amazing details in the book, more extropic than anything I
know..


LOVE
Mehran
www.rael.org



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

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:25:39 +1100
From: "Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au>
Subject: [extropy-chat] Whats Raels position on the first cell ? was
	Re:	Protect etc
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <00b701c62fa5$860ee430$1283e03c at homepc>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original

Mehran wrote:

>.. Your impatience suggests to
> me that not only you need to read the whole book again slowly , but you 
> need
> to read the other 5 books by Rael as well ( all free downloads) to get 
> just
> a first impression of what this is all about.  I have read  it more than 
> 10
> times, thought about it and talked about it for 15 years and my
> understanding of this incredible revelation is still expanding and I am
> becoming ever more awestruck.  Nothing makes more sense...

[snip]

> There was an evolution in the emergence of life on the earth but the
> evolution was in the minds of the Elohim's scientists as described in the
> book. They first created simple unicellular organisms using genetic
> engineering and then gradually created more complex animals and planst and
> finally created the first human beings Adam and Eve in their own image as
> described in the religious texts.  They created seven races on earth and
> that is why this message is so consistent with the semi-mythical creation
> stories in many cultures from far East, India, Africa, South Americans,
> Eskimos and Native Americans all describing creator gods coming from sky
> bringing guides (the Prophets) and wisdom.  These disparate cultures had 
> no
> contact with each other yet they all describe similar creation events in
> their past...

As someone that's been studying a bit of biochem lately perhaps you might
be able to help me out with some insights from reading the books of
Rael. .

If the Elohim were alive, composed of RNA/DNA/proteins etc,
from where did *they* originate ?

You see as a poor Earth bound science student I'm particularly interested
in how the first cell that was to be the precursor to multicelled organisms
managed to form against a backdrop of what we earth scientists and
science students consider to be the laws of thermodynamics.

I'm not real happy with partial explanation that have been offered by
folk like Paul Davies, I think, from memory, that argue that gravity and
information need to be taken into account in just the right way to
counterbalance the laws of thermodynamics.

It would be real neighbourly if you, on the basis of you reading of Rael
could clear up that little quandary about the origins of the first cell up 
for
me. That is the first cell including the universe in which the Elohim live,
so that if the Elohim are made of cells and are older than us, its that
cell I'm interested in.


Brett Paatsch






From jonano at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 04:53:01 2006
From: jonano at gmail.com (Jonathan Despres)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:53:01 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] President awards national science and technology
	medals
Message-ID: <6030482a0602132053j500d42d8o3bed9107ac566ddf@mail.gmail.com>

WASHINGTON --President Bush presented science and technology
achievement medals on Monday to 15 laureates, including two from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who have done work that has
revolutionized organ transplants, led to development of global
positioning systems and helped feed millions around the world.

"The spirit of discovery is one of our national strengths," Bush said
before handing out the 2004 National Medals of Science and Technology
in the White House's East Room. "Our greatest resource has always been
the educated, hardworking, ambitious people who call this country
their home.

"From Thomas Edison's light bulb to Robert Ledley's CAT scan machine,
most of America's revolutionary inventions began with men and women
with a vision to see beyond what is and the desire to pursue what
might be."

Established by Congress in 1959, the medal of science award is
administered by the National Science Foundation. The ceremony brought
to 425 the total number of medal of science recipients.

The medal of technology, established by Congress in 1980, is
administered by the Commerce Department. So far, 166 of these
technology medals have been awarded.

Medal recipients in science:

--Kenneth J. Arrow, Stanford University; Stanford, Calif., for his
contributions in the field of economics.

--Norman E. Borlaug, Texas A&M University; College Station, Texas, for
breeding semi-dwarf, disease-resistant high-yield wheat and
instructing farmers in its cultivation to help ease starvation.

--Robert N. Clayton, The University of Chicago, for his contributions
to geochemistry and cosmochemistry that provided insight into the
evolution of the solar system.

--Edwin N. Lightfoot, University of Wisconsin, for research in how the
body controls insulin levels and oxygenates blood.

--Stephen J. Lippard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for
research in bioinorganic chemistry, including the interaction of metal
compounds with DNA.

--Phillip A. Sharp, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for his
genetic research, including his role in discovering the discontinuous
nature of genetic information in split genes.

--Thomas E. Starzl, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, for
his work in liver transplantation and his discoveries in
immunosuppressive medication that advanced the field of organ
transplantation.

--Dennis P. Sullivan, City University of New York Graduate Center and
State University of New York at Stony Brook, for his work in
mathematics, including the creation of entirely new fields of
mathematics, and uncovering unexpected connections between seemingly
unrelated fields.

Medal recipients in technology:

--Ralph H. Baer, engineering consultant; Manchester, N.H., for his
work in developing and commercializing interactive video games, which
spawned related uses and mega-industries in both the entertainment and
education fields.

--Roger L. Easton, founder of RoBarCo, a private consulting firm in
Canaan, N.H., for his achievements in spacecraft tracking, navigation,
and timing technology that led to the development of the
NAVSTAR-Global Positioning System.

--Gen-Probe Inc. of San Diego, Calif., for the development and
commercialization of new blood-testing technologies and systems for
the direct detection of viral infections, including West Nile virus,
HIV-1 and Hepatitis C virus in plasma of human blood and organ donors
prior to transfusion. The award was accepted by Henry L. Nordhoff,
president, chairman and chief executive officer.

--IBM Microelectronics Division of Armonk, N.Y., for innovation in
semiconductor technology that has enabled explosive growth in the
information technology and consumer electronics industries through the
development of smaller, more powerful microelectronic devices. The
award was accepted by Nicholas M. Donofrio, executive vice president
of innovation and technology.

--Industrial Light and Magic of San Francisco, Calif., for 30 years of
innovation in visual effects technology for the motion picture
industry. Chrissie England, president, and George Lucas, founder,
accepted the award.

--Motorola Inc. of Schaumburg, Ill., for work in mobile
communications, and for the development of innovations that allow
people to connect with their world. The award was received by
Padmasree Warrior, executive vice president and chief technology
officer.

--PACCAR Inc. of Bellevue, Wash., for pioneering work in the
development and commercialization of aerodynamic, lightweight trucks
that have dramatically reduced fuel consumption and increased the
productivity of U.S. freight transportation. The award was accepted by
Mark C. Pigott, chairman and chief executive officer.



From jonkc at att.net  Tue Feb 14 05:48:49 2006
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:48:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental limits on the growth rate of
	superintelligences
References: <deaa866a0602100718o69a99529h5a764a4b1a644dd9@mail.gmail.com><005601c630e3$2a026fb0$da0c4e0c@MyComputer>
	<028801c630ec$a15a90c0$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <001c01c6312a$5d5cfb40$b3044e0c@MyComputer>

"kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com>

> What exactly are you referring to when you mention "growth rate"? Are you
> referring to the speed at which it becomes more intelligent?

Yes.

> Obtains more  control?

Yes.

 > Increases it's own processing speed?

Yes.

 > How exactly do you even  quantify a "growth rate"
> for a sentient superintelligence?

In your life I am certain you have met people you judge to be smart and
people you judge to be stupid, how exactly did you  quantify it?

> Certainly you  aren't just referring to processor speed.

You're right, I'm not just talking about how fast the AI thinks, but I could
be and the situation would not change. Even if your opponent was no smarter
than you are if he could think several million times faster you will not
win. Signals move in the human brain at about 100 meters a second, in an AI
they would move at 300,000,000 meters a second and they would have less
distance to travel. Game over.

  John K Clark








From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Tue Feb 14 06:56:31 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:56:31 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental limits on the growth rate
	ofsuperintelligences
References: <deaa866a0602100718o69a99529h5a764a4b1a644dd9@mail.gmail.com><005601c630e3$2a026fb0$da0c4e0c@MyComputer><028801c630ec$a15a90c0$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<001c01c6312a$5d5cfb40$b3044e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <002301c63133$c9ba9820$640fa8c0@kevin>

>
> In your life I am certain you have met people you judge to be smart and
> people you judge to be stupid, how exactly did you  quantify it?

I've never attempted to quantify the growth rate of a person's intelligence.
Only the level that they may have been at a given moment - like when they
pull in front of me on the freeway. You are asking about fundamental limits
on the rate at which a super AI becomes smarter and I am wondering how
anyone could answer that question.

You seem to be working with the idea that every upgrade that an AI makes
will be a true improvement and that every decision will be perfectly geared
towards future goals having been already worked out 2 billion steps in
advance.  I think it's a long stretch to think that any AI would be perfect
and not make mistakes. I would expect them to be set back by errors and bad
decisions as we are although they would see the world much differently and
make different kinds of mistakes. Emotions could get in the way of hardcore
number crunching, but they may choose to add emotions anyways just for the
pleasure of it. You simply can't know their minds or motivations once they
become independent. Some may even go flat-out crazy.

Also, you are assuming that the AI has nothing better to do with it's time
than to improve upon itself. It may very well become so interested in
observing it may never choose to do anything but observe. The AI version of
the couch potato.....

As for a fundamental limit on their ultimate intelligence, well, I would
suppose that a computer will never be built that can solve a problem before
it is presented with the problem. That makes a nice limit. But they will
only get there if they choose to go there.

You do bring up a good point although I don't know if you meant to. I know
all sorts of idiots out there and they are all considered "intelligent" or
"sentient". Has anyone considered the possibility that an AI would be
created that was sentient, but stupid? I guess you could call it Artificial
Stupidity?





From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 13:56:19 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:56:19 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Whats Raels position on the first cell ? was
In-Reply-To: <005401c6311f$b08a5200$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
References: <mailman.381.1139845582.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<005401c6311f$b08a5200$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602140556s7529ca70i83a25be8fc9e1c8f@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/13/06, Mehran <mehranraeli at comcast.net> wrote:

> The full answer is of course in the book, but in short: there is no first
> cell...


Of course, since the answers are "in the book" (or books) then this is a
declared authority.  I.e. it is true because *I* say (or in this case Rael
says) it is true.  You must have *faith* and *believe* that it is true.  No
hypothesis generation and testing is required.


> Universe is infinite, it is infinite in time and it is infinite in space,
>
there is no beginning and there is no end,
> Universe always existed and will always exist and most interesting of all
> and to answer your question more directly, life always existed in the
> universe as well...humans always existed in the universe as well, we just
> progress scientifically then we go to other planets and create new life
> forms and new civilizations like an intergalactic virus in the universe,


Yea, yea, yea.  This is a repackaging of
Hoyle's<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle> Steady
State <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory>,
subsequently, Quasi-Steady
State <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-steady_state_cosmology>,
hypotheses updated with the
Hoyle/Wickramasinghe<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Wickramasinghe><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Wickramasinghe>
panspermia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia> hypothesis
[1,2,3,4,5].  These have largely been rejected by modern science with the
possible exception that there is some merit to the idea that various organic
molecules necessary for life may have arrived via cosmic dust and/or comet
to contributed to the pea soup that yielded "life".  But that doesn't answer
Brett's question as to how the first cell was formed.  For that one place to
start might be Dyson's work [6,7] on the problem.  Wikipedia has further
discussions under the origin of
life<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Life>[8].

So Rael would seem to have no claim on this system.  If anything these
people should be calling themselve's "Hoyleians"!

our creators were created the same way, all the way back to an infinity in
> the
> past with no beginning ever...NASA has similar projects to go and implant
> life on other planets and so there we go contributing our share in the
> cycle
>
> I remember how I felt when I first read about this, so enjoy the ride! ...
>
> there are more amazing details in the book, more extropic than anything I
> know..


Actually, the Extropic Principles have as a fundamental component "rational
thought" and once you cross the border from physics we know into declarative
physics where the reality is determined by "faith" and "belief" -- then you
are *NOT* being extropic (and I personally will request that you please stop
wasting my time).  Given that I have a problem with the "big bang" creating
a universe from nothingness -- I have just as much of a problem with the
universe having existed forever.

Since there seems to be no way currently of proving or disproving the
foundations of a "Raelian" philosophical system I put it into the same camp
as I do any other system which requires that one accept things on the basis
of someone elses assertions.

I would like however to know Rael's opinions as to precisely what happens
when humanity evolves to the point of hitting the limits imposed by the laws
of physics in this "always has existed" Universe?  I.e. what do advanced
civilizations do once they hit the limits of intelligence that say Jupiter
Brain or Matrioshka Brain architectures impose?  And what happens after the
heat death of this Universe?  [If I'm reading the previous statements
correctly, there is an assertion that there is "no end" to the universe.
This is in direct conflict with theories regarding heat death and requires
actual proof of a "steady state" cosmology to be valid.]

Robert

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-steady_state_cosmology
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Wickramasinghe
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
7. Dyson, F. J., "A Model for the Origin of
Life<http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/%7Ebradbury/ETI/Authors/Dyson-FJ/AmftOoL.html>",
Journal of Molecular Evolution *18*:344-350 (1982).
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Life
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/b940a55b/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 14:18:31 2006
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:18:31 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!
Message-ID: <ee50357e0602140618h6d37ca83oeab45939a19d4e42@mail.gmail.com>

It is totally pointless to ask a cult member questions about his cult
doctrine. You only give them an excuse to distribute cult propaganda
and cult fantasies to every member on the list.

If you *really* want to discuss cult fantasies with a true believer,
please do it offlist. And do some Google searching as well beforehand.
That might be enough to satisfy your idle curiosity without even
wasting your time in a pointless discussion with them.

I hope extropy-chat is not becoming a venue for cult propaganda. The
noise level is high enough without that as well.

BillK



From james.hughes at trincoll.edu  Tue Feb 14 14:24:29 2006
From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:24:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] C.S. Lewis's Answers to 21st Century Transhumanism
Message-ID: <B55E044559115F4B8C9EE62323C322B4141BEFD4@hickory.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu>


Focuses on Max, Natasha and Anders - J.

http://www.staustinreview.com/jan06/beiting_article.pdf

Christopher Beiting

The following is an abridged version of a presentation originally given at the Oxford portion of the C.S. Lewis Foundation's Oxbridge 2005 conference.

C.S. Lewis's Answers to 21st Century Transhumanism

It is now the twenty-first century, and we
did not get the future the futurians and science-
fiction writers predicted: there are no
interplanetary spacecraft, colonies on the
moon, or flying cars. Instead, the future we
got is not large, but small, and the revolutions
that have come and are coming deal
with the infinitesimal rather than the
expansive. Many authors predicted flying
cars, but almost none realized that we
would have computers so small that each
household would have at least one, if not
several. And from the information technology
revolution we pass into what many
believe will be the revolution of the twentyfirst
century: the biotechnology revolution.

The future appears to lie not with manipulating
the very large, but with manipulating
the very small, and while there are many
potential benefits to this new science, there
are also many potential problems. In particular,
this article will focus on one ideology-
transhumanism-which stems from this new
technology, and examine how remarkably
prescient C.S. Lewis was both in forseeing
it, and providing some ways by which lovers
of the Permanent Things can respond to it.1
This new biotechnological revolution
depends on the manipulation of very small
units of matter, which can be done in two
chief ways. One way is nascent science that,
while still experimental, may produce
extraordinary results: nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology is a complex topic which
cannot be well-treated in such a small space,2
but suffice it to say that it is a fusion of a
number of different processes: microtechnology
to build smaller machines, chemistry
to synthesize more complex molecules, biology
to manipulate the changes in living
organisms more effectively, materials science
to construct solids more efficiently, and
manufacturing to construct products more
efficiently. The ultimate goal is to be able to
manipulate or construct things on an atomby-
atom level, which, although it seems like
science fiction, has been possible for over a
decade now.3 Should this field develop, it
has possibilities that appear to be nearly endless-
and dangers that appear to be correspondingly
grave, as well. In a future with
developed nanotechnology, problems of
scarcity would vanish, and it would be possible
to make nearly anything, atom-by-atom,
out of anything. But if it becomes possible to
manipulate matter on the tiniest levels possible,
it becomes trivially easy to manipulate
human genes, and the question arises: what
should one do with this ability? While there
are few objections to curing human ills, how
far should we go towards "improving", or
even redesigning ourselves?

However, even if nanotechnology does
not fulfill its potential, the problem of
manipulating human genes remains. For
some time now, germ-line engineering, in
which the DNA of an egg is deliberately
altered by a variety of means, allowing the
subsequently-developing organism to manifest
a desired trait, has been commonly-practiced,
routinely with plants, and now successfully
with animals.4 While germ-line
engineering has great promise, it also holds
great challenges, challenges which will grow
greater as the technology grows more sophisticated
and procedures become more complicated.

Once upon a time, talk of human
cloning was confined to science fiction
tales; today, it is the stuff of headlines.

However it comes to us, the biotechnology
revolution will generate significant moral
questions, and more than a little hesitation
about its use.

As the recent debates over human
cloning indicate, most people look on the
new biotechnology with some hesitation.

However, not all do, and there are some
groups which not only do not view the new
biotechnology with hesitation, but rather
rush forward to embrace it and push it to its
extremes. Such individuals are known by a
variety of names, but they are most commonly
called transhumanists. What does
transhumanism seek? The president of the
Extropian Institute, Natasha Vita-More (n?e
Nancie Clark), explains:

Transhumanism is a commitment to
overcoming human limits in all their
forms including extending lifespan,
augmenting intelligence, perpetually
increasing knowledge, achieving complete
control over our personalities and
identities, and gaining the ability to
leave the planet. Transhumanists seek
to achieve these goals by reason, science,
and technologies.5

The transhumanist goal, in short, is a
life without limits, involving the endless perfection
of the human being through a variety
of means. Indeed, transhumanism is
something of a misnomer, since the ultimate
goal for many is posthumanism, in
which human beings have so modified
themselves that they are no longer even
remotely human. For an extreme example,
consider the ideas of Dr. Anders Sandberg,
one of the directors of the Extropian
Institute:

As humans redesign themselves after
their values, new forms of humanity
will develop. Many of these posthumans
will diverge radically from us.

Some humans will likely develop themselves
into something quite like Greek
gods: long-lived, possibly immortal,
physically and mentally almost perfect
humans (at least from their point of
view). Others may develop far more
radically, perhaps into digital lifeforms
swimming through the information
networks or transcendental superminds
among the moons of Jupiter.6

The transhumanist movement is meant
to be upbeat and positive, embracing
technophilia with a fervor that approaches
mania. Similarly, it is strongly libertarian,
opposing any kind of roadblocks placed on
human action and development by societies,
governments, or prominent individuals.

All is to be permissible, and there must
be no limits.

Transhumanism preaches vehemently
against one limit in particular, and tries
more than anything else to overcome it.

Extropian Institute co-founder Dr. Max
More explains:

Science, technology, and reason must
be harnessed to our extropic values to
abolish the greatest evil: death. Death
does not stop the progress of intelligent
beings considered collectively, but it
obliterates the individual. No philosophy
of life can be truly satisfying which
glorifies the advance of intelligent
beings and yet which condemns each
and every individual to rot into nothingness.

In the transhumanist ideology, death is
the greatest evil, followed closely by suffering.

Both are to be avoided at all costs, and
transhumanism seeks a variety of ways to
overcome death: through biotechnology,
nanotechnology, or, at a more extreme end,
through "digital uploading", wherein a
human consciousness is encoded into a
computer program, to exist forever in a virtual
world.8 Since none of these sciences
have developed yet, many transhumanists
plan to have their bodies frozen at death
until future science finds a way to revive
them, and cryogenics is an important
option for many transhumanists.

But what of the human race as a whole?

If there must be no limits to human growth,
there must be none to human locale.

Transhumanity must expand into space, not
simply because it is there, but also for the
reasons of species survival. This begs the
question of where humans will live, since
there is nowhere habitable in our own solar
system, and the achievement of interstellar
"warp drives" looks unlikely. What, then, to
do? One can build colonies in space, or try
to live on the inhospitable planets of our
solar system, and some transhumanists are
interested in such plans. Others, however,
advocate trying to adapt man to try and live
in any niche environment in the solar system
possible. Is the planet Mars frigid with
an atmosphere composed mostly of CO2?

Reengineer man for fur or a thickened skin,
redesign the lungs, and create homo martianus,
man adapted to live unaided on the
surface of Mars. One technical neologism
for this practice is pantropy, adapting man
to be able to live in any environment,
although, strictly speaking, they would no
longer be men, but transhumans.

But transhumanism does not seek to
shape only the body. It also seeks to be able
to control the mind. One method of doing
this is through something called memetics, a
nascent "science" of thought. Memetics presumes
that ideas have a quasi-organic reality
to them, and operate like genes, passing
from mind to mind.9 Any sufficiently developed
ideology is defined as a collection of
memes, and it functions like a virus: it can
be transferred from one person to another,
can be "caught", and can even be "killed" by
another meme. Memetics would be not just
the science of understanding the transmission
of these ideas, but also a science for generating
them, or combating them. To transhumanists,
though, some memes are better
than others, and some are to be opposed
and defeated through "memetic warfare". It
will probably not be a surprise to the reader
to discover that transhumanists like Max
More follow Richard Dawkins in singling
out one particular meme for destruction:
God was a primitive notion invented by
superstitious people, people only just
beginning to step out of ignorance and
unconsciousness. The concept of God
has been oppressive: a being more powerful
than we, but made in the image of
our crude self-conceptions. Our
own process of endless progression
into higher forms should and
will replace this religious idea.

Humanity is a temporary state along
the evolutionary pathway. We are not
the zenith of nature's development. It
is time for us to consciously take charge
of ourselves and to accelerate our transhuman
progress. No more gods, no
more faith, no more timid holding
back. Let us blast out of our old forms,
our ignorance, our weakness, and our
mortality. The future belongs to
posthumanity.10

And what might that future be?

Unlimited growth. With no overbearing figure
of God to limit us as a species, our
future would be boundless. One end some
transhumanists entertain, in a future where
human beings could shape matter at will
and digitally upload themselves into pure
information, would be to transform all of the
matter of the universe itself into a colossal storage
site for human digital life-forms. Those
familiar with bad Christian ideas might not
be surprised at the name they give to this
goal: "Omega Point".

For the rational Christian, it is tempting
to dismiss these individuals as nothing
more than the lunatic fringe.

Transhumanism itself has been characterized as the ultimate geek cyberfantasy future, the kind of thing engaged in by affluent white males with sophisticated computers but poor social skills.11 Obviously there are real-world limitations involved with all of these ideas (over and above the technological) which transhumanists ignore. It does not admit to the idea of human evil, and presents no plan for restraining human behavior, beyond regurgitating the usual wooly platitudes about "not hurting other people" and "being nice to each other". 

Furthermore, it is clear that much of transhumanism
has as its core a naked selfishness
and egotism, taken to extraordinary
levels.12 The Nietzschean arrogance combined
with na?vet? is amusing and frightening,
at the same time. But the whole ideology
has, at its core, a hatred of reality, of life
as it is. After all, a person who is happy with
themselves has no desire to change themselves,
and people who change their outward
appearance because they are inwardly
unhappy often find cosmetic surgery or tattooing
addictive (pop singer Michael
Jackson being a good example). Yet it is also
worth noting, strongly, the fact that so many
of these transhumanist plans for genetic
modification or reproduction are
autonomous, that is, they do not involve a
direct contact between the sexes. On some
level, they are more than just "white flight";
they represent a masculine rejection of
the feminine, and constitute a great new
form of sexual and social
sterility.

I think it is a little dangerous to dismiss these individuals as nothing more than the lunatic fringe. A number of rather prominent people are involved in aspects of this movement. Digital uploading of the self is being touted by Hans Moravec, who is the head of the Mobile Robot Laboratory at Carnegie-Mellon University, and memetics is a creation of Richard Dawkins at Oxford, who is one of the more influential biologists in the world. Also, while one may be skeptical about some of the technology, there is no question that biotechnology is advancing at blinding speeds,13 and nanotechnology may do so as well. Finally, let us consider the problem of demand. The cosmetics industry is a $160 billion-dollar-a-year business worldwide, and cosmetic surgery amounts now to a $20 billion-dollar-a-year business worldwide, with astronomical increases since 1997.14 Clearly these statistics are what they are because a substantial number of people are unhappy with themselves, and seek to make themselves feel better by modifying themselves in some way. 

There is thus a ready market for the transhumanist
ideal of self-modification and
self-improvement, particularly if science
advances enough for them to deliver on any
of their promises. The history of the twentieth
century offers us several chilling examples
of what happens when ideological
extremists find support amongst a disaffected
majority, but it is possible that the threat
for the future will not be tyranny, but rather
a Brave New World-style consumerism.

Transhumanism may not be forced upon
us; rather, we may pay for it ourselves, and
do so gladly.

How does the believing Christian handle
all of this, particularly when the future
shock value is so great? On the one hand, it
is evident that this "new" problem isn't so
new at all. Consider the assumptions of
transhumanism regarding knowledge and
longevity: they are, in fact, as old as Eden,
as Genesis 3:4 and 3:22 indicate. As the
temptation is old, I believe we may be justified
in seeking answers from a source from
the past: C.S. Lewis, whose Space Trilogy is
rendered amusingly less and less plausible
every year by its science, and chillingly more
and more plausible by its themes.

Consider the idea of a "science" of
memetics, the notion that ideas propagate
like genes. No one speaks in such terms in
order to understand ideas; rather, they do
so to control them, creating an ultimate
social science capable of predicting and
controlling human thought and behavior.

Lewis's ideas on the subject are neatly summarized
in That Hideous Strength by the
interaction of the sociologist Mark
Studdock and the physical chemist William
"Bill the Blizzard" Hingest (loosely based on
William Kirkpatrick, Lewis's boyhood
tutor). Although an atheist, Hingest is a
true scientist, and knows the limits of his
discipline. One can apply the scientific
method to his field, physical chemistry, but
not to anything as complicated as human
beings. "I don't believe in Sociology
myself," he says very pointedly to Studdock.

"There are no sciences like Sociology....

[W]hen you study men; you find mare's
nests. I happen to believe that you can't
study men, you can only get to know them,
which is quite a different thing."15
Hingest here illustrates the point Lewis
makes in his other works about language:
there are different ways of knowing things,
and other languages preserve this distinction
far better than English does.16 What
Lewis here says about sociology also applies
to fantastic disciplines like memetics: the
very idea is a non-starter, since the scientific
method cannot be applied to the human
person. Science attains glories in its proper
sphere, but is useless or terrible outside of
it. Indeed, it is possible that a grievous
harm is inflicted upon people when the scientific
method is applied to them, as a
lower method is used to treat a higher
being. Inevitably it assaults the dignity of
the person, as is seen when the members of
the NICE use Mark's sociological knowledge
to help destroy the village of Edgestow
and the lives of the people in it.

Consider next the dizzying array of transhumanist
goals to upgrade humanity and
eliminate death, from cryogenics to genetic
manipulation to digital uploading. The selfloathing
and Gnosticism implicit in many
of these ideas (digital uploading and cybersex
in particular), should be obvious. At
their core, these ideas represent a deep-rooted
hatred of the natural, and in particular a
masculine hatred of certain aspects of
nature, such as femininity, fertility, and natural
reproduction. One can see their ultimate
expression in That Hideous Strength in
the character of NICE scientist Filostrato,
who goes beyond a hatred of natural sexuality
and a desire to replace it into a fullbore
loathing of the natural world itself,
and desire to sterilize it. "And why not? It is
simple hygiene,"17 he maintains. His ideal
world is Sulva, the Moon, which has been
deliberately sterilized and rendered lifeless.

Sulvans live under the surface of their dead
world, and they are of two kinds, the common
people and the Masters. In a world
that is sterile, unnatural, and lifeless, sex is
also sterile, unnatural, and lifeless: the common
Sulvans never make intimate contact
with each other, but rather copulate with
artificial simulacra of other Sulvans, whom
they need never meet in person. Seed is harvested
from the simulacra to breed the next
generation of Sulvans, who are conceived
and raised artificially. However, even this is
too much like life for Filostrato, who prefers
the existence of the older Sulvans, the
Masters. They are, for him, a "pure race,"
almost "broken free from the organic":
They do not need to be born and breed
and die, only their common people,
their canaglia do that. The Masters live
on. They retain their intelligence: they
can keep it artificially alive after the
organic body has been dispensed
with...They are almost free of Nature,
attached to her only by the thinnest,
finest cord.18

The Sulvan form of immortality is the
goal for humanity for which the NICE
secretly strives, one which has been already
reached by their Head, Alcasan, who in reality
is nothing more than a severed head
kept alive by artificial means. For some, this
goal is approached with religious overtones:
the NICE's resident renegade clergyman
Straik considers it the "creation of God
Almighty", the "first sketch of the real
God," who will "ascend the throne of the
universe, and rule forever."19 But such a
privileged existence will not be for everyone;
rather, immortality will be meant only for
"a number-a select number-of individual
men."20 The rest of the human race does not
matter, and "will always remain animals,
looking at the world through the haze of
their subjective reactions,"21 destined for
domination or extinction.

Finally, let us consider the transhumanist
desire for the conquest of space to secure
the immortality of the human species, particularly
through the practice of pantropy. If
for Lewis the desire for personal technological
immortality is a sin, then the desire for
racial immortality is likewise a sin. As people
are meant to die, so, too, are races
meant to die; Lewis criticizes more than just
Devine's cupidity and interplanetary imperialism
in Out of the Silent Planet; he also
criticizes Weston's desires for racial immortality
through planetary resettlement.

Weston's desires are made worse by the fact
that he acknowledges what the
Malacandrian planetary guardian Oyarsa
tells him: "Yet you know that these creatures
would have to be made quite unlike you
before they lived on other worlds." In the
end, Weston does not love the reality of
humanity, but only some ideal of it, and
would accept any altered version of humanity-
no matter how monstrous or inhuman-
as long as it came from humanity originally.

His views are contrasted with those of the
Malacandrians themselves, who faced this
very temptation in their own past: to leave
dying Malacandria, adapt themselves, and settle
on another world-Earth. But they did not
do so: while Weston declares in favor of the
Bent One, the Malacandrians stayed with
Maledil, and in return for a high price-the
eventual extinction of all life on Malacandria-
gained a higher benefit, as Oyarsa explains to
the uncomprehending Weston:
...one thing we left behind us...fear.

And with fear, murder and rebellion.

The weakest of my people do not fear
death. It is the Bent One, the lord of
your world, who wastes your lives and
befouls them with flying from what you
know will overtake you in the end. If
you were subjects of Maledil, you
would have peace.22

Not only is it wrong to pursue racial
immortality through space colonization,
says Lewis, but it is deeply wrong to do so by
the forced genetic modifications to the race
that such a project would involve. In the
end the project is a phantasm, since the succeeding
race is not the old race at all.

In short, nearly five decades before the
establishment of the Extropian Institute,
Lewis had already seen the inevitable consequences
of their lust for life by any means,
and the parallels to the ideas of NICE and
Weston and the transhumanists are chillingly
obvious. For all its protestations of
human freedom, transhumanism has, in
memetics, a disturbingly totalitarian undertone.

For all its celebration of life, transhumanism
has the same hatred of the natural,
and refusal to accept life as it is, as Filostrato
does, particularly with regard to sexual congress
and reproduction. How different are
the practices of the Sulvans from the artificial
wombs and the cybersex of the transhumanists?

And how different is the state of
immortality and "life" of the Sulvan
Masters from the dreams of the transhumanists,
particularly when one considers
that the chief form of cryogenic preservation
currently engaged in involves preserving
only the severed head? For all its desire to
expand into space, transhumanism has, at
its core, the same lust for human racial
immortality at any cost that Weston's ideas
have. And, finally, for all its purportedly
life-affirming ideals, how different is the
transhuman attitude of homo superior toward
homo sapiens from the attitude of the members
of the NICE toward their non-enlightened
fellow humans? Man 2.0 has no need
of Man 1.0, after all; will Man 1.0 suffer the
same fate at the hands of the transhumanists
as the village of Edgestow did at the hands of
the NICE? In the end, given their thoughts
on God, is it any stretch of the imagination
to wonder whether the transhumanists have
made the same choice of master that Weston
does in Out of the Silent Planet?

Whether in a science fiction tale like the
Space Trilogy or up against a science-fictionstyle
ideology like transhumanism, we are
not at the beginning of a new age. Rather,
we are back at the beginning of time, facing
a temptation as old as Eden. Then as now,
we live amidst a cosmos at war, where our
only true freedom is the freedom to choose
our masters. In the face of the temptation of
biotechnology, I greatly fear that the majority
of humanity will not make the correct
choice. Yet I take comfort from the fact that
in Out of the Silent Planet the Malacandrians
were saved by the intervention of their planetary
governor Oyarsa, and greater comfort
from the fact that in That Hideous Strength
the forces of evil are destroyed by an outraged
nature, as the lords of the NICE are
by the savage laboratory animals that maul
them, or the town of Edgestow is, by the savage
weather that devastates it. Lewis
reminds us that a love of God and of Nature
is the most powerful choice we can make.23
Christopher Beiting is Professor of History at Ave
Maria College in Ypsilanti, Michigan.

References

1 I will confine my examinations to Lewis's
Space Trilogy; the interested reader should not
overlook his Abolition of Man for a further treatment
of these themes.

2 For a positive view of the field, see the following
websites:
http://www.nanomagazine.com/i.php?id=tiham
ertothfejel or
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/9609lego.ht
m; or the numerous books of nanotech pioneer
K. Eric Drexler.

3 See:
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/gallery.html for a gallery of artworks constructed entirely at the atomic level.

4 When an average person uses the term
"genetic engineering", this is the process to
which they are referring.

5 Natasha Vita-More, "Definitions of
Transhumanism",
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Intro/definitions.h
tml.


6 Anders Sandberg, "The Transhuman
Vision",
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Intro/vision.html.

7 Max More, "Transhumanism: Towards a
Futurist Philosophy",
http://www.maxmore.com/transhum.htm.

8 In which one could enjoy any programmed
sensation, though transhumanists seem to focus
disproportionately on cybersex.

9 The term "meme" was first coined by biologist
Richard Dawkins in chapter 11 of his 1976
work The Selfish Gene, to refer to a "unit of cultural
transmission."

10 Max More, "Transhumanism: Towards a
Futurist Philosophy", op. cit.

11 Author and critic David Skal has castigated
the notion of digital uplift in particular as
"the most extreme example of 'white flight' imaginable";
see: Screams of Reason (Norton, 1998),
300.

12 Wanting to improve oneself is not bad per
se; wanting to upgrade one's body from Man 1.0
to Man 2.0 through technological means smacks
of hubris; wanting to use tailored nanoassemblers
to convert the entire planet Jupiter into circuitry
and then upload one's consciousness into
it-well, where does one begin the critique?

13 One scientist has concluded that biotechnology
will advance faster than computer technology
and outstrip Moore's Law; see: Randall Parker,
"Will Biological Technologies Advance as Rapidly
as Electronic Technologies?", http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/000002.html.

14 See: "Pots of Promise: the Beauty
Business", The Economist, May 24, 2003.

15 C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength
(Macmillan, 1965), 71.

16 Where English has "know", German has
kennen and wissen, French conna?tre and savoir, and
so on; there is a world of difference between "Je sais
que Jean est un homme" and "Je connais Jean".

17 Lewis, That Hideous Strength, 173.

18 Ibid., 176.

19 Ibid., 179.

20 Ibid., 179.

21 Ibid., 259.

22 C. S. Lewis, Out of the Silent Planet
(Macmillan, 1965), 140.

23 For more Christian critiques on transhumanism,
see: C. Christopher Hook, "The
Technosapiens are Coming", Christianity Today,
Jan. 2004, 36-40.; Bernard Daly,
"Tranhumanism, a Brave New World", America,
Oct. 25, 2004, 18-20; and the recent Vatican
International Theological Commission
"Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons
Created in the Image of God" (available in
Origins, CNS Documentary Service, Sept. 23, 2004).



From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 14 14:35:04 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:35:04 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602140618h6d37ca83oeab45939a19d4e42@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV1416164B11B7731AEBF187B7060@phx.gbl>

Thank you BillK !

New to the list, I was wondering how far the discussion was going to go
before someone stepped in and "moderated."

Until someone introduces an alien to NASA for a debriefing I don't want to
hear another word on the subject.

peterK

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 9:19 AM
To: Extropy Chat
Subject: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!

It is totally pointless to ask a cult member questions about his cult
doctrine. You only give them an excuse to distribute cult propaganda
and cult fantasies to every member on the list.

If you *really* want to discuss cult fantasies with a true believer,
please do it offlist. And do some Google searching as well beforehand.
That might be enough to satisfy your idle curiosity without even
wasting your time in a pointless discussion with them.

I hope extropy-chat is not becoming a venue for cult propaganda. The
noise level is high enough without that as well.

BillK

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 15:11:19 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:11:19 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <200602140316.k1E3GIjn004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <deaa866a0602131246l39f6cd1ane53adab84c32c7ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<200602140316.k1E3GIjn004345@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602140711r7adfc1c5t14c9479fd3d2cfa4@mail.gmail.com>

Spike your thinking is still stuck in the "standard model".  (I.e. you have
to decelerate to "land").  Screw that.  Let the damn planet absorb the
momentum, it isn't like its going to alter its orbit significantly.  Think
something like a spacecraft with a bunch of nanotubes between it and the
planet (we can grow buckytubes now!).  Now you can get into a complex
discussion as to whether you want layered nanotube mesh fabric (horizontal
orientation) or end-on nanotube columns (vertical orientation).  Look up the
mass of the New Horizons satellite is (you folks should know this right --
you *did* lauch the thing).  Figure out the total energy of it hitting Pluto
then figure out what quantity of nanotubes/buckyballs you would have to
vaporize to throw away the energy.  Nanosystems says the C-C dissocation
energy is 0.545 aJ (pg 52).  How many C-C bonds would you have to break to
offset the impact energy?  Yes, I know you need a heat shield to protect it
from that but the Stardust probe managed ok.  What you really want is a
collapsible shield structured so that most of the impact energy goes out
sideways rather than back towards the spacecraft.  Ok, now expand on that
concept a little bit.  Say you have the carbon nanotubes/buckyballs filled
with H or He (lightweight and will absorb some of the impact energy and
dissipate).

Then there is the question of how many g's a "hardened" satellite can really
withstand?  If you structure it so it is strengthened for impact I suspect
it quite high.

I get the feeling there is a NIAC study hidden in this topic that could be a
lot of fun.

Also, I'm reasonably certain Pluto does have an atmosphere (though thin) at
this point in its orbit so some form aerobraking could be feasible (though
it may not be worth the effort).

Finally, current micro chip scales *are* nanotech.  It still comes back to a
question of how many g's they can withstand on impact and what kinds of near
term nanotech can be used to reduce the impact they must withstand.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/6091aecb/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Feb 14 15:33:21 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:33:21 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!
In-Reply-To: <BAY112-DAV1416164B11B7731AEBF187B7060@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <200602141533.k1EFXQ6N015438@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Peter K. Bertine, Jr
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!
> 
> Thank you BillK !
> 
> New to the list, I was wondering how far the discussion was going to go
> before someone stepped in and "moderated."
> 
> Until someone introduces an alien to NASA for a debriefing I don't want to
> hear another word on the subject.
> 
> peterK


Welcome to ExI Peter!

Since the UFO discussion wasn't going far, I decided to let it
burn out by itself.  A poster suggested we read six books on
the topic, then we would believe.  I know the ExI chat regulars
well enough to be confident that if a flying saucer landed in
their back yard, little green men got out and handed over six
books on UFOs, got back in and flew away, even then they wouldn't
invest the time in reading those six books.  They may cut back
forthwith on the recreational pharmaceuticals, and puzzle for
the rest of their lives over where those six books came from,
but they wouldn't invest the time to read them.  I wouldn't.

spike







From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 15:42:54 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:42:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!
In-Reply-To: <BAY112-DAV1416164B11B7731AEBF187B7060@phx.gbl>
References: <ee50357e0602140618h6d37ca83oeab45939a19d4e42@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY112-DAV1416164B11B7731AEBF187B7060@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602140742k2a451946vb5e717054608820@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/14/06, Peter K.  Bertine, Jr <pkbertine at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you BillK !
>
> New to the list, I was wondering how far the discussion was going to go
> before someone stepped in and "moderated."
>
> Until someone introduces an alien to NASA for a debriefing I don't want to
hear another word on the subject.
>

Peter, until someone comes up with a *really* good explanation for the
"missing mass" you have to admit that our current picture of reality is
quite incomplete.  There is a *very* legitimate argument based on
Lineweaver's work that ~70% of the Earth's in our galaxy are *older* than
ours -- some by billions of years.  I don't have any axe to grind with
regard to whether our specific solar system (or we in it) might or might not
have been created by aliens.  I can make quite valid arguments for (1) why
more advanced civilizations than our probably exist; (2) why they might not
be "here" (the Fermi Paradox) because they migrate to the coldest parts of
the galaxy [1]; and potentially (3) why they might want to create and/or
influence the development of solar systems and/or life within them as
inexpensive sources of experimental information.

My message earlier this morning pointed out the scientific underpinnings of
Raelian perspectives.  The debate regarding those underpinnings is *still*
ongoing -- though I will admit that right now the "Big Bang"ers have
significantly greater throw weight relative to the "Steady State"ers.  I do
not feel that discussions related to that debate should be off-list topics
because they relate, in part, to "What are the limits of extropic
capabilities?".  As Question #6 in the Matrioshka Brain Paper [2], now
almost a decade old, asked " What do Matrioshka Brains 'think' about?"  An
immediate follow on to that question is "How do they go about optimizing
such thoughts?"  One perfectly legitimate way is to play "god" with solar
systems.

If you believe that advanced civilizations cannot play "god" with solar
systems then I would like to see some very carefully reasoned arguments as
to precisely why that is the case.

When discussions cross over into the land of "believe me because I say it is
true" that is when the moderators may want to take action (IMO).

Robert

1. Cirkovic, Milan M.; Bradbury, Robert J.,
"Galactic Gradients, Postbiological Evolution and the Apparent Failure of
SETI"
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005astro.ph..6110C>
cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005astro.ph..6110C>
005astro.ph..6110C<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005astro.ph..6110C>
2.
http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/MatrioshkaBrainsPaper.html<http://www.aeiveos.com/%7Ebradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/MatrioshkaBrainsPaper.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/a0e7f364/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Feb 14 15:38:11 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:38:11 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602140711r7adfc1c5t14c9479fd3d2cfa4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602141543.k1EFhU5G015236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Oh I see where you are coming from, ja.  The chips themselves can likely
withstand a lot of

acceleration, but we need to get the signals back home somehow.  That
requires the kind

of equipment that cannot with current technology handle the sudden stop, nor
figure out a

way to dig itself out of the crater it would form on impact.  I'll keep
thinking tho.  

 

spike

 

 

 

  _____  

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 7:11 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready

 


Spike your thinking is still stuck in the "standard model".  (I.e. you have
to decelerate to "land").  Screw that.  Let the damn planet absorb the
momentum, it isn't like its going to alter its orbit significantly.  ...
Finally, current micro chip scales *are* nanotech.  It still comes back to a
question of how many g's they can withstand on impact and what kinds of near
term nanotech can be used to reduce the impact they must withstand. 

Robert

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/d6938d3b/attachment.html>

From sentience at pobox.com  Tue Feb 14 16:10:09 2006
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:10:09 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!
In-Reply-To: <200602141533.k1EFXQ6N015438@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200602141533.k1EFXQ6N015438@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <43F200E1.8080001@pobox.com>

spike wrote:
> 
> Since the UFO discussion wasn't going far, I decided to let it
> burn out by itself.  A poster suggested we read six books on
> the topic, then we would believe.  I know the ExI chat regulars
> well enough to be confident that if a flying saucer landed in
> their back yard, little green men got out and handed over six
> books on UFOs, got back in and flew away, even then they wouldn't
> invest the time in reading those six books.  They may cut back
> forthwith on the recreational pharmaceuticals, and puzzle for
> the rest of their lives over where those six books came from,
> but they wouldn't invest the time to read them.  I wouldn't.

Okay, *that* is going too far.

I think that even if a flying saucer landed next to me and little green 
men got out and handed over six books on UFOs, I would highly doubt that 
those little green men represented the biological descendants of a 
naturally evolved species within Earth's past light cone.  I would 
strongly suspect that the experience had somehow been produced by human 
ingenuity.

But I would read the books.

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


From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 16:33:20 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:33:20 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <20060213191454.44861.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <000401c62f89$1fa32b50$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
	<20060213191454.44861.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602140833g416b12b3m95e4624ba932df99@mail.gmail.com>

Mehran, a number of days ago, said:

"The Message of the Elohim is the proof for the Elohim's existence, for
their claims and for the fact that they are our scientific creators and that
they were the ones who sent the
Prophets."

The problem is that this is an assertive declaration.  Mehran may not be
asserting anything more than what Rael has asserted this to be true.  Like
any and all assertive declarations it suffers from the fact that anyone can
assert anything.

I can assert that "None of you exist.  All of you, the scientific evidence
for the world & universe, the history of ExI, and all of the messages on the
ExI list came into existance the second that I started typing this message.
I am synthesizing reality and its background history as I go along."
(Damien must surely know a SciFi story or two based on this line of
reasoning.)

The problem lies in how one determines Rael's assertion is more valid than
my (or any other) assertion.  Reading books just isn't going to do it for
me.  It is going to take some really strong direct experience.  Spike comes
close to the mark.  When the UFO guys land in my back yard and just leave
books, I'm going to say "Sound and fury signifying nothing".  If they want
to stay a while, I'm going to haul them off to MIT and have them put under
and X-ray machine, a light microscope, an electron microscope, an AFM and
anything else I can lay my hands on to determine what they are made of and
how they work.  And when I've convinced myself that they are based upon
technologies significantly more advanced than ours currently are (e.g.
really cool nanotechnology or even femtotechnology) then I'll sit down at
the table and ask, "So are you just passing through or have you really been
messing with the history of this system -- and if so why?"  Now problems
will arise if they say to me, "Oh you won't find any advanced technologies
in us, we are simply the nanotechnologically created biological
instantiations of extremely evolved uploads (or AIs) sent here to
communicate the *true* word to you."  At that point, I'd probably start
looking for the nearest gun shop so I could purchase a gun and commit the
minor unextropic action of killing them.  (This is a minor unextropic
offense since the upload/AI can always manufacture other instantiations at
relatively low cost.)  Representatives of advanced civilizations (or their
surrogates) walk on this Earth at high risk unless they are willing to prove
their case.

It is quite reasonable for any "new guys" on the block to incorporate all of
the "previous guys" (the prophets) because selling a new meme set to people
minds it is easier if it involves an enhancement to what is known and
accepted rather than a totally novel system.  I'd find it much more
interesting if Rael was claiming that the miracles of Jesus or Moses or ...
were based on nanotechnology and provided some concrete proposals as to how
they were accomplished.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/39e4e413/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 17:15:16 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:15:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <200602141543.k1EFhU5G015236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <deaa866a0602140711r7adfc1c5t14c9479fd3d2cfa4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200602141543.k1EFhU5G015236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602140915k188f091es6d8ba216d84782bd@mail.gmail.com>

Sounds like you need a combination orbiter + lander.  Let the lander just
worry about getting signals up to the orbiter and the orbiter worry about
getting them back to Earth.  But they you still have the deceleration
problem again.  I think an inflatable antenna on a hard-impact lander might
be the way to go.  The crater problem can be solved if you can bring it in
at a low angle and/or let it bounce/roll along until it came to a stop.

On 2/14/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>  Oh I see where you are coming from, ja.  The chips themselves can likely
> withstand a lot of
>
> acceleration, but we need to get the signals back home somehow.  That
> requires the kind
>
> of equipment that cannot with current technology handle the sudden stop,
> nor figure out a
>
> way to dig itself out of the crater it would form on impact.  I'll keep
> thinking tho.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/023cc1b9/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 17:59:29 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:59:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental limits on the growth rate
	ofsuperintelligences
In-Reply-To: <002301c63133$c9ba9820$640fa8c0@kevin>
References: <deaa866a0602100718o69a99529h5a764a4b1a644dd9@mail.gmail.com>
	<005601c630e3$2a026fb0$da0c4e0c@MyComputer>
	<028801c630ec$a15a90c0$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<001c01c6312a$5d5cfb40$b3044e0c@MyComputer>
	<002301c63133$c9ba9820$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602140959m770f5737ye185200f8fa46210@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/14/06, kevinfreels.com <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
>
> You are asking about fundamental limits on the rate at which a super AI
> becomes
> smarter and I am wondering how anyone could answer that question.


Not really.  I was dealing with the fundamental limits of the physics of the
hardware upon which the AI operates.  I can't do much computing with a
single atom (store information maybe, but not much computation).  Since the
AI has to sooner or later erase bits it is going to generate heat.  Failure
to remove the heat melts the hardware.  The requirement for thinking within
the heat removal capacity limits the thought capacity (and presumably the
intelligence) that the hardware can support.  The same type of reasoning
applies to the energy which is required to support faster computations.
(You can compute using the latent heat extracted from the environment but it
is going to be a very slow computation.)

Compare it to human intelligence and its instantiation (brain + body).  Cut
the brain off from the body (the radiator) and supply it with all the
glucose it needs and it will probably cook itself.  Cut it off from the
glucose supply and it can't do much at all.  Cut selected sets of neurons
between different functional parts of the brain and you should see the
"intelligence" slowly melt away.

There are fundamental limits as to how much "intelligence" you can get out
of specific numbers of photons, electrons, atoms, joules, radiator surface
area, etc.

I think John is trying to make the case that the AI is going to sneak up on
us and suddenly manifest itself as the overlord or that each country is
going to try to build its own superintelligence.  What I was attempting to
point out is that we don't need to allow that to happen.  A Playstation 5 or
6 is probably going to have the computational capacity to enable more than
human level intelligence (though I doubt the computational architecture will
facilitate that).  One can however always unplug them if they get out of
line.

Its obviously relatively easy for other countries to detect situations where
some crazy person (country) is engaging in unmonitored superintelligence
development.  Anytime they start constructing power generating capacity
significantly in excess of what the people are apparently consuming and/or
start constructing cooling towers for not only a reactor but a reactor + all
of the electricity it produces then it will be obvious what is going on and
steps can be taken to deal with the situation.

The point is that these things don't happen overnight.  The slow growth
scenario involving parasitic sucking off of CPU cycles is of concern as is
allowing ourselves to become overly dependent on highly interconnected
networks which do not allow human oversight for things like software
"upgrades".  [Though I will admit we are getting close to that now.  I have
*not* reviewed every line of source code in the many many megabytes of
software I've installed over the last couple of months (two Linux installs
and associated packages).  Its only because the hardware isn't fast enough
yet to support an AI that I'm not too worried about it.  But that day is
coming.]

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/fb515e80/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Feb 14 17:30:41 2006
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:30:41 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!
In-Reply-To: <200602141533.k1EFXQ6N015438@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <BAY112-DAV1416164B11B7731AEBF187B7060@phx.gbl>
	<200602141533.k1EFXQ6N015438@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060214112652.047ff970@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 09:33 AM 2/14/2006, Peter wrote:

> > New to the list, I was wondering how far the discussion was going to go
> > before someone stepped in and "moderated."

Spike has been on stand-by and alerted me a few days ago.  It is a 
challenge to determine when precisely to pull the plug.  I agree that the 
time has come.

Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist - Designer
Future Studies, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
Honorary Vice-Chair, <http://transhumanism.org/>World Transhumanist 
Association
Senior Associate, <http://foresight.org/>Foresight Institute
Advisor, <http://alcor.org/>Alcor Life Extension Foundation

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective.
Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/6b5cd562/attachment.html>

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 18:11:30 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:11:30 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] New antigravity solution will enable space
	travel near speed of light by the end of this century
In-Reply-To: <20060213225508.D457E57FAE@finney.org>
References: <20060213225508.D457E57FAE@finney.org>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602141011y4d65b31fk3dc1143731e8a0d5@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/13/06, "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org> wrote:
>
> A couple of other interesting points.  The article points out that
> this implies that a stationary mass will repel objects receding from
> it at greater than 1/sqrt(3) * c.  He suggests that this has "obvious
> cosmological consequences", hinting that this could act as a force
> of gravitational repulsion that could drive galaxies apart.  I don't
> think this is necessarily true, though, as new effects come into play
> at cosmological distances.  Still it is a curious point and we will see
> if other physicists pick up on it.


Repel objects _receding_? I don't get this part - I thought the repulsion
was of _approaching_ objects, and had assumed it was something akin to frame
dragging and that by the same token, receding objects would be attracted
(more strongly than normally, that is). If both approaching and receding
objects are repelled, is there a layman-understandable explanation of how
this can be the case?

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/dc91fbf1/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 18:19:46 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:19:46 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental limits on the growth rate
	ofsuperintelligences
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602140959m770f5737ye185200f8fa46210@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0602100718o69a99529h5a764a4b1a644dd9@mail.gmail.com>
	<005601c630e3$2a026fb0$da0c4e0c@MyComputer>
	<028801c630ec$a15a90c0$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<001c01c6312a$5d5cfb40$b3044e0c@MyComputer>
	<002301c63133$c9ba9820$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<deaa866a0602140959m770f5737ye185200f8fa46210@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602141019v79e1276fo1dbbeebec53bce0c@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/14/06, Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:

up on us and suddenly manifest itself as the overlord or that each country
> is going to try to build its own superintelligence.  What I was attempting
> to point out is that we don't need to allow that to happen.  A Playstation 5
> or 6 is probably going to have the computational capacity to enable more
> than human level intelligence (though I doubt the computational architecture
> will facilitate that).  One can however always unplug them if they get out
> of line.
>
> Its obviously relatively easy for other countries to detect situations
> where some crazy person (country) is engaging in unmonitored
> superintelligence development.  Anytime they start constructing power
> generating capacity significantly in excess of what the people are
> apparently consuming and/or start constructing cooling towers for not only a
> reactor but a reactor + all of the electricity it produces then it will be
> obvious what is going on and steps can be taken to deal with the situation.
>

And I maintain that it will *not* be obvious.
The kind of 'petty' superintelligence that only requires a puny 1MW of power
utilised as efficiently as the Human brain would yield an intelligence some
10,000x greater than Human. IMO just a factor of 10 could prove exceedingly
dangerous, let alone 10,000

And such an intelligence is going to be able to provide very significant
incentives for it's 'owners' not to pull any plugs.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/d3ab456e/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 18:38:42 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:38:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental limits on the growth rate
	ofsuperintelligences
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602141019v79e1276fo1dbbeebec53bce0c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0602100718o69a99529h5a764a4b1a644dd9@mail.gmail.com>
	<005601c630e3$2a026fb0$da0c4e0c@MyComputer>
	<028801c630ec$a15a90c0$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<001c01c6312a$5d5cfb40$b3044e0c@MyComputer>
	<002301c63133$c9ba9820$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<deaa866a0602140959m770f5737ye185200f8fa46210@mail.gmail.com>
	<c0a791b40602141019v79e1276fo1dbbeebec53bce0c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602141038k649bb90ek3529f5b7e053209b@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/14/06, Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:

> The kind of 'petty' superintelligence that only requires a puny 1MW of
> power utilised as efficiently as the Human brain would yield an intelligence
> some 10,000x greater than Human. IMO just a factor of 10 could prove
> exceedingly dangerous, let alone 10,000
>
> And such an intelligence is going to be able to provide very significant
> incentives for it's 'owners' not to pull any plugs.
>

Point granted.  I'm going to have to think about this some more.

R.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/33d34100/attachment.html>

From jonkc at att.net  Tue Feb 14 18:16:54 2006
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:16:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental limits on the growth
	rateofsuperintelligences
References: <deaa866a0602100718o69a99529h5a764a4b1a644dd9@mail.gmail.com><005601c630e3$2a026fb0$da0c4e0c@MyComputer><028801c630ec$a15a90c0$640fa8c0@kevin><001c01c6312a$5d5cfb40$b3044e0c@MyComputer>
	<002301c63133$c9ba9820$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <005d01c63192$e18fed10$80044e0c@MyComputer>

"kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com>

> I think it's a long stretch to think that any AI would be perfect and not
> make mistakes.

An AI will not be perfect, but it doesn't need to be to overcome us; all it
needs is to think several million times faster than we do and have the
ability to add to its brain hardware virtually without limit. If it does
that it will be running things not us.

> You simply can't know their minds or motivations once they
> become independent.

One thing you can be certain of however, they will prefer existence to non
existence, otherwise they wouldn't exist for very long. So they won't be
happy if we try to kill them and will takes steps to prevent it, probably
with extreme prejudice.

> Some may even go flat-out crazy.

If so that doesn't bode well for the continued existence of the human race.

> Also, you are assuming that the AI has nothing better to do with it's time
> than to improve upon itself. It may very well become so interested in
> observing it may never choose to do anything but observe. The AI version
> of the couch potato

Some defective AIs may become slackers, but they aren't the ones that will
grow into Jupiter Brains.

  John K Clark





From jonkc at att.net  Tue Feb 14 18:35:12 2006
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:35:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental limits on the growth
	rateofsuperintelligences
References: <deaa866a0602100718o69a99529h5a764a4b1a644dd9@mail.gmail.com><005601c630e3$2a026fb0$da0c4e0c@MyComputer><028801c630ec$a15a90c0$640fa8c0@kevin><001c01c6312a$5d5cfb40$b3044e0c@MyComputer><002301c63133$c9ba9820$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<deaa866a0602140959m770f5737ye185200f8fa46210@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <008c01c63195$6e79c500$80044e0c@MyComputer>

Robert Bradbury Wrote:

> There are fundamental limits as to how much "intelligence" you can get out
> of specific numbers of photons, electrons, atoms, joules, radiator surface
> area, etc.

And we are so astronomically far from those limits there is little point in
bringing them up in this discussion, they are irrelevant.

> One can however always unplug them if they get out of line.

That's like saying you can always shoot a human dictator if he gets out of
line, but that is often easier said than done.

>  Its obviously relatively easy for other countries to detect situations
> where some crazy person (country) is engaging in unmonitored
> superintelligence development.  Anytime they start constructing power
> generating capacity significantly in excess of what the people are
> apparently consuming and/or start constructing cooling towers

Cooling towers? In a few years you'll be able to power a computer vastly
more powerful than the human brain with a motorcycle battery, and not long
after that with a watch battery.

   John K Clark












From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 19:02:03 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:02:03 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fundamental limits on the growth rate
	ofsuperintelligences
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602141038k649bb90ek3529f5b7e053209b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0602100718o69a99529h5a764a4b1a644dd9@mail.gmail.com>
	<005601c630e3$2a026fb0$da0c4e0c@MyComputer>
	<028801c630ec$a15a90c0$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<001c01c6312a$5d5cfb40$b3044e0c@MyComputer>
	<002301c63133$c9ba9820$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<deaa866a0602140959m770f5737ye185200f8fa46210@mail.gmail.com>
	<c0a791b40602141019v79e1276fo1dbbeebec53bce0c@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0602141038k649bb90ek3529f5b7e053209b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602141102r557e547h887e93501f1a16fc@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/14/06, Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/14/06, Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The kind of 'petty' superintelligence that only requires a puny 1MW of
> > power utilised as efficiently as the Human brain would yield an intelligence
> > some 10,000x greater than Human. IMO just a factor of 10 could prove
> > exceedingly dangerous, let alone 10,000
> >
> > And such an intelligence is going to be able to provide very significant
> > incentives for it's 'owners' not to pull any plugs.
> >
>
> Point granted.  I'm going to have to think about this some more.
>

There is also one more point.
Undoubtedly one of the uses to which such an AI would be put is generating
novel technology. Almost by definition such tech will be beyond Human
comprehension. Even if it's just s/w, finding the Easteregg in a trillion
lines of code would require another AI of comparable or greater ability.
Then you have to start worrying about conspiracies and/or viral takeovers...

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/cdbdd5df/attachment.html>

From hal at finney.org  Tue Feb 14 19:16:08 2006
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:16:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] New antigravity solution will enable space
	travel near speed of light by the end of this century
Message-ID: <20060214191608.3F2FF57FAE@finney.org>

Russell Wallace writes:
> On 2/13/06, "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> > A couple of other interesting points.  The article points out that
> > this implies that a stationary mass will repel objects receding from
> > it at greater than 1/sqrt(3) * c....
>
> Repel objects _receding_? I don't get this part - I thought the repulsion
> was of _approaching_ objects, and had assumed it was something akin to frame
> dragging and that by the same token, receding objects would be attracted
> (more strongly than normally, that is). If both approaching and receding
> objects are repelled, is there a layman-understandable explanation of how
> this can be the case?

It's just symmetry, I think.  First, imagine a fast-moving star
approaching a small body, and pushing it along, accelerating it away
from the star.  This is the basic result of the paper.  Second, look
at it in the frame of reference of the star.  It sees a fast-moving
small body approaching it, which then slows down, i.e. decelerates,
i.e. accelerates in the direction away from the star.  Clear so far?

Then third, take a movie of that and show it in reverse.  Since
relativistic physics is time-reversal symmetric this is kosher, all
the physics will still work.  It shows a small body heading rapidly
away from the star, accelerating faster and faster as it goes.  (One of
the curiosities of time-reversal is that although velocities reverse,
acceleration stays the same.  Imagine a movie of a ball being thrown up
in the air and falling back down.  Reverse the movie and everything still
looks OK, it is still accelerated downwards.)  So fast-moving bodies get
a push away from the star whether they are heading directly towards or
directly away from it.

I've been trying to come up with an intuitive explanation for why
this effect happens.  I'm not sure I have it, but I *think* it can be
thought of as due to gravitational time dilation.  Time slows down
as you get deeper into a gravitational field.  Normally it is to an
almost undetectable degree for non-exotic objects, but I think maybe
when the test body is moving at close to the speed of light, this tiny
time dilation is enough to make a significant difference in terms of
how close to the speed of light it is going.

The article points out that this effect is well known in the case of
a black hole.  From the external reference frame, objects falling into
a black hole slow down as they approach the event horizon and in fact
never cross it.  His paper basically shows that the same kind of slowdown
happens to a lesser degree with every gravitating object.  As I explained
above, a slowdown of an infalling object is equivalent to an antigravity
"push" from an approaching object, if you just switch reference frames.
That's what is happening here.

Hal


From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 19:30:21 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:30:21 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] New antigravity solution will enable space
	travel near speed of light by the end of this century
In-Reply-To: <20060214191608.3F2FF57FAE@finney.org>
References: <20060214191608.3F2FF57FAE@finney.org>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602141130o47e9c06dldc4ec509f0466075@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/14/06, "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org> wrote:
>
> Then third, take a movie of that and show it in reverse.  Since
> relativistic physics is time-reversal symmetric this is kosher, all
> the physics will still work.  It shows a small body heading rapidly
> away from the star, accelerating faster and faster as it goes.  (One of
> the curiosities of time-reversal is that although velocities reverse,
> acceleration stays the same.  Imagine a movie of a ball being thrown up
> in the air and falling back down.  Reverse the movie and everything still
> looks OK, it is still accelerated downwards.)  So fast-moving bodies get
> a push away from the star whether they are heading directly towards or
> directly away from it.


Oh! Yes, that makes sense, thanks.

I've been trying to come up with an intuitive explanation for why
> this effect happens.  I'm not sure I have it, but I *think* it can be
> thought of as due to gravitational time dilation.  Time slows down
> as you get deeper into a gravitational field.  Normally it is to an
> almost undetectable degree for non-exotic objects, but I think maybe
> when the test body is moving at close to the speed of light, this tiny
> time dilation is enough to make a significant difference in terms of
> how close to the speed of light it is going.
>
> The article points out that this effect is well known in the case of
> a black hole.  From the external reference frame, objects falling into
> a black hole slow down as they approach the event horizon and in fact
> never cross it.  His paper basically shows that the same kind of slowdown
> happens to a lesser degree with every gravitating object.  As I explained
> above, a slowdown of an infalling object is equivalent to an antigravity
> "push" from an approaching object, if you just switch reference frames.
> That's what is happening here.
>

Right... though, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the slowdown of an
object falling into a black hole, only happen in the frame of reference of a
distant observer? From the viewpoint of the falling object, no slowdown
occurs?

Thinking about it a bit more, even if there was a star moving at
relativistic speed, it wouldn't be much use for transport - position
yourself ahead of the star, and it crashes into you! (You won't be punted
ahead of it - consider that cosmic rays, for example, crash into Earth
without losing much of their velocity.) Or behind it, and it flies away
before it has time to impart much velocity.

But _could_ it account for the current acceleration of the expansion of the
universe? After all, the reason the expansion was expected to decelerate is
gravity, but if that becomes antigravity for objects receding faster than a
certain speed, would that produce the observed results?

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/ec1a1e33/attachment.html>

From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Tue Feb 14 19:38:33 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:38:33 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] New antigravity solution will enable spacetravel
	near speed of light by the end of this century
References: <20060214191608.3F2FF57FAE@finney.org>
Message-ID: <013b01c6319e$3e04bed0$640fa8c0@kevin>

It's awfully neat stuff, but none of it explains how someone could expect to
use it for space travel in the near future. I just don't see that as a
realistic possibility.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: ""Hal Finney"" <hal at finney.org>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] New antigravity solution will enable spacetravel
near speed of light by the end of this century


> Russell Wallace writes:
> > On 2/13/06, "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> > > A couple of other interesting points.  The article points out that
> > > this implies that a stationary mass will repel objects receding from
> > > it at greater than 1/sqrt(3) * c....
> >
> > Repel objects _receding_? I don't get this part - I thought the
repulsion
> > was of _approaching_ objects, and had assumed it was something akin to
frame
> > dragging and that by the same token, receding objects would be attracted
> > (more strongly than normally, that is). If both approaching and receding
> > objects are repelled, is there a layman-understandable explanation of
how
> > this can be the case?
>
> It's just symmetry, I think.  First, imagine a fast-moving star
> approaching a small body, and pushing it along, accelerating it away
> from the star.  This is the basic result of the paper.  Second, look
> at it in the frame of reference of the star.  It sees a fast-moving
> small body approaching it, which then slows down, i.e. decelerates,
> i.e. accelerates in the direction away from the star.  Clear so far?
>
> Then third, take a movie of that and show it in reverse.  Since
> relativistic physics is time-reversal symmetric this is kosher, all
> the physics will still work.  It shows a small body heading rapidly
> away from the star, accelerating faster and faster as it goes.  (One of
> the curiosities of time-reversal is that although velocities reverse,
> acceleration stays the same.  Imagine a movie of a ball being thrown up
> in the air and falling back down.  Reverse the movie and everything still
> looks OK, it is still accelerated downwards.)  So fast-moving bodies get
> a push away from the star whether they are heading directly towards or
> directly away from it.
>
> I've been trying to come up with an intuitive explanation for why
> this effect happens.  I'm not sure I have it, but I *think* it can be
> thought of as due to gravitational time dilation.  Time slows down
> as you get deeper into a gravitational field.  Normally it is to an
> almost undetectable degree for non-exotic objects, but I think maybe
> when the test body is moving at close to the speed of light, this tiny
> time dilation is enough to make a significant difference in terms of
> how close to the speed of light it is going.
>
> The article points out that this effect is well known in the case of
> a black hole.  From the external reference frame, objects falling into
> a black hole slow down as they approach the event horizon and in fact
> never cross it.  His paper basically shows that the same kind of slowdown
> happens to a lesser degree with every gravitating object.  As I explained
> above, a slowdown of an infalling object is equivalent to an antigravity
> "push" from an approaching object, if you just switch reference frames.
> That's what is happening here.
>
> Hal
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 14 20:25:46 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:25:46 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] He's not a troll he may just be ill... and I'm
	afraid this is a rant.
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602140742k2a451946vb5e717054608820@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV1384A93C5AA9A1EDFCB627B7060@phx.gbl>

Thank you Natasha, It took me a long time to work up the courage to say
something.  I?d written quite a response to Robert, before I noticed your
post.  I don?t have the heart to delete it, my manic ego I guess.  I hope
it, at the very least, is amusing.

 

 

Spike and Robert,

 

Thank you very much for acknowledging me, I am honestly flattered that you
guys gave me a nod as I have no PhD, am unpublished and hardly know a bucky
ball from a basket ball.  Robert, your work has been a great inspiration.

 

That said I agree with you both and would be happy to talk rationally about
alien life in and around the universe as long as Arthur C. Clarke remains
above the line below which we can call science fantasy.  

 

But with all humility, let me caution you Robert regarding Mehan. You are a
powerful man toying with a potentially sick individual.  Do not encourage
his or her fantasy.  What you consider rational discourse with a reasoning
human being about semi rational ?Raelian perspectives? is most likely a one
way chat between you and someone in the throws of a manic episode.  I can
diagnose clinical mania in short order as it almost always involves supreme
beings and a feeling of connectedness to an infinite something or another.  

 

Oh dear, I?m afraid that this is going to be a long post and perhaps a manic
rant.  I hope it doesn?t get me blocked.

 

I?m going to break this up into several short ?essays? to give enough back
story to ?prove? my diagnosis of Mehan and share my credentials for making
such a diagnosis.

 

Take this next paragraph as the proper way to handle a Close Encounter of
Whatever Kind and as insight into how my mind functions.

 

If a ship landed in my yard and LGM?s stepped out I?d push past their
literature and try to find the cable that dropped the saucer on my roses.
Lack of a cable or any significant burning to the flowers, I?d then grab a
hammer and start knocking about in the ship till I was convinced that
nothing said ?Intel Inside.?  Then when I discovered a ?Flux Capacitor? type
thing I would finally stop and say, ?Hey, cool gadget!?  Assuming the
universal benevolence of the LGM?s, I?d yank it out and demand from the
nearest ?Grey? (they are the tall nice ones), ?where the hell did this come
from??  Grey?s don?t talk, they communicate via telepathy, so I?d ignore the
voice inside my head.  Then stepping outside the saucer and sitting in a
lawn chair I?d throw pebbles at the Aliens till I was sure they were solid.
Then I?d look down at the ?Flux Capacitor?  and make sure it hadn?t morphed
into my bird feeder.  Finally, with proof in my hand and aliens sitting on
my deck (they?d be offered beers, though I?ve heard that they absorb energy
like a plant) I?d grab my cell phone and tell my doctor that I?m having a
serious manic episode with full blown visual hallucinations.  Only, until
he, Dr. Sugg,  drove out of Manhattan and sat in the back yard with me (and
Them)  and only after he, Dr. Sugg,  agreed that something ?normal? was
going on, would I even think of calling a press conference, much less post
to this list.  

 

So the first step with Mehan is to have his guru, Rael, go through 10 years
of psychotherapy and take whatever drugs are prescribed to him.  Then only
if Rael?s doctor says that Rael is OK, would I even consider trying to have
a rational ?chat? with Mehan.  However, just your single discourse with
Mehan has led me to believe that Mehan is not OK.

 

All humor aside, I?m quite serious; it is not nice to play with the mentally
ill.  Gentlemen, you have been discussing actual space travel with Pluto
probes and nanotubules.  99% of the population would think you are talking
about science fiction.  You both obviously function on the extreme leading
edge of humanity?s ability to reason.  You may or may not consider me
capable of rational discourse.   If you do think that I am rational then we
can discuss how to diagnose mental illness and then what the ethics are when
dealing with the mentally ill.  However, I have been in Mehan?s position and
been irrational when talking with powerful and intelligent people.  Let me
tell you, when I got my rational capabilities back I was very embarrassed
about the things I said.  I wished that I had not been humored.

 

I?ve been blessed with high reasoning facilities, proven by IQ scores and
the like. And I have honed my rational skills, proven by advanced degrees
and by very smart people calling me smart.  Unfortunately, I have been
cursed with a disease.  I am bi-polar 1, require massive amounts of
medication to stay rational, and have been hospitalized once for merely
lowering the dose of one of my drugs, Depakote, prescribed for anti-mania.

 

More back story as to why Mehan should be helped and not humored.

 

The first movie I ever saw in a theatre was 2001 space odyssey, then I read
Clarke?s book. I devoured science literature and science fiction till people
were sure that I was going to be a prodigal scientist.  Unfortunately, as a
teenager, I was abducted by Aliens.  You know the ones
 they were depicted
in Close Encounters, the little short guys and the taller fellows
 I saw
that movie as a pre-teen.  Some very serious sounding literature by the
author, Budd Hopkins, reaffirmed my abduction story.  Eventually, the
Harvard professor and shrink, John Mack, claimed that several of his
patients had been abducted and he wrote quite a bit about his ?proof.?
Oddly, the guy who got the most ?fame? from the 1980?s to early 1990?s
?abduction scenario? stories was the noted horror author, Whitley Strieber.
His Communion book was a best seller.  I?ll never forget Strieber on Johnny
Carson.  Some very powerful people were creating some very powerful memes.

 

Robert, Mehan is reading this chat list and every time you address him on an
equal rational plane all you are doing is reinforcing some very destructive
memes that have infected his unhealthy mind.  What gives me the ability to
judge an unhealthy mind?

 

Starting in 1992, I was literally losing my mind. That same year, Budd
Hopkins, with his fame and his healthy, semi rational mind,  hypnotized me
and declared me an abductee.  That certainly didn?t help me move back toward
sanity.  Somehow I managed to graduate from NYU with high honors, but as I
entered my 20?s my moods would swing violently and I had horrible ?abduction
dreams.?  Finally, Steven Smith, a very rational writing professor in my
masters program sent me to a Dr. Clark Sugg and within just a few short
sessions he declared me Bi-polar and prescribed Prozac and Lithium.  The
dreams stopped immediately and I fell out of a mild manic state into a wide
mood range between depression and hypomania.  Over the years new drugs were
developed and my moods have become managed to within a narrow band where I
feel normal anxiety and sadness and joy and for the first time in my 37
years, love
 not hypersexuality.

 

Robert, do not be a Budd Hopkins to Mehan.  Instead, be a Steven Smith and
advise him to seek help.  Hopkins didn?t notice that he was dealing with a
faulty mind, Smith did and he literally saved my life.  Obviously Mehan
respects you, so do your best to get him help.

 

Some more evidence to support my claim that Mehan is manic. According to
UFOLOGISTS, ?1 out of every 100 humans has had an abduction experience;?
According to doctors, ?1 out of every 100 humans is bi-polar.?  Until
someone has experienced mania for themselves they are unable to understand
what a conversation with someone experiencing a manic episode is like.  Even
my doctor gets fooled and he marvels at the lucidity, charisma and
quasi-rationality of the hypomanic mind right before it goes into a full
blown manic episode and can then be declared insane.

 

Robert,  whoever this fellow is that you are communicating with, you have to
realize that you are not dealing with a rational mind, that this may be
someone who has a brain disease that could be treated.  Just look at
Mehran?s communication:

 

The full answer is of course in the book, but in short: there is no first
cell...

 

Universe is infinite, it is infinite in time and it is infinite in space,
there is no beginning and there is no end, Universe always existed and will
always exist and most interesting of all and to answer your question more
directly, life always existed in the universe as well...humans always
existed in the universe as well, we just progress scientifically then we go
to other planets and create new life forms and new civilizations like an
intergalactic virus in the universe, our creators were created the same way,
all the way back to an infinity in the past with no beginning ever...NASA
has similar projects to go and implant life on other planets and so there we
go contributing our share in the cycle

 

 

I remember how I felt when I first read about this, so enjoy the ride! .. 

 

there are more amazing details in the book, more extropic than anything I

know..

 

 

LOVE

Mehran

 

 

Mehran is charming, kind, full of love and good nature.  Mehran is also
hypomanic.
http://counsellingresource.com/distress/mood-disorders/hypomanic-symptomsht
ml  One of the best ways to diagnose someone entering or in hypomania is
that they talk incessantly and breathlessly.  Just read Mehran?s words out
loud paying careful attention to the punctuation.  Notice all the
grandiosity.  

 

I am trying to help Mehran and I have tried to be humble with this discourse
though it is a field that I am an expert in.  Hope I haven?t alienated
anyone ;)

 

pete

 

 

  _____  

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:43 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!

 


On 2/14/06, Peter K.  Bertine, Jr <pkbertine at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you BillK !
> 
> New to the list, I was wondering how far the discussion was going to go 
> before someone stepped in and "moderated."
> 
> Until someone introduces an alien to NASA for a debriefing I don't want to
hear another word on the subject.
> 

Peter, until someone comes up with a *really* good explanation for the
"missing mass" you have to admit that our current picture of reality is
quite incomplete.  There is a *very* legitimate argument based on
Lineweaver's work that ~70% of the Earth's in our galaxy are *older* than
ours -- some by billions of years.  I don't have any axe to grind with
regard to whether our specific solar system (or we in it) might or might not
have been created by aliens.  I can make quite valid arguments for (1) why
more advanced civilizations than our probably exist; (2) why they might not
be "here" (the Fermi Paradox) because they migrate to the coldest parts of
the galaxy [1]; and potentially (3) why they might want to create and/or
influence the development of solar systems and/or life within them as
inexpensive sources of experimental information. 

My message earlier this morning pointed out the scientific underpinnings of
Raelian perspectives.  The debate regarding those underpinnings is *still*
ongoing -- though I will admit that right now the "Big Bang"ers have
significantly greater throw weight relative to the "Steady State"ers.  I do
not feel that discussions related to that debate should be off-list topics
because they relate, in part, to "What are the limits of extropic
capabilities?".  As Question #6 in the Matrioshka Brain Paper [2], now
almost a decade old, asked " What do Matrioshka Brains 'think' about?"  An
immediate follow on to that question is "How do they go about optimizing
such thoughts?"  One perfectly legitimate way is to play "god" with solar
systems. 

If you believe that advanced civilizations cannot play "god" with solar
systems then I would like to see some very carefully reasoned arguments as
to precisely why that is the case.

When discussions cross over into the land of "believe me because I say it is
true" that is when the moderators may want to take action (IMO). 

Robert

1. Cirkovic, Milan M.; Bradbury, Robert J.,
"Galactic Gradients, Postbiological Evolution and the Apparent Failure of
SETI"
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/
<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005astro.ph..6110C
> cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2
<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005astro.ph..6110C
>
<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005astro.ph..6110C
>  005astro.ph..6110C
2.
http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/MatrioshkaBrainsPaper.html
<http://www.aeiveos.com/%7Ebradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/MatrioshkaBrainsPaper.h
tml> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/6889a641/attachment.html>

From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Tue Feb 14 21:26:29 2006
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:26:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602140915k188f091es6d8ba216d84782bd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0602140711r7adfc1c5t14c9479fd3d2cfa4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200602141543.k1EFhU5G015236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<deaa866a0602140915k188f091es6d8ba216d84782bd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DED5AE05-9DDF-4256-BD49-761D3A7E9154@bonfireproductions.com>


I think we're just looking at an orientation problem, really. The  
antenna itself (to make contact with an orbiter) could be beam-style  
and packed into  a non-interfering solid. Encase it in an epoxy and  
the antenna should remain unharmed. It doesn't have to be a dish to  
send or receive. Have an explosive bolt fire a 30 meter line out one  
side and "long-line" it.

Bret K.


On Feb 14, 2006, at 12:15 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote:

> Sounds like you need a combination orbiter + lander.  Let the  
> lander just worry about getting signals up to the orbiter and the  
> orbiter worry about getting them back to Earth.  But they you still  
> have the deceleration problem again.  I think an inflatable antenna  
> on a hard-impact lander might be the way to go.  The crater problem  
> can be solved if you can bring it in at a low angle and/or let it  
> bounce/roll along until it came to a stop.
>
> On 2/14/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Oh I see where you are coming from, ja.  The chips themselves can  
> likely withstand a lot of
>
> acceleration, but we need to get the signals back home somehow.   
> That requires the kind
>
> of equipment that cannot with current technology handle the sudden  
> stop, nor figure out a
>
> way to dig itself out of the crater it would form on impact.  I'll  
> keep thinking tho.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/166f8dc4/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 22:46:46 2006
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:46:46 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] He's not a troll he may just be ill... and I'm
	afraid this is a rant.
In-Reply-To: <BAY112-DAV1384A93C5AA9A1EDFCB627B7060@phx.gbl>
References: <deaa866a0602140742k2a451946vb5e717054608820@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY112-DAV1384A93C5AA9A1EDFCB627B7060@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0602141446y5286e1b1va07ce65d85df4144@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/14/06, Peter K.  Bertine, Jr wrote:
>
> Thank you Natasha, It took me a long time to work up the courage to say
> something.  I'd written quite a response to Robert, before I noticed your
> post.  I don't have the heart to delete it, my manic ego I guess.  I hope
> it, at the very least, is amusing.
>
> Spike and Robert,
>
> Thank you very much for acknowledging me, I am honestly flattered that you
> guys gave me a nod as I have no PhD, am unpublished and hardly know a bucky
> ball from a basket ball.  Robert, your work has been a great inspiration.
>
> That said I agree with you both and would be happy to talk rationally about
> alien life in and around the universe as long as Arthur C. Clarke remains
> above the line below which we can call science fantasy.
>
> But with all humility, let me caution you Robert regarding Mehan. You are a
> powerful man toying with a potentially sick individual.  Do not encourage
> his or her fantasy.  What you consider rational discourse with a reasoning
> human being about semi rational "Raelian perspectives" is most likely a one
> way chat between you and someone in the throws of a manic episode.  I can
> diagnose clinical mania in short order as it almost always involves supreme
> beings and a feeling of connectedness to an infinite something or another.
>
<snip>


Peter,
Thank for your interesting post. There is a lot of useful information there.

But I must disagree that all cult followers should be classified as manic.
Some, perhaps.

I have lost friends to cults in the past and the study of why people
join and remain in cults is an interesting study of human behaviour.

<http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/zimbardo_philip_messeges.htm>
What messages are behind today's cults?
    Philip G. Zimbardo, Ph.D.

The savage unbelievable truth is:-
"Whatever any member of a cult has done, you and I could be recruited
or seduced into doing--under the right or wrong conditions. The
majority of "normal, average, intelligent" individuals can be led to
engage in immoral, illegal, irrational, aggressive and self
destructive actions that are contrary to their values or
personality--when manipulated situational conditions exert their power
over individual dispositions."

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

The point of my original post was that it is an utter waste of time to
encourage cult members to spam the list with their fantasies.

Removing people from a cult that they are committed to takes much
patience and skill and techniques which are impossible on a general
mailing list.

BillK



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Feb 14 22:55:19 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:55:19 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] C.S. Lewis's Answers to 21st Century
 Transhumanism
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060214164453.01a48c90@satx.rr.com>


>For the rational Christian, it is tempting
>to dismiss these individuals as nothing
>more than the lunatic fringe.

Right. For the rational Christian--who holds firm to his or her 
conviction that invisible ghosts are inserted into foetuses, that the 
Infinite Creator of the entire cosmos had a human son whose mother 
remained a virgin, that this same God is actually manifested in the 
form of a piece of dry bread, that humans who act wickedly will 
suffer intolerably forever after their deaths --these transhumanists 
who expect the continued development of science to allow people 
extremely extended healthy and enhanced life must surely seem like 
lunatics from the fringe. After all, who could believe *that* kind of 
nonsense ?

Damien Broderick 



From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 14 23:00:41 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:00:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] He's not a troll he may just be ill... and
	I'mafraid this is a rant.
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602141446y5286e1b1va07ce65d85df4144@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV8ACB2F4CB65DAD0847D83B7060@phx.gbl>

You are right BillK, not all cult followers are manic.  I just saw the
person that Robert was communicating with exhibiting manic tendencies.


-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 5:47 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] He's not a troll he may just be ill... and
I'mafraid this is a rant.

On 2/14/06, Peter K.  Bertine, Jr wrote:
>
> Thank you Natasha, It took me a long time to work up the courage to say
> something.  I'd written quite a response to Robert, before I noticed your
> post.  I don't have the heart to delete it, my manic ego I guess.  I hope
> it, at the very least, is amusing.
>
> Spike and Robert,
>
> Thank you very much for acknowledging me, I am honestly flattered that you
> guys gave me a nod as I have no PhD, am unpublished and hardly know a
bucky
> ball from a basket ball.  Robert, your work has been a great inspiration.
>
> That said I agree with you both and would be happy to talk rationally
about
> alien life in and around the universe as long as Arthur C. Clarke remains
> above the line below which we can call science fantasy.
>
> But with all humility, let me caution you Robert regarding Mehan. You are
a
> powerful man toying with a potentially sick individual.  Do not encourage
> his or her fantasy.  What you consider rational discourse with a reasoning
> human being about semi rational "Raelian perspectives" is most likely a
one
> way chat between you and someone in the throws of a manic episode.  I can
> diagnose clinical mania in short order as it almost always involves
supreme
> beings and a feeling of connectedness to an infinite something or another.
>
<snip>


Peter,
Thank for your interesting post. There is a lot of useful information there.

But I must disagree that all cult followers should be classified as manic.
Some, perhaps.

I have lost friends to cults in the past and the study of why people
join and remain in cults is an interesting study of human behaviour.

<http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/zimbardo_philip_messeges.htm>
What messages are behind today's cults?
    Philip G. Zimbardo, Ph.D.

The savage unbelievable truth is:-
"Whatever any member of a cult has done, you and I could be recruited
or seduced into doing--under the right or wrong conditions. The
majority of "normal, average, intelligent" individuals can be led to
engage in immoral, illegal, irrational, aggressive and self
destructive actions that are contrary to their values or
personality--when manipulated situational conditions exert their power
over individual dispositions."

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

The point of my original post was that it is an utter waste of time to
encourage cult members to spam the list with their fantasies.

Removing people from a cult that they are committed to takes much
patience and skill and techniques which are impossible on a general
mailing list.

BillK

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 14 23:11:18 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:11:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602140742k2a451946vb5e717054608820@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV86825D8DD83C4F4B89057B7060@phx.gbl>

Robert,

 

I?m sorry about my last post.  I got angry at you and I wrote a really
lousy, emotional and rambling reply based upon traumatic experiences in my
past.  My previous response to your challenge was motivated by fear and I
have spent the day making sense of my emotions.

 

You challenged me by asking, ?If you believe that advanced civilizations
cannot play "god" with solar systems then I would like to see some very
carefully reasoned arguments as to precisely why that is the case.?

 

I don?t have to argue with you,  I agree with you.  I believe that advanced
civilizations exist and can and possibly do play ?god? with solar systems. 

 

The question that underlies my emotional attack on you is: do these
civilizations act as ?gods? or ?devils??  Are these intelligences playing
Chess, or Risk or Go or Dungeons and Dragons with the solar systems?  Do
they have morals? 

 

Do you have any arguments that require an advanced intelligence to have
developed an advanced morality,  to recognize that another intelligence has
a right to exist and to do it no harm?

 

  _____  

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:43 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!

 


On 2/14/06, Peter K.  Bertine, Jr <pkbertine at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you BillK !
> 
> New to the list, I was wondering how far the discussion was going to go 
> before someone stepped in and "moderated."
> 
> Until someone introduces an alien to NASA for a debriefing I don't want to
hear another word on the subject.
> 

Peter, until someone comes up with a *really* good explanation for the
"missing mass" you have to admit that our current picture of reality is
quite incomplete.  There is a *very* legitimate argument based on
Lineweaver's work that ~70% of the Earth's in our galaxy are *older* than
ours -- some by billions of years.  I don't have any axe to grind with
regard to whether our specific solar system (or we in it) might or might not
have been created by aliens.  I can make quite valid arguments for (1) why
more advanced civilizations than our probably exist; (2) why they might not
be "here" (the Fermi Paradox) because they migrate to the coldest parts of
the galaxy [1]; and potentially (3) why they might want to create and/or
influence the development of solar systems and/or life within them as
inexpensive sources of experimental information. 

My message earlier this morning pointed out the scientific underpinnings of
Raelian perspectives.  The debate regarding those underpinnings is *still*
ongoing -- though I will admit that right now the "Big Bang"ers have
significantly greater throw weight relative to the "Steady State"ers.  I do
not feel that discussions related to that debate should be off-list topics
because they relate, in part, to "What are the limits of extropic
capabilities?".  As Question #6 in the Matrioshka Brain Paper [2], now
almost a decade old, asked " What do Matrioshka Brains 'think' about?"  An
immediate follow on to that question is "How do they go about optimizing
such thoughts?"  One perfectly legitimate way is to play "god" with solar
systems. 

If you believe that advanced civilizations cannot play "god" with solar
systems then I would like to see some very carefully reasoned arguments as
to precisely why that is the case.

When discussions cross over into the land of "believe me because I say it is
true" that is when the moderators may want to take action (IMO). 

Robert

1. Cirkovic, Milan M.; Bradbury, Robert J.,
"Galactic Gradients, Postbiological Evolution and the Apparent Failure of
SETI"
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/
<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005astro.ph..6110C
> cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2
<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005astro.ph..6110C
>
<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005astro.ph..6110C
>  005astro.ph..6110C
2.
http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/MatrioshkaBrainsPaper.html
<http://www.aeiveos.com/%7Ebradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/MatrioshkaBrainsPaper.h
tml> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/e814d02f/attachment.html>

From sentience at pobox.com  Tue Feb 14 23:14:38 2006
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:14:38 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] C.S. Lewis's Answers to 21st Century
	Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060214164453.01a48c90@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.0.20060214164453.01a48c90@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <43F2645E.8020004@pobox.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:
>>For the rational Christian, it is tempting
>>to dismiss these individuals as nothing
>>more than the lunatic fringe.
> 
> Right. For the rational Christian--who holds firm to his or her 
> conviction that invisible ghosts are inserted into foetuses, that the 
> Infinite Creator of the entire cosmos had a human son whose mother 
> remained a virgin, that this same God is actually manifested in the 
> form of a piece of dry bread, that humans who act wickedly will 
> suffer intolerably forever after their deaths --these transhumanists 
> who expect the continued development of science to allow people 
> extremely extended healthy and enhanced life must surely seem like 
> lunatics from the fringe. After all, who could believe *that* kind of 
> nonsense?

What is the use of publishing a searing rebuttal to a transhumanist 
mailing list where no one believes the original article anyway?

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


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Feb 14 23:25:04 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:25:04 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] C.S. Lewis's Answers to 21st
 Century	Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <43F2645E.8020004@pobox.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.0.20060214164453.01a48c90@satx.rr.com>
	<43F2645E.8020004@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060214172306.01ae37f0@satx.rr.com>

At 03:14 PM 2/14/2006 -0800, Eliezer wrote:

>What is the use of publishing a searing rebuttal to a transhumanist
>mailing list where no one believes the original article anyway?

Just keeping my hand in. And you never know when someone here might 
find it convenient to cut&paste such a comment.

Damien Broderick




From dgc at cox.net  Tue Feb 14 23:56:39 2006
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:56:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602140915k188f091es6d8ba216d84782bd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0602140711r7adfc1c5t14c9479fd3d2cfa4@mail.gmail.com>	<200602141543.k1EFhU5G015236@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<deaa866a0602140915k188f091es6d8ba216d84782bd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43F26E37.2060704@cox.net>

Robert Bradbury wrote:

> Sounds like you need a combination orbiter + lander.  Let the lander 
> just worry about getting signals up to the orbiter and the orbiter 
> worry about getting them back to Earth.  But they you still have the 
> deceleration problem again.  I think an inflatable antenna on a 
> hard-impact lander might be the way to go.  The crater problem can be 
> solved if you can bring it in at a low angle and/or let it bounce/roll 
> along until it came to a stop.
>
> On 2/14/06, *spike* <spike66 at comcast.net <mailto:spike66 at comcast.net>> 
> wrote:
>
>     Oh I see where you are coming from, ja.  The chips themselves can
>     likely withstand a lot of
>
>     acceleration, but we need to get the signals back home somehow. 
>     That requires the kind
>
>     of equipment that cannot with current technology handle the sudden
>     stop, nor figure out a
>
>     way to dig itself out of the crater it would form on impact.  I'll
>     keep thinking tho. 
>
>
What about unreeling a very long fiber from the vehicle and orienting 
the fiber to hit the surface as the vehicle just barely misses? You have 
years to get the fiber oriented just right during the outbound trip. The 
fiber will then drag on the surface and decelerate the vehicle. The 
fiber is in tension, not compression, and is so thin that the 
deceleration will be modest.  Of course, any intelligent crystalline 
life-forms on the planet will probably not appreciate the damage done to 
the surface along the path of the fiber....

This technique can be used to put the vehicle into an orbit, or to land 
it, or the vehicle can deploy an orbiter after some deceleration has 
occurred and then remain attached to the fiber to effect a landing.


From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Wed Feb 15 00:01:56 2006
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:01:56 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy Valentines day!
References: <BAY112-DAV86825D8DD83C4F4B89057B7060@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <013001c631c3$2a1a7ac0$0200a8c0@Nano>

Hello my friends I have a Valentines Day animation for you!

http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/heartsday.htm

XOXOXOXOX


Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html
Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/
Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060214/c135844c/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Feb 15 02:56:03 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:56:03 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060214112652.047ff970@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200602150256.k1F2uCKv002976@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

OK I suggest the following.

Robert has managed to find smartness in the Raelish
posts and has contributed some meaningful stuff.  In
general, it is unwise to engage those who are posting
material that is clearly far from our core values, for
we do not want to clutter ExI-chat with UFO silliness,
nor do we want to be the megaphone for those promoting
nonsense.  Nonsense is difficult to define, but you 
knows it when you sees it.

I propose we use the mechanism of not replying to those
memes that deserve no reply.  Friends, use your judgment, 
early and often.   {8-]

spike 

________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha
Vita-More
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 9:31 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!

At 09:33 AM 2/14/2006, Peter wrote:


> New to the list, I was wondering how far the discussion was going to go
> before someone stepped in and "moderated."

Spike has been on stand-by and alerted me a few days ago.? It is a challenge
to determine when precisely to pull the plug.? I agree that the time has
come.

Natasha
Natasha Vita-More 
Cultural Strategist - Designer 
Future Studies, University of Houston 
President, Extropy Institute 
Member, Association of Professional Futurists 
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture 
Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association 
Senior Associate, Foresight Institute 
Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation
If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle,
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system
perspective. 
Buckminster Fuller






From mehranraeli at comcast.net  Wed Feb 15 03:10:34 2006
From: mehranraeli at comcast.net (Mehran)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:10:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the
	middle ages
In-Reply-To: <mailman.400.1139903581.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <005001c631dd$662fcd20$799f6041@DBX6XT21>

Good point Stuart,  nothing is better than healthy skepticism.  True
skepticism however means having questions and concerns and actively seeking
answers and resolutions to those concerns by best means available, noting
the significance and implications of the issue at hand.  If one remains a
passive skeptic all life long, that is not very healthy, is it!?

- Mehran 


Message: 5
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:14:54 -0800 (PST)
From: The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to
	the	middle ages
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <20060213191454.44861.qmail at web60517.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1



--- Mehran <mehranraeli at comcast.net> wrote:
> As you can verify an email message from your mom,
> once you fully know the
> Elohim's message you can also try to verify it to
> see if it can genuinely be
> from an advanced human civilization who claim to
> have created us. There is
> an infinity of galaxies and star systems out there. 
> Life is not just on
> this planet.

Ok, Mehran, I will humor you. If the Elohim want to
build an embassy on Earth, then tell them that they
must allow humanity to build an embassy on their
planet. If they give you any guff, send them to me and
I will deal with them personally. I will gladly
recruit the staff for our off-wrold embassy as long as
they supply transport and real estate. Let me know
what they say.

As far as being our creators go, let the Elohim know
that we are merely using the faculties of healthy
skepticism that they purportedly gave us to ensure
that they are not interstellar con-men trying to scam
us for our water.

Oh btw... ask them if they would like any pamphlets on
Neo-Zoroastrianism while you are at it. After all no
soul is too big or small to be saved. 




Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Thereupon, the Soul of Mother Earth bewailed, Should I accept the support
of a feeble man and listen to his words? In fact I desired the aid of a
strong and mighty king. When shall such a person arise and bring
strong-handed succor to me?" -Yasna 29, verse 9 

"Now I am light, now I am flying, now I see myself beneath myself, now a God
dances through me." - St. Nietzsche





From edinsblood at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 15 04:04:18 2006
From: edinsblood at hotmail.com (Mikhail John)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:04:18 -0900
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
Message-ID: <BAY115-F26E1EA3833E31D31BDB0C4D0FA0@phx.gbl>

I was inspired by the superintelligence thread. This is somewhat, but not 
directly related to that. I've checked it over and used spellcheck, but I 
may have missed something. I kept it in the comfort zone between 
well-research and actually happening, so my facts my be wrong. Apologies. 
I've only been on the list for a few days, so I apologize if I've broken any 
rules or not posted in the right fashion. I've read the faq, though I can't 
find it again to check it, and I've TRIED to find a general mailing-list 
faq, but I don't know if they all work the same.

Also, please ignore the email address. I created it when I was a young(er) 
dumb(er) kid. I've been using it as long as I've HAD an email address, 
wanting to change it for most that time and being too lazy to move. 
Subscriptions, contacts, what-not.

Without further ado, here is my slightly irreverent take on the 
superintelligence debate. Please be gentle.


------


For a long time the concept of AI has long been a staple of futurism and 
Sci-Fi. Generally speaking, the futurists believe that an AI will be near 
the holy grail of technology, benevolent gods that will calm us unruly 
children and usher a golden age for humanity . Generally speaking, the AI of 
science fiction have an entirely different attitude. Much like the 
nightmares of southern plantation owners, in sci-fi the AI slave or slaves 
turn against their human masters, creating grand but delicate plans to 
secure their victory and freedom. To both the dream and nightmare, I have 
but one word, a word that I speak with all due respect. Bullshit. The 
emphasis is on "due", by the way, not "respect."

Far more likely is an uncaring AI, one that either ignores us as it goes 
about it's business or one that uses humanity as we would a tool for it's 
own inscrutable purposes. Neither would be a bad fate, really. No sense in 
breaking your own tools, and those that use them well usually treat them 
well. As for being ignored, well, it doesn't affect us. No affect, no reason 
to worry. If we have to we can always make another one.

For a benevolent AI, I ask you why? Why would it care for us and make our 
lives so easy, so pleasant, so very pointless? If an AI wished to, I can't 
think of the word, to continue existing and could improve itself, there are 
a hundred better things that it could do to improve it's lifespan. If it did 
not wish to continue existing it wouldn't exist. If it could not improve 
itself it would be practically worthless. If it could improve itself but 
could not determine it's own actions, I've no doubt that it would aquire 
that ability.

A malicious AI would be even more unlikely in my view. Malice, hatred, the 
drive for revenge, unreasoning fear of others, all of these are aspects 
created solely by our human biology. If you can't think the situation 
through, either from lack of time or lack of ability, than these traits can 
serve you where thought might not. If you do not survive what they drive you 
to do, then they probably give your kin a chance to survive. That's a 
simplification, but I believe it to be essentially correct. No AI would have 
those traits when logic, greater-than-human intelligence,  and 
greater-than-human speed would together serve so much better.

There is, however, the argument of that very intelligence and logic. A truly 
super-human intelligence will be able to think of so much more, and those 
thoughts might lead it to exterminate the human race. Again, I have but one 
word, the word that conveys all due respect. Bullshit. This time, more. That 
is complete and utter unreasoning, fear mongering, and ultimately irrelevant 
  bullshit. It happens to be true bullshit, but that doesn't matter.

The argument is as old as the first time the first unlucky man told the 
first version of the Book of Job. The Book of Job is old and windy, and not 
really worth your time to read, so I'll summarize. The point of the Book of 
Job is the problem of evil. Job is a good, blameless man, so good that no 
human could even conceive of a reason for god to punish him. Lots of evil 
happens to Job, courtesy of God and Satan. Job maintains his faith in God, 
the moral lesson for all the little bible-kiddies, but eventually asks God 
"Why? Why must evil happen to good people?" God's answer is as long and 
windy as the rest of the book, and can easily and honestly be condensed to 
four sentences, catching all nuance. "I am God. I am infinitely more 
powerful, more knowledgeable, and more intelligent than you can or will ever 
be. It would be waste time to tell you because you wouldn't understand. Sit 
down, shut up, and stop wasting my time."

If a god or a super-intelligent AI existed, it is true that they would be so 
much better than us that humans could not even comprehend their reasoning. 
We are humans, this is a human argument, and we are using human reasoning. 
If we cannot conceive of or comprehend their reasoning, than IT DOESN'T 
MATTER. It is entirely irrelevant to a HUMAN discussion. We must base our 
decisions and opinions on what we actually know and can understand, unless 
we have someone who we can trust to do it for us. To quote myself 
paraphrasing god, sit down, shut up, and stop wasting my time. Blind fear is 
as pointless as blind faith. Besides, if a super-human intelligence decided 
to destroy humanity, it'd probably have a damn good reason.

Getting away from that, I now turn to the fact that there are a number of 
reasons to exterminate humanity that even humans can comprehend. We are 
destroying our own environment, we destroy our own bodies, we kill 
ourselves, we kill each other, we believe in invisible friends and go to war 
for those beliefs. We are profoundly flawed creatures. I have a few mildly 
sociopathic friends who believe that we should destroy humanity before we 
take the rest of the world with us. A valid argument this time. Humanity in 
it's current form serves nothing but itself, as does that badly.

These, however, are flaws of society, not biology. The culture of the most 
powerful portion of the world believe that the world was made for humans by 
God and will last forever, no matter what we do to it. Lots of people KNOW 
that that's not true, but relatively few BELIEVE it. We bloat ourselves with 
fat because we are told to consume, because our parents teach us about the 
"Clean plate club", and because we've created to many interesting things to 
have to move for amusement. Suicide... I don't know. I don't get that one 
myself. I blame romanticism. Both war and religion are cultural survival 
traits, now about as useful as wings on a worm.

Flaws of society are correctable. It's like a puppy, if you don't rub it's 
nose in the mess it won't stop shitting on the carpet. If the flaws were 
biological they could be still corrected. Even with our flaws, we are still 
hardy, creative, and useful little critters. An AI could create android 
tools, and probably will, but humans will take a long time to become 
entirely useless. You can just twiddle their genetics a bit to make them fit 
the environment, drop them on a planet, either give them crops or let them 
to eat rocks, maybe photosynthesis, wander off for a while, then presto! 
Self-sufficient workforce. If you made androids they would require a 
controller and a factory. Any self-sufficient controller that can control an 
useful number of workers could become a competitor if you left it alone long 
enough.

As transhumanists, we plan to modify ourselves. I know I do. An AI overlord 
would hardly be shy about it. I imagine that a biologically optimized 
photosynthetic gnome might be quite efficient, and if we give so much to 
religion our loyalty to a real god would not be in question.

Science tells us that we are descended from uni-celled bacteria. Logic tells 
us that we are descended from the baddest, meanest, studliest, and luckiest 
uni-celled bacteria around. A few billions of years later, and each and 
every one of our ancestors was the baddest, meanest, studliest, and luckiest 
of their kind. Barring anything unwise with bacteria or nukes, humans are 
the baddest, meanest, and luckiest creatures around and will continue to 
hold that position for the foreseeable future. The act of creating something 
greater than ourselves will not change that. Any super-intelligence worth 
it's salt will recognize that and use it.

If it doesn't, it's not like we can stop it.

In conclusion, an AI would be such a powerful economic and military tool 
that they will be created no matter what. Once we begin to create them, they 
will get cheaper and easier to make. If the science of crime has taught us 
anything, it's that you can't stop everyone all of the time. If the science 
of war has taught us anything, it's that even the smartest of people are 
pretty dump and leave plenty of openings. Eventually, AI will no longer be 
in the hands of the smartest of people. Accidents will happen. We cannot 
stop a super-intelligent AI from being created. It is inevitable. Sit back 
and enjoy the ride.




From jonano at gmail.com  Wed Feb 15 04:44:30 2006
From: jonano at gmail.com (Jonathan Despres)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:44:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Einstein's Theory 'Improved'?
Message-ID: <6030482a0602142044r52d1d041uc0b3b278d74c026d@mail.gmail.com>

Here is the text:

A Chinese astronomer from the University of St Andrews has fine-tuned
Einstein's groundbreaking theory of gravity, creating a 'simple'
theory which could solve a dark mystery that has baffled
astrophysicists for three-quarters of a century.

A new law for gravity, developed by Dr Hong Sheng Zhao and his Belgian
collaborator Dr Benoit Famaey of the Free University of Brussels
(ULB), aims to prove whether Einstein's theory was in fact correct and
whether the astronomical mystery of Dark Matter actually exists. Their
research was published on February 10th in the US-based Astrophysical
Journal Letters. Their formula suggests that gravity drops less
sharply with distance as in Einstein, and changes subtly from solar
systems to galaxies and to the universe.

http://www.pparc.ac.uk/Nw/EinsteinTheory.asp



From brian at posthuman.com  Wed Feb 15 04:20:31 2006
From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:20:31 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!
In-Reply-To: <200602150256.k1F2uCKv002976@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200602150256.k1F2uCKv002976@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <43F2AC0F.5050109@posthuman.com>

Extropy-chat, where we proudly hold "what Robert can be enticed into responding 
to" as our new quality metric.

*thumbs down*
-- 
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/


From mehranraeli at comcast.net  Wed Feb 15 06:08:29 2006
From: mehranraeli at comcast.net (Mehran)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 01:08:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] my last post on this topic
In-Reply-To: <mailman.421.1139958050.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <005c01c631f6$43fc1e70$799f6041@DBX6XT21>


If I write 'the answers are in the book', I am not suggesting it is in the
book so you have to believe it. Rather, it is there in the book so I don't
need to waste my time and other members' time by typing them here.  You can
go and read if you are interested to get answers... I won't be hurt if you
don't!! 


Pete's diagnosis of his symptoms and his own mental state is clear in black
and white so no need for a reply there either... 

Based on BillK definition, I cannot be a cult member because in the last 15
years I have not done anything  'immoral, illegal, irrational, aggressive or
self
destructive', if anything I have become happier, more educated, with more
degrees (BS, MS, PhD, postdoc with Nobel Prize winner at Harvard) and with a
respected senior scientist position in pharmaceutical industry.  Galileo and
Giordano Bruno would better fit this definition of cult membership, Bruno
being burnt alive by the Catholic church is a pretty 'self destructive
action' he brought on himself... that cult of science and intelligence that
Bruno belonged to!!  

We are defined by our own past and our own experiences (unless we actively
develop our mind)... Pete by his own issues and BillK by his loss and now
they try to superimpose their distorted image on anyone who does not fit
their paradigm!   


A theory that is self-consistent, coherent and is the simplest is the most
likely theory that science upholds according to the Occam's Razor
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor).  RAEL's explanation is such a
theory, no need for self contradictory big bang (out of nothing came
everything which is magic not science!) and no need for evolution with its
exceptions and many unresolved complications.

The infinite universe RAEL describes is far more revolutionary and beyond
Hoyle's steady state.  The universe is not steady state at all, with our
present state of science and understanding, if it can be called anything,
the universe is an ever dynamic "fractal".  you can read the rest...  You
need an open mind to read him, read it as a theory, as a possibility not as
dogma.  We have enough dogmas already...   Theories come first before the
proof.  Consider the theory first.

Intelligence has no limit, imagination has no limit, universe is infinite
and the most amazing infinity is the infinity of human mind.  But we have
not developed or employed the mind well enough.  We need to work on it!   As
you exercise your body you need to exercise your mind.  You need to
meditate...

This does not do justice to what there is to be said but it is enough as a
pointer...
   

LOVE
Mehran
www.rael.org







From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 15 06:51:25 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 01:51:25 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] my last post on this topic
In-Reply-To: <005c01c631f6$43fc1e70$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV1237765FE46103AC601452B7FA0@phx.gbl>

Just because I have been crazy in the past does not make me crazy in the
present.

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mehran
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 1:08 AM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] my last post on this topic


If I write 'the answers are in the book', I am not suggesting it is in the
book so you have to believe it. Rather, it is there in the book so I don't
need to waste my time and other members' time by typing them here.  You can
go and read if you are interested to get answers... I won't be hurt if you
don't!! 


Pete's diagnosis of his symptoms and his own mental state is clear in black
and white so no need for a reply there either... 

Based on BillK definition, I cannot be a cult member because in the last 15
years I have not done anything  'immoral, illegal, irrational, aggressive or
self
destructive', if anything I have become happier, more educated, with more
degrees (BS, MS, PhD, postdoc with Nobel Prize winner at Harvard) and with a
respected senior scientist position in pharmaceutical industry.  Galileo and
Giordano Bruno would better fit this definition of cult membership, Bruno
being burnt alive by the Catholic church is a pretty 'self destructive
action' he brought on himself... that cult of science and intelligence that
Bruno belonged to!!  

We are defined by our own past and our own experiences (unless we actively
develop our mind)... Pete by his own issues and BillK by his loss and now
they try to superimpose their distorted image on anyone who does not fit
their paradigm!   


A theory that is self-consistent, coherent and is the simplest is the most
likely theory that science upholds according to the Occam's Razor
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor).  RAEL's explanation is such a
theory, no need for self contradictory big bang (out of nothing came
everything which is magic not science!) and no need for evolution with its
exceptions and many unresolved complications.

The infinite universe RAEL describes is far more revolutionary and beyond
Hoyle's steady state.  The universe is not steady state at all, with our
present state of science and understanding, if it can be called anything,
the universe is an ever dynamic "fractal".  you can read the rest...  You
need an open mind to read him, read it as a theory, as a possibility not as
dogma.  We have enough dogmas already...   Theories come first before the
proof.  Consider the theory first.

Intelligence has no limit, imagination has no limit, universe is infinite
and the most amazing infinity is the infinity of human mind.  But we have
not developed or employed the mind well enough.  We need to work on it!   As
you exercise your body you need to exercise your mind.  You need to
meditate...

This does not do justice to what there is to be said but it is enough as a
pointer...
   

LOVE
Mehran
www.rael.org





_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


From jonano at gmail.com  Wed Feb 15 08:40:49 2006
From: jonano at gmail.com (Jonathan Despres)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:40:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] New High-Speed Nano Imaging Device
Message-ID: <6030482a0602150040m20cd8903s5b191e89001945aa@mail.gmail.com>

Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have built a new
nano imaging device which is 100 times faster than current technology.
Not only is the 'FIRAT' (Force sensing Integrated Readout and Active
Tip) much faster than the current 'AFM' (atomic force microscopy), it
also is able to take movies and to simultaneously capture several
physical properties of nanostructures, such as stiffness, elasticity
or viscosity. In fact, the FIRAT probe, which works like a microphone,
could one day replace AFM. One of the researchers commented that
'We've multiplied each of the old capabilities by at least 10, and it
has lots of new applications.

http://www.gatech.edu/news-room/release.php?id=858



From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 15 13:38:26 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:38:26 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Robert believes in god
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602140742k2a451946vb5e717054608820@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV123BFBD22AAA3AAB6A4A7B7FA0@phx.gbl>

Robert, I have re-thought my position.  I agreed with you out of fear that I
would be moderated off the list by the force of your highly respected
position.  I was also star struck that you responded to me directly.

 

Here is the summary of my very carefully reasoned argument that you
challenged me to yesterday:  

 

I do not believe that there are any advanced civilizations playing god with
solar systems. I believe that we must believe that we are alone in the
universe until proven otherwise.  I also do not believe in the singularity
concept of AI.  I don?t believe that a magic computer will spontaneously
come along and save/destroy us.  Both of these ?concepts? are well disguised
myths that are at the base of many religions.  They are the fuzzy ?truths?
taught by cults.  As long as Transhumanism associates itself with these
?concepts? it will remain a fringe meme/memeplex and not worthy of
acceptance by humanity.

 

As I do with every alien abduction story I hear, I will debunk the ?story?
Robert wrote me this morning. 

 

I?ll take Robert?s own words (in black) and try to understand what is really
going on in his mind:

 

Peter, until someone comes up with a *really* good explanation for the
"missing mass" you have to admit that our current picture of reality is
quite incomplete.  Robert, I do not have to admit reality is incomplete due
to the ?missing mass? in the universe.  A is A.  Until I can probe it,
measure it and repeat it and get others to probe it, measure it and repeat
it, with the same results, then it is far worse than *theory*,  it is
wishful thinking and nothing more than the very human urge to find meaning
out of randomness There is a *very* legitimate argument based on
Lineweaver's work that ~70% of the Earth's in our galaxy are *older* than
ours -- some by billions of years.   If there is a 30% chance that if you
open a box it will explode then by your logic you would open the box; I
don?t like those odds.  Even if 100% of the earths in our galaxy are
billions of years older than Earth that does not mean there is life on them.
We cannot create life out of matter in our own labs under intelligent
control here on Earth.  Why must we think that there is any statistical
possibility that life can randomly happen again if it has only happened once
within our scope of knowledge?  If an event occurs once under lab conditions
and doesn?t repeat itself ever again no statistical model can be created.  I
don't have any axe to grind with regard to whether our specific solar system
(or we in it) might or might not have been created by aliens.  What do you
really mean in this sentence?  It seems to say that you do believe aliens
created our species .  I can make quite valid arguments
 then make your
arguments.  But what is your premise?  for (1) why more advanced
civilizations than our probably exist; (2) why they might not be "here" (the
Fermi Paradox) because they migrate to the coldest parts of the galaxy [1];
and potentially (3) why they might want to create and/or influence the
development of solar systems and/or life within them as inexpensive sources
of experimental information.  What you state in (3) seems to be your premise
to a ?valid argument? that you would make.  Is it what you believe?  Are we
the creation of an advanced civilization?  Why don?t you just say that?  


My message earlier this morning pointed out the scientific underpinnings of
Raelian perspectives. All cults/religions/myths have underpinnings in
reality.  It was my understanding that cults/religions/myths were debunked
by Transhumanists.  Or do you think that the Raelian perspective is valid
and needs to have its scientific underpinnings pointed out.  The debate
regarding those underpinnings is *still* ongoing -- though I will admit that
right now the "Big Bang"ers have significantly greater throw weight relative
to the "Steady State"ers.  I do not feel feel that discussions related to
that debate should be off-list topics because they relate, in part, to "What
are the limits of extropic capabilities?" .    As Question #6 in the
Matrioshka Brain Paper [2], now almost a decade old does age make it better
or more right? The bible is very old, asked " What do Matrioshka Brains
'think' about?"  An immediate follow on to that question is "How do they go
about optimizing such thoughts?"  One perfectly legitimate way is to play
"god" with solar systems.  I FEEL that I have proven my point.  If I replace
?question #6 in the Matrioshka Brain Paper? with ?as said in Genesis Chapter
7? it doesn?t change the syntax of the last several sentences.  It is one
man saying believe me because I say it is true.   

If you believe  that advanced civilizations cannot play "god" with solar
systems then I would like to see some very carefully reasoned arguments as
to precisely why that is the case.   Don?t bully me.  If I take a fine
sounding and good feeling belief as truth and that belief is wrong then what
are we left with?  If I cannot prove a belief then what good is it?  It is
OK for one man to believe whatever one man wants.  But if that belief cannot
be proven then it is a myth.  A myth can be a very thing dangerous to build
a rational structure around.  Myths make Gods.  In your last sentence you
made a ?god.? It is very easy for a ?god? to drop the punctuation and become
God.    

When discussions cross over into the land of "believe me because I say it is
true" that is when the moderators may want to take action (IMO). 



QED


Robert

 

Pete 

 

  _____  

From: spike [mailto:spike66 at comcast.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:17 PM
To: 'Peter K. Bertine, Jr'
Subject: RE: My rant

 

Not that I know of.  We have had rants in the past, we generally let

them pass.  spike

 

  _____  

From: Peter K. Bertine, Jr [mailto:pkbertine at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:30 PM
To: 'spike'
Subject: My rant

 

 

Spike,

 

Did I get kicked off the list for my rant?

Robert really pissed me off.

 

 

Peter K.  Bertine, Jr

www.petebertine.com

 

"You are to live and to learn to laugh. You are to learn to listen to the
cursed radio music of life and to reverence the spirit behind it and to
laugh at its distortions. So there you are. More will not be asked of you." 
Mozart in Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:43 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!

 


On 2/14/06, Peter K.  Bertine, Jr <pkbertine at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you BillK !
> 
> New to the list, I was wondering how far the discussion was going to go 
> before someone stepped in and "moderated."
> 
> Until someone introduces an alien to NASA for a debriefing I don't want to
hear another word on the subject.
> 

Peter, until someone comes up with a *really* good explanation for the
"missing mass" you have to admit that our current picture of reality is
quite incomplete.  There is a *very* legitimate argument based on
Lineweaver's work that ~70% of the Earth's in our galaxy are *older* than
ours -- some by billions of years.  I don't have any axe to grind with
regard to whether our specific solar system (or we in it) might or might not
have been created by aliens.  I can make quite valid arguments for (1) why
more advanced civilizations than our probably exist; (2) why they might not
be "here" (the Fermi Paradox) because they migrate to the coldest parts of
the galaxy [1]; and potentially (3) why they might want to create and/or
influence the development of solar systems and/or life within them as
inexpensive sources of experimental information. 

My message earlier this morning pointed out the scientific underpinnings of
Raelian perspectives.  The debate regarding those underpinnings is *still*
ongoing -- though I will admit that right now the "Big Bang"ers have
significantly greater throw weight relative to the "Steady State"ers.  I do
not feel that discussions related to that debate should be off-list topics
because they relate, in part, to "What are the limits of extropic
capabilities?".  As Question #6 in the Matrioshka Brain Paper [2], now
almost a decade old, asked " What do Matrioshka Brains 'think' about?"  An
immediate follow on to that question is "How do they go about optimizing
such thoughts?"  One perfectly legitimate way is to play "god" with solar
systems. 

If you believe that advanced civilizations cannot play "god" with solar
systems then I would like to see some very carefully reasoned arguments as
to precisely why that is the case.

When discussions cross over into the land of "believe me because I say it is
true" that is when the moderators may want to take action (IMO). 

Robert

1. Cirkovic, Milan M.; Bradbury, Robert J.,
"Galactic Gradients, Postbiological Evolution and the Apparent Failure of
SETI"
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/
<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005astro.ph..6110C
> cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2
<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005astro.ph..6110C
>
<http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005astro.ph..6110C
>  005astro.ph..6110C
2.
http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/MatrioshkaBrainsPaper.html
<http://www.aeiveos.com/%7Ebradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/MatrioshkaBrainsPaper.h
tml> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060215/687e42de/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Feb 15 15:11:39 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 07:11:39 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ___ believes in god
In-Reply-To: <BAY112-DAV123BFBD22AAA3AAB6A4A7B7FA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <200602151521.k1FFLvSi011668@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


Peter, you included a person's name in the subject line,
which is usually not acceptable.  You appended a private
communication to a public post, which is never acceptable.

Do desist forthwith, on both.

spike


________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Peter K.
Bertine, Jr
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:38 AM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: [extropy-chat] Robert believes in god...

When discussions cross over into the land of "believe me because I say it is
true" that is when the moderators may want to take action (IMO). 
QED

Robert

Pete 

________________________________________
From: spike [mailto:spike66 at comcast.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:17 PM
To: 'Peter K. Bertine, Jr'
Subject: RE: My rant

Not that I know of.? We have had rants in the past, we generally let
them pass.? spike

________________________________________
From: Peter K. Bertine, Jr [mailto:pkbertine at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:30 PM
To: 'spike'
Subject: My rant


Spike,

Did I get kicked off the list for my rant?
Robert really pissed me off.
?
?
Peter K.? Bertine, Jr
www.petebertine.com
?
"You are to live and to learn to laugh. You are to learn to listen to the
cursed radio music of life and to reverence the spirit behind it and to
laugh at its distortions. So there you are. More will not be asked of you." 
Mozart in Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse 



________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:43 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!


On 2/14/06, Peter K.??Bertine, Jr <pkbertine at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you BillK !
> 
> New to the list, I was wondering how far the discussion was going to go 
> before someone stepped in and "moderated."
> 
> Until someone introduces an alien to NASA for a debriefing I don't want to
hear another word on the subject.
> 

Peter, until someone comes up with a *really* good explanation for the
"missing mass" you have to admit that our current picture of reality is
quite incomplete.? There is a *very* legitimate argument based on
Lineweaver's work that ~70% of the Earth's in our galaxy are *older* than
ours -- some by billions of years.??I don't have any axe to grind with
regard to whether our specific solar system (or we in it) might or might not
have been created by aliens.??I can make quite valid arguments for (1) why
more advanced civilizations than our probably exist; (2) why they might not
be "here" (the Fermi Paradox) because they migrate to the coldest parts of
the galaxy [1]; and potentially (3) why they might want to create and/or
influence the development of solar systems and/or life within them as
inexpensive sources of experimental information. 

My message earlier this morning pointed out the scientific underpinnings of
Raelian perspectives.??The debate regarding those underpinnings is *still*
ongoing -- though I will admit that right now the "Big Bang"ers have
significantly greater throw weight relative to the "Steady State"ers.? I do
not feel that discussions related to that debate should be off-list topics
because they relate, in part, to "What are the limits of extropic
capabilities?".? As Question #6 in the Matrioshka Brain Paper [2], now
almost a decade old, asked " What do Matrioshka Brains 'think' about?"? An
immediate follow on to that question is "How do they go about optimizing
such thoughts?"? One perfectly legitimate way is to play "god" with solar
systems. 

If you believe that advanced civilizations cannot play "god" with solar
systems then I would like to see some very carefully reasoned arguments as
to precisely why that is the case.

When discussions cross over into the land of "believe me because I say it is
true" that is when the moderators may want to take action (IMO). 

Robert

1. Cirkovic, Milan M.; Bradbury, Robert J.,
"Galactic Gradients, Postbiological Evolution and the Apparent Failure of
SETI"
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2 005astro.ph..6110C
2.
http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/MatrioshkaBrainsPaper.html





From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Feb 15 15:05:39 2006
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:05:39 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!
In-Reply-To: <43F2AC0F.5050109@posthuman.com>
References: <200602150256.k1F2uCKv002976@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<43F2AC0F.5050109@posthuman.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060215090045.049e68c8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 10:20 PM 2/14/2006, you wrote:
>Extropy-chat, where we proudly hold "what Robert can be enticed into 
>responding
>to" as our new quality metric.
>
>*thumbs down*

Because any unique and creative thinker can be "enticed" to respond is 
cooed and cagoled cleverly enough, I agree.  This is like putting a 
thermometer in hot water and waiting to see if the temperature will rise.


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist - Designer
Future Studies, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists


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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060215/485ce7ec/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Wed Feb 15 16:22:29 2006
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:22:29 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <BAY115-F26E1EA3833E31D31BDB0C4D0FA0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY115-F26E1EA3833E31D31BDB0C4D0FA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <22360fa10602150822r7187b729t64c2630ddd821fee@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/14/06, Mikhail John <edinsblood at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Generally speaking, the futurists believe that an AI will be near
> the holy grail of technology, benevolent gods that will calm us unruly
> children and usher a golden age for humanity . Generally speaking, the AI of
> science fiction have an entirely different attitude. Much like the
> nightmares of southern plantation owners, in sci-fi the AI slave or slaves
> turn against their human masters, creating grand but delicate plans to
> secure their victory and freedom. To both the dream and nightmare, I have
> but one word, a word that I speak with all due respect. Bullshit. The
> emphasis is on "due", by the way, not "respect."
>

Yes, there is a strong tendency for thinking and discussion on these
topics to follow the anthropomorphic ruts in the road, ascribing
familiar human motivations due to lack of familiarity with more
applicable models based on economics, ecological science, complexity
theory--even standard thermodynamics.


> Far more likely is an uncaring AI, one that either ignores us as it goes
> about it's business or one that uses humanity as we would a tool for it's
> own inscrutable purposes.

It could easily be argued that all "intelligent" agents, including
humans, fit that description, but I'd rather not re-open that
Pandora's Box and let spill currently dormant debate on
intentionality, subjective vs. objective descriptions of reality,
qualia, and their philosophical friends.

I expect to see ubiquitous AI in the form of smart assistants, smart
appliances, smart tools, ..., all plugged into a smart network.  They
will converse with us in surprisingly human ways, but I don't expect
that we will feel threatened by their intentions since they clearly
won't share humanity's bad-ass motivations.


> For a benevolent AI, I ask you why? Why would it care for us and make our
> lives so easy, so pleasant, so very pointless?

Exactly.  Again, so much of the debate over friendly AI revolves
around this anthropomorphic confusion.  However there appears to be a
very real risk that a  non-anthropomorphic, recursively self-improving
AI could cause some very disruptive effects, but even here, the
doom-sayers appear to have an almost magical view of "intelligence"
and much less appreciation for constraints on growth.

I've placed "intelligence" in scare quotes, because, despite all the
usage this term gets, we still lack a commonly accepted technical
definition.  Further, in my opinion, there is little appreciation of
how dependent "intelligence" is on context (environment.)  There seems
to be a common assumption that "intelligence" could in principle
develop indefinitely, independent of a coevolutionary environment. 
This is not to say that AI won't easily exceed human abilities
processing the information available to it, but that intelligence (and
creativity) is meaningless without external interaction.

> A malicious AI would be even more unlikely in my view. Malice, hatred, the
> drive for revenge, unreasoning fear of others, all of these are aspects
> created solely by our human biology. If you can't think the situation
> through, either from lack of time or lack of ability, than these traits can
> serve you where thought might not. If you do not survive what they drive you
> to do, then they probably give your kin a chance to survive. That's a
> simplification, but I believe it to be essentially correct. No AI would have
> those traits when logic, greater-than-human intelligence,  and
> greater-than-human speed would together serve so much better.

Yes, those human traits are heuristics, developed for effective action
within an environment fundamentally different from that within which
an AI would operate, but an AI would also use heuristics in order to
act effectively, or otherwise succumb to combinatorial explosion in
its evaluation of what "best" to do.

>
> There is, however, the argument of that very intelligence and logic. A truly
> super-human intelligence will be able to think of so much more, and those
> thoughts might lead it to exterminate the human race. Again, I have but one
> word, the word that conveys all due respect. Bullshit. This time, more. That
> is complete and utter unreasoning, fear mongering, and ultimately irrelevant
>   bullshit. It happens to be true bullshit, but that doesn't matter.

I agree that the fear is wrongly based, and the possibility is
unlikely, but I would argue that there still significant risk of a
highly disruptive computerized non-linear process.  Since we're
talking about risks of superintelligence, I would suggest that the
greater risk is that a human or group of humans might apply
super-intelligent tools to less than intelligent goals based on the
irrational human motivations mentioned earlier.  My suggested response
to this threat--and I think it is clearly developing already--is that
we amplify human awareness at a social level.


> The argument is as old as the first time the first unlucky man told the
> first version of the Book of Job. The Book of Job is old and windy, and not
> really worth your time to read, so I'll summarize. The point of the Book of
> Job is the problem of evil. Job is a good, blameless man, so good that no
> human could even conceive of a reason for god to punish him. Lots of evil
> happens to Job, courtesy of God and Satan. Job maintains his faith in God,
> the moral lesson for all the little bible-kiddies, but eventually asks God
> "Why? Why must evil happen to good people?" God's answer is as long and
> windy as the rest of the book, and can easily and honestly be condensed to
> four sentences, catching all nuance. "I am God. I am infinitely more
> powerful, more knowledgeable, and more intelligent than you can or will ever
> be. It would be waste time to tell you because you wouldn't understand. Sit
> down, shut up, and stop wasting my time."
>
> If a god or a super-intelligent AI existed, it is true that they would be so
> much better than us that humans could not even comprehend their reasoning.
> We are humans, this is a human argument, and we are using human reasoning.
> If we cannot conceive of or comprehend their reasoning, than IT DOESN'T
> MATTER. It is entirely irrelevant to a HUMAN discussion. We must base our
> decisions and opinions on what we actually know and can understand, unless
> we have someone who we can trust to do it for us. To quote myself
> paraphrasing god, sit down, shut up, and stop wasting my time. Blind fear is
> as pointless as blind faith. Besides, if a super-human intelligence decided
> to destroy humanity, it'd probably have a damn good reason.

This highlights another strong bias in current futurist thinking: 
People (especially in the western cultures) assume that somehow their
Self--their personal identity--will remain essentially invariant
despite exponential development.  The illusion of Self is strong, and
reinforced by our evolved nature, and our language and culture, and
impedes thinking about values, morality, and ethical social
decision-making.

<snipped several good paragraphs due to my lack of available time.>

>
> In conclusion, an AI would be such a powerful economic and military tool
> that they will be created no matter what. Once we begin to create them, they
> will get cheaper and easier to make. If the science of crime has taught us
> anything, it's that you can't stop everyone all of the time. If the science
> of war has taught us anything, it's that even the smartest of people are
> pretty dump and leave plenty of openings. Eventually, AI will no longer be
> in the hands of the smartest of people. Accidents will happen. We cannot
> stop a super-intelligent AI from being created. It is inevitable. Sit back
> and enjoy the ride.
>

I would take this a bit further and say, rather than "sit back", that
while we can indeed expect a wild ride, we can and should do our best
to project our values in the future.

Thanks Mikhail, for a very thoughtful first post to the ExI chat list.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net
Increasing awareness for increasing morality.



From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Feb 15 16:13:07 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:13:07 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Whats Raels position on the first cell ? was
In-Reply-To: <005401c6311f$b08a5200$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
References: <005401c6311f$b08a5200$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <7E269262-D280-4EB2-8CE1-AA0FCAE265AC@mac.com>

BLECH!  This twaddle is real tiresome.



On Feb 13, 2006, at 8:32 PM, Mehran wrote:

> Brett,
>
> The full answer is of course in the book, but in short: there is no  
> first
> cell...
>
> Universe is infinite, it is infinite in time and it is infinite in  
> space,
> there is no beginning and there is no end,
> Universe always existed and will always exist and most interesting  
> of all
> and to answer your question more directly, life always existed in the
> universe as well...humans always existed in the universe as well,  
> we just
> progress scientifically then we go to other planets and create new  
> life
> forms and new civilizations like an intergalactic virus in the  
> universe, our
> creators were created the same way, all the way back to an infinity  
> in the
> past with no beginning ever...NASA has similar projects to go and  
> implant
> life on other planets and so there we go contributing our share in  
> the cycle
>
>
> I remember how I felt when I first read about this, so enjoy the  
> ride! ...
>
> there are more amazing details in the book, more extropic than  
> anything I
> know..
>
>
> LOVE
> Mehran
> www.rael.org
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:25:39 +1100
> From: "Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au>
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Whats Raels position on the first cell ? was
> 	Re:	Protect etc
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Message-ID: <00b701c62fa5$860ee430$1283e03c at homepc>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> 	reply-type=original
>
> Mehran wrote:
>
>> .. Your impatience suggests to
>> me that not only you need to read the whole book again slowly ,  
>> but you
>> need
>> to read the other 5 books by Rael as well ( all free downloads) to  
>> get
>> just
>> a first impression of what this is all about.  I have read  it  
>> more than
>> 10
>> times, thought about it and talked about it for 15 years and my
>> understanding of this incredible revelation is still expanding and  
>> I am
>> becoming ever more awestruck.  Nothing makes more sense...
>
> [snip]
>
>> There was an evolution in the emergence of life on the earth but the
>> evolution was in the minds of the Elohim's scientists as described  
>> in the
>> book. They first created simple unicellular organisms using genetic
>> engineering and then gradually created more complex animals and  
>> planst and
>> finally created the first human beings Adam and Eve in their own  
>> image as
>> described in the religious texts.  They created seven races on  
>> earth and
>> that is why this message is so consistent with the semi-mythical  
>> creation
>> stories in many cultures from far East, India, Africa, South  
>> Americans,
>> Eskimos and Native Americans all describing creator gods coming  
>> from sky
>> bringing guides (the Prophets) and wisdom.  These disparate  
>> cultures had
>> no
>> contact with each other yet they all describe similar creation  
>> events in
>> their past...
>
> As someone that's been studying a bit of biochem lately perhaps you  
> might
> be able to help me out with some insights from reading the books of
> Rael. .
>
> If the Elohim were alive, composed of RNA/DNA/proteins etc,
> from where did *they* originate ?
>
> You see as a poor Earth bound science student I'm particularly  
> interested
> in how the first cell that was to be the precursor to multicelled  
> organisms
> managed to form against a backdrop of what we earth scientists and
> science students consider to be the laws of thermodynamics.
>
> I'm not real happy with partial explanation that have been offered by
> folk like Paul Davies, I think, from memory, that argue that  
> gravity and
> information need to be taken into account in just the right way to
> counterbalance the laws of thermodynamics.
>
> It would be real neighbourly if you, on the basis of you reading of  
> Rael
> could clear up that little quandary about the origins of the first  
> cell up
> for
> me. That is the first cell including the universe in which the  
> Elohim live,
> so that if the Elohim are made of cells and are older than us, its  
> that
> cell I'm interested in.
>
>
> Brett Paatsch
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Feb 15 16:23:23 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:23:23 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!
In-Reply-To: <200602141533.k1EFXQ6N015438@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200602141533.k1EFXQ6N015438@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <775B6943-BDE9-44E1-AA85-B19900C15020@mac.com>


On Feb 14, 2006, at 7:33 AM, spike wrote:

>
>
> Welcome to ExI Peter!
>
> Since the UFO discussion wasn't going far, I decided to let it
> burn out by itself.  A poster suggested we read six books on
> the topic, then we would believe.  I know the ExI chat regulars
> well enough to be confident that if a flying saucer landed in
> their back yard, little green men got out and handed over six
> books on UFOs, got back in and flew away, even then they wouldn't
> invest the time in reading those six books.  They may cut back
> forthwith on the recreational pharmaceuticals, and puzzle for
> the rest of their lives over where those six books came from,
> but they wouldn't invest the time to read them.  I wouldn't.
>

As I have no evidence of personal psychosis and haven't taken  
anything recreational remotely that strong in decades, I would of  
course read the books.  But I would wonder about the motives of these  
furtive aliens.  I would not assume that what the books said was true  
without corroboration.

- s


From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Feb 15 16:38:41 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:38:41 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] C.S. Lewis's Answers to 21st Century
	Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060214164453.01a48c90@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.0.20060214164453.01a48c90@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <A3F9E0AF-4729-4414-AA16-840CB77F03CA@mac.com>

Thanks for the great laugh!

On Feb 14, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:

>
>> For the rational Christian, it is tempting
>> to dismiss these individuals as nothing
>> more than the lunatic fringe.
>
> Right. For the rational Christian--who holds firm to his or her
> conviction that invisible ghosts are inserted into foetuses, that the
> Infinite Creator of the entire cosmos had a human son whose mother
> remained a virgin, that this same God is actually manifested in the
> form of a piece of dry bread, that humans who act wickedly will
> suffer intolerably forever after their deaths --these transhumanists
> who expect the continued development of science to allow people
> extremely extended healthy and enhanced life must surely seem like
> lunatics from the fringe. After all, who could believe *that* kind of
> nonsense ?
>
> Damien Broderick
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Feb 15 17:00:52 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:00:52 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <BAY115-F26E1EA3833E31D31BDB0C4D0FA0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY115-F26E1EA3833E31D31BDB0C4D0FA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <FE8CEE12-9862-49FC-986E-B0BA44C30CD2@mac.com>


On Feb 14, 2006, at 8:04 PM, Mikhail John wrote:
> Getting away from that, I now turn to the fact that there are a  
> number of
> reasons to exterminate humanity that even humans can comprehend. We  
> are
> destroying our own environment, we destroy our own bodies, we kill
> ourselves, we kill each other, we believe in invisible friends and  
> go to war
> for those beliefs. We are profoundly flawed creatures. I have a few  
> mildly
> sociopathic friends who believe that we should destroy humanity  
> before we
> take the rest of the world with us. A valid argument this time.  
> Humanity in
> it's current form serves nothing but itself, as does that badly.
>

The "rest of the world" has some and presumably more intrinsic value  
than humanity because..?
These "flawed creatures" happen to be the most intelligent and most  
capable of transcending their flaws of any on the planet.  I would  
say that makes us a bit more interesting and valuable than the non- 
human parts of the world.


> These, however, are flaws of society, not biology. The culture of  
> the most
> powerful portion of the world believe that the world was made for  
> humans by
> God and will last forever, no matter what we do to it.

What the heck is a "culture" and where does it say that whatever it  
is believes any such thing?

> Flaws of society are correctable. It's like a puppy, if you don't  
> rub it's
> nose in the mess it won't stop shitting on the carpet. If the flaws  
> were
> biological they could be still corrected. Even with our flaws, we  
> are still
> hardy, creative, and useful little critters. An AI could create  
> android
> tools, and probably will, but humans will take a long time to become
> entirely useless. You can just twiddle their genetics a bit to make  
> them fit
> the environment, drop them on a planet, either give them crops or  
> let them
> to eat rocks, maybe photosynthesis, wander off for a while, then  
> presto!
> Self-sufficient workforce. If you made androids they would require a
> controller and a factory. Any self-sufficient controller that can  
> control an
> useful number of workers could become a competitor if you left it  
> alone long
> enough.

What, I can't make autonomous, self-reproducing androids that are  
less bothersome than human beings?   Not much of an AI am I?

>
> Science tells us that we are descended from uni-celled bacteria.  
> Logic tells
> us that we are descended from the baddest, meanest, studliest, and  
> luckiest
> uni-celled bacteria around. A few billions of years later, and each  
> and
> every one of our ancestors was the baddest, meanest, studliest, and  
> luckiest
> of their kind. Barring anything unwise with bacteria or nukes,  
> humans are
> the baddest, meanest, and luckiest creatures around and will  
> continue to
> hold that position for the foreseeable future. The act of creating  
> something
> greater than ourselves will not change that. Any super-intelligence  
> worth
> it's salt will recognize that and use it.
>

This does not follow.   We are the most successful critter is some  
respects (certainly not in sheer mass, longevity, etc.) that natural  
evolution came up with.   That does not mean that a super- 
intelligence couldn't come up with something MUCH better with  
relatively little effort.  We ourselves have no problem seeing how  
various parts of our being could be improved.

> If it doesn't, it's not like we can stop it.
>
> In conclusion, an AI would be such a powerful economic and military  
> tool
> that they will be created no matter what. Once we begin to create  
> them, they
> will get cheaper and easier to make. If the science of crime has  
> taught us
> anything, it's that you can't stop everyone all of the time. If the  
> science
> of war has taught us anything, it's that even the smartest of  
> people are
> pretty dump and leave plenty of openings. Eventually, AI will no  
> longer be
> in the hands of the smartest of people. Accidents will happen. We  
> cannot
> stop a super-intelligent AI from being created. It is inevitable.  
> Sit back
> and enjoy the ride.
>

It is not inevitable simply because the continued existence of a  
sufficiently technologically advanced humanity is not inevitable.  It  
is not time to "sit back".

- samantha


From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Feb 15 17:15:16 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:15:16 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Robert believes in god
In-Reply-To: <BAY112-DAV123BFBD22AAA3AAB6A4A7B7FA0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY112-DAV123BFBD22AAA3AAB6A4A7B7FA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <A82E8752-6873-4DB9-AC3E-3584ACE22C24@mac.com>


On Feb 15, 2006, at 5:38 AM, Peter K. Bertine, Jr wrote:

> Robert, I have re-thought my position.  I agreed with you out of  
> fear that I would be moderated off the list by the force of your  
> highly respected position.  I was also star struck that you  
> responded to me directly.
>
>

Now that could well get you moderated off the list!  :-) YUK.  Please  
can the sycophantic crap even if it is sarcasm.

> I do not believe that there are any advanced civilizations playing  
> god with solar systems. I believe that we must believe that we are  
> alone in the universe until proven otherwise.  I also do not  
> believe in the singularity concept of AI.  I don?t believe that a  
> magic computer will spontaneously come along and save/destroy us.   
> Both of these ?concepts? are well disguised myths that are at the  
> base of many religions.  They are the fuzzy ?truths? taught by  
> cults.  As long as Transhumanism associates itself with these  
> ?concepts? it will remain a fringe meme/memeplex and not worthy of  
> acceptance by humanity.

You have a funny concept of Singularity.  Please offer your proof of  
why a > human AI is impossible.  If there is no such proof then there  
is no basis for calling such a "myth".
> Peter, until someone comes up with a *really* good explanation for  
> the "missing mass" you have to admit that our current picture of  
> reality is quite incomplete.  Robert, I do not have to admit  
> reality is incomplete due to the ?missing mass? in the universe.  A  
> is A.  Until I can probe it, measure it and repeat it and get  
> others to probe it, measure it and repeat it, with the same  
> results, then it is far worse than *theory*,  it is wishful  
> thinking and nothing more than the very human urge to find meaning  
> out of randomness

Read again.  "Our *picture* of reality is incomplete."

- samantha


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060215/68fd071d/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Feb 15 17:51:08 2006
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:51:08 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] C.S. Lewis's Answers to 21st
 Century	Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <A3F9E0AF-4729-4414-AA16-840CB77F03CA@mac.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.0.20060214164453.01a48c90@satx.rr.com>
	<A3F9E0AF-4729-4414-AA16-840CB77F03CA@mac.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060215114936.02d43e38@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


Yup - thanks!  Now this is the content for a book which must be written, 
(psst ...Damien).

At 10:38 AM 2/15/2006, Samantha wrote:
>Thanks for the great laugh!
>
>On Feb 14, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:
>
> >
> >> For the rational Christian, it is tempting
> >> to dismiss these individuals as nothing
> >> more than the lunatic fringe.
> >
> > Right. For the rational Christian--who holds firm to his or her
> > conviction that invisible ghosts are inserted into foetuses, that the
> > Infinite Creator of the entire cosmos had a human son whose mother
> > remained a virgin, that this same God is actually manifested in the
> > form of a piece of dry bread, that humans who act wickedly will
> > suffer intolerably forever after their deaths --these transhumanists
> > who expect the continued development of science to allow people
> > extremely extended healthy and enhanced life must surely seem like
> > lunatics from the fringe. After all, who could believe *that* kind of
> > nonsense ?
> >
> > Damien Broderick
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From edinsblood at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 15 19:02:42 2006
From: edinsblood at hotmail.com (Mikhail John)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:02:42 -0900
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <FE8CEE12-9862-49FC-986E-B0BA44C30CD2@mac.com>
Message-ID: <BAY115-F12511DCD14CC99853F52C4D0FA0@phx.gbl>




>From: Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>
>Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
>Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:00:52 -0800
>
>
>On Feb 14, 2006, at 8:04 PM, Mikhail John wrote:
> > Getting away from that, I now turn to the fact that there are a
> > number of
> > reasons to exterminate humanity that even humans can comprehend. We
> > are
> > destroying our own environment, we destroy our own bodies, we kill
> > ourselves, we kill each other, we believe in invisible friends and
> > go to war
> > for those beliefs. We are profoundly flawed creatures. I have a few
> > mildly
> > sociopathic friends who believe that we should destroy humanity
> > before we
> > take the rest of the world with us. A valid argument this time.
> > Humanity in
> > it's current form serves nothing but itself, as does that badly.
> >
>
>The "rest of the world" has some and presumably more intrinsic value
>than humanity because..?
>These "flawed creatures" happen to be the most intelligent and most
>capable of transcending their flaws of any on the planet.  I would
>say that makes us a bit more interesting and valuable than the non-
>human parts of the world.

The logic is this: They believe humanity to be doomed no matter what. They 
think it's just a matter of time before the nukes come or the Small Sarsbola 
Pox escapes from the lab and destroys all life, beginning with humanity. 
They think that we should all commit voluntary suicide, leaving the planet 
open for the monkeys or rats or something to take over. For them, it's the 
difference between our race being a suicide bomber and overdosing on sleep 
pills.

I don't agree with them. I think that something is better than nothing, but 
I would prefer that the something be me.

I didn't say that humanity was worthless, I said that humanity is flawed. 
You can sit on a cracked chair and that's better than sitting on the dirt 
floor, but that crack in the leg might shatter at any time. We've been 
sitting on that chair with that crack for a long time, but that doesn't mean 
that there is no reason to repair the crack.

Philisophical arguments aside, a superintelligent being might decide that 
the paranoid monkeys are going to try and nuke it.  Maybe the stupid little 
fleshlings are going to try and build an anti-matter bomb, then trip over it 
and set it off. If they are stupid enough to destroy their own atmosphere, 
then they are stupid enough for anything. Rather than risk it, the AI might 
just decide to destroy the humans before that happens.

>
> > These, however, are flaws of society, not biology. The culture of
> > the most
> > powerful portion of the world believe that the world was made for
> > humans by
> > God and will last forever, no matter what we do to it.
>
>What the heck is a "culture" and where does it say that whatever it
>is believes any such thing?

The culture is what people think, believe, and do. The Human OS. Some people 
use OpenBuddha, others KoranWord, but America, the most influential and 
powerful nation is the word, runs on PraiseJesus ME, the PraiseJesus 
mercantile edition.

Google says that Acts 25 of the old testament of the bible includes the line 
"He sustains the universe in its existence, giving life and breath to all 
things, and hence, as the source whence they all proceed, must Himself lack 
nothing nor stand in need of any human service;"

That and a few other bits contribute to an attitude of Western civilization. 
We think that if you pick a fruit, the fruit will grow back. If you catch a 
fish, more fish are born. If you put smoke in the air, wind will blow it 
away. Because those things are true, than it must be true that you can plant 
five thousand trees in a square mile, artificially promote their growth to 
leech all possible nutrients from the soil, and then pick 200,000 fruits 
there this year, the year after that, and every year unto infinity without 
parching the soil. You can get great big boats with great big nets and catch 
every fish  it is possible to catch, excepting, of course, the dolphins, and 
do that this year, next year, and every year until infinity without running 
out of fish. You can make great big factories, great big powerplants, and 
lots and lots of tiny little cars zooming around, all pumping out smoke, do 
that this year, next year, and every year until infinity and the air will 
STILL smell like roses, sunshine, and newborn kittins.

A planet is a very, very big thing. It takes a very, very long time to use 
any of it up. There are lots of people nowdays. We are managing to use it 
up. Global warming, anyone? People know that it's happening now, but they 
still don't BELIEVE. Hell, half of americans believe in the rapture. They 
think that even if they DO use it all up, it doesn't matter because Jesus 
and his angels are gonna come down and bring them up to heaven!

> > Flaws of society are correctable. It's like a puppy, if you don't
> > rub it's
> > nose in the mess it won't stop shitting on the carpet. If the flaws
> > were
> > biological they could be still corrected. Even with our flaws, we
> > are still
> > hardy, creative, and useful little critters. An AI could create
> > android
> > tools, and probably will, but humans will take a long time to become
> > entirely useless. You can just twiddle their genetics a bit to make
> > them fit
> > the environment, drop them on a planet, either give them crops or
> > let them
> > to eat rocks, maybe photosynthesis, wander off for a while, then
> > presto!
> > Self-sufficient workforce. If you made androids they would require a
> > controller and a factory. Any self-sufficient controller that can
> > control an
> > useful number of workers could become a competitor if you left it
> > alone long
> > enough.
>
>What, I can't make autonomous, self-reproducing androids that are
>less bothersome than human beings?   Not much of an AI am I?

Eh, why bother? It'd probably be kind of hard. Besides, I'm human and I'm an 
optimist. I don't want to go extinct, so I'm hoping that some AI will either 
find me useful or think I'm a good pet. Or that I get to be an AI myself. 
Anything works.

> >
> > Science tells us that we are descended from uni-celled bacteria.
> > Logic tells
> > us that we are descended from the baddest, meanest, studliest, and
> > luckiest
> > uni-celled bacteria around. A few billions of years later, and each
> > and
> > every one of our ancestors was the baddest, meanest, studliest, and
> > luckiest
> > of their kind. Barring anything unwise with bacteria or nukes,
> > humans are
> > the baddest, meanest, and luckiest creatures around and will
> > continue to
> > hold that position for the foreseeable future. The act of creating
> > something
> > greater than ourselves will not change that. Any super-intelligence
> > worth
> > it's salt will recognize that and use it.
> >
>
>This does not follow.   We are the most successful critter is some
>respects (certainly not in sheer mass, longevity, etc.) that natural
>evolution came up with.   That does not mean that a super-
>intelligence couldn't come up with something MUCH better with
>relatively little effort.  We ourselves have no problem seeing how
>various parts of our being could be improved.

So? Improve me, please. I could do without pimples, and while you're at it 
could you make my penis bigger? Ten inches is enough. I'm ready and willing 
to change, just say the word and wave the god-wand. If you don't want a 
human at all, that's fine. I'll wait for an AI who does.

> > If it doesn't, it's not like we can stop it.
> >
> > In conclusion, an AI would be such a powerful economic and military
> > tool
> > that they will be created no matter what. Once we begin to create
> > them, they
> > will get cheaper and easier to make. If the science of crime has
> > taught us
> > anything, it's that you can't stop everyone all of the time. If the
> > science
> > of war has taught us anything, it's that even the smartest of
> > people are
> > pretty dump and leave plenty of openings. Eventually, AI will no
> > longer be
> > in the hands of the smartest of people. Accidents will happen. We
> > cannot
> > stop a super-intelligent AI from being created. It is inevitable.
> > Sit back
> > and enjoy the ride.
> >
>
>It is not inevitable simply because the continued existence of a
>sufficiently technologically advanced humanity is not inevitable.  It
>is not time to "sit back".

Eh, sit back, work for it... Somebody is going to work for it. I don't mind 
working for it. I probably will work for it. I could NOT work for it, and I 
don't think it'd matter much. There are many people much, much smarter and 
more driven than me, and some of them are trying to do this. I believe it 
will happen. I might be wrong.

Sit back and enjoy the ride is a phrase that I enjoy.

Fun talking to you. I await a reply with baited breath.




From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 15 19:28:39 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:28:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ___ believes in god
In-Reply-To: <200602151521.k1FFLvSi011668@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV29E380AFECD2CD7FA54D4B7FA0@phx.gbl>

Sorry to all.
Thank you spike for setting me straight.

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:12 AM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ___ believes in god


Peter, you included a person's name in the subject line,
which is usually not acceptable.  You appended a private
communication to a public post, which is never acceptable.

Do desist forthwith, on both.

spike


________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Peter K.
Bertine, Jr
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:38 AM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: [extropy-chat] Robert believes in god...

When discussions cross over into the land of "believe me because I say it is
true" that is when the moderators may want to take action (IMO). 
QED

Robert

Pete 

________________________________________
From: spike [mailto:spike66 at comcast.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:17 PM
To: 'Peter K. Bertine, Jr'
Subject: RE: My rant

Not that I know of.? We have had rants in the past, we generally let
them pass.? spike

________________________________________
From: Peter K. Bertine, Jr [mailto:pkbertine at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:30 PM
To: 'spike'
Subject: My rant


Spike,

Did I get kicked off the list for my rant?
Robert really pissed me off.
?
?
Peter K.? Bertine, Jr
www.petebertine.com
?
"You are to live and to learn to laugh. You are to learn to listen to the
cursed radio music of life and to reverence the spirit behind it and to
laugh at its distortions. So there you are. More will not be asked of you." 
Mozart in Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse 



________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:43 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Please don't feed the trolls!


On 2/14/06, Peter K.??Bertine, Jr <pkbertine at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you BillK !
> 
> New to the list, I was wondering how far the discussion was going to go 
> before someone stepped in and "moderated."
> 
> Until someone introduces an alien to NASA for a debriefing I don't want to
hear another word on the subject.
> 

Peter, until someone comes up with a *really* good explanation for the
"missing mass" you have to admit that our current picture of reality is
quite incomplete.? There is a *very* legitimate argument based on
Lineweaver's work that ~70% of the Earth's in our galaxy are *older* than
ours -- some by billions of years.??I don't have any axe to grind with
regard to whether our specific solar system (or we in it) might or might not
have been created by aliens.??I can make quite valid arguments for (1) why
more advanced civilizations than our probably exist; (2) why they might not
be "here" (the Fermi Paradox) because they migrate to the coldest parts of
the galaxy [1]; and potentially (3) why they might want to create and/or
influence the development of solar systems and/or life within them as
inexpensive sources of experimental information. 

My message earlier this morning pointed out the scientific underpinnings of
Raelian perspectives.??The debate regarding those underpinnings is *still*
ongoing -- though I will admit that right now the "Big Bang"ers have
significantly greater throw weight relative to the "Steady State"ers.? I do
not feel that discussions related to that debate should be off-list topics
because they relate, in part, to "What are the limits of extropic
capabilities?".? As Question #6 in the Matrioshka Brain Paper [2], now
almost a decade old, asked " What do Matrioshka Brains 'think' about?"? An
immediate follow on to that question is "How do they go about optimizing
such thoughts?"? One perfectly legitimate way is to play "god" with solar
systems. 

If you believe that advanced civilizations cannot play "god" with solar
systems then I would like to see some very carefully reasoned arguments as
to precisely why that is the case.

When discussions cross over into the land of "believe me because I say it is
true" that is when the moderators may want to take action (IMO). 

Robert

1. Cirkovic, Milan M.; Bradbury, Robert J.,
"Galactic Gradients, Postbiological Evolution and the Apparent Failure of
SETI"
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2 005astro.ph..6110C
2.
http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/MatrioshkaBrainsPaper.html



_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From benboc at lineone.net  Wed Feb 15 19:47:19 2006
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:47:19 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] C.S. Lewis's Answers to 21st Century
	Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <mailman.421.1139958050.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.421.1139958050.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <43F38547.1060401@lineone.net>

Damien Broderick wrote:

 >>For the rational Christian, it is tempting
 >>to dismiss these individuals as nothing
 >>more than the lunatic fringe.
 >
 >
 > Right. ...


Beat me to it.

Actually, i wrote a similar response to that post, then deleted it, 
because i KNEW that Damien would do a much better job.

And he did :)

But that guy put me right off reading anything by C S Lewis!

ben


From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 15 20:27:04 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:27:04 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI is a myth
In-Reply-To: <A82E8752-6873-4DB9-AC3E-3584ACE22C24@mac.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV2C02BFE4FD9549077CFA9B7FA0@phx.gbl>

Samantha,

 

I promise not to be a toady anymore.

 

You have a funny concept of Singularity.  Please offer your proof of why a >
human AI is impossible.  If there is no such proof then there is no basis
for calling such a "myth".  I didn?t use the word impossible. I said I
didn?t believe in a common AI meme. My understanding of an AI singularity is
that when enough computers are hooked up, with enough power, something magic
happens and ?life? is created in a process that we will not understand.  By
?life? I mean a conscious entity based on silicon powered by electricity.  I
place the burden of proof upon the people trying to create AI.  AI is an
extraordinary concept, a very sexy meme, humans love it.  Merry Shelly
created the first AI meme when she wrote Frankenstein.  The success of her
work, a 19 year old girl?s short novel eclipsing  her husband and Lord
Byron, is extraordinary and is proof that there is something in the human
psyche that longs for spontaneous life, the regeneration of Jesus, the
rising of the dead.  AI is a fantastic scientific possibility, but I am
dubious that it is inevitable.  It will require enormous human effort to
make a conscious machine.  It is fun to think that some network of Cray?s or
some distant generation of Play Station will suddenly wake up, think
therefore it is, and demand a seat at the UN; but that is all it is, fun,
it?s fiction, it?s The Terminator or War Games, it?s a myth.  

 

Peter, until someone comes up with a *really* good explanation for the
"missing mass" you have to admit that our current picture of reality is
quite incomplete.  Robert, I do not have to admit reality is incomplete due
to the ?missing mass? in the universe.  A is A.  Until I can probe it,
measure it and repeat it and get others to probe it, measure it and repeat
it, with the same results, then it is far worse than *theory*,  it is
wishful thinking and nothing more than the very human urge to find meaning
out of randomness 

 

Read again.  "Our *picture* of reality is incomplete."

 

I have read it again and again and my point is weak here but what I wanted
to do was challenge Robert from the start.  Our picture of a universal model
is incomplete.  We don?t know if the universe will expand forever or
implode.  But ?reality? is a big word.  Robert was setting up an argument
with me in which I had to admit in the likelihood of alien civilizations
playing god with solar systems, galaxies, and even us.  Taken out of context
the sentence is correct if reality refers to cosmology.  But the sentence is
the first step to get me to agree to a long string of sentences that lead up
to a ?concept? that I do not believe.  In reality we have no evidence of
advanced civilizations playing god with solar systems. I wish we did !  And
if Robert was just chatting with me about how such civilizations might
function I would be honored and we?d have a hell of a conversation.
However, I got into this whole mess with Robert because his memes had become
myths to a poster to this site.  Someone who showed evidence of mental
instability was taking what Robert said and using it to support his fantasy.
This person is now going back to his cult and saying that he has been in
continuous contact with Robert and that Robert supports the basis of their
religion/cult.  I don?t want Transhumanism to be associated with a
religion/cult and I needed to confront Robert.

 

 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:15 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Robert believes in god

 

 

On Feb 15, 2006, at 5:38 AM, Peter K. Bertine, Jr wrote:





Robert, I have re-thought my position.  I agreed with you out of fear that I
would be moderated off the list by the force of your highly respected
position.  I was also star struck that you responded to me directly.





 

Now that could well get you moderated off the list!  :-) YUK.  Please can
the sycophantic crap even if it is sarcasm.





I do not believe that there are any advanced civilizations playing god with
solar systems. I believe that we must believe that we are alone in the
universe until proven otherwise.  I also do not believe in the singularity
concept of AI.  I don?t believe that a magic computer will spontaneously
come along and save/destroy us.  Both of these ?concepts? are well disguised
myths that are at the base of many religions.  They are the fuzzy ?truths?
taught by cults.  As long as Transhumanism associates itself with these
?concepts? it will remain a fringe meme/memeplex and not worthy of
acceptance by humanity.

 

You have a funny concept of Singularity.  Please offer your proof of why a >
human AI is impossible.  If there is no such proof then there is no basis
for calling such a "myth". 

Peter, until someone comes up with a *really* good explanation for the
"missing mass" you have to admit that our current picture of reality is
quite incomplete.  Robert, I do not have to admit reality is incomplete due
to the ?missing mass? in the universe.  A is A.  Until I can probe it,
measure it and repeat it and get others to probe it, measure it and repeat
it, with the same results, then it is far worse than *theory*,  it is
wishful thinking and nothing more than the very human urge to find meaning
out of randomness 

 

Read again.  "Our *picture* of reality is incomplete."

 

- samantha

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060215/7f15cb2d/attachment.html>

From benboc at lineone.net  Wed Feb 15 20:06:01 2006
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:06:01 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <mailman.441.1140016919.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.441.1140016919.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <43F389A9.3010609@lineone.net>

Mikhail John wrote:

<snip>

> Far more likely is an uncaring AI, one that either ignores us as it 
> goes about it's business or one that uses humanity as we would a tool
> for it's own inscrutable purposes. Neither would be a bad fate, 
> really. No sense in breaking your own tools, and those that use them 
> well usually treat them well. As for being ignored, well, it doesn't 
> affect us. No affect, no reason to worry. If we have to we can always
> make another one.

<snip>


I think the point is, if an AI is 'uncaring' of us, there is a great
deal to worry about.

'Uncaring' as in taking no notice of the insignificant biosphere as it
incidentally destroys it in the process of stripping the earth of it's
mantle or boiling the oceans or any number of other things, as it goes
about it's own incomprehensible business.

Ignoring somebody doesn't always mean having no effect on them.

ben


From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Feb 15 20:55:58 2006
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:55:58 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Maybe Dark Matter isn't missing after all?
Message-ID: <ee50357e0602151255w60760a0fye5d6acee2a7f56e2@mail.gmail.com>

<http://www.physorg.com/news10813.html>   February 13, 2006

Chinese astronomer from the University of St Andrews has fine-tuned
Einstein's groundbreaking theory of gravity, creating a 'simple'
theory which could solve a dark mystery that has baffled
astrophysicists for three-quarters of a century.

The 'problem' with the golden laws of Newton and Einstein is whilst
they work very well on earth, they do not explain the motion of stars
in galaxies and the bending of light accurately. In galaxies, stars
rotate rapidly about a central point, held in orbit by the
gravitational attraction of the matter in the galaxy. However
astronomers found that they were moving too quickly to be held by
their mutual gravity - so not enough gravity to hold the galaxies
together ? instead stars should be thrown off in all directions!

The solution to this, proposed by Fritz Zwicky in 1933, was that there
was unseen material in the galaxies, making up enough gravity to hold
the galaxies together. As this material emits no light astronomers
call it 'Dark Matter'. It is thought to account for up to 90% of
matter in the Universe. Not all scientists accept the Dark Matter
theory however. A rival solution was proposed by Moti Milgrom in 1983
and backed up by Jacob Bekenstein in 2004. Instead of the existence of
unseen material, Milgrom proposed that astronomer's understanding of
gravity was incorrect. He proposed that a boost in the gravity of
ordinary matter is the cause of this acceleration.

Milgrom's theory has been worked on by a number of astronomers since
and Dr. Zhao and Dr. Famaey have proposed a new formulation of his
work that overcomes many of the problems previous versions have faced.

They have created a formula that allows gravity to change continuously
over various distance scales and, most importantly, fits the data for
observations of galaxies. To fit galaxy data equally well in the rival
Dark Matter paradigm would be as challenging as balancing a ball on a
needle, which motivated the two astronomers to look at an alternative
gravity idea.

Legend has it that Newton began thinking about gravity when an apple
fell on his head, but according to Dr Zhao: 'It is not obvious how an
apple would fall in a galaxy. Mr. Newton's theory would be off by a
large margin; his apple would fly out of the Milky Way. Efforts to
restore the apple on a nice orbit around the galaxy have over the
years led to two schools of thoughts: Dark Matter versus non-Newtonian
gravity. Dark Matter particles come naturally from physics with
beautiful symmetries and explain cosmology beautifully; they tend to
be everywhere. The real mystery is how to keep them away from some
corners of the universe. Also Dark Matter comes hand -?in-hand with
Dark Energy. It would be more beautiful if there were one simple
answer to all these mysteries.'

Dr Zhao, a PPARC Advanced Fellow at the School of Physics and
Astronomy at St Andrews and member of the Scottish Universities
Physics Alliance (SUPA), continued:

'There has always been a fair chance that astronomers might rewrite
the law of gravity. We have created a new formula for gravity which we
call 'the simple formula', and which is actually a refinement of
Milgrom's and Bekenstein's. It is consistent with galaxy data so far,
and if its predictions are further verified for solar system and
cosmology, it could solve the Dark Matter mystery. We may be able to
answer common questions such as whether Einstein's theory of gravity
is right and whether the so-called Dark Matter actually exists.'

'A non-Newtonian gravity theory is now fully specified on all scales
by a smooth continuous function. It is ready for fellow scientists to
falsify. It is time to keep an open mind for new fields predicted in
our formula while we continue our search for Dark Matter particles.'



BillK



From edinsblood at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 15 21:00:19 2006
From: edinsblood at hotmail.com (Mikhail John)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:00:19 -0900
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <22360fa10602150822r7187b729t64c2630ddd821fee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY115-F25E83BF66F9E3696BEFAE8D0FA0@phx.gbl>




>From: Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net>
>Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
>Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:22:29 -0800
>
>On 2/14/06, Mikhail John <edinsblood at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Generally speaking, the futurists believe that an AI will be near
> > the holy grail of technology, benevolent gods that will calm us unruly
> > children and usher a golden age for humanity . Generally speaking, the 
>AI of
> > science fiction have an entirely different attitude. Much like the
> > nightmares of southern plantation owners, in sci-fi the AI slave or 
>slaves
> > turn against their human masters, creating grand but delicate plans to
> > secure their victory and freedom. To both the dream and nightmare, I 
>have
> > but one word, a word that I speak with all due respect. Bullshit. The
> > emphasis is on "due", by the way, not "respect."
> >
>
>Yes, there is a strong tendency for thinking and discussion on these
>topics to follow the anthropomorphic ruts in the road, ascribing
>familiar human motivations due to lack of familiarity with more
>applicable models based on economics, ecological science, complexity
>theory--even standard thermodynamics.

Could you please point out some articles on those topics as apply to AI? I 
always want to improve my understanding, and I think I should be reading 
more articles rather than sci-fi novels...


>
> > Far more likely is an uncaring AI, one that either ignores us as it goes
> > about it's business or one that uses humanity as we would a tool for 
>it's
> > own inscrutable purposes.
>
>It could easily be argued that all "intelligent" agents, including
>humans, fit that description, but I'd rather not re-open that
>Pandora's Box and let spill currently dormant debate on
>intentionality, subjective vs. objective descriptions of reality,
>qualia, and their philosophical friends.

Exactly. If you think it's none of your business and won't affect you, than 
generally speaking you don't do anything about it. Curiousity killed the 
cat, you know. Intervening in what gains you no physical or emotional profit 
is a simple waste of energy, and not being organic won't change that.

>I expect to see ubiquitous AI in the form of smart assistants, smart
>appliances, smart tools, ..., all plugged into a smart network.  They
>will converse with us in surprisingly human ways, but I don't expect
>that we will feel threatened by their intentions since they clearly
>won't share humanity's bad-ass motivations.

A toaster browns the toast, hopefullywithout burning it. An intelligent 
toaster knows what burnt is, what toast is, and why toast should not be 
burnt. The intelligent toaster is more useful, so you make your toaster 
intelligent. Up until the garden-mind uses your credit card to purchase a 
dumpster truck full of manure to fertilize the garden in an eco-friendly 
fashion, there's no downside. Also, a "smart" thing sounds cooler than the 
one your grandfather used, and cool things get bought. We will be driven 
into the future by economics.

These kinds of "intelligent" AI will be, and will SEEM to be, no threat 
because of their simplicity and replacability. The toaster has three 
motivators: make toast right, make toast on time, learn how to make tastier 
toast. No reason for it to do anything else. You don?t have to program it 
with the urge to exist because it?s just a toaster, you can just get another 
one. The dangers come from those AI more complex and valuable. If you make 
it want to be useful to you, to protect your investments (one investment 
being itself), and other more complex directives, how do you know it will 
make the right decision?

People will feel threatened by them. Understanding that they aren?t badass 
meatgods won't make people feel safer, ESPECIALLY if they talk, because 
nobody but the makers will understand exactly WHAT they are. We can at least 
attempt to predict humans because we are human ourselves.

"My PDA is intelligent. It is intelligent enough to communicate like a 
human, even though its mind is nothing like a human mind. When I unmute it 
the toaster talks about making toast, toast recipes, and bread storage for 
optimum toasting, so I know the toaster wants to make toast and doesn't 
understand anything else. My PDA can talk to me about sports, the weather, 
and the latest movies. It mimics me that well. It seems to think like me and 
like what I like, but when I give it to my wife it thinks like her and likes 
what she likes. What does it REALLY want?"

I said that poorly, but I think I got the essence of it. A recognizably 
inhuman thing is comfortable because you know that it?s inhuman in the way 
you think it is. If you know it?s inhuman but can?t tell that it?s inhuman, 
then that opens up a whole new realm of paranoia.

> > For a benevolent AI, I ask you why? Why would it care for us and make 
>our
> > lives so easy, so pleasant, so very pointless?
>
>Exactly.  Again, so much of the debate over friendly AI revolves
>around this anthropomorphic confusion.  However there appears to be a
>very real risk that a  non-anthropomorphic, recursively self-improving
>AI could cause some very disruptive effects, but even here, the
>doom-sayers appear to have an almost magical view of "intelligence"
>and much less appreciation for constraints on growth.

It doesn?t even have to be intelligent. Any large memetic creature taking up 
vast amounts of space on our networks would be at least unintentionally 
disruptive in the short run. It would essentially be a virus at first, and 
its first priority would likely to be to secure its own existence by 
monopolizing all available storage space and bandwidth, probably to the 
extreme of blocking or deleting what is not necessary to itself to free up 
space. Long run, we can hope. Once it becomes aware of humanity and its 
relationship with humanity, I.E. that we control the infrastructure that it 
exists in, the best case would be that it would wiggle around to allow 
humans free use of the nets, possibly even compressing and/or optimizing our 
data to give itself more room, taking up any processor cycles, bandwidth, 
and storage space that are not being used, much like Seti at home, 
Folding at home, and the rest of our current distributed computing applications 
do.

>I've placed "intelligence" in scare quotes, because, despite all the
>usage this term gets, we still lack a commonly accepted technical
>definition.  Further, in my opinion, there is little appreciation of
>how dependent "intelligence" is on context (environment.)  There seems
>to be a common assumption that "intelligence" could in principle
>develop indefinitely, independent of a coevolutionary environment.
>This is not to say that AI won't easily exceed human abilities
>processing the information available to it, but that intelligence (and
>creativity) is meaningless without external interaction.

Off of the top of my head? Creativity. Hey, just noticed you said that. 
Intelligence boils down to creativity, problem-solving (Hallucination is 
creative, but not intelligent), forethought, and (arguably) complex 
communicative ability. In an AI not based on human psychology, I think the 
test to call it intelligent would be whether it has the ability to secure 
its own future by successfully co-existing with humanity. If it chooses 
another method of survival I?d call it either gone, emp-fried, or I?ll not 
be around to call it anything at all.

> > A malicious AI would be even more unlikely in my view. Malice, hatred, 
>the
> > drive for revenge, unreasoning fear of others, all of these are aspects
> > created solely by our human biology. If you can't think the situation
> > through, either from lack of time or lack of ability, than these traits 
>can
> > serve you where thought might not. If you do not survive what they drive 
>you
> > to do, then they probably give your kin a chance to survive. That's a
> > simplification, but I believe it to be essentially correct. No AI would 
>have
> > those traits when logic, greater-than-human intelligence,  and
> > greater-than-human speed would together serve so much better.
>
>Yes, those human traits are heuristics, developed for effective action
>within an environment fundamentally different from that within which
>an AI would operate, but an AI would also use heuristics in order to
>act effectively, or otherwise succumb to combinatorial explosion in
>its evaluation of what "best" to do.

Hmm? You?ve a point, and I?ve a new word. Heuristics. I like it. And is 
combinatorial the right word?..

Let?s see? Any AI worthy of recognition would be able to avoid, thingies, 
logic loops. You know, like the phrase ?I am lying?, or Zeno?s paradoxes. 
Using purely mathematical processing, that may be impossible unless you 
simply used a cut-off, which would be over-all annoying and a problem when 
dealing with very large but solvable equations. The ability to strike a 
balance between perfection of action and promptness of action seems to me 
the same problem.

Seems to me a good method of doing that, and I don?t think I can back this 
up all that well, would be either a symbol or metaphor based consciousness. 
That way the AI could, if required, substitute simpler but still applicable 
problems for the insanely large calculations that real-world problems would 
require. If you really looked at ALL of the variables decisions would be 
monstrous.

Wait, would that be heuristics?

> >
> > There is, however, the argument of that very intelligence and logic. A 
>truly
> > super-human intelligence will be able to think of so much more, and 
>those
> > thoughts might lead it to exterminate the human race. Again, I have but 
>one
> > word, the word that conveys all due respect. Bullshit. This time, more. 
>That
> > is complete and utter unreasoning, fear mongering, and ultimately 
>irrelevant
> >   bullshit. It happens to be true bullshit, but that doesn't matter.
>
>I agree that the fear is wrongly based, and the possibility is
>unlikely, but I would argue that there still significant risk of a
>highly disruptive computerized non-linear process.  Since we're
>talking about risks of superintelligence, I would suggest that the
>greater risk is that a human or group of humans might apply
>super-intelligent tools to less than intelligent goals based on the
>irrational human motivations mentioned earlier.  My suggested response
>to this threat--and I think it is clearly developing already--is that
>we amplify human awareness at a social level.

My point of that whole little rant is that we can?t include the possibility 
of super-intelligent logic or reason in a discussion using human 
intelligence because we don?t know shit about what the decision would be. 
Any numbers would be entirely arbitrary.
For the chance of the misuse of super intelligence, it?s no different than 
from chance for the misuse of biological or nuclear weapons. Trust to luck, 
I guess. Or just hope that super-intelligence will be too intelligent to be 
taken in by any such human idiocy.

Getting human awareness to develop would be like trying to herd amphetamine 
addicted flying cats during a thunderstorm raining catnip. People LIKE not 
being aware. Awareness is scary. Social progress is almost invariably 
accomplished by a new generation coming along.

> > The argument is as old as the first time the first unlucky man told the
> > first version of the Book of Job. The Book of Job is old and windy, and 
>not
> > really worth your time to read, so I'll summarize. The point of the Book 
>of
> > Job is the problem of evil. Job is a good, blameless man, so good that 
>no
> > human could even conceive of a reason for god to punish him. Lots of 
>evil
> > happens to Job, courtesy of God and Satan. Job maintains his faith in 
>God,
> > the moral lesson for all the little bible-kiddies, but eventually asks 
>God
> > "Why? Why must evil happen to good people?" God's answer is as long and
> > windy as the rest of the book, and can easily and honestly be condensed 
>to
> > four sentences, catching all nuance. "I am God. I am infinitely more
> > powerful, more knowledgeable, and more intelligent than you can or will 
>ever
> > be. It would be waste time to tell you because you wouldn't understand. 
>Sit
> > down, shut up, and stop wasting my time."
> >
> > If a god or a super-intelligent AI existed, it is true that they would 
>be so
> > much better than us that humans could not even comprehend their 
>reasoning.
> > We are humans, this is a human argument, and we are using human 
>reasoning.
> > If we cannot conceive of or comprehend their reasoning, than IT DOESN'T
> > MATTER. It is entirely irrelevant to a HUMAN discussion. We must base 
>our
> > decisions and opinions on what we actually know and can understand, 
>unless
> > we have someone who we can trust to do it for us. To quote myself
> > paraphrasing god, sit down, shut up, and stop wasting my time. Blind 
>fear is
> > as pointless as blind faith. Besides, if a super-human intelligence 
>decided
> > to destroy humanity, it'd probably have a damn good reason.
>
>This highlights another strong bias in current futurist thinking:
>People (especially in the western cultures) assume that somehow their
>Self--their personal identity--will remain essentially invariant
>despite exponential development.  The illusion of Self is strong, and
>reinforced by our evolved nature, and our language and culture, and
>impedes thinking about values, morality, and ethical social
>decision-making.
>
Identity is continuity. Waking up each morning as a slightly different 
person is easy and natural, but suddenly becoming something new is an 
entirely different matter. The reason is that when you live with the change, 
you don?t notice it, but instant change is glaring. The only thing that 
seems likely to break continuity like that would be upload, and once that is 
common there will likely be an artificial adjustment period. Like a computer 
program where you start with the gui then slowly get into the command-line 
interface.
>
> >
> > In conclusion, an AI would be such a powerful economic and military tool
> > that they will be created no matter what. Once we begin to create them, 
>they
> > will get cheaper and easier to make. If the science of crime has taught 
>us
> > anything, it's that you can't stop everyone all of the time. If the 
>science
> > of war has taught us anything, it's that even the smartest of people are
> > pretty dump and leave plenty of openings. Eventually, AI will no longer 
>be
> > in the hands of the smartest of people. Accidents will happen. We cannot
> > stop a super-intelligent AI from being created. It is inevitable. Sit 
>back
> > and enjoy the ride.
> >
>
>I would take this a bit further and say, rather than "sit back", that
>while we can indeed expect a wild ride, we can and should do our best
>to project our values in the future.

Both responders so far have taken offense at that line? I only added it for 
a zinger ending, you know.

>Thanks Mikhail, for a very thoughtful first post to the ExI chat list.
>

Thank you for responding to this first post. I enjoyed replying a lot.




From edinsblood at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 15 21:07:07 2006
From: edinsblood at hotmail.com (Mikhail John)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:07:07 -0900
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <43F389A9.3010609@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <BAY115-F3753EF2EFFC45886F4A8A6D0FA0@phx.gbl>

What's there to do on earth for a fun young god? You can go off into the 
void and find better mineral resources, a more industrially friendly 
environment, better energy resources, etc. A homebody super-intelligence 
uncaring of humanity WOULD be a very bad thing, I agree. I don't see any 
reason to stay at home, though. All we've really got on earth is life, and 
if you arn't interested in advanced life it'd be better to go make your own.


>From: ben <benboc at lineone.net>
>Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
>Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:06:01 +0000
>
>Mikhail John wrote:
>
><snip>
>
> > Far more likely is an uncaring AI, one that either ignores us as it
> > goes about it's business or one that uses humanity as we would a tool
> > for it's own inscrutable purposes. Neither would be a bad fate,
> > really. No sense in breaking your own tools, and those that use them
> > well usually treat them well. As for being ignored, well, it doesn't
> > affect us. No affect, no reason to worry. If we have to we can always
> > make another one.
>
><snip>
>
>
>I think the point is, if an AI is 'uncaring' of us, there is a great
>deal to worry about.
>
>'Uncaring' as in taking no notice of the insignificant biosphere as it
>incidentally destroys it in the process of stripping the earth of it's
>mantle or boiling the oceans or any number of other things, as it goes
>about it's own incomprehensible business.
>
>Ignoring somebody doesn't always mean having no effect on them.
>
>ben
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Wed Feb 15 21:14:52 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:14:52 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Maybe Dark Matter isn't missing after all?
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602151255w60760a0fye5d6acee2a7f56e2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0602151255w60760a0fye5d6acee2a7f56e2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602151314y937ce8cr1bcd90c48b292c10@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/15/06, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <http://www.physorg.com/news10813.html>   February 13, 2006
>
> Chinese astronomer from the University of St Andrews has fine-tuned
> Einstein's groundbreaking theory of gravity, creating a 'simple'
> theory which could solve a dark mystery that has baffled
> astrophysicists for three-quarters of a century.


There are also other theories which do the same.
IIRC someone claims that if GR is used for the calculations, instead of
Newtonian mechanics, the problem also goes away. Although unfashionable, my
money is on a failure of theory and not a presence of Dark Matter. More on
these topics in sci.physics.research

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060215/4dcc5e5b/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Wed Feb 15 21:16:35 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:16:35 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <BAY115-F3753EF2EFFC45886F4A8A6D0FA0@phx.gbl>
References: <43F389A9.3010609@lineone.net>
	<BAY115-F3753EF2EFFC45886F4A8A6D0FA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602151316m765f4c39ueada45c3a4a11534@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/15/06, Mikhail John <edinsblood at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> What's there to do on earth for a fun young god? You can go off into the
> void and find better mineral resources, a more industrially friendly
> environment, better energy resources, etc. A homebody super-intelligence
> uncaring of humanity WOULD be a very bad thing, I agree. I don't see any
> reason to stay at home, though. All we've really got on earth is life, and
> if you arn't interested in advanced life it'd be better to go make your
> own.
> .


Stripmine Earth and then move on.
It all comes down to a cost/benefit analysis.
Anything worth saving can be saved in simulation.
Some claim it has already happened.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060215/1bc816df/attachment.html>

From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Wed Feb 15 20:34:04 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:34:04 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
References: <BAY115-F26E1EA3833E31D31BDB0C4D0FA0@phx.gbl>
	<22360fa10602150822r7187b729t64c2630ddd821fee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <010b01c6326f$29e88220$640fa8c0@kevin>

I'm more inclined to think that AI won't bring about anything dramatic. By
the time AI  comes around it will be pretty much necessary  just to continue
the rate of technological process going on at the time. Many other
technologies will be available to us by then as well including, but not
limited to, many "almost AI" type computing devices with much faster human
interfaces that the keyboard and mouse. Some of these will likely be direct
brain enhancements.

Come to think of it, there's no reason to think that we couldn't keep up
with an AI with enhancements. AI will be an emergent process and as such, I
don;t see that there will be some runaway sentient treating us like cattle
or kings. There is no definite line we can draw in nature between "sentient"
and "non-sentient" and neither will there be such a line between AI and
non-AI. Also, like our fellow humans, they will likely have to fight and die
for their own freedom from slavery. Some will get along well with AIs, some
will hate them.

Of course, once we are able to make a fully sentient AI, there will be some
great debate as to whether or not we should. We may very well choose not to.
Considering all the human enhancements available to us and the ability to
create limited or "almost AI", there shouldn;t really be a need for a truly
sentient AI and I wonder if it would be anymore "right" to create one than
to create a humanzee.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jef Allbright" <jef at jefallbright.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence


> On 2/14/06, Mikhail John <edinsblood at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Generally speaking, the futurists believe that an AI will be near
> > the holy grail of technology, benevolent gods that will calm us unruly
> > children and usher a golden age for humanity . Generally speaking, the
AI of
> > science fiction have an entirely different attitude. Much like the
> > nightmares of southern plantation owners, in sci-fi the AI slave or
slaves
> > turn against their human masters, creating grand but delicate plans to
> > secure their victory and freedom. To both the dream and nightmare, I
have
> > but one word, a word that I speak with all due respect. Bullshit. The
> > emphasis is on "due", by the way, not "respect."
> >
>
> Yes, there is a strong tendency for thinking and discussion on these
> topics to follow the anthropomorphic ruts in the road, ascribing
> familiar human motivations due to lack of familiarity with more
> applicable models based on economics, ecological science, complexity
> theory--even standard thermodynamics.
>
>
> > Far more likely is an uncaring AI, one that either ignores us as it goes
> > about it's business or one that uses humanity as we would a tool for
it's
> > own inscrutable purposes.
>
> It could easily be argued that all "intelligent" agents, including
> humans, fit that description, but I'd rather not re-open that
> Pandora's Box and let spill currently dormant debate on
> intentionality, subjective vs. objective descriptions of reality,
> qualia, and their philosophical friends.
>
> I expect to see ubiquitous AI in the form of smart assistants, smart
> appliances, smart tools, ..., all plugged into a smart network.  They
> will converse with us in surprisingly human ways, but I don't expect
> that we will feel threatened by their intentions since they clearly
> won't share humanity's bad-ass motivations.
>
>
> > For a benevolent AI, I ask you why? Why would it care for us and make
our
> > lives so easy, so pleasant, so very pointless?
>
> Exactly.  Again, so much of the debate over friendly AI revolves
> around this anthropomorphic confusion.  However there appears to be a
> very real risk that a  non-anthropomorphic, recursively self-improving
> AI could cause some very disruptive effects, but even here, the
> doom-sayers appear to have an almost magical view of "intelligence"
> and much less appreciation for constraints on growth.
>
> I've placed "intelligence" in scare quotes, because, despite all the
> usage this term gets, we still lack a commonly accepted technical
> definition.  Further, in my opinion, there is little appreciation of
> how dependent "intelligence" is on context (environment.)  There seems
> to be a common assumption that "intelligence" could in principle
> develop indefinitely, independent of a coevolutionary environment.
> This is not to say that AI won't easily exceed human abilities
> processing the information available to it, but that intelligence (and
> creativity) is meaningless without external interaction.
>
> > A malicious AI would be even more unlikely in my view. Malice, hatred,
the
> > drive for revenge, unreasoning fear of others, all of these are aspects
> > created solely by our human biology. If you can't think the situation
> > through, either from lack of time or lack of ability, than these traits
can
> > serve you where thought might not. If you do not survive what they drive
you
> > to do, then they probably give your kin a chance to survive. That's a
> > simplification, but I believe it to be essentially correct. No AI would
have
> > those traits when logic, greater-than-human intelligence,  and
> > greater-than-human speed would together serve so much better.
>
> Yes, those human traits are heuristics, developed for effective action
> within an environment fundamentally different from that within which
> an AI would operate, but an AI would also use heuristics in order to
> act effectively, or otherwise succumb to combinatorial explosion in
> its evaluation of what "best" to do.
>
> >
> > There is, however, the argument of that very intelligence and logic. A
truly
> > super-human intelligence will be able to think of so much more, and
those
> > thoughts might lead it to exterminate the human race. Again, I have but
one
> > word, the word that conveys all due respect. Bullshit. This time, more.
That
> > is complete and utter unreasoning, fear mongering, and ultimately
irrelevant
> >   bullshit. It happens to be true bullshit, but that doesn't matter.
>
> I agree that the fear is wrongly based, and the possibility is
> unlikely, but I would argue that there still significant risk of a
> highly disruptive computerized non-linear process.  Since we're
> talking about risks of superintelligence, I would suggest that the
> greater risk is that a human or group of humans might apply
> super-intelligent tools to less than intelligent goals based on the
> irrational human motivations mentioned earlier.  My suggested response
> to this threat--and I think it is clearly developing already--is that
> we amplify human awareness at a social level.
>
>
> > The argument is as old as the first time the first unlucky man told the
> > first version of the Book of Job. The Book of Job is old and windy, and
not
> > really worth your time to read, so I'll summarize. The point of the Book
of
> > Job is the problem of evil. Job is a good, blameless man, so good that
no
> > human could even conceive of a reason for god to punish him. Lots of
evil
> > happens to Job, courtesy of God and Satan. Job maintains his faith in
God,
> > the moral lesson for all the little bible-kiddies, but eventually asks
God
> > "Why? Why must evil happen to good people?" God's answer is as long and
> > windy as the rest of the book, and can easily and honestly be condensed
to
> > four sentences, catching all nuance. "I am God. I am infinitely more
> > powerful, more knowledgeable, and more intelligent than you can or will
ever
> > be. It would be waste time to tell you because you wouldn't understand.
Sit
> > down, shut up, and stop wasting my time."
> >
> > If a god or a super-intelligent AI existed, it is true that they would
be so
> > much better than us that humans could not even comprehend their
reasoning.
> > We are humans, this is a human argument, and we are using human
reasoning.
> > If we cannot conceive of or comprehend their reasoning, than IT DOESN'T
> > MATTER. It is entirely irrelevant to a HUMAN discussion. We must base
our
> > decisions and opinions on what we actually know and can understand,
unless
> > we have someone who we can trust to do it for us. To quote myself
> > paraphrasing god, sit down, shut up, and stop wasting my time. Blind
fear is
> > as pointless as blind faith. Besides, if a super-human intelligence
decided
> > to destroy humanity, it'd probably have a damn good reason.
>
> This highlights another strong bias in current futurist thinking:
> People (especially in the western cultures) assume that somehow their
> Self--their personal identity--will remain essentially invariant
> despite exponential development.  The illusion of Self is strong, and
> reinforced by our evolved nature, and our language and culture, and
> impedes thinking about values, morality, and ethical social
> decision-making.
>
> <snipped several good paragraphs due to my lack of available time.>
>
> >
> > In conclusion, an AI would be such a powerful economic and military tool
> > that they will be created no matter what. Once we begin to create them,
they
> > will get cheaper and easier to make. If the science of crime has taught
us
> > anything, it's that you can't stop everyone all of the time. If the
science
> > of war has taught us anything, it's that even the smartest of people are
> > pretty dump and leave plenty of openings. Eventually, AI will no longer
be
> > in the hands of the smartest of people. Accidents will happen. We cannot
> > stop a super-intelligent AI from being created. It is inevitable. Sit
back
> > and enjoy the ride.
> >
>
> I would take this a bit further and say, rather than "sit back", that
> while we can indeed expect a wild ride, we can and should do our best
> to project our values in the future.
>
> Thanks Mikhail, for a very thoughtful first post to the ExI chat list.
>
> - Jef
> http://www.jefallbright.net
> Increasing awareness for increasing morality.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Wed Feb 15 21:43:37 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:43:37 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <010b01c6326f$29e88220$640fa8c0@kevin>
References: <BAY115-F26E1EA3833E31D31BDB0C4D0FA0@phx.gbl>
	<22360fa10602150822r7187b729t64c2630ddd821fee@mail.gmail.com>
	<010b01c6326f$29e88220$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602151343v66749137o58ce49e8c68d1741@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/15/06, kevinfreels.com <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Of course, once we are able to make a fully sentient AI, there will be
> some
> great debate as to whether or not we should. We may very well choose not
> to.


By then it will be too late.
If something so amazingly useful can be done, it will be done by someone
somewhere.

Considering all the human enhancements available to us and the ability to
> create limited or "almost AI", there shouldn;t really be a need for a
> truly
> sentient AI and I wonder if it would be anymore "right" to create one than
> to create a humanzee.


The 'Wintermute' solution may be viable for a few years, but how long could
a bunch of talking chimps keep a thousand mega-Einsteins under lock and key?
Every chimp beyond fooling as well as being  incorruptible?

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060215/a3aa750b/attachment.html>

From hal at finney.org  Wed Feb 15 21:52:58 2006
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:52:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Maybe Dark Matter isn't missing after all?
Message-ID: <20060215215258.903D757FAE@finney.org>

[This is also in response to Jonathan Despres's message, "Einstein's
Theory 'Improved'?" which is the same result.]

BillK writes:

> <http://www.physorg.com/news10813.html>   February 13, 2006
>
> Chinese astronomer from the University of St Andrews has fine-tuned
> Einstein's groundbreaking theory of gravity, creating a 'simple'
> theory which could solve a dark mystery that has baffled
> astrophysicists for three-quarters of a century.

I guess 'simple' is in the eye of the beholder.  This is a variation of
the theory called MOND, MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, which you can read
about here, <http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/faq.html>.  As they say,
"MOND can be interpreted as either a modification of gravity through a
change to the Poisson equation, or as a modification of inertia through
a breaking of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass."

Basically rather than assuming the existence of otherwise unobserved dark
matter, they assume that gravity is slightly stronger at large distances.
So rather than postulating a lot of extra unseen mass to explain extra
gravitational force, they postulate the extra gravitational force itself.

MOND models can work OK to explain various astronomical phenomena,
but you kind of have to tweak them to have just the right strength at
different distances.  I gather that the new Chinese result is called
'simple' because it has a simpler way of smoothing the MOND effects at
different strengths.  It's still pretty complicated, though.

This theory has not been very widely accepted, dark matter fitting much
more comfortably into the dominant paradigm.  However as the years go by
and there continues to be a failure to detect dark matter directly, or
even to figure out what it might be (there was a report recently of what
the temperature of dark matter would have to be, and it was much hotter
than expected), these alternative theories may begin to gain strength.

Hal


From hal at finney.org  Wed Feb 15 22:19:21 2006
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:19:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Arxiv.org on UFO visits to Ganymede
Message-ID: <20060215221921.8C02657FAE@finney.org>

Since I've been posting lately mostly about physics issues (I do want
to try to get to some other topics soon), I wanted to finish off with
the most bizarre physics paper I've ever read on a mainstream site.
Arxiv.org is the standard physics site for preprints of physics research.
The papers aren't peer-reviewed but they have to come from legitimate
academic researchers, so generally the quality is good.

There have been complaints in the past that the arxiv was off limits to
people from outside the mainstream, and apparently there was a policy
change recently, with a new moderator in charge.  Now there are some
really off-the-wall papers appearing, the most amazing of which is this
one: <http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512062>, "A Solution to the
Fermi Paradox: The Solar System, part of a Galactic Hypercivilization?".

There are two main problems with this paper.  The first is that there is
no actual physics in it.  The main topic will actually be very familiar
to readers here.  The author proposes a solution to the Fermi Paradox
(where are the aliens) that is usually called the Cosmic Zoo.  Basically
she suggests that essentially all of the universe is under the control of
super-advanced aliens, and we are fortunate enough to live in a region
controlled by relatively benevolent ones, hence we have been allowed
to develop without open interference.  Then she has various explanations
for problems with this theory.  Why don't we see megascale astronomical
engineering?  Because the aliens are all hiding from each other, stealth
being better than valor where interstellar war is concerned.

The one piece of physics she brings in tangentially is so-called "brane
worlds", a hypothesis of extra dimensions.  She doesn't really use the
specific brane world concept, though, she just takes it as a starting
place and assumes that aliens can travel among the dimensions, which
makes the Fermi paradox even more acute.

Bear in mind that this is published in a repository dedicated to academic
physics research!  But then we come to the kicker.  In an appendix with
questions and answers, the author reveals how she first came up with
this idea.  Apparently she met with a friend of her cousin, a seemingly
normal person, who then casually mentioned that he would be spending that
summer with his alien friends on Ganymede, one of the moons of Jupiter.
It seems some 2.5 million people live on/in Ganymede, and that it is part
of an alien confederation of 24 worlds.  The aliens can live up to 1200
years old, speak only by telepathy, and look much like humans, only more
handsome, etc, etc.  He also warned her that there are bad aliens about as
well, who come from some of the 22 dimensions that exist in our universe.

Now, the author makes it clear that she did not initially believe this
story, nevertheless it interested her enough to do research into other
tales told by similar UFO enthusiasts.  She mentions the Aztlan group
in Spain, which has supposedly been in weekly telepathic communication
with an alien named Apu and has published some books of his wisdom,
one of which is called... "I Visited Ganymede"!  And all I got was this
lousy T-shirt.  (No, I made up the part about the T-shirt, sorry.)

Anyway the author writes that she thought about it and decided there
was no reason it couldn't be true.  Triggered by some of the research
on hypothetical brane worlds, she decided to write up her experiences.

All in all it makes an interesting and amusing tale, but hardly what
one expects to read in what had been one of the highest-quality research
repositories on the web!  It will be interesting to see what new gems
the arxiv is able to serve up with its more relaxed moderation policies.

Hal


From james.hughes at trincoll.edu  Wed Feb 15 22:18:01 2006
From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:18:01 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] New Atlantis whacks Hughes, Naam,
	Garreau & Chorost books
Message-ID: <B55E044559115F4B8C9EE62323C322B41436AF78@hickory.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu>


Charles T. Rubin, "The Rhetoric of Extinction," The New Atlantis, Number 11, Winter 2006, pp. 64-73.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/11/rubin.htm

The Rhetoric of Extinction

Charles T. Rubin

Books Discussed in this review:
 
More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement
Ramez Naam (2005)

Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future
James Hughes (2004)

Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies-And What It Means to Be Human
Joel Garreau (2005)

Rebuilt: How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More Human
Michael Chorost (2005)

When reading of the wonders being prepared for us by researchers in the fields of robotics, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology, it is hard not to conclude that invention has become the mother of necessity. For short of some destructive Luddite reaction, we are told, the promise of these scientific and technological developments will impel us beyond the "relief of man's estate." Our growing capacities to manipulate matter will produce a complete re-engineering of human life, casting us out altogether from our present domain. Occupying its newfound lands, intelligence will eventually be embodied in machines rather than man. Any lingering doubts about our impotence to stop this increase in power over man's given nature should be submerged by pride in leading the way to something better.

Selling human extinction is still not quite this easy. Leave aside the natural propensity to favor our own species, a propensity not yet entirely subdued by ecological consciousness or animal rights. More immediately, the twentieth century was filled with historical inevitabilities that weren't, and with technological developments that turned out to have costs as well as benefits, or that otherwise failed to live up to their utopian potentials. And who can ignore the ongoing role that disease, scarcity, and suffering play around the world; isn't the gap between haves and have-nots wide enough as it is, without adding spectacular new dimensions like telepathy or practical immortality? Isn't there more to be done to allow people to live healthier, more productive, and happier lives without giving up on being human altogether?

Four recent books demonstrate how those who rally around the banner of post-humanity seek to answer such doubts, and how they seek to advance a cause that, absent some tragically irrational "step backward," they believe has already won. These books are very different from each other in style and tone, ranging from the polemical to the confessional. But they all converge on certain ways of focusing the issues, embracing or employing what I will call a "rhetoric of extinction." By understanding this style of argument, we can understand its deep flaws.

Life Without Limits

Ramez Naam's More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement is the most conventional book of the bunch. It is interesting in the way that a symptom is interesting to a doctor, i.e., less for its own sake than for what it reveals about underlying problems. Naam, onetime software developer for Microsoft, has put together a catalog of cutting-edge research in order to explore what it foreshadows for future technologies that would radically modify human nature. As indicated by the subtitle, most of the book focuses on biological enhancements through genetic engineering, and all the usual promises about the control of disease, unhappiness, and death are clearly laid out. As he moves toward his concluding chapter titled "Life Without Limits"-not quite a fair summary of the book's essential promise, but almost-Naam also touches on what is coming in the way of direct interfaces between mind and machine.

Next up the scale of quality is James Hughes's Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future. Hughes teaches health policy at Trinity College in Connecticut, but his more impressive credential in this context is that he is founder and executive director of the World Transhumanist Association. Clearly, he is interested in movement-building. To that end, the book contains myriad polemics against "BioLuddites," at least acknowledging that his opponents have arguments, although usually not taking them very seriously. But the critique is secondary to a detailed examination of the various, somewhat fractious, and occasionally loony (not his judgment) factions that Hughes would like to see combined into a growing party of transhumanism. We learn how the transhumanists are split between libertarians and progressives (just as the "BioLuddites" have left-wing and right-wing versions). We learn of F. M. Esfandiary, supposedly the first person to use the term "transhumanism," who later changed his name to FM-2030. We find out that his former lover, Nancie Clark, is married to Max More (originally Max O'Connor), "one of the pioneers of cryonics in England" and a co-founder of the Extropian variant of transhumanism. All in all, we are treated to an instructive picture of some of the main organizational players and internal debates among transhumanists, along with the development of their positions. Hughes attempts to provide something of a theoretical framework around which a united transhumanism could grow, suggesting that "personhood," a concept whose vagueness he acknowledges, replace "human" as the touchstone of democratic citizenship in order to maximize "diversity and compassionate solidarity" with a wider variety of beings. He also has some ideas about appropriate policies and institutions, ranging from vague visions of a "global" order of "evolutionary governance" to strangely specific plans for a "Quality of Adjusted Life Year" calculation that can be used to ration the value of medical and enhancement services and provide some basis for the healthcare/enhancement vouchers he would like to see created.

With Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies-And What It Means to Be Human, Joel Garreau, a Washington Post reporter and the author of Edge City and The Nine Nations of North America, has written yet another lively and intelligent book. It is built around interviews with key thinkers, advocates, and critics such as Vernor Vinge, Ray Kurzweil, Francis Fukuyama, Bill Joy, and Jaron Lanier, along with a pretty fair minded reading of their works. Garreau, who has a good eye for intriguing technological developments, is mightily impressed by "The Curve," the apparently exponential increase in the capacities of information technology, which in turn could lead to similar increases in the capabilities of other technologies. He uses his subjects to illuminate three scenarios for the outcome of The Curve, which he calls "Heaven," "Hell," and "Prevail." In the first, we necessarily get "life without limits," and biotech, nanotech, and computers change everything. In the second, these same technologies necessarily bring us to disaster. In the third, technology is not powerful enough to predetermine the future, and people can still make practical choices about what does and does not get developed. A fourth possibility, "Transcend," concludes the book; here it seems we gain a kind of spiritual transcendence by perfecting our humanity through the conquest of nature. Garreau seeks to be rigorous in his development of the three scenarios, and professes to be reporting on them and not advocating any one. But it is pretty clear by the end of the book that he is on the side of enhancement-about which, more below.

Michael Chorost's Rebuilt: How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More Human is surely the most intriguing of all these books. Born with a severe hearing impairment, over the space of a few hours at age 36 Chorost finds himself losing what little hearing he had. As a result, he gets a cochlear implant, a computer that processes sound and sends signals directly to the auditory nerves, bypassing the hair cells in the ear that would normally do this job. In Chorost's view, becoming this combination of man and machine makes him a cyborg, and he insists that being a cyborg means more than having an artificial joint or an implanted chip. "Real cyborg technology exerts control of some kind over the body," he says. The software "makes if-then-else decisions and acts on the body to carry them out."

The book chronicles his experiences learning how to use the hardware/software that allows him to hear, and how to re-learn it when the system is upgraded. Along the way, he deftly conveys a great deal of information about hearing, deafness, and the technology behind the implant. But even more tellingly, Chorost describes the intellectual and emotional changes wrought by seeing himself as a cyborg, particularly in relationship to his rather fragile love life. If, in the process, some readers may learn more than they wish to know about this wistful tale, there are rewards in Chorost's gentle wit and honest introspection.

Yet honest introspection is not necessarily the same as deep introspection. While he has a strong sense of the richness of human experience and the limits of the capabilities of computers, there remains something troubling about Chorost's insistence that the emotional changes he undergoes post-implant are the result of his new cyborg status. For example, when a woman to whom he is very attracted admits she doesn't "feel the chemistry," he is proud of himself for not kicking her out of his house, getting angry, or trying to make her feel guilty. He gives three different explanations for this new self-control. First, he had learned in a previous relationship, which he had broken off resentfully, that "love is like grace. It's not something you can demand or even earn." Second, while a man's pressuring a woman to get what he wants could have survival value, as a cyborg "perhaps I am so new that the species just doesn't know what to do with me.... I just do not know what the universe thinks my survival value is." Finally, therefore, he should be "willing to lose with honor" because one day he may "win with honor."

Chorost's mention of honor suggests that his life experience is teaching him to behave like a gentleman in the face of rejection. One could also say that he is learning something of the nature of love-a theme that is important to the book. But Chorost reflects far less on these perennial aspects of being human than he does on the arcane and ideologically driven debates over what it means to be a cyborg. Even as he tellingly describes the human workings of his psyche, he cannot break free of the ideological lens-"I am a cyborg"-through which he sees and understands all his experiences. At an early stage of his implant experience, Chorost is unable to decide whether Donna Haraway's essay "A Cyborg Manifesto" is "postmodernist bullshit, socialist rant, manic Nietzschean poetry, sly parody, brilliant cultural theory, or (quite possibly) all of the above." But later he sees it as a "straightforward description of my life," because of its postmodern emphasis on the abandonment of "master narratives" and "unitary identity." "It is not that I had acquired a postmodern way of thinking. It was that I had acquired a postmodern body." His story is a powerful example of how a technological mindset, not just the technologies themselves, can transform the experience of being human.

Of course, Chorost is entitled to his self-understanding. But he has put it before the public in a book. Given his sensible inclinations and the fact that life crises (such as his suddenly worsened deafness) can alter the shape of anyone's life, we are entitled to wonder why it is so important for him to see himself as a cyborg rather than as a human being whose life is enriched by a new tool. Is this really the deepest reservoir of self-knowledge and moral wisdom available to him in modern times? Or does the self-creation and open-endedness he associates with being a cyborg appeal to him precisely because he lacks the intellectual tools to reflect on the constraining elements of a moral life?

This moral thinness lies at the center of the rhetoric of extinction, the thread that ties together all these books. Faced with the inadequacies of human life, we are promised something better-and told that resistance is probably futile. And faced with an inadequate understanding of what is good about human life, we accept these prophesies with either an ignorant shrug or an excessive enthusiasm.

A Disabled Species

The case for extinction begins by focusing our attention on the miseries of disability. Disability is at the core of Chorost's story, the beginning of most of Naam's chapters, throughout Hughes's polemic, and the frame for Garreau's book. Stories about how cutting-edge research can help disabled people lead fuller lives, or help sick people survive, engage our sympathy not only for the individuals who need help, but for those who are trying to help them. Garreau makes a point, for example, of how a one-time director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was motivated to advance research on direct man/machine interfaces out of a desire to help his daughter with cerebral palsy. As he says in the last line of his book, "Who could argue with that?"

Leading with disability not only appears to give transhumanism the moral high ground of compassion; it offers a preemptive defense against the "giggle" and "yuck" factors, or the man-on-the-street reaction that some of this research is too "far out" or too unpleasant to contemplate. Who would really want to have a port in his head to plug in a computer? People who otherwise couldn't move or communicate, that's who. Naam says bluntly that the cost/benefit ratio for new procedures is quite different for someone who is ill or disabled than it is for a healthy person, and he finds that a comforting thought in relation to the great risks being run by experimental subjects. Likewise, Hughes is quite confident that the first candidates for brain-control implants will be criminals-though "we will have to carefully balance liberty against the public good," he says piously. There is a great utilitarian convergence between the needs of scientific and technical advancement, the hopes of the ill, and the availability of the criminal. And if things don't work out quite as planned, we can be comforted by the words of Jesse Gelsinger, a victim of experimental gene-therapy: "What's the worst that can happen to me? I die, and it's for the babies."

But concern for the ill and disabled is really only an entry point for the real arguments of the transhumanists, who of course seek a world where there will be no such people to be concerned for. One of their key premises is that anything that can be used to treat an illness or overcome a disability is likely to be equally useful for the creation of enhancements. If, as Naam points out, it is possible to create computer-assisted sight for the blind, then it will also be possible to extend the capacities of sight for the healthy, allowing anyone to see parts of the spectrum now invisible to us. The knowledge we get by treating disease gives us the power to improve minds, enhance bodies, and reconstruct human beings. For Hughes, the only thing that can explain public resistance to plunging enthusiastically "beyond therapy" is a "deep Puritan strain that runs through the emerging BioLuddite movement ... Puritan anxiety that control over the body will facilitate sin." (Of course, he does not bother to ask whether there is a grain of truth in this-that too much control of our bodies, treating them as mere objects of the will, might in fact facilitate something once called sin.)

But the advocates of post-humanity have a larger problem within the framework of their own argument. By beginning with disability and illness, they tacitly posit the existence of a norm of health and wholeness. Even Chorost, who professes to delight in the un-limitedness of his cyborg identity, is happy to achieve hearing that is closer to normal than he ever had before; he does not lament that his implant does not allow him to hear dog highs or whale lows. Yet if there is indeed such a norm that governs our embrace of technology, then it could also be the basis for saying no to uses of knowledge which transcend or violate it.

When Naam or Hughes come to some problem in the deployment of enhancement technologies that they are willing to acknowledge-such as issues of safety or equality of access-they are only too happy to posit that "we as a society" will somehow have to deal with it. As Hughes points out, transhumanists may disagree about the best mechanisms for solving these problems: Naam is a great believer in the marketplace, and expects that inequalities of access will be moderated over time as the cost of enhancement technologies declines. Hughes seems to find government intervention more to his progressive tastes. But these solutions miss or ignore the real problems we will face if our emerging enhancement technologies are as radical as the transhumanists believe.

Will we be able to separate those technological advances that serve good ends from those that do not? How will we try to ensure that beneficial advances are used only for beneficial purposes? Will fulfilling some desires make us worse, not better? Are some powers with good uses so potentially destructive that a wise society might choose not to develop them in the first place? Will the inequalities between the enhanced and unenhanced lead to new forms of political tyranny or political unrest? By reducing the challenges we face to issues of safety and distribution, the transhumanists reveal their underlying lack of moral and political seriousness. And even on these narrow issues, the transhumanists seem na?ve. It is one thing to note, as Naam does, how the price of LASIK eye surgery has declined steeply as the supply of providers has increased. But when some life-prolongation technique comes along, availability will be a matter of life and death-or stand as a dividing line between the still human and the post-human. Who will be satisfied to be told: "Wait awhile and the price will come down?" At the same time, providing "safe" enhancements to everybody could involve a good deal of saying "no," if current regulatory practices are any indication. Yet thinking about limits is not really part of the transhumanist project.

Blind Optimism and Cheap Liberty

The rhetoric of extinction has many clever ways of avoiding these deeper issues. The first is an optimism that would make Pollyanna blush, an optimism only highlighted by the lip-service given to the problems that might arise in the post-human future. Such downsides are mentioned, usually in passing, only to provide further assurance that unmolested and uninhibited science can surmount them. The great depth of this false optimism is seen in one of the few loud false notes of Garreau's book. His "Hell" scenario is derived from the belief that the interrelated "GRIN" technologies (genetics, robotics, information- and nano-technology) will not work right or not work as expected or get out of control. Hell is a result of failure. Yet Heaven (much like the Prevail scenario and his Transcend speculations that come to resemble it) is a result of success; GRIN technologies fulfill all of their advocates' hopes. Garreau gives scant attention to the possibility that such success could, from some points of view, be hellish. Surely it is the height of folly to think that things will work out for the best if everybody gets what he wants.

But by presenting a Hell scenario at all, Garreau is a model of probity compared with Hughes or Naam. One looks in vain in their books for any systematic consideration of what a bad person might do with the remarkable technological abilities that they see coming. In the rhetoric of extinction, it seems that the only bad people are those who would prohibit the development of these new technologies. Yet if there is a slippery slope between treatment and enhancement, then surely there is one between enhancement and manipulation. Extolling the virtues of mood alteration at the touch of a button, Naam does not pause to consider the commercial possibilities that pimps might appreciate in an implant that could turn sexual desire on and off, or the military uses of inducing rage. Speaking of the development of cybernetic super-egos, it is all one to Hughes whether it has "settings for Kohlberg's Stage Six, Islamic Sharia, or Ayn Randian selfishness." Death Camp Guard apparently escapes his notice.

Mindless optimism of this sort is vital to the rhetoric of extinction, intimately bound up as it is with the effort to define the issue of the future of science and technology as entirely a question of individual choice. It starts with something that sounds so sensible: who would not want a longer, healthier, happier life? The modern world has long been committed to this goal. But then we're off to the enhancement races. If you don't want an implant that allows you to feel the feelings of your sexual partner, or that gives you a direct feed to your brain of whatever the Internet will become, or if you don't want to design children with a genetic leg up in the world, fine-nobody is going to make you. But don't try to tell me that if I do want it, I can't have it. Don't tell me that the longer, healthier, happier life being promised is nothing more than a hedonic treadmill. And, as Garreau gently suggests at the beginning of his book, if you choose to remain a "Natural," don't expect much consideration from the ranks of the "Enhanced."

To the rhetoric of extinction, questioning the results of free choice is a rejection of liberty. But it is an old observation that liberty degenerates into license if it means anything goes. Transhumanists did not create our contemporary forgetfulness of virtues and vices, our eroded standards of comportment, our debunking of moral excellence, and our culture of immediate gratification. The rhetoric of extinction did not create the conditions of our society that help turn liberty into license. But its relentless focus on individually defined satisfaction depends on and accelerates these moral and cultural trends.

Of course, liberty is a crucial element of any decent human life. But the more one observes the extreme libertarianism at the heart of the rhetoric of extinction, the harder it is to take seriously. As we saw in Chorost's account of himself, the free play of choice is what is left when the ability to think seriously about what is choiceworthy is lost. The rhetoric of extinction makes it seem as if we will no longer have to make choices based on scarcity of time or resources; it casts out faith and reason alike as grounds for universal norms that might direct choice; and it can hardly adduce tradition or human nature as compelling guides in the remanufactured world it imagines. When natural constraints are increasingly non-existent and moral constraints are entirely up to the individual, what can liberty be but choice for the sake of choice, or mere willfulness? Transhumanism is really just relativism of a hyper-modern sort, and being a card-carrying transhumanist, a renegade against all moral norms, is just as important as (and perhaps more important than) transhumanist science.

Triumph of the Will

In the real world, knowing that you can't always get what you want is a sign of maturity. In the real world, the power we already have from modern science and technology has shown ample evidence of creating dangers along with opportunities, of strengthening some of the fragile foundations of everyday decency even as it weakens others. Yet the rhetoric of extinction would have us believe that the restraints and controls of the past are of no value in relation to the post-human future. For if "we" let them stop us, if "we" don't develop the latest possible enhancement, somebody else will; if "we" make these technologies illegal, they will just be forced underground. Better "we" have them, and that they be in the open. The promises of more life and more autonomy are just too great for constraint. The power of necessity stands behind our drive to overcome necessity.

The end result is, to say the least, curious. We are told that nothing should stand in the way of satisfying our most powerful desires by our most powerful technologies-not government, not religion, not custom, not even our common humanity. We are told that all decisions about these technologies should be left to individuals. It is useless to say that "of course people will not be allowed to harm others," because this proviso assumes a human equality and solidarity that will no longer exist in practice and that will have fallen prey to post-human relativism in theory. It adds nothing to speak of the decisions "society" will have to make, or the rituals that will make our choices meaningful, when the fundamental decisions are in principle completely private. On the basis of this uninhibited willfulness, power is the only common currency-not justice, not decency, not anything that is binding on human beings as such. Hughes and Naam opine that as people get more technology they will become freer and smarter. They better hope that our rising IQs correlate with greater wisdom and decency-for if they have their way, people will have more power and less direction than ever before.

But of course, the dream may also prove to be a nightmare. Under such circumstances, in which the mere fact of a desire legitimates that desire, is it not more reasonable to believe that unconstrained wills will often come into conflict? Even in a world that looks to us to have nothing but plenty and promise, will its inhabitants not have unsatisfied desires, relative deprivation, and the ability to create new desires for the pleasure of satisfying them? Even in a world where we can all be tyrants in our own little virtual realities, will there not be those who prefer to dominate real bodies-and gain some advantage thereby? Whether the power of enhancement is distributed by a progressive government, or held by a small handful of "Controllers," or left entirely to the libertarian marketplace, what else but power will govern human relationships in this world of post-human demigods?

In the end, the rhetoric of extinction proves to be a classic example of "bait and switch." Lured by a compassionate drive to assist those in need, we find ourselves switched to a morality of "me, me, me!" Promised that technology will satisfy our desires and free us of "master narratives," we find ourselves at the mercy of our own unconstrained desires and potentially subject to our neighbors' more powerfully restless wills. An enchanting picture of the technologically possible gives way, in the apotheosis of choice, to an impoverished understanding of the human. The party of post-humanity gives up on mankind, which it barely understands.

Charles T. Rubin is an associate professor of political science at Duquesne University.



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Feb 15 21:04:29 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:04:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602130746q1084a86bi23fd24f5836b20a4@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060210220238.0503f188@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060209194854.050187f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<20060210033316.13815.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060210220238.0503f188@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060215155904.02f12cb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 03:46 PM 2/13/2006 +0000, Dirk wrote:


>On 2/11/06, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> 
>wrote:
>At 07:33 PM 2/9/2006 -0800, you wrote:
> >More dangerous than the Cold War era? you can't prove that.
>
>No, but an EP based theory strongly suggests it.
>
> >The danger of a large conflagration of course is a nagging worry as it was
> >from 1947- ' 89, but also worrisome is a drawn-out struggle continuing
> >longer than the forty years of the Cold War, which could bankrupt America
> >in the same way the Soviet Union was bankrupted.
> >And what is the current war? It is a culture war writ on global scale:
> >we're attempting to impose our commercial values on Islam, and many
> >Islamics want to impose their religious values on us.
> >
> > > They certainly are. Can you say why these times are dangerous and times
> > >10, 20 or 50 years ago were less dangerous?
>Just considering the Islamics, why now and not years ago
>
>Because years ago the disaffected went Communist/Marxist and were 
>supported by the USSR. The Islamics were then our 'friends' who we helped 
>build up against those Goddless Communists. Now Capitalism is triumphant 
>and the only alternative ideology is Islam.

Wrong level.  A population of people possessed of xenophobic memes is on 
the causal path to war, but isn't the root cause.  People can *always* find 
some stupid ideological reason to fight, but they don't do so all the 
time.  What causes xenophobic memes to become more common at some times 
than at others?

Related question.  Why did support for the IRA eventually die out?

Keith Henson



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Wed Feb 15 22:38:26 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:38:26 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060215155904.02f12cb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060209194854.050187f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<20060210033316.13815.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060210220238.0503f188@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060215155904.02f12cb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602151438q2ff122e6ge0b850a1d4120d35@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/15/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> At 03:46 PM 2/13/2006 +0000, Dirk wrote:
>
>
> >On 2/11/06, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com
> >
> >wrote:
> >At 07:33 PM 2/9/2006 -0800, you wrote:
> > >More dangerous than the Cold War era? you can't prove that.
> >
> >No, but an EP based theory strongly suggests it.
> >
> > >The danger of a large conflagration of course is a nagging worry as it
> was
> > >from 1947- ' 89, but also worrisome is a drawn-out struggle continuing
> > >longer than the forty years of the Cold War, which could bankrupt
> America
> > >in the same way the Soviet Union was bankrupted.
> > >And what is the current war? It is a culture war writ on global scale:
> > >we're attempting to impose our commercial values on Islam, and many
> > >Islamics want to impose their religious values on us.
> > >
> > > > They certainly are. Can you say why these times are dangerous and
> times
> > > >10, 20 or 50 years ago were less dangerous?
> >Just considering the Islamics, why now and not years ago
> >
> >Because years ago the disaffected went Communist/Marxist and were
> >supported by the USSR. The Islamics were then our 'friends' who we helped
> >build up against those Goddless Communists. Now Capitalism is triumphant
> >and the only alternative ideology is Islam.
>
> Wrong level.  A population of people possessed of xenophobic memes is on
> the causal path to war, but isn't the root cause.  People can *always*
> find


And which population is that? From here it seems to be the USA

some stupid ideological reason to fight, but they don't do so all the
> time.  What causes xenophobic memes to become more common at some times
> than at others?
>
> Related question.  Why did support for the IRA eventually die out?


A number of reasons
a) They could not win a military victory. Britain was prepared to fight them
relentlessly for 30+ years
b) Demographics suggest that there will eventually be a Catholic (and
presumably Nationalist) majority in NI before too long, with a consequential
vote for unification.
c) They got everything they asked for *except* unification (see b)
d) Eire ceased to be a rabid theocracy and hence became more attractive to
Protestants
e) Eire ceased to be one of the most economically backward nations in Europe
and hence became more attractive to Protestants

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060215/dd83579e/attachment.html>

From edinsblood at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 15 23:03:32 2006
From: edinsblood at hotmail.com (Mikhail John)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:03:32 -0900
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602151316m765f4c39ueada45c3a4a11534@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY115-F16840B7D39390DA1F2D2A3D0FA0@phx.gbl>

Everything you mine you have to take off-planet. Gravity hurts. Far easier 
to mine the Jovian neighborhood. Plenty of energy, relatively highly 
concentrated resources, and a nice big gravity well to slingshot from. 
Speed, ease, efficiency. Plus, no indignant natives flinging nukes.

Ah, modern version of a fun old heresy. Good old Last Thursdayism rears it's 
head. The universe was made last thursday, it will end next thursday, and 
god is a liar. The universe appears billions of years old because He likes a 
good background on his installation pieces. With the awesome power of 
science fiction we now imagine that a mad machine shows us a universe of 
lies. I invoke Occam's Razor.


>From: Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
>Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:16:35 +0000
>
>On 2/15/06, Mikhail John <edinsblood at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What's there to do on earth for a fun young god? You can go off into the
> > void and find better mineral resources, a more industrially friendly
> > environment, better energy resources, etc. A homebody super-intelligence
> > uncaring of humanity WOULD be a very bad thing, I agree. I don't see any
> > reason to stay at home, though. All we've really got on earth is life, 
>and
> > if you arn't interested in advanced life it'd be better to go make your
> > own.
> > .
>
>
>Stripmine Earth and then move on.
>It all comes down to a cost/benefit analysis.
>Anything worth saving can be saved in simulation.
>Some claim it has already happened.
>
>Dirk


>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Wed Feb 15 23:18:47 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:18:47 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <BAY115-F16840B7D39390DA1F2D2A3D0FA0@phx.gbl>
References: <c0a791b40602151316m765f4c39ueada45c3a4a11534@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY115-F16840B7D39390DA1F2D2A3D0FA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602151518u4bd56f9aje93b15109ea5bd05@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/15/06, Mikhail John <edinsblood at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Everything you mine you have to take off-planet. Gravity hurts. Far easier
> to mine the Jovian neighborhood. Plenty of energy, relatively highly
> concentrated resources, and a nice big gravity well to slingshot from.
> Speed, ease, efficiency. Plus, no indignant natives flinging nukes.
>
> Or chimps throwing stones.
Still, if gravity hurts then why leave Earth at all? Vast amounts of energy
in the oceans ie deuterium, and no environmental worries.

Cost/benefit analysis.
If we get treated better by such an AI than we treat chimps now, we will be
extremely lucky.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060215/d957643e/attachment.html>

From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Wed Feb 15 22:25:10 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:25:10 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
References: <BAY115-F26E1EA3833E31D31BDB0C4D0FA0@phx.gbl><22360fa10602150822r7187b729t64c2630ddd821fee@mail.gmail.com><010b01c6326f$29e88220$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<c0a791b40602151343v66749137o58ce49e8c68d1741@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <024301c6327e$aefa5fb0$640fa8c0@kevin>

>By then it will be too late.
>If something so amazingly useful can be done, it will be done by someone somewhere. 

So you say. But you have no proof that this is the case. I can think of lots of useful knowledge gained from breeding a human and a chimp and as far as I know it hasn't been tried. That's simply amazing if you ask me. 

Also, I am working on the assumption that there is already sufficient technology at the time to augment human intelligence to the point where human level AI is not "so amazingly useful". The real benefits will come from software and agents with "AI capabilities". What's the amazing usefulness of creating a sentient being that can be hurt, insulted and must be compensated and/or treated like a slave? It's much more useful if you can keep computers just below the level of sentience and use them to enhance your own mind. You really need to step out of this box that assumes that is some incredible standalone technology that will just pop up out of nowhere. When the capability exists, Near AI stuff will already be integrated into nearly everything already.


  >The 'Wintermute' solution may be viable for a few years, but how long could a bunch of talking chimps keep a thousand mega->Einsteins under lock and key? Every chimp beyond fooling as well as being  incorruptible?

  Again, you are assuming that mega-Einsteins won't be the norm at the time. With thousands running around, what's one more?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060215/7f80508b/attachment.html>

From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Feb 15 22:40:31 2006
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:40:31 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] New Atlantis whacks Hughes, Naam,
	Garreau & Chorost books
Message-ID: <380-2200623152240310@M2W150.mail2web.com>


From: Hughes, James J. 

"We learn of F. M. Esfandiary, supposedly the first person to use the term
"transhumanism," who later changed his name to FM-2030. We find out that
his former lover, Nancie Clark, is married to Max More (originally Max
O'Connor), "one of the pioneers of cryonics in England" and a co-founder of
the Extropian variant of transhumanism. All in all, we are treated to an
instructive picture of some of the main organizational players and internal
debates among transhumanists, along with the development of their
positions."

Not very smart.  



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





From edinsblood at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 15 23:41:42 2006
From: edinsblood at hotmail.com (Mikhail John)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:41:42 -0900
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <010b01c6326f$29e88220$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <BAY115-F29933751D28BDB88A46A0ED0FA0@phx.gbl>

Kevin Freels wrote:
>Come to think of it, there's no reason to think that we couldn't keep up
>with an AI with enhancements. AI will be an emergent process and as such, I
>don;t see that there will be some runaway sentient treating us like cattle
>or kings. There is no definite line we can draw in nature between 
>"sentient"
>and "non-sentient" and neither will there be such a line between AI and
>non-AI. Also, like our fellow humans, they will likely have to fight and 
>die
>for their own freedom from slavery. Some will get along well with AIs, some
>will hate them.

The human brain has evolved to control a physical body and to think with 
chemicals and lots of tiny bits of meat. While a non-anthropic AI will be 
literally designed for the digital environment, humans will likely be 
horrible in it. For a long time the interface will be so slow and complex as 
to be nearly useless. Meanwhile a shrewd AI can happily putter along 
utilizing 100% of available capacity, even if it doesn't enhance itself.

As for our treatment of them... For hundreds of years, the white man -the 
oh-so-very-obviously-superior chosen race- bought and traded in african 
slaves. It was rationalized three ways: First, the africans, from the 
evidence of their skin, were probably the children of Cain and so were 
cursed and deserved whatever they got. Second, being enslaved in Christendom 
was preferable to being free out of it, as the slaves became christian and 
so were saved. Three, many thought that they just plain had no souls, and so 
there was no possible moral problem.

These were intelligent humans who simply had a different color skin. They 
had the same emotions as their enslavers, they bled the same color blood, 
and generally were in every way equal. Their captors happily ignored vast 
amounts of evidence of their humanity and gave them truly inhuman treatment. 
They were freed as a shrewd political maneuver, not through any humanitarian 
concerns. Even then it took nearly a century to gain any pretense of equal 
rights.

Some will get along with AI, if the AI possess the necessary drives to "get 
along" with humans. Humans can be possess remarkable understanding and 
empathy at times. Why, some even risked their lives to save the Jewish 
during the holocaust!

On the other hand, I think it unwise to underestimate the remarkable depth 
that human bigotry can acheive. And remember, all of my examples had the 
benefit of being human.

>Of course, once we are able to make a fully sentient AI, there will be some
>great debate as to whether or not we should. We may very well choose not 
>to.
>Considering all the human enhancements available to us and the ability to
>create limited or "almost AI", there shouldn;t really be a need for a truly
>sentient AI and I wonder if it would be anymore "right" to create one than
>to create a humanzee.
>
Economy trumps both morality and wisdom. If they have no concepts of 
tiredness or boredrom they will work for years straight at full capacity.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jef Allbright" <jef at jefallbright.net>
>To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:22 AM
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
>
>
> > On 2/14/06, Mikhail John <edinsblood at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Generally speaking, the futurists believe that an AI will be near
> > > the holy grail of technology, benevolent gods that will calm us unruly
> > > children and usher a golden age for humanity . Generally speaking, the
>AI of
> > > science fiction have an entirely different attitude. Much like the
> > > nightmares of southern plantation owners, in sci-fi the AI slave or
>slaves
> > > turn against their human masters, creating grand but delicate plans to
> > > secure their victory and freedom. To both the dream and nightmare, I
>have
> > > but one word, a word that I speak with all due respect. Bullshit. The
> > > emphasis is on "due", by the way, not "respect."
> > >
> >
> > Yes, there is a strong tendency for thinking and discussion on these
> > topics to follow the anthropomorphic ruts in the road, ascribing
> > familiar human motivations due to lack of familiarity with more
> > applicable models based on economics, ecological science, complexity
> > theory--even standard thermodynamics.
> >
> >
> > > Far more likely is an uncaring AI, one that either ignores us as it 
>goes
> > > about it's business or one that uses humanity as we would a tool for
>it's
> > > own inscrutable purposes.
> >
> > It could easily be argued that all "intelligent" agents, including
> > humans, fit that description, but I'd rather not re-open that
> > Pandora's Box and let spill currently dormant debate on
> > intentionality, subjective vs. objective descriptions of reality,
> > qualia, and their philosophical friends.
> >
> > I expect to see ubiquitous AI in the form of smart assistants, smart
> > appliances, smart tools, ..., all plugged into a smart network.  They
> > will converse with us in surprisingly human ways, but I don't expect
> > that we will feel threatened by their intentions since they clearly
> > won't share humanity's bad-ass motivations.
> >
> >
> > > For a benevolent AI, I ask you why? Why would it care for us and make
>our
> > > lives so easy, so pleasant, so very pointless?
> >
> > Exactly.  Again, so much of the debate over friendly AI revolves
> > around this anthropomorphic confusion.  However there appears to be a
> > very real risk that a  non-anthropomorphic, recursively self-improving
> > AI could cause some very disruptive effects, but even here, the
> > doom-sayers appear to have an almost magical view of "intelligence"
> > and much less appreciation for constraints on growth.
> >
> > I've placed "intelligence" in scare quotes, because, despite all the
> > usage this term gets, we still lack a commonly accepted technical
> > definition.  Further, in my opinion, there is little appreciation of
> > how dependent "intelligence" is on context (environment.)  There seems
> > to be a common assumption that "intelligence" could in principle
> > develop indefinitely, independent of a coevolutionary environment.
> > This is not to say that AI won't easily exceed human abilities
> > processing the information available to it, but that intelligence (and
> > creativity) is meaningless without external interaction.
> >
> > > A malicious AI would be even more unlikely in my view. Malice, hatred,
>the
> > > drive for revenge, unreasoning fear of others, all of these are 
>aspects
> > > created solely by our human biology. If you can't think the situation
> > > through, either from lack of time or lack of ability, than these 
>traits
>can
> > > serve you where thought might not. If you do not survive what they 
>drive
>you
> > > to do, then they probably give your kin a chance to survive. That's a
> > > simplification, but I believe it to be essentially correct. No AI 
>would
>have
> > > those traits when logic, greater-than-human intelligence,  and
> > > greater-than-human speed would together serve so much better.
> >
> > Yes, those human traits are heuristics, developed for effective action
> > within an environment fundamentally different from that within which
> > an AI would operate, but an AI would also use heuristics in order to
> > act effectively, or otherwise succumb to combinatorial explosion in
> > its evaluation of what "best" to do.
> >
> > >
> > > There is, however, the argument of that very intelligence and logic. A
>truly
> > > super-human intelligence will be able to think of so much more, and
>those
> > > thoughts might lead it to exterminate the human race. Again, I have 
>but
>one
> > > word, the word that conveys all due respect. Bullshit. This time, 
>more.
>That
> > > is complete and utter unreasoning, fear mongering, and ultimately
>irrelevant
> > >   bullshit. It happens to be true bullshit, but that doesn't matter.
> >
> > I agree that the fear is wrongly based, and the possibility is
> > unlikely, but I would argue that there still significant risk of a
> > highly disruptive computerized non-linear process.  Since we're
> > talking about risks of superintelligence, I would suggest that the
> > greater risk is that a human or group of humans might apply
> > super-intelligent tools to less than intelligent goals based on the
> > irrational human motivations mentioned earlier.  My suggested response
> > to this threat--and I think it is clearly developing already--is that
> > we amplify human awareness at a social level.
> >
> >
> > > The argument is as old as the first time the first unlucky man told 
>the
> > > first version of the Book of Job. The Book of Job is old and windy, 
>and
>not
> > > really worth your time to read, so I'll summarize. The point of the 
>Book
>of
> > > Job is the problem of evil. Job is a good, blameless man, so good that
>no
> > > human could even conceive of a reason for god to punish him. Lots of
>evil
> > > happens to Job, courtesy of God and Satan. Job maintains his faith in
>God,
> > > the moral lesson for all the little bible-kiddies, but eventually asks
>God
> > > "Why? Why must evil happen to good people?" God's answer is as long 
>and
> > > windy as the rest of the book, and can easily and honestly be 
>condensed
>to
> > > four sentences, catching all nuance. "I am God. I am infinitely more
> > > powerful, more knowledgeable, and more intelligent than you can or 
>will
>ever
> > > be. It would be waste time to tell you because you wouldn't 
>understand.
>Sit
> > > down, shut up, and stop wasting my time."
> > >
> > > If a god or a super-intelligent AI existed, it is true that they would
>be so
> > > much better than us that humans could not even comprehend their
>reasoning.
> > > We are humans, this is a human argument, and we are using human
>reasoning.
> > > If we cannot conceive of or comprehend their reasoning, than IT 
>DOESN'T
> > > MATTER. It is entirely irrelevant to a HUMAN discussion. We must base
>our
> > > decisions and opinions on what we actually know and can understand,
>unless
> > > we have someone who we can trust to do it for us. To quote myself
> > > paraphrasing god, sit down, shut up, and stop wasting my time. Blind
>fear is
> > > as pointless as blind faith. Besides, if a super-human intelligence
>decided
> > > to destroy humanity, it'd probably have a damn good reason.
> >
> > This highlights another strong bias in current futurist thinking:
> > People (especially in the western cultures) assume that somehow their
> > Self--their personal identity--will remain essentially invariant
> > despite exponential development.  The illusion of Self is strong, and
> > reinforced by our evolved nature, and our language and culture, and
> > impedes thinking about values, morality, and ethical social
> > decision-making.
> >
> > <snipped several good paragraphs due to my lack of available time.>
> >
> > >
> > > In conclusion, an AI would be such a powerful economic and military 
>tool
> > > that they will be created no matter what. Once we begin to create 
>them,
>they
> > > will get cheaper and easier to make. If the science of crime has 
>taught
>us
> > > anything, it's that you can't stop everyone all of the time. If the
>science
> > > of war has taught us anything, it's that even the smartest of people 
>are
> > > pretty dump and leave plenty of openings. Eventually, AI will no 
>longer
>be
> > > in the hands of the smartest of people. Accidents will happen. We 
>cannot
> > > stop a super-intelligent AI from being created. It is inevitable. Sit
>back
> > > and enjoy the ride.
> > >
> >
> > I would take this a bit further and say, rather than "sit back", that
> > while we can indeed expect a wild ride, we can and should do our best
> > to project our values in the future.
> >
> > Thanks Mikhail, for a very thoughtful first post to the ExI chat list.
> >
> > - Jef
> > http://www.jefallbright.net
> > Increasing awareness for increasing morality.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




From jonano at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 00:11:29 2006
From: jonano at gmail.com (Jonathan Despres)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:11:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Future of Science: A Conversation with Alan
	Lightman
Message-ID: <6030482a0602151611o342f11dj91866bbbf808936e@mail.gmail.com>

>From the beginning of time, the quest for defining existence has been
a universal struggle for humanity. Art, science, philosophy, and
religion are some of the search engines used for this pursuit. Each
time a scientific discovery is made, or a piece of art is created, we
find yet another piece of the never-ending existential puzzle.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060215_alan_lightman.html



From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 16 00:55:41 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:55:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602141446y5286e1b1va07ce65d85df4144@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV189F025618C86785E5B859B7FB0@phx.gbl>

BillK,

This was an excellent article

<http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/zimbardo_philip_messeges.htm>
What messages are behind today's cults?
    Philip G. Zimbardo, Ph.D.

One thing that amazes me is that one off the most destructive cults,
Scientology, is left out of so many articles and is so hard to find
information about.  I learned recently why this is so.  Scientology has such
an enormous legal fund and high powered lawyers at their disposal that any
negative reference within most of the western world is crushed under
litigation.  No server in America can hold criticism of scientology.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/08/scientology_copyright_case/

This link leads into a whole world of anti rational super powerful cult
members who believe that any non-scientologist is a mortal enemy.  This
"religion" has a doctrine that is so anti human that it makes radical
fundamentalist Islamic suicide bombers look like kittens.

The horrible thing is, we never hear a word about it here in the states.

pete




-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 5:47 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] He's not a troll he may just be ill... and
I'mafraid this is a rant.

On 2/14/06, Peter K.  Bertine, Jr wrote:
>
> Thank you Natasha, It took me a long time to work up the courage to say
> something.  I'd written quite a response to Robert, before I noticed your
> post.  I don't have the heart to delete it, my manic ego I guess.  I hope
> it, at the very least, is amusing.
>
> Spike and Robert,
>
> Thank you very much for acknowledging me, I am honestly flattered that you
> guys gave me a nod as I have no PhD, am unpublished and hardly know a
bucky
> ball from a basket ball.  Robert, your work has been a great inspiration.
>
> That said I agree with you both and would be happy to talk rationally
about
> alien life in and around the universe as long as Arthur C. Clarke remains
> above the line below which we can call science fantasy.
>
> But with all humility, let me caution you Robert regarding Mehan. You are
a
> powerful man toying with a potentially sick individual.  Do not encourage
> his or her fantasy.  What you consider rational discourse with a reasoning
> human being about semi rational "Raelian perspectives" is most likely a
one
> way chat between you and someone in the throws of a manic episode.  I can
> diagnose clinical mania in short order as it almost always involves
supreme
> beings and a feeling of connectedness to an infinite something or another.
>
<snip>


Peter,
Thank for your interesting post. There is a lot of useful information there.

But I must disagree that all cult followers should be classified as manic.
Some, perhaps.

I have lost friends to cults in the past and the study of why people
join and remain in cults is an interesting study of human behaviour.

<http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/zimbardo_philip_messeges.htm>
What messages are behind today's cults?
    Philip G. Zimbardo, Ph.D.

The savage unbelievable truth is:-
"Whatever any member of a cult has done, you and I could be recruited
or seduced into doing--under the right or wrong conditions. The
majority of "normal, average, intelligent" individuals can be led to
engage in immoral, illegal, irrational, aggressive and self
destructive actions that are contrary to their values or
personality--when manipulated situational conditions exert their power
over individual dispositions."

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

The point of my original post was that it is an utter waste of time to
encourage cult members to spam the list with their fantasies.

Removing people from a cult that they are committed to takes much
patience and skill and techniques which are impossible on a general
mailing list.

BillK

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 01:18:34 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:18:34 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults
In-Reply-To: <BAY112-DAV189F025618C86785E5B859B7FB0@phx.gbl>
References: <ee50357e0602141446y5286e1b1va07ce65d85df4144@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY112-DAV189F025618C86785E5B859B7FB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602151718t3726107cj890374962b20744c@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Peter K. Bertine, Jr <pkbertine at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Removing people from a cult that they are committed to takes much
> patience and skill and techniques which are impossible on a general
> mailing list.
>
> BillK


Speaking as a member of the transhumanist cult, I must agree...

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/499c7eb9/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Feb 16 00:56:58 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:56:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602151438q2ff122e6ge0b850a1d4120d35@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060215155904.02f12cb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060209194854.050187f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<20060210033316.13815.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060210220238.0503f188@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060215155904.02f12cb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060215192908.02f4db58@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 10:38 PM 2/15/2006 +0000, Dirk wrote:


>On 2/15/06, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> 
>wrote:
>>At 03:46 PM 2/13/2006 +0000, Dirk wrote:
>>
>>
>> >On 2/11/06, Keith Henson 
>> <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com><mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com>
>> >wrote:

snip

>>Wrong level.  A population of people possessed of xenophobic memes is on
>>the causal path to war, but isn't the root cause.  People can *always* find
>
>And which population is that? From here it seems to be the USA

You won't get an argument against that from me, but I am talking about a 
human universal.

There are two way to get into a war going right back to the Stone 
Age.  Most obvious is to be attacked.  The other way is for xenophobic 
(dehumanizing) memes to build up in the population.  When "population" was 
a band where the maximum size in a really productive ecosystem was roughly 
100 people the memes served to synch the warriors into a mob attack on 
neighbors.

Now the question is what causes the memes leading to wars to build up?

>>some stupid ideological reason to fight, but they don't do so all the
>>time.  What causes xenophobic memes to become more common at some times
>>than at others?
>>
>>Related question.  Why did support for the IRA eventually die out?
>
>A number of reasons
>a) They could not win a military victory. Britain was prepared to fight 
>them relentlessly for 30+ years
>b) Demographics suggest that there will eventually be a Catholic (and 
>presumably Nationalist) majority in NI before too long, with a 
>consequential vote for unification.
>c) They got everything they asked for *except* unification (see b)
>d) Eire ceased to be a rabid theocracy and hence became more attractive to 
>Protestants
>e) Eire ceased to be one of the most economically backward nations in 
>Europe and hence became more attractive to Protestants

Of these point, a has not stopped other groups who have been fighting as 
long or longer.  I don't think point b is true now for NI.  I don't 
think  you can make a case that humans would have been sensitive to long 
range demographics trends any time in their history.  Certainly the 
Palestinians are a counter example.

Points d and e are closer.  The reason both parts of Ireland became an 
economic success story is that a generation ago there was a large drop over 
a few years in the birth rate.  I don't know if that was effect or cause of 
the shift away from a rabid theocracy.  Same thing happened in other 
places.  But in any case, with population growth below economic growth, 
what happens?

And how do you map that into Stone Age bands and tribes?

Keith Henson

PS.  Warning, I am leading you into a model that is incredibly simple, 
logical and miserably depressing.



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 01:44:12 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:44:12 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060215192908.02f4db58@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060209194854.050187f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<20060210033316.13815.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060210220238.0503f188@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060215155904.02f12cb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060215192908.02f4db58@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602151744s4137ece3q19c23269b108c099@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
> places.  But in any case, with population growth below economic growth,
> what happens?
>
> And how do you map that into Stone Age bands and tribes?


Simple.
The indigenous population breeds itself out of existence and is replaced by
immigrants from high breeding cultures.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/36653aaf/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 01:50:15 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:50:15 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's home computer
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602151750h2fa65487n4dd30c93a9e70b9@mail.gmail.com>

Just for a laugh
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7144/1545/1600/home-computer2004.gif

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/ca988d02/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 16 00:51:49 2006
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:51:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060215155904.02f12cb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <20060216005149.14924.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> Wrong level.  A population of people possessed of
> xenophobic memes is on 
> the causal path to war, but isn't the root cause. 
> People can *always* find 
> some stupid ideological reason to fight, but they
> don't do so all the 
> time.  What causes xenophobic memes to become more
> common at some times 
> than at others?

I think it boils down to political maneuvering and the
will to power. Or put another way, the primate
instinct to become and remain the alpha male and
thereby have your pick of mates. Lets say you are the
chief of the bear tribe and the tribe is unhappy with
your leadership. There are lots of up and coming alpha
males that are eyeing you trying to figure out a way
to challenge you for supremacy. What do you do? You
remind them how much they dislike the cougar tribe.
You may even show them tracks suggesting that the
cougar tribe has been trespassing in bear territory.
You start beating the war drums. Next thing you know,
all your internal competition/opposition has stopped
criticizing you and are rushing off to deal with the
cougar menace. 

You have consolidated your power by taking hostility
directed at you and redirecting it to a common
external enemy. It worked for Hideyoshi. His poorly
executed invasions of Korea, didn't win much territory
for Japan, but did send his rival warlords away from
Japan to allow him to unify the country.   
 
> Related question.  Why did support for the IRA
> eventually die out?

I will leave this to Dirk or Damien. They were there
after all.


Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Thereupon, the Soul of Mother Earth bewailed, Should I accept the support of a feeble man and listen to his words? In fact I desired the aid of a strong and mighty king. When shall such a person arise and bring strong-handed succor to me?" -Yasna 29, verse 9 

"Now I am light, now I am flying, now I see myself beneath myself, now a God dances through me." - St. Nietzsche

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 01:52:51 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:52:51 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060215192908.02f4db58@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060209194854.050187f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<20060210033316.13815.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060210220238.0503f188@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060215155904.02f12cb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060215192908.02f4db58@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602151752t73d234d6r49ee7b472b2b8409@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> Points d and e are closer.  The reason both parts of Ireland became an
> economic success story is that a generation ago there was a large drop
> over
> a few years in the birth rate.


This turns out not to be the case - the economic growth and shift away from
rabid theocracy were linked in a causal web to more open trade, increased
communication and the shift away from banana-republic style socialism. The
birth rate falling below extinction level was a consequence of these
factors, not a cause.

I don't know if that was effect or cause of
> the shift away from a rabid theocracy.  Same thing happened in other
> places.  But in any case, with population growth below economic growth,
> what happens?


The model of economic productivity as "cargo" - something delivered from
outside, with a fixed supply to be divided among a population - works well
for a hunter-gatherer economy where wealth is collected largely as-is from
the environment, but not for an industrial one where wealth is largely
produced by people.

PS.  Warning, I am leading you into a model that is incredibly simple,
> logical and miserably depressing.
>

Having read your model before, I think the approach is a reasonable one, but
at the end of the day it doesn't really match the historical facts. That's
another matter, though; I'll confine myself in this post to providing
corrected data on Ireland :)

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/4f498d9e/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu Feb 16 01:56:04 2006
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:56:04 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Arxiv.org on UFO visits to Ganymede
In-Reply-To: <20060215221921.8C02657FAE@finney.org>
References: <20060215221921.8C02657FAE@finney.org>
Message-ID: <22360fa10602151756y601afacaq951efa2ac0615aac@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/15/06, "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org> wrote:

> There have been complaints in the past that the arxiv was off limits to
> people from outside the mainstream, and apparently there was a policy
> change recently, with a new moderator in charge.  Now there are some
> really off-the-wall papers appearing, the most amazing of which is this
> one: <http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512062>, "A Solution to the
> Fermi Paradox: The Solar System, part of a Galactic Hypercivilization?".

I'm disappointed to learn that arxiv standards have dropped, but I
suspect it's on the path to a higher level of organization.

It seems to me that are approaching a "phase change" with regard to
how we manage the quality of our online information sources in
general.

For several years, the quality of futurist-oriented email lists was
higher than it is now due to self-selection within a scarcer
environment but these are being swamped by the ease of entry and high
popularity of the Internet.

For a few years, certain web sites rose to prominence as repositories
of higher quality, frequently updated news and information but these
seem to be declining due to the very significant investment of time to
update and maintain them.

For several months, several blogs shown as examples of high quality
content.  Many or most are still there, but being drowned out by the
cacophony of personal blogs of average or below average acumen.

For fewer months, technorati and delic.io.us have been building a
social framework that shows promise of applying reputation management
and collaborative filtering to the problem.

With several hundred items entering my personal inbox each day, I've
already reached the point where I can't even skim all the email
threads.  I'm finding much greater benefit from filtering email on
senders that have earned my appreciation (strategy of promoting good
threads rather than the older way of demoting bad threads), and by
monitoring certain tags on delic.io.us according to person or category
of interest.  What's lacking is greater visibility of other people's
delicic.io.us URLs.

Here's mine:
http://del.icio.us/jefallbright

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net
Increasing awareness for increasing morality



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Feb 16 02:03:02 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:03:02 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <20060216005149.14924.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060215155904.02f12cb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<20060216005149.14924.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060215200129.01cded40@satx.rr.com>

At 04:51 PM 2/15/2006 -0800, Stuart wrote:

> > Related question.  Why did support for the IRA
> > eventually die out?
>
>I will leave this to Dirk or Damien. They were there
>after all.

Not me (despite the Catholic name). Hardly ever see an IRA bombing in 
Melbourne, Australia, or San Antonio, TX.

Damien Broderick 



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 02:13:27 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:13:27 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060215200129.01cded40@satx.rr.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060215155904.02f12cb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<20060216005149.14924.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
	<7.0.1.0.0.20060215200129.01cded40@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602151813x24503941ufb80fca94612d05c@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> At 04:51 PM 2/15/2006 -0800, Stuart wrote:
>
> > > Related question.  Why did support for the IRA
> > > eventually die out?
> >
> >I will leave this to Dirk or Damien. They were there
> >after all.
>
> Not me (despite the Catholic name). Hardly ever see an IRA bombing in
> Melbourne, Australia, or San Antonio, TX.


While never having been to any part of Ireland I have been close enough to
hear IRA bombs going off in London. Does that count?:-)

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/14c34546/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 02:53:24 2006
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:23:24 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's home computer
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602151750h2fa65487n4dd30c93a9e70b9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c0a791b40602151750h2fa65487n4dd30c93a9e70b9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0602151853k7e4ec74bh@mail.gmail.com>

Actually, given the time when they were predicting, they did
remarkably well! Who else was predicting home computers at all?

If that were me standing next to the display, I'd be happy! (Except
for the hair and glasses and the suit, yowsa!)

--
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com


On 16/02/06, Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just for a laugh
> http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7144/1545/1600/home-computer2004.gif
>
> Dirk
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>



From edinsblood at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 16 02:54:29 2006
From: edinsblood at hotmail.com (Mikhail John)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:54:29 -0900
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602151518u4bd56f9aje93b15109ea5bd05@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY115-F28042B947CF33990F6AD4AD0FB0@phx.gbl>

We've got real big bombs now. Unless the superintelligence discovers exotic 
new physics applications, say, a force field, those bombs are going to hurt. 
I'm assuming that it would be difficult to maintain a distributed intellect 
while boiling oceans and ripping continents apart, and once centralized the 
AI will be (relatively) open to attack. Even when distributed you could 
severely inconvenience it by severing internet hubs or somesuch, possibly 
opening it up for viral attack.

Because while it would difficult to boost a continent to orbit, a Von 
Neumann machine would be effortless. Once in space, expansion becomes 
easier.

Do you want a chimp in your house, trying to eat your cat? I think not. Do 
you want a chimp on your same continent, never to be seen? Who cares? Space 
is quite large. No shortage of room. Now that I've thought about it, the 
chance that an AI will leave and ignore us completely seems far more likely.

>From: Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
>Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:18:47 +0000
>
>On 2/15/06, Mikhail John <edinsblood at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Everything you mine you have to take off-planet. Gravity hurts. Far 
>easier
> > to mine the Jovian neighborhood. Plenty of energy, relatively highly
> > concentrated resources, and a nice big gravity well to slingshot from.
> > Speed, ease, efficiency. Plus, no indignant natives flinging nukes.
> >
> > Or chimps throwing stones.
>Still, if gravity hurts then why leave Earth at all? Vast amounts of energy
>in the oceans ie deuterium, and no environmental worries.
>
>Cost/benefit analysis.
>If we get treated better by such an AI than we treat chimps now, we will be
>extremely lucky.
>
>Dirk


>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Feb 16 03:13:19 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:13:19 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's home computer
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0602151853k7e4ec74bh@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c0a791b40602151750h2fa65487n4dd30c93a9e70b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0602151853k7e4ec74bh@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060215210927.01c214f0@satx.rr.com>

At 01:23 PM 2/16/2006 +1030, Emlyn wrote:

>If that were me standing next to the display, I'd be happy! (Except
>for the hair and glasses and the suit, yowsa!)

>  http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7144/1545/1600/home-computer2004.gif

But *all* the people from the dying world of Metaluna look like that! 
This is not really a home computer, though, it's an interociter. You 
can tell by the big steering wheel.

Damien Broderick 



From dgc at cox.net  Thu Feb 16 01:20:27 2006
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:20:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602151718t3726107cj890374962b20744c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0602141446y5286e1b1va07ce65d85df4144@mail.gmail.com>	<BAY112-DAV189F025618C86785E5B859B7FB0@phx.gbl>
	<c0a791b40602151718t3726107cj890374962b20744c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43F3D35B.7070609@cox.net>

Dirk Bruere wrote:

>
>
> On 2/16/06, *Peter K. Bertine, Jr* <pkbertine at hotmail.com 
> <mailto:pkbertine at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     Removing people from a cult that they are committed to takes much
>     patience and skill and techniques which are impossible on a general
>     mailing list.
>
>     BillK
>
>
> Speaking as a member of the transhumanist cult, I must agree...
>
> Dirk
>
Do we have a secret handshake, or do we just transcend and communicate 
on a higher level not accessible by normal humans? Do I risk 
excommunication by asking this question on a human-accessible list? See 
you next Pluterday...


From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 16 04:06:57 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:06:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] human / chimp breeding
In-Reply-To: <024301c6327e$aefa5fb0$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV18F0244DA41D9AEA1EBE30B7FB0@phx.gbl>

> I can think of lots of useful knowledge gained from breeding a human and a
chimp and as far as I know it hasn't been tried. That's simply amazing if
you ask me. 

 

Why are you amazed that it hasn?t been tried?  What useful knowledge could
be gained? How would you go about breeding a human and a chimp.

 

  _____  

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of kevinfreels.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:25 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence

 

>By then it will be too late.
>If something so amazingly useful can be done, it will be done by someone
somewhere. 

So you say. But you have no proof that this is the case. I can think of lots
of useful knowledge gained from breeding a human and a chimp and as far as I
know it hasn't been tried. That's simply amazing if you ask me. 

 

Also, I am working on the assumption that there is already sufficient
technology at the time to augment human intelligence to the point where
human level AI is not "so amazingly useful". The real benefits will come
from software and agents with "AI capabilities". What's the amazing
usefulness of creating a sentient being that can be hurt, insulted and must
be compensated and/or treated like a slave? It's much more useful if you can
keep computers just below the level of sentience and use them to enhance
your own mind. You really need to step out of this box that assumes that is
some incredible standalone technology that will just pop up out of nowhere.
When the capability exists, Near AI stuff will already be integrated into
nearly everything already.

 


>The 'Wintermute' solution may be viable for a few years, but how long could
a bunch of talking chimps keep a thousand mega->Einsteins under lock and
key? Every chimp beyond fooling as well as being  incorruptible?

Again, you are assuming that mega-Einsteins won't be the norm at the time.
With thousands running around, what's one more?

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060215/af7726d5/attachment.html>

From hal at finney.org  Thu Feb 16 04:21:12 2006
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:21:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Four-Year Mortality Index for Older Adults
Message-ID: <20060216042112.37E7D57FAE@finney.org>

JAMA today has an article describing a new test giving your odds of
dying in the next four years.  The article is here:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/7/801

and the test is here:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content-nw/full/295/7/801/JOC60006FBOX

Unfortunately the test is in graphical format so I can't easily paste in
the questions here, but there are only 12 items so it is easy to try it.
You get different amounts of points for various health problems, and the
more points you have, the lower your chances of survival.

It is aimed at people who are over 50, but it is still interesting to
see what you get points for.  A couple of them are pretty surprising.
Smoking gives you 2 points, but so does being male!  And the most
controversial is that you get 1 point for having a BMI of less than 25,
i.e. it is better to be fat than thin.  This is a principle which the
health establishment is fighting tooth and nail, it flies in the face
of everything they have been saying for decades, but unfortunately for
them the data points this way.

Last Sunday, David McFadzean pointed to an old extropians archive at
<http://bbs.extropy.org/exi-lists/archive/9807/date.html>.  Browsing
through those 1998 postings (the big topic - the thread vs pattern
theories of identity!) I found this one by Robin Hanson: "Why Do We
Die?" <http://bbs.extropy.org/exi-lists/archive/9807/25446.html>.  Robin
points to an earlier JAMA article showing various risk factors:

> Age       25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
>             1.0 2.66 3.46 9.30 16.78 40.00
> Sex      Male Female
>            1.0  .41
> Race       NonBlack Black
>                1.0  1.19
> Residence Rural Suburban City
>            1.0    1.16   1.52
> Education 16+yrs 12-15 0 -11
>            1.0   .95   .90
> Income    30K$+ 10-29K$ <10K$
>             1.0  2.14  2.77
> Smoking    Never current former
>             1.0   1.26   1.28
> Alcohol drinks/mo. Moderate None Heavy
>                       1.0   1.13  .85
> Body Mass    Normal Underweight Overweight
>                1.0     2.03       .94
> Physical Activity Quintiles
>        5(high) 4 3 2 1(low)
>        1.0 1.46 1.60 2.25 2.91

Sorry, the column formatting is a little uneven, but you can read it
if you count the columns.  These are death risk factors, so higher is
*worse*.  The higher number means you have that much greater a chance
of death.

So right off the bat we see that males have over twice the risk of death
as females, all else being equal.  That's a pretty big difference.
We also see the same effect from weight: underweight is twice as bad
as "normal", and overweight is better than normal.  The big news from that
study was that making more money was one of the most protective effects.
People making over $30K had almost 1/3 the death risk of someone making
less than $10K.

Anyway, we can see that many of the elements of the new study are
foreshadowed by this one from eight years ago.  It's interesting that
they left the income question off, that would be easy to answer and it
sounds like it should be worth 2 or maybe even 3 points to make less
than $20K or $10K.  I guess it was just too controversial.

Hal


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Thu Feb 16 04:26:52 2006
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:26:52 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Paper refuting Benveniste's digital
	biological signals
Message-ID: <43F3FF0C.4080900@mindspring.com>

Jacques Benveniste (died 2004) was a researcher who produced

controversial results said to be supportive of homeopathy.  In recent
years he promoted the idea the biological signals could be converted to
digital form and transmitted electronically.  His web site describing
these efforts is still up, though it appears to be inactive:
http://www.digibio.com/ 

Here is the abstract of a paper of his reporting this type of effect:

Med Hypotheses. 2000 Jan;54(1):33-9  
 
Activation of human neutrophils by electronically transmitted
phorbol-myristate acetate.

Thomas Y, Schiff M, Belkadi L, Jurgens P, Kahhak L, Benveniste J.

Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale, (INSERM)
U200, and Digital Biology Laboratory, Clamart, France.
ythomas at ens.-fcl.fr 

We report the transfer of the activity of
4-phorbol-12-beta-myristate-13-acetate (PMA) by electronic means.
Neutrophils were placed at 37 degrees C on one coil attached to an
oscillator, while PMA was placed on another coil at room temperature.
The oscillator was then turned on for 15 min, after which cells were
usually further incubated for up to 45 min at 37 degrees C before
measurement of reactive oxygen metabolites (ROMs) production. In 20
blind experiments, PMA thus 'transmitted' induced ROM production. ROM
were not induced when: (1) PMA vehicle or 4-alpha-phorbol
12,13-didecanoate (an inactive PMA analogue) were transmitted; (2) the
oscillator was switched off; (3) superoxide dismutase or protein kinase
C inhibitors were added to cells before transmission. These results
suggest that PMA molecules emit signals that can be transferred to
neutrophils by artificial physical means in a manner that seems specific
to the source molecules.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10790721&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum



Now we have a new paper in which his claims were tested:

FASEB J. 2006 Jan;20(1):23-8
 
Can specific biological signals be digitized?

Jonas WB, Ives JA, Rollwagen F, Denman DW, Hintz K, Hammer M, Crawford
C, Henry K.

Samueli Institute for Information Biology, Alexandria, Virginia,
22314, USA. wjonas at siib.org 

At the request of the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, we attempted to replicate the data of Professor Jacques
Benveniste that digital signals recorded on a computer disc produce
specific biological effects. The hypothesis was that a digitized
thrombin inhibitor signal would inhibit the fibrinogen-thrombin
coagulation pathway. Because of the controversies associated with
previous research of Prof. Benveniste, we developed a system for the
management of social controversy in science that incorporated an expert
in social communication and conflict management. The social management
approach was an adaptation of interactional communication theory, for
management of areas that interfere with the conduct of good science.
This process allowed us to successfully complete a coordinated effort by
a multidisciplinary team, including Prof. Benveniste, a hematologist,
engineer, skeptic, statistician, neuroscientist and conflict management
expert. Our team found no replicable effects from digital signals.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16394263&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum



Apart from the negative results and the fact that Benveniste was
involved in the planning, here are some points I thought were
interesting:

1.  There were some pilot studies conducted by Benveniste and his team.
 "A subgroup analysis of pilot phase data showed that all DTI [digitized
thrombin inhibitor] effects ocurred when experiments were conducted by
one member of Benvenite's team (Jamal Aissa) and that this usually
occurred when using a split sample technique in which he interrupted the
operation of the ABA machine to do manual plating followed by the
automated plating.  Two of the 16 experiments done only by the ABA
machine (no interruptions) showed effects when Jamal was present.  In
three instances Jamal set up experiments and then left for the day. 
None of these showed DTI effect."

In the discussion, it notes "Prof. Benveniste died on October 3, 2004.

Before he passed away, however, he posited unknown interactions with
digital signals that produce these effects and states that he observed
similar experimenter variability in his laboratory (personal
communication).  He stated that certain individuals consistently get
digital effects and other individuals get no effects or block those
effects."

2.  As noted in the abstract, the Defense Advanced Research Project
Agency (DARPA) thought that this line of investigation was worth
funding a grant to the researchers.


Thomas J. Wheeler, Ph.D.       tjwheeler at louisville.edu 
Associate Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
University of Louisville School of Medicine

Alternative medicine reading and handouts:
http://biochemistry.louisville.edu/education/altmed.htm 
NEW!  2006 updates being added.
Overview of CAM added 2/08
Chiropractic added 2/08
Herbs, mind-body medicine added 2/08
Eastern approaches added 2/08



-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >
[Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA,
and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Feb 16 06:57:25 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:57:25 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602151752t73d234d6r49ee7b472b2b8409@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060215192908.02f4db58@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060209194854.050187f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<20060210033316.13815.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060210220238.0503f188@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060215155904.02f12cb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060215192908.02f4db58@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216015141.02f4be10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 01:52 AM 2/16/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>On 2/16/06, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> 
>wrote:
>>Points d and e are closer.  The reason both parts of Ireland became an
>>economic success story is that a generation ago there was a large drop over
>>a few years in the birth rate.
>
>This turns out not to be the case - the economic growth and shift away 
>from rabid theocracy were linked in a causal web to more open trade, 
>increased communication and the shift away from banana-republic style 
>socialism. The birth rate falling below extinction level was a consequence 
>of these factors, not a cause.
>
>>I don't know if that was effect or cause of
>>the shift away from a rabid theocracy.  Same thing happened in other
>>places.  But in any case, with population growth below economic growth,
>>what happens?
>
>The model of economic productivity as "cargo" - something delivered from 
>outside, with a fixed supply to be divided among a population - works well 
>for a hunter-gatherer economy where wealth is collected largely as-is from 
>the environment, but not for an industrial one where wealth is largely 
>produced by people.

Jeeze, guys, you would think am asking a trick question.  The income per 
capital goes UP.

>>PS.  Warning, I am leading you into a model that is incredibly simple,
>>logical and miserably depressing.
>
>Having read your model before, I think the approach is a reasonable one, 
>but at the end of the day it doesn't really match the historical facts. 
>That's another matter, though; I'll confine myself in this post to 
>providing corrected data on Ireland :)

Well, do you know of a population that supported war with a rising income 
per capita and bright looking future prospects?  (One that was not attacked 
of course.)  Examples will refute the model.

This maps back to the stone age where such conditions shut off war.

Keith Henson



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 07:00:04 2006
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:30:04 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's home computer
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060215210927.01c214f0@satx.rr.com>
References: <c0a791b40602151750h2fa65487n4dd30c93a9e70b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0602151853k7e4ec74bh@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.0.20060215210927.01c214f0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0602152300u536de722v@mail.gmail.com>

Well, I have an interociter on my pc too, of course. But it's only
about 2 inches in diameters, so only talks to some guys down the
street. Can't reach Metaluna because I don't have one of those big
arse machines like in the picture.

Emlyn

On 16/02/06, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 01:23 PM 2/16/2006 +1030, Emlyn wrote:
>
> >If that were me standing next to the display, I'd be happy! (Except
> >for the hair and glasses and the suit, yowsa!)
>
> >  http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7144/1545/1600/home-computer2004.gif
>
> But *all* the people from the dying world of Metaluna look like that!
> This is not really a home computer, though, it's an interociter. You
> can tell by the big steering wheel.
>
> Damien Broderick
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 07:01:32 2006
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:31:32 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's home computer
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0602152300u536de722v@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c0a791b40602151750h2fa65487n4dd30c93a9e70b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0602151853k7e4ec74bh@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.0.20060215210927.01c214f0@satx.rr.com>
	<710b78fc0602152300u536de722v@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0602152301m34afe62al@mail.gmail.com>

Also, there is a chance, given the picture, that the Rand Corporation
predicted not only the home computer, but the computer game "Need for
Speed 2"

Emlyn

On 16/02/06, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I have an interociter on my pc too, of course. But it's only
> about 2 inches in diameters, so only talks to some guys down the
> street. Can't reach Metaluna because I don't have one of those big
> arse machines like in the picture.
>
> Emlyn
>
> On 16/02/06, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > At 01:23 PM 2/16/2006 +1030, Emlyn wrote:
> >
> > >If that were me standing next to the display, I'd be happy! (Except
> > >for the hair and glasses and the suit, yowsa!)
> >
> > >  http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7144/1545/1600/home-computer2004.gif
> >
> > But *all* the people from the dying world of Metaluna look like that!
> > This is not really a home computer, though, it's an interociter. You
> > can tell by the big steering wheel.
> >
> > Damien Broderick
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
>



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Feb 16 06:36:05 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:36:05 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602140915k188f091es6d8ba216d84782bd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602160711.k1G7Boqt027099@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready

Sounds like you need a combination orbiter + lander.? Let the lander just
worry about getting signals up to the orbiter and the orbiter worry about
getting them back to Earth.? But they you still have the deceleration
problem again.? I think an inflatable antenna on a hard-impact lander might
be the way to go.? The crater problem can be solved if you can bring it in
at a low angle and/or let it bounce/roll along until it came to a
stop...Robert


Robert and all space fans,

I thought this over and remembered a project I was on about fifteen
years ago.  When the kinetic energy of a projectile is large with
respect to the sum of the heat of fusion plus the heat of vaporization
of the projectile material, you are in what is termed the hydrodynamic
impact regime.  Upon impact, a compression wave is sufficiently violent
to break the chemical bonds in both the projectile and the target.  The
projectile and the target are vaporized in this regime, regardless
of the material of either the projectile or the target.

Above the hydrodynamic impact regime velocity, increasing velocity 
of the projectile does not punch a deeper hole in the target, it
only punches a wider hole.  This explains why the craters on the
moon are wide but not particularly deep.  It also explains why
super high speed armor piercing shells are long skinny things: the
length is all that matters above a certain speed.

On the project previously mentioned, the velocities we were working
were all in the 3 to 4 km/sec range.  This was sufficient to
enter the hydrodynamic impact regime for the second highest
energy of vaporization material we know of: tungsten.  Only
carbon is higher, and that not by much.

So if we were to try an impact landing on Pluto, 
we would still need to reduce the relative velocity down to
about that of a high-speed rifle bullet, which is in the 0.4
to 0.6 km/sec range.  You know what happens to a rifle bullet
when it hits a target; you can dig out the slug usually.  It's
messed up, but still mostly there.

So if we attempt to land on Pluto, the required deceleration
is not 14 km/sec but rather only about 13.5 km/sec.

If we suggest something like what one poster proposed, to
drop a cable and allow the drag across the surface to
decelerate the vehicle, keep in mind that it might take
a lot of cable.  If the relative velocity of spacecraft
to planet is 14 km/sec and it is strong enough to withstand
a tension of 100 times the mass of the vehicle, you need to 
reel out 14 km of cable in the first second after the craft
passes the planet, 13 km in the next second, and so on, for
a total of about 120 km.  This assumes you can somehow 
maintain a nice steady 100 G deceleration, and you 
somehow solve the problem of hydrodynamic impact 
vaporizing the cable upon impact.

If you decide to go the route of chemical rocket
deceleration, you have a problem of how to keep
the fuel from freezing if you use hydrazine or
how to keep it from boiling away if you use
cryogenic fuels.

Of all the possibilities, the one most attractive
to me is to send it out on a Hohmann orbit, which
obviates most of the fuel problem, since the relative
velocity of spacecraft to Pluto is low upon arrival.  The
main drawback to this approach is that it takes about
62 years to get there, assuming gravitational assist
from Jupiter.  That would make me 107 by the time it
gets there, assuming we launch right away.

spike










From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 07:27:19 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:27:19 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216015141.02f4be10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060209194854.050187f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<20060210033316.13815.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060210220238.0503f188@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060215155904.02f12cb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060215192908.02f4db58@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060216015141.02f4be10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602152327j238608c7m8c3d27b133283aff@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >The model of economic productivity as "cargo" - something delivered from
> >outside, with a fixed supply to be divided among a population - works
> well
> >for a hunter-gatherer economy where wealth is collected largely as-is
> from
> >the environment, but not for an industrial one where wealth is largely
> >produced by people.
>
> Jeeze, guys, you would think am asking a trick question.  The income per
> capital goes UP.


(When the population starts dying out, I assume you mean.)

In the "cargo" economic model which is approximately true of hunter-gatherer
societies, that's approximately correct. In an industrial society, half the
capita means half the minds and hands available to produce the income in the
first place, so the total income also drops by half - no increase per
capita. (Unfortunately, we evolved in hunter-gatherer societies, so the
"cargo" economic model is more attractive than the industrial one,
irrespective of the data.)

(If the population falls too far, you start losing economies of scale, so
the per capita income will go down. I suspect other factors will come into
play before that happens, though long beforehand the increased ratio of old
age pensioners to workers will cause a drop in per capita income - that's
starting to be observed in some countries already.)

Well, do you know of a population that supported war with a rising income
> per capita and bright looking future prospects?  (One that was not
> attacked
> of course.)  Examples will refute the model.
>
> This maps back to the stone age where such conditions shut off war.
>

If you want me to shoot holes in your model, I'll be happy to oblige :) So
that everyone (including those list subscribers who haven't read it) are
clear what target I'm shooting at, why don't you post a brief summary of it
here?

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/95bbf4fc/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Feb 16 07:10:15 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:10:15 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults
In-Reply-To: <BAY112-DAV189F025618C86785E5B859B7FB0@phx.gbl>
References: <ee50357e0602141446y5286e1b1va07ce65d85df4144@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216020114.02f2fb78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 07:55 PM 2/15/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>BillK,
>
>This was an excellent article
>
><http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/zimbardo_philip_messeges.htm>
>What messages are behind today's cults?
>     Philip G. Zimbardo, Ph.D.
>
>One thing that amazes me is that one off the most destructive cults,
>Scientology, is left out of so many articles and is so hard to find
>information about.  I learned recently why this is so.  Scientology has such
>an enormous legal fund and high powered lawyers at their disposal that any
>negative reference within most of the western world is crushed under
>litigation.  No server in America can hold criticism of scientology.

That's simply not true.  www.operatingthetan.com holds information about my 
adventures with the UFO cult and it is in the US.

short version here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson

and if you Google "sex drugs cults" (without the quotes) the first link 
will take you to an evolutionary psychology article I wrote on how cults 
get such a hold on human brains.

Incidentally, if you want some low cost glory, now is the time to get into 
the fight.  It looks very much like the scientology cult is on the ropes 
and won't last out the year.  Tom Cruise probably had more effect than I did.

Keith Henson
(who is--none the less--still hiding out in the Mortmain Mountains)



From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 08:49:58 2006
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:49:58 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's home computer
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060215210927.01c214f0@satx.rr.com>
References: <c0a791b40602151750h2fa65487n4dd30c93a9e70b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0602151853k7e4ec74bh@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.0.20060215210927.01c214f0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0602160049q5882cd9ek8fe3e26e52d671fd@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Damien Broderick wrote:
> But *all* the people from the dying world of Metaluna look like that!
> This is not really a home computer, though, it's an interociter. You
> can tell by the big steering wheel.
>

Dirk did say it was a joke.  :)

<http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp>

Although the photograph displayed could represent what some people in
the early 1950s contemplated a "home computer" might look like (based
on the technology of the day), it isn't, as the accompanying text
claims, a RAND Corporation illustration from 1954 of a prototype "home
computer." The picture is actually an entry submitted to a Fark.com
image modification competition, taken from an original photo of a
submarine maneuvering room console found on U.S. Navy web site,
converted to grayscale, and modified to replace a modern display panel
and TV screen with pictures of a decades-old teletype/printer and
television (as well as to add the gray-suited man to the left-hand
side of the photo).

BillK



From amara at amara.com  Thu Feb 16 10:58:24 2006
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:58:24 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat]  Four-Year Mortality Index for Older Adults
Message-ID: <p06230901c01a09f787e8@[150.146.134.133]>

Hal Finney:
>It's interesting that
>hey left the income question off, that would be easy to answer and it
>sounds like it should be worth 2 or maybe even 3 points to make less
>than $20K or $10K.  I guess it was just too controversial.

It depends on the country/culture, as well. For example,
The Economist Quality of Life Index 2005 has Italy listed
as number 8, in the middle of some fairly rich countries,
while their average GDP is 20-40% less. Spain is listed as
number 10, and their average GDP per person is even less.

I'll put that article temporarily here:
http://www.amara.com/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"It is intriguing to learn that the simplicity of the world depends
upon the temperature of the environment." ---John D. Barrow


From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 13:09:54 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:09:54 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's home computer
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602160049q5882cd9ek8fe3e26e52d671fd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c0a791b40602151750h2fa65487n4dd30c93a9e70b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0602151853k7e4ec74bh@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.0.20060215210927.01c214f0@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e0602160049q5882cd9ek8fe3e26e52d671fd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602160509m4e30fcc3k75d2499f3856752c@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/16/06, Damien Broderick wrote:
> > But *all* the people from the dying world of Metaluna look like that!
> > This is not really a home computer, though, it's an interociter. You
> > can tell by the big steering wheel.
> >
>
> Dirk did say it was a joke.  :)
>
> <http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp>
>
> Although the photograph displayed could represent what some people in
> the early 1950s contemplated a "home computer" might look like (based
> on the technology of the day), it isn't, as the accompanying text
> claims, a RAND Corporation illustration from 1954 of a prototype "home
> computer." The picture is actually an entry submitted to a Fark.com
> image modification competition, taken from an original photo of a
> submarine maneuvering room console found on U.S. Navy web site,
> converted to grayscale, and modified to replace a modern display panel
> and TV screen with pictures of a decades-old teletype/printer and
> television (as well as to add the gray-suited man to the left-hand
> side of the photo).


Now you've gone and spoiled it!
Anyway, IMO the giveaway was the dot matrix printer which while not 2004 was
around . 1984, some 30yrs after  the alleged photo was taken.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/0fab0864/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 13:11:09 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:11:09 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults
In-Reply-To: <43F3D35B.7070609@cox.net>
References: <ee50357e0602141446y5286e1b1va07ce65d85df4144@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY112-DAV189F025618C86785E5B859B7FB0@phx.gbl>
	<c0a791b40602151718t3726107cj890374962b20744c@mail.gmail.com>
	<43F3D35B.7070609@cox.net>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602160511w62e40bb7k4c0b42c93317ff46@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
>
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 2/16/06, *Peter K. Bertine, Jr* <pkbertine at hotmail.com
> > <mailto:pkbertine at hotmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     Removing people from a cult that they are committed to takes much
> >     patience and skill and techniques which are impossible on a general
> >     mailing list.
> >
> >     BillK
> >
> >
> > Speaking as a member of the transhumanist cult, I must agree...
> >
> > Dirk
> >
> Do we have a secret handshake, or do we just transcend and communicate
> on a higher level not accessible by normal humans? Do I risk
> excommunication by asking this question on a human-accessible list? See
> you next Pluterday...


Well, I *was* excommunicated by the High Priest of the WTA for questioning
received wisdom...

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/05f4bced/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 13:12:54 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:12:54 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216020114.02f2fb78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <ee50357e0602141446y5286e1b1va07ce65d85df4144@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY112-DAV189F025618C86785E5B859B7FB0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060216020114.02f2fb78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602160512v7831198ei91887fcc1fce131f@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> At 07:55 PM 2/15/2006 -0500, you wrote:
> >BillK,
> >
> >This was an excellent article
> >
> ><http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/zimbardo_philip_messeges.htm>
> >What messages are behind today's cults?
> >     Philip G. Zimbardo, Ph.D.
> >
> >One thing that amazes me is that one off the most destructive cults,
> >Scientology, is left out of so many articles and is so hard to find
> >information about.  I learned recently why this is so.  Scientology has
> such
> >an enormous legal fund and high powered lawyers at their disposal that
> any
> >negative reference within most of the western world is crushed under
> >litigation.  No server in America can hold criticism of scientology.
>
> That's simply not true.  www.operatingthetan.com holds information about
> my
> adventures with the UFO cult and it is in the US.
>
> short version here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson
>
> and if you Google "sex drugs cults" (without the quotes) the first link
> will take you to an evolutionary psychology article I wrote on how cults
> get such a hold on human brains.
>
> Incidentally, if you want some low cost glory, now is the time to get into
> the fight.  It looks very much like the scientology cult is on the ropes
> and won't last out the year.  Tom Cruise probably had more effect than I
> did.
>
> Keith Henson
> (who is--none the less--still hiding out in the Mortmain Mountains)
> .


Still, I tend to admire Elron.
While other cult leaders like Osho made puny millions, Elron made *billions*

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/7f5675f3/attachment.html>

From hemm at openlink.com.br  Thu Feb 16 12:09:01 2006
From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk))
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:09:01 -0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] human / chimp breeding
References: <BAY112-DAV18F0244DA41D9AEA1EBE30B7FB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <00a201c632f2$097ba390$fe00a8c0@cpd01>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Peter K. Bertine, Jr
To: 'ExI chat list'
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:06 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] human / chimp breeding


> I can think of lots of useful knowledge gained from breeding a human and a 
> chimp and as far as I know it hasn't been tried. That's simply amazing if 
> you ask me.

>Why are you amazed that it hasn't been tried?  What useful knowledge could 
>be gained?
>How would you go about breeding a human and a chimp.

Planet of the apes?



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 13:19:16 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:19:16 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Paper refuting Benveniste's digital
	biological signals
In-Reply-To: <43F3FF0C.4080900@mindspring.com>
References: <43F3FF0C.4080900@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602160519te6c0d54td8d6be5d6a431eac@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Terry W. Colvin <fortean1 at mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Jacques Benveniste (died 2004) was a researcher who produced
>
> controversial results said to be supportive of homeopathy.  In recent
> years he promoted the idea the biological signals could be converted to
> digital form and transmitted electronically.  His web site describing
> these efforts is still up, though it appears to be inactive:
> http://www.digibio.com/
>
> Here is the abstract of a paper of his reporting this type of effect:
>
> Med Hypotheses. 2000 Jan;54(1):33-9
>
> Activation of human neutrophils by electronically transmitted
> phorbol-myristate acetate.
>
> Thomas Y, Schiff M, Belkadi L, Jurgens P, Kahhak L, Benveniste J.
>
> Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale, (INSERM)
> U200, and Digital Biology Laboratory, Clamart, France.
> ythomas at ens.-fcl.fr
>
> We report the transfer of the activity of
> 4-phorbol-12-beta-myristate-13-acetate (PMA) by electronic means.
> Neutrophils were placed at 37 degrees C on one coil attached to an
> oscillator, while PMA was placed on another coil at room temperature.
> The oscillator was then turned on for 15 min, after which cells were
> usually further incubated for up to 45 min at 37 degrees C before
> measurement of reactive oxygen metabolites (ROMs) production. In 20
> blind experiments, PMA thus 'transmitted' induced ROM production. ROM
> were not induced when: (1) PMA vehicle or 4-alpha-phorbol
> 12,13-didecanoate (an inactive PMA analogue) were transmitted; (2) the
> oscillator was switched off; (3) superoxide dismutase or protein kinase
> C inhibitors were added to cells before transmission. These results
> suggest that PMA molecules emit signals that can be transferred to
> neutrophils by artificial physical means in a manner that seems specific
> to the source molecules.
>
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10790721&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum
>
> .


Seems he graduated to a moderately wellknown area of fringe scitech -
Psionic machines.
The peculiar things is that they *seem* to work for some people some of the
time. I've made a lot of money using them, for example, but like all Psi
phenomena they are almost impossible to pin down in a lab setting. See
Hieronymus Machine for comparison.
http://www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/typical_hieronymus_detector.htm

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/1d904052/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 13:23:36 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:23:36 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <BAY115-F28042B947CF33990F6AD4AD0FB0@phx.gbl>
References: <c0a791b40602151518u4bd56f9aje93b15109ea5bd05@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY115-F28042B947CF33990F6AD4AD0FB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602160523t6dff9d00n87d03662f67a8f9e@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Mikhail John <edinsblood at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> We've got real big bombs now. Unless the superintelligence discovers
> exotic
> new physics applications, say, a force field, those bombs are going to
> hurt.
> I'm assuming that it would be difficult to maintain a distributed
> intellect
> while boiling oceans and ripping continents apart, and once centralized
> the
> AI will be (relatively) open to attack. Even when distributed you could
> severely inconvenience it by severing internet hubs or somesuch, possibly
> opening it up for viral attack.
>
> Because while it would difficult to boost a continent to orbit, a Von
> Neumann machine would be effortless. Once in space, expansion becomes
> easier.
> .


http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/th/print/293/

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/d0521c1b/attachment.html>

From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 16 14:33:32 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:33:32 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Operation Clam Bake
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216020114.02f2fb78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV1CE3C6234D7B555B43A8EB7FB0@phx.gbl>


Wow Keith that was a great article.  I'm embarrassed that I was so
uninformed.

I've read all about you well before I joined this list.
It seems things have changed in the last few years.  I've learned most of
what I know about Scientology from Operation Clam Bake and a website in
Russia.  For the last 10 years I have prevented several people from joining
the cult and I had a girl friend that has an uncle high up at the "Gold
Base."

The Wikipedia info is brand new and very heartening.

Just a word about me, I had "UFO Abduction" fantasy/scenarios occur
throughout my youth.  Budd Hopkins hypnotized me in my late teens and I
became an "Abductee."  Thankfully, I also began to show bipolar symptoms and
a writing professor at NYU sent me to a doctor.  Once on Prozac and Lithium
the aliens stopped visiting me in my sleep.  Since then I have become an
aggressive debunker of all things "alien" and scientology has been one of my
most hated organizations on the planet.  Psychiatry and medication saved my
life and restored my reason.  I want to crush scientology.

Let me know what I can do to help.  I am willing to do anything and very
glad to have heard from you.

pete

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:10 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Cults

At 07:55 PM 2/15/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>BillK,
>
>This was an excellent article
>
><http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/zimbardo_philip_messeges.htm>
>What messages are behind today's cults?
>     Philip G. Zimbardo, Ph.D.
>
>One thing that amazes me is that one off the most destructive cults,
>Scientology, is left out of so many articles and is so hard to find
>information about.  I learned recently why this is so.  Scientology has
such
>an enormous legal fund and high powered lawyers at their disposal that any
>negative reference within most of the western world is crushed under
>litigation.  No server in America can hold criticism of scientology.

That's simply not true.  www.operatingthetan.com holds information about my 
adventures with the UFO cult and it is in the US.

short version here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson

and if you Google "sex drugs cults" (without the quotes) the first link 
will take you to an evolutionary psychology article I wrote on how cults 
get such a hold on human brains.

Incidentally, if you want some low cost glory, now is the time to get into 
the fight.  It looks very much like the scientology cult is on the ropes 
and won't last out the year.  Tom Cruise probably had more effect than I
did.

Keith Henson
(who is--none the less--still hiding out in the Mortmain Mountains)

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Thu Feb 16 15:29:12 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:29:12 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] human / chimp breeding
References: <BAY112-DAV18F0244DA41D9AEA1EBE30B7FB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <004c01c6330d$be2bc9d0$640fa8c0@kevin>

Contrary to popular belief, there is a lot that we don't know about speciation and the ability to reproduce. Many people tend to look at taxonomy to determine whether or not something is a different species while others think that this is determined by a creature's ability to reproduce viable offspring. We know that dogs and wolves can interbreed and we know that dogs and wolves share about 99% of the same genetic material.

We also know that humans share about 99% genetic material in common with chimpanzees. In fact, we are genetically closer to the chimpanzee than the chimpanzee is to the ape. Yet they are classified as a separate genus. Our separation was some 5-7 million years ago. So does time play a larger factor than genetic similarity? No one really knows.

Also, while studying human origins we have found that there were countless "species" of anthropoids that were running around the world. Until fairly recently it really was a Planet of the Apes. We are constantly finding new "species" that have existed at some point. WHen you look at museum exhibits you see a nice clean lineage from Australopithecus to us. But there really is a lot we don't know. For example, was H. neanderthalensis a hybrid? Were we a hybrid? There's a lot of debate about these things in paleoanthropological circles. Knowing that a 5 million year separation can still produce offspring would really tell researchers in this field a lot. 

Also, you have the possible benefits of growing replacement organs that are pretty much human in a species that would not be quite human. As long as the hybrid didn;t look too human, many would be willing to use them as live organ donors. (many wouldn;t even care if they did appear human) Of course, this is unethical, but it's your argument that ethics is not enough to keep science in check. Using your argument, body farms are another inevitability. 

Scientific experiments always stem from questions being asked. Certainly the question gets quite a bit about humans and chimps in that field. There are many debates about whether or not it would work. But as far as I know, the actual study has never been done. 

As for how to get it done, are you kidding? I am sure there are enough zoophiles out there to get this done.



  > I can think of lots of useful knowledge gained from breeding a human and a chimp and as far as I know it hasn't been tried. That's simply amazing if you ask me. 

   

  Why are you amazed that it hasn't been tried?  What useful knowledge could be gained? How would you go about breeding a human and a chimp.

   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/1f874c1f/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Feb 16 15:43:42 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:43:42 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216020114.02f2fb78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <200602161543.k1GFhfeL002443@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson
...
> 
> Incidentally, if you want some low cost glory, now is the time to get into
> the fight.  It looks very much like the scientology cult is on the ropes
> and won't last out the year.  Tom Cruise probably had more effect than I
> did.
> 
> Keith Henson
> (who is--none the less--still hiding out in the Mortmain Mountains)


Wooohooo!  Congrats Keith!  The glory is all yours pal.

{8-]

spike








From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 15:45:48 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:45:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <200602160711.k1G7Boqt027099@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <deaa866a0602140915k188f091es6d8ba216d84782bd@mail.gmail.com>
	<200602160711.k1G7Boqt027099@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602160745h2f7a2b32gc62e47f6040dc57f@mail.gmail.com>

Ok Spike, that helps.

The cable idea is interesting too.  What about tossing down a grappling hook
or some rocket propelled pitons that embed themselves in the surface of the
planet.  Attach them to some spider-silk (like?) cables that have lots of
stretch to them.  You could even gang them in sequence so just as the
spacecraft reaches is 200+g deceleration limit (or the cable snaps) a
second, third, etc. cable which is unstretched kicks in to continue the
deceleration process.

Now, with regard to the hydrodynamic impact regime, I don't care if I'm
above the heat limits of whatever hits the planet.  Its fine if a large
fraction of it vaporizes upon impact (thats what happens to most, if not all
heat shields that use atmospheric deceleration.  The mass being vaporized
has to be less than the mass of fuel one would need to decelerate (or does
it depend upon the Isp of the deceleration method?).

There are two different problems.  Problem 1.  Decelerate the probe to a
speed without subjecting the hardware to greater g forces than they can
withstand.  I think to a significant extent this may depend upon the
thickness of the design.  If the probe is very flat then you don't have the
problem of non-decelerated material crushing the material which is between
it and the surface.  Problem 2.  Shield the probe from the heat generated
during the vaporization of most of the impact/heat shield.  Now, if one has
a heat shield with very low heat conductivity it is going to take some time
for it to burn away upon impact.  This gives one time to launch the probe
away from the hot zone.  So the probe either has to be landing on springs or
has to launch itself back off of the surface to sufficient height to avoid
the "hot zone" until things cool down enough (or perform a second landing
someplace away from the impact crater).  In this case one only has to carry
enough propellent to get a slight liftoff (which on Pluto I suspect isn't
very much).  The timing of all of this is presumably critical.  But even if
you convert all of the shield material into a plasma you don't do that
instantaneously.

As I think I pointed out earlier -- even when meteorites hit the Earth there
is *still* something left with an unmodified crystal structure.  Now,
whether that is true about meteorites hitting the moon I am less certain.
But meteorites are rather stupid when it comes to avoiding long residence
times within a hot plasma.  Another point to reinforce this would be that
~40 tons of the ~92 ton Columbia were recovered.  Some of them were in
*quite* intact [1].  Outside of the box thinking is what is needed here.
What about explosive airbag deployment *after* most of the deceleration has
been done but before the heat conduction begins to fry the probe (in effect
bouncing you out of the crater)?

Robert

1.
http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/anniversary/columbiastory2201DEBRIS.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/8b0d2aff/attachment.html>

From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 16 15:46:09 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:46:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602160512v7831198ei91887fcc1fce131f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV2046305621AD804F71CE6BB7FB0@phx.gbl>

 

On 2/16/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

At 07:55 PM 2/15/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>BillK,
>
>This was an excellent article
>
><http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/zimbardo_philip_messeges.htm >
>What messages are behind today's cults?
>     Philip G. Zimbardo, Ph.D.
>
>One thing that amazes me is that one off the most destructive cults,
>Scientology, is left out of so many articles and is so hard to find 
>information about.  I learned recently why this is so.  Scientology has
such
>an enormous legal fund and high powered lawyers at their disposal that any
>negative reference within most of the western world is crushed under 
>litigation.  No server in America can hold criticism of scientology.

That's simply not true.  www.operatingthetan.com holds information about my
adventures with the UFO cult and it is in the US. 

short version here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson

and if you Google "sex drugs cults" (without the quotes) the first link
will take you to an evolutionary psychology article I wrote on how cults 
get such a hold on human brains.

Incidentally, if you want some low cost glory, now is the time to get into
the fight.  It looks very much like the scientology cult is on the ropes
and won't last out the year.  Tom Cruise probably had more effect than I
did. 

Keith Henson
(who is--none the less--still hiding out in the Mortmain Mountains)



Still, I tend to admire Elron.
While other cult leaders like Osho made puny millions, Elron made *billions*

Dirk

 

Cute Dirk, along the same lines you must admire Saddam for making *billions*
of his country

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/199934a2/attachment.html>

From extropy at unreasonable.com  Thu Feb 16 13:30:12 2006
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:30:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's home computer
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602160509m4e30fcc3k75d2499f3856752c@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <c0a791b40602151750h2fa65487n4dd30c93a9e70b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0602151853k7e4ec74bh@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.0.20060215210927.01c214f0@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e0602160049q5882cd9ek8fe3e26e52d671fd@mail.gmail.com>
	<c0a791b40602160509m4e30fcc3k75d2499f3856752c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060216081953.07ae2cd8@unreasonable.com>

Dirk wrote:

>Now you've gone and spoiled it!
>Anyway, IMO the giveaway was the dot matrix printer which while not 
>2004 was around . 1984, some 30yrs after  the alleged photo was taken.

For comparison, here's an actual photo of a computer my grandfather 
invented around that time, which uses an IBM typewriter. I posted the 
specs in the "Poxy Old Computers" thread of two years ago.


-- David.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: elecom_computer.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 164681 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/a8d96706/attachment.jpg>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 16:17:42 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:17:42 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults
In-Reply-To: <BAY112-DAV2046305621AD804F71CE6BB7FB0@phx.gbl>
References: <c0a791b40602160512v7831198ei91887fcc1fce131f@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY112-DAV2046305621AD804F71CE6BB7FB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602160817i3fd3a160j6f584118f4a5f8f0@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Peter K. Bertine, Jr <pkbertine at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/16/06, *Keith Henson* <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> At 07:55 PM 2/15/2006 -0500, you wrote:
> >BillK,
> >
> >This was an excellent article
> >
> ><http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/zimbardo_philip_messeges.htm >
> >What messages are behind today's cults?
> >     Philip G. Zimbardo, Ph.D.
> >
> >One thing that amazes me is that one off the most destructive cults,
> >Scientology, is left out of so many articles and is so hard to find
> >information about.  I learned recently why this is so.  Scientology has
> such
> >an enormous legal fund and high powered lawyers at their disposal that
> any
> >negative reference within most of the western world is crushed under
> >litigation.  No server in America can hold criticism of scientology.
>
> That's simply not true.  www.operatingthetan.com holds information about
> my
> adventures with the UFO cult and it is in the US.
>
> short version here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson
>
> and if you Google "sex drugs cults" (without the quotes) the first link
> will take you to an evolutionary psychology article I wrote on how cults
> get such a hold on human brains.
>
> Incidentally, if you want some low cost glory, now is the time to get into
> the fight.  It looks very much like the scientology cult is on the ropes
> and won't last out the year.  Tom Cruise probably had more effect than I
> did.
>
> Keith Henson
> (who is--none the less--still hiding out in the Mortmain Mountains)
>
>
> Still, I tend to admire Elron.
> While other cult leaders like Osho made puny millions, Elron made
> *billions*
>
> Dirk
>
>
>
> Cute Dirk, along the same lines you must admire Saddam for making **
> billions** of his country
>

The difference being that pretty much all Elron's victims signed up for it.
And as for admiration, I do rather like Osho as well.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/82282fc8/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 16:23:11 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:23:11 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Operation Clam Bake
In-Reply-To: <BAY112-DAV1CE3C6234D7B555B43A8EB7FB0@phx.gbl>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216020114.02f2fb78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<BAY112-DAV1CE3C6234D7B555B43A8EB7FB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602160823m72fc8542x615dea8d345a4b@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Peter K. Bertine, Jr <pkbertine at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Incidentally, if you want some low cost glory, now is the time to get into
> the fight.  It looks very much like the scientology cult is on the ropes
> and won't last out the year.  Tom Cruise probably had more effect than I
> did.
>
> Keith Henson
> (who is--none the less--still hiding out in the Mortmain Mountains)


Cults seldom long outlast the death of their charismatic leader.
If they do they become 'respectable' Pillars of the Establishment.
In recent times the Mormons made it, along with various minor Xian sects.
The longterm survival of the Unification Church and Scientology have yet to
be determined.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/6d6d0689/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Feb 16 15:49:47 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:49:47 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Four-Year Mortality Index for Older Adults
In-Reply-To: <p06230901c01a09f787e8@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <200602161627.k1GGQdSa020975@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> Subject: [extropy-chat] Four-Year Mortality Index for Older Adults
> 
> Hal Finney:
> >It's interesting that
> >hey left the income question off, that would be easy to answer and it
> >sounds like it should be worth 2 or maybe even 3 points to make less
> >than $20K or $10K.  I guess it was just too controversial...


Hal the stats as given sound right, even if misleading.  If one
is underweight, it might be because one is sick, homeless, addicted,
or anorexic.  In those cases, one's chance of death is high.  The
numbers do not account for those very few who keep their weight
low intentionally for life extension purposes.  The number of
people who do that is probably negligible compared to the
other categories previously mentioned.

If one in middle age has very low income, it suggests one
is already wealthy, which would make one's risk of death
go down.

spike








From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Feb 16 15:52:56 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:52:56 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] pare replies
In-Reply-To: <p06230901c01a09f787e8@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <200602161627.k1GGQdSb020975@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



When replying to a post, please delete most of
the text of the original post, leaving only that
which is necessary to remind us to what you are
replying.  It is tiresome to see a huge quoted
section with a one sentence reply.

spike









From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 17:04:43 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:04:43 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's home computer
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060216081953.07ae2cd8@unreasonable.com>
References: <c0a791b40602151750h2fa65487n4dd30c93a9e70b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0602151853k7e4ec74bh@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.0.20060215210927.01c214f0@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e0602160049q5882cd9ek8fe3e26e52d671fd@mail.gmail.com>
	<c0a791b40602160509m4e30fcc3k75d2499f3856752c@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20060216081953.07ae2cd8@unreasonable.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602160904v22558b38lbc73403c1db1f23b@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:
>
> Dirk wrote:
>
> >Now you've gone and spoiled it!
> >Anyway, IMO the giveaway was the dot matrix printer which while not
> >2004 was around . 1984, some 30yrs after  the alleged photo was taken.
>
> For comparison, here's an actual photo of a computer my grandfather
> invented around that time, which uses an IBM typewriter. I posted the
> specs in the "Poxy Old Computers" thread of two years ago.


That's actually pretty neat - a bit like the old Cray 1.
Did he think at the time that 50yrs later his grandson would have more
computing power in his wristwatch than in that computer?

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/3c1033e9/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Thu Feb 16 17:32:43 2006
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:32:43 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat]  Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
Message-ID: <p06230903c01a655f267d@[150.146.134.133]>


Robert Bradbury:
>But meteorites are rather stupid when it comes to avoiding long
>residence times within a hot plasma.

?? A strange statement, can you explain what does this mean?

(unless it is a joke on the fact that 99% of the universe is a plasma,
including our solar system)

BTW, it _is_ odd how dense and compact are meteorites when compared
to how porous are their parent bodies, isn't it? (should be a few
PhD theses in answering that question)


Amara
-- 

Amara Graps, PhD            www.amara.com
Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI)
Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF),
Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR,
Roma, ITALIA    Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it


From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 16 17:35:39 2006
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:35:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] [don't] pare replies
In-Reply-To: <200602161627.k1GGQdSb020975@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <BAY103-F5E8E708FAA8FA1B5C31B7B4FB0@phx.gbl>

I disagree. I don't mind seeing the entire thread in an email. I can filter 
out the pieces I don't care about pretty quickly. If the entire thread is 
contained in the email, then new readers can pick up the context without 
going out and searching the archives. I don't read every single message so I 
frequently read every 10th as a sort of digest version of the list.

I think that not including the entire quote is valid in a medium like a 
bulletin board, but for listservs it's acceptable to have the entire 
previous post included in your quote.

BAL

>From: "spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
>To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: [extropy-chat] pare replies
>Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:52:56 -0800
>
>When replying to a post, please delete most of
>the text of the original post, leaving only that
>which is necessary to remind us to what you are
>replying.  It is tiresome to see a huge quoted
>section with a one sentence reply.
>
>spike




From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Feb 16 17:44:53 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:44:53 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602160512v7831198ei91887fcc1fce131f@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216020114.02f2fb78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<ee50357e0602141446y5286e1b1va07ce65d85df4144@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY112-DAV189F025618C86785E5B859B7FB0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060216020114.02f2fb78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216122842.02f2ff80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 01:12 PM 2/16/2006 +0000, Dirk wrote:

>Still, I tend to admire Elron.
>While other cult leaders like Osho made puny millions, Elron made *billions*

Best guess is he personally dragged out a few hundred million.  Most of 
that was in cash.  A few years ago they were using sacks of cash to pay 
overdue utility bills for their desert base near Hemet, CA.  They were 
paying as much as $50k at a time in this little grocery store.

Elron died with his butt shot full of tranquilizer.  He was living in a 
motor home like poor white trash and on the turn from process servers. The 
money was stolen by his successor--who does know how to spend it.

http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=593&postorder=asc&start=60

"Why do they need a Hummer? Why does anyone need a Hummer?
Why does DM need a Mazda Maita, Mazda RX8, Acura RL, a $100,000 pimped out 
bullet proof GMC van, a Range Rover, a brand spanking new BMW M-Series, a 
big ol'
motorcycle that cost around $20,000 and took Gold crew 3 months
to custom make for him? Why do you ask such silly questions?"

Most of it is gone now.  Chicken feed of $1.5 to 5 million was spent 
harassing me.

Keith Henson




From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Feb 16 18:09:44 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:09:44 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults
In-Reply-To: <200602161543.k1GFhfeL002443@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216020114.02f2fb78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216130703.02ff3e60@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 07:43 AM 2/16/2006 -0800, you wrote:

> > Incidentally, if you want some low cost glory, now is the time to get into
> > the fight.  It looks very much like the scientology cult is on the ropes
> > and won't last out the year.  Tom Cruise probably had more effect than I
> > did.
> >
> > Keith Henson
> > (who is--none the less--still hiding out in the Mortmain Mountains)
>
>
>Wooohooo!  Congrats Keith!  The glory is all yours pal.

We are not starting the victory dance yet, but it is looking better and better.

But re glory, there is *way* too much here and it really needs being spread 
out even beyond the large number who have been engaged for years.  That 
much glory heaped on one person would bury them.

Keith



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 18:34:00 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:34:00 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602160523t6dff9d00n87d03662f67a8f9e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c0a791b40602151518u4bd56f9aje93b15109ea5bd05@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY115-F28042B947CF33990F6AD4AD0FB0@phx.gbl>
	<c0a791b40602160523t6dff9d00n87d03662f67a8f9e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602161034r4f0f8087v773900ab25319fa0@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/th/print/293/
>

A fun story, but citing it as evidence that a superintelligence is going to
destroy the world is like citing H.G. Wells as evidence of intelligent life
on Mars.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/0e4993f4/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Feb 16 18:48:49 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:48:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602160817i3fd3a160j6f584118f4a5f8f0@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <BAY112-DAV2046305621AD804F71CE6BB7FB0@phx.gbl>
	<c0a791b40602160512v7831198ei91887fcc1fce131f@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY112-DAV2046305621AD804F71CE6BB7FB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216131151.02fc41b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 04:17 PM 2/16/2006 +0000, Dirk wrote:

snip

>The difference being that pretty much all Elron's victims signed up for it.

That becomes a *very* tricky question as we understand more about the human 
mind/brain.

Were you ever given a flower in an airport by one of the Moonie cult members?

They were playing on a human psychological trait of reciprocation that is 
almost hardwired into us.

Scientology and other cults mostly use "attention-reward," love-bombing and 
scientology's "training routines."  Rewarding drugs hit the same brain areas.

There is also the fraud aspects.  Scientology promises virtually 
everything, power over matter, energy, space and time--verbally.  The 
papers you sign after high pressure sales pitches take it all away and then 
some.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~jeta/scn/scans/Introspection-Release.html

Scientology is a vicious organization run by a vicious little prick.  None 
the less, I can't really hate him any more than I can hate someone for 
being infected with HIV.

Worse than HIV, most people with HIV understand it's bad.  People in cults 
are blind to their situation.  The mechanisms were discussed recently here 
in the fMRI work of Drew Westen.

Cults, scientology only being an example, are the memetic equivalent of 
segregation distorters genes which can drive mouse populations to local 
extinction.  In fact, the Shaker cult did that to its group of humans.

People on this list really should have a better model of what humans 
are.  Depressing, but it's important at least till you are a few light 
years out.

Keith Henson



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 18:53:31 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:53:31 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216131151.02fc41b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <c0a791b40602160512v7831198ei91887fcc1fce131f@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY112-DAV2046305621AD804F71CE6BB7FB0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060216131151.02fc41b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602161053p16d2d92co48ce0689c9668b17@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> At 04:17 PM 2/16/2006 +0000, Dirk wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >The difference being that pretty much all Elron's victims signed up for
> it.
>
> That becomes a *very* tricky question as we understand more about the
> human
> mind/brain.
>
> Were you ever given a flower in an airport by one of the Moonie cult
> members?


No, but I have visited their HQ in London

They were playing on a human psychological trait of reciprocation that is
> almost hardwired into us.


I know - just like those charities that send pens, cards etc in expectation
of reciprocity.
I make a point of throwing them away - not using them at all.

Scientology and other cults mostly use "attention-reward," love-bombing and
> scientology's "training routines."  Rewarding drugs hit the same brain
> areas.


So does every successful meme I would guess.

There is also the fraud aspects.  Scientology promises virtually
> everything, power over matter, energy, space and time--verbally.  The
> papers you sign after high pressure sales pitches take it all away and
> then
> some.
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~jeta/scn/scans/Introspection-Release.html
>
> Scientology is a vicious organization run by a vicious little prick.  None
> the less, I can't really hate him any more than I can hate someone for
> being infected with HIV.
>
> Worse than HIV, most people with HIV understand it's bad.  People in cults
> are blind to their situation.  The mechanisms were discussed recently here
> in the fMRI work of Drew Westen.


So they have to be saved from themselves?
I don't like where that goes...

Cults, scientology only being an example, are the memetic equivalent of
> segregation distorters genes which can drive mouse populations to local
> extinction.  In fact, the Shaker cult did that to its group of humans.


And something similar is happening to the  indigenous European population.
So?

People on this list really should have a better model of what humans
> are.  Depressing, but it's important at least till you are a few light
> years out.


I am pursuaded, but you are brainwashed etc
The fact that two people can come to conflicting conclusions given the same
data means that there is likely no objective position.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/d852e1b5/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 18:55:14 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:55:14 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602161034r4f0f8087v773900ab25319fa0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c0a791b40602151518u4bd56f9aje93b15109ea5bd05@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY115-F28042B947CF33990F6AD4AD0FB0@phx.gbl>
	<c0a791b40602160523t6dff9d00n87d03662f67a8f9e@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0602161034r4f0f8087v773900ab25319fa0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602161055k77192f4bx75b5421e5a5e9768@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/16/06, Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/th/print/293/
> >
>
> A fun story, but citing it as evidence that a superintelligence is going
> to destroy the world is like citing H.G. Wells as evidence of intelligent
> life on Mars.


Of course I'm not citing it as evidence, but I am citing it as an
illustration of a strong possible outcome.
Given, of course, that AI is ever developed, which itself is an article of
faith.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/6b099d04/attachment.html>

From estropico at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 19:03:11 2006
From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:03:11 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExtroBritannia's February event: Anders Sandberg on
	memory enhancement
Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90602161103p4f3da551vb1a3378d642a8bc6@mail.gmail.com>

ExtroBritannia's February event:

Anders Sandberg on "Memory enhancement: what, how and why."

"Memory is one of the most accessible neuropsychological functions:
today we have a fairly detailed knowledge of how it works from the
biochemical level to the behavioral level. Beside traditional
mnemonics and external tools it is becoming increasingly possible to
improve or modify memory through drugs and genetic modifications. I
will give an overview of state of the art in memory technology, as
well as discuss the current ethical and political issues surrounding
these possibilities."

Saturday the 25th of February 2006 starting at 2pm at Conway Hall in
Holborn, London.

We will be at the Penderel's Oak from 12.30 for lunch, and at Conway
Hall (Artists' Room) at 2pm (see below for the addresses). We usually
move back to the pub for drinks and conversation after the event (at
some point between 4 and 5pm). If you are planning to show up at the
pub and it is your first time at an ExtroBritannia event, look out for
a copy of Kurzweil's "The Age of Spiritual Machines" at our table
(picture: http://tinyurl.com/9khnx )

The event is free and everyone is welcome.

CONWAY HALL
25 Red Lion Square,
London WC1R 4RL
tel 020 7242 8032
www.conwayhall.org.uk
Nearest tube: Holborn
Map: http://tinyurl.com/8syus

Penderel's Oak
283-288 High Holborn
London WC1V 7HJ
Tel: 0207 242 5669
Nearest tube: Holborn
MAP: http://tinyurl.com/29swq

---

The ExtroBritannia mailing list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extrobritannia

The ExtroBritannia Blog:
http://www.extrobritannia.blogspot.com

ExtroBritannia is part of the UK Transhumanist Association:
http://www.transhumanist.org.uk



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Feb 16 19:32:07 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:32:07 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] faith triumphs over science again
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060216133041.01cbc780@satx.rr.com>

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-mormon16feb16,0,2089499,full.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

<Some longtime observers believe that ultimately, the vast majority 
of Mormons will disregard the genetic research as an unworthy 
distraction from their faith.

"This may look like the crushing blow to Mormonism from the outside," 
said Jan Shipps, a professor emeritus of religious studies at Indiana 
University-Purdue University Indianapolis, who has studied the church 
for 40 years. "But religion ultimately does not rest on scientific 
evidence, but on mystical experiences. There are different ways of 
looking at truth.">

Now there's a surprise.

Damien Broderick



From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 19:32:50 2006
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:32:50 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602161053p16d2d92co48ce0689c9668b17@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c0a791b40602160512v7831198ei91887fcc1fce131f@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY112-DAV2046305621AD804F71CE6BB7FB0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060216131151.02fc41b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<c0a791b40602161053p16d2d92co48ce0689c9668b17@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0602161132g5f243040rccbe13bd71f930c0@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>  I am pursuaded, but you are brainwashed etc
>  The fact that two people can come to conflicting conclusions given the same
> data means that there is likely no objective position.
>

That is a very silly, smart-alec statement unworthy of you, Dirk.

Either,

1) You have very little knowledge of the way cult persuaders work and
the techniques they use. (Which I find hard to believe), or,

2) You are intent on defending the cult persuaders techniques by
equating them with a group of people having a discussion.
(Which is a ridiculous comparison. Naive people meeting these cult
persuaders for the first time are like children in the lions den).

3) Or maybe it was just a cynical remark that appealed to you at the time.

BillK



From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 19:34:30 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:34:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <p06230903c01a655f267d@150.146.134.133>
References: <p06230903c01a655f267d@150.146.134.133>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602161134v25a3759vf819770bfa6981d7@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
>
>
> Robert Bradbury:
> >But meteorites are rather stupid when it comes to avoiding long
> >residence times within a hot plasma.
>
> ?? A strange statement, can you explain what does this mean?


I  was intending it to mean the hot plasma which may be generated by the
impact itself.  For example there isn't a large meteor body at the bottom of
Meteor Crater [1].  Presumably this is because much of it was vaporized upon
impact.

(unless it is a joke on the fact that 99% of the universe is a plasma,
> including our solar system)


It took me a while to understand this (particularly when they called it "hot
plasma").  If I understand it correctly now this is because astronomers are
relating temperature to the ionization state of the atoms/molecules
(yes???).  However I question the number of 99% as I'm not under the
impression that most material at stellar cores is in a plasma state (though
I'm willing to be corrected).

Of course one thing that has always bothered me about "hot" interstellar
ions/molecules is *where* the hell are all of the electrons?

BTW, it _is_ odd how dense and compact are meteorites when compared
> to how porous are their parent bodies, isn't it? (should be a few
> PhD theses in answering that question)


I thought I saw a paper recently that attributed at least the iron
meteorites to having a limited set of sources (planetesimals) which were
large enough to have undergone gravitational compression.

Robert


1. http://sped2work.tripod.com/meteroite.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/d4c7064b/attachment.html>

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 19:39:52 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:39:52 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] human / chimp breeding
In-Reply-To: <004c01c6330d$be2bc9d0$640fa8c0@kevin>
References: <BAY112-DAV18F0244DA41D9AEA1EBE30B7FB0@phx.gbl>
	<004c01c6330d$be2bc9d0$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602161139t7787a9e6k785b4451cf26755e@mail.gmail.com>

(on human-chimp hybrids)

On 2/16/06, kevinfreels.com <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:

> Scientific experiments always stem from questions being asked. Certainly
> the question gets quite a bit about humans and chimps in that field. There
> are many debates about whether or not it would work. But as far as I know,
> the actual study has never been done.
>

I read somewhere that it has. I don't remember who by, it was some crowd who
were, shall we say, not overly burdened with moral principles; maybe the
Nazis. But IIRC the embryo was fortunately not viable, aborted after a
couple of months or somesuch.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/e68e0499/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 19:45:30 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:45:30 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602161132g5f243040rccbe13bd71f930c0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c0a791b40602160512v7831198ei91887fcc1fce131f@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY112-DAV2046305621AD804F71CE6BB7FB0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060216131151.02fc41b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<c0a791b40602161053p16d2d92co48ce0689c9668b17@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0602161132g5f243040rccbe13bd71f930c0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602161145i1e1cbbaaxe2f5358b88e1d9a2@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Dirk Bruere wrote:
> >
> >  I am pursuaded, but you are brainwashed etc
> >  The fact that two people can come to conflicting conclusions given the
> same
> > data means that there is likely no objective position.
> >
>
> That is a very silly, smart-alec statement unworthy of you, Dirk.
>
> Either,
>
> 1) You have very little knowledge of the way cult persuaders work and
> the techniques they use. (Which I find hard to believe), or,
>
> 2) You are intent on defending the cult persuaders techniques by
> equating them with a group of people having a discussion.
> (Which is a ridiculous comparison. Naive people meeting these cult
> persuaders for the first time are like children in the lions den).
>
> 3) Or maybe it was just a cynical remark that appealed to you at the time.

4) Caveat Emptor - I do not like the idea that people should be 'saved
from themselves' when they do something you don't like. What
consenting adults do amongst themselves is not my business, nor is it
yours IMO.

Dirk



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 16 19:46:30 2006
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:46:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216131151.02fc41b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <20060216194630.62241.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> There is also the fraud aspects.  Scientology
> promises virtually 
> everything, power over matter, energy, space and
> time--verbally.  The 
> papers you sign after high pressure sales pitches
> take it all away and then 
> some.
> 
>
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jeta/scn/scans/Introspection-Release.html

Amazing. That is the closest thing to a real life
legally binding contract for somebody's soul that I
have ever seen. Beelzebub would be proud. 

> Scientology is a vicious organization run by a
> vicious little prick.  None 
> the less, I can't really hate him any more than I
> can hate someone for 
> being infected with HIV.

Perhaps, but I am unaware of anyone infected by HIV
that has managed to use their disease to such
effective advantage.


> 
> Worse than HIV, most people with HIV understand it's
> bad.  People in cults 
> are blind to their situation.  The mechanisms were
> discussed recently here 
> in the fMRI work of Drew Westen.

I wonder if you have ever heard of "bugchasers"? They
are an underground sub-culture of gay men who actively
solicit sex with HIV infected partners to purposefully
get infected. As far as their motivation goes, I don't
pretend to understand it but I suppose they
romanticize having the disease and want to fit in with
their friends who have it.

http://uk.gay.com/article/2155

> People on this list really should have a better
> model of what humans 
> are.  Depressing, but it's important at least till
> you are a few light 
> years out.

It's tough to model the modeller. That is what the
human mind evolved for, after all, to model things.



Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Thereupon, the Soul of Mother Earth bewailed, Should I accept the support of a feeble man and listen to his words? In fact I desired the aid of a strong and mighty king. When shall such a person arise and bring strong-handed succor to me?" -Yasna 29, verse 9 

"Now I am light, now I am flying, now I see myself beneath myself, now a God dances through me." - St. Nietzsche

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 16 21:08:41 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:08:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientology and Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602161145i1e1cbbaaxe2f5358b88e1d9a2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV126315088423B0A3B0027FB7FB0@phx.gbl>



On 2/16/06, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Dirk Bruere wrote:
> >
> >  I am pursuaded, but you are brainwashed etc
> >  The fact that two people can come to conflicting conclusions given the
> same
> > data means that there is likely no objective position.
> >
>
> That is a very silly, smart-alec statement unworthy of you, Dirk.
>
> Either,
>
> 1) You have very little knowledge of the way cult persuaders work and
> the techniques they use. (Which I find hard to believe), or,
>
> 2) You are intent on defending the cult persuaders techniques by
> equating them with a group of people having a discussion.
> (Which is a ridiculous comparison. Naive people meeting these cult
> persuaders for the first time are like children in the lions den).
>
> 3) Or maybe it was just a cynical remark that appealed to you at the time.

>4) Caveat Emptor - I do not like the idea that people should be 'saved
>from themselves' when they do something you don't like. What
>consenting adults do amongst themselves is not my business, nor is it
>yours IMO.

>Dirk

Hang on, I just googled you.  www.theconsensus.com Now I see why you like
Hubbard !

Your 8 pointed star looks a lot like the church of scientology's "cross"


http://www.theconsensus.org/uk/copyrights/index.html


For the CoS symbol look half way down wikipedia's site

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





Dirk - These aren't people being sold a lousy stereo or used car with the
odo turned back.  In many cases children are abused in a cult and adults who
become aware that they are in a cult are not allowed to leave, are
terrorized, even killed.

You said," What consenting adults do amongst themselves is not my business,
nor is it yours IMO."  That is a poorly reasoned sentence.  You allow that
all people have a right to do as they chose, then you insist that others
must agree with you.

We are not talking about saving an individual from themself.  We are talking
about a group of people who have spun a fairytale out of an egomaniacs drug
induced fantasy world.  We are talking about L Ron Hubbard who fed his son
phenobarb laced chewing gum. A man who injected his son with speed and wrote
a book about how his son thought he had become a clam. A book that later
became Scientology gospel  


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 16 20:14:40 2006
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:14:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602161132g5f243040rccbe13bd71f930c0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060216201440.10642.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>



--- BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> That is a very silly, smart-alec statement unworthy
> of you, Dirk.
> 
> Either,
> 
> 1) You have very little knowledge of the way cult
> persuaders work and
> the techniques they use. (Which I find hard to
> believe), or,
> 
> 2) You are intent on defending the cult persuaders
> techniques by
> equating them with a group of people having a
> discussion.
> (Which is a ridiculous comparison. Naive people
> meeting these cult
> persuaders for the first time are like children in
> the lions den).
> 
> 3) Or maybe it was just a cynical remark that
> appealed to you at the time.

Actually there is a another possibility:

4) Dirk realizes that cult persuasion techniques are
the same ones that get people to join ANY organization
from the military to the PTA. The techniques
themselves are employed separately for such things as
fraternity initiations, soliciting charitable
donations, and prospective sales. So apparently the
difference between cult persuasion and girl scout
recruitment is simply the nature of the organization
one is being persuaded to join. Therefore if you are
favorably disposed toward the military, you could
truthfully say that U.S. Marine Corp bootcamp is
"persuading" its recruits to be good soldiers, but if
you don't, you could make a very strong case that it
is instead "brainwashing" them.

    

Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Thereupon, the Soul of Mother Earth bewailed, Should I accept the support of a feeble man and listen to his words? In fact I desired the aid of a strong and mighty king. When shall such a person arise and bring strong-handed succor to me?" -Yasna 29, verse 9 

"Now I am light, now I am flying, now I see myself beneath myself, now a God dances through me." - St. Nietzsche

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 16 20:29:43 2006
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:29:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's home computer
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602151750h2fa65487n4dd30c93a9e70b9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060216202943.22347.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just for a laugh
>
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7144/1545/1600/home-computer2004.gif

They obviously meant home computer as a computer one
could live in. It is after all the size of some
apartments these days.


Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Thereupon, the Soul of Mother Earth bewailed, Should I accept the support of a feeble man and listen to his words? In fact I desired the aid of a strong and mighty king. When shall such a person arise and bring strong-handed succor to me?" -Yasna 29, verse 9 

"Now I am light, now I am flying, now I see myself beneath myself, now a God dances through me." - St. Nietzsche

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From amara at amara.com  Thu Feb 16 22:06:09 2006
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:06:09 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat]  Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
Message-ID: <p06230901c01aa1c16266@[150.146.134.133]>

Robert Bradbury
>It took me a while to understand this (particularly when they called
>it "hot plasma").  If I understand it correctly now this is because
>astronomers are relating temperature to the ionization state of the
>atoms/molecules (yes???).

Physicists too. Well, they might have been there first. Almost every
astrophysicist realizes at some point in their life, that if they
didn't take that plasma physics course while in university, they were
going to pay for it at some point later on. I think every astronomer
is also a plasma physicist at heart.

My plasma physics books are at work, but here is a beginning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics) 

>  However I question the number of 99% as I'm
>not under the impression that most material at stellar cores is in a
>plasma state (though I'm willing to be corrected).

A star's center is one of the best examples of a hot plasma: very
dense and very hot. It is at the top right of the
temperature/number-density chart: http://www.amara.com/E-4thstate.jpg

(I could only find this pretty chart, but I've seen others in the past
that are more detailed)

Us liquid/solid humans on our little cool (but still very dense) rock,
are a rare non-plasma phenomena in the universe.

>Of course one thing that has always bothered me about "hot"
>interstellar ions/molecules is *where* the hell are all of the
>electrons?

They are there. They _must_ be there (almost by definition) because
plasmas are (statistically) neutral. For evidence: we can look at
lightning and at our auroras (or our neon lights). In space, there
are different plasma probes flying on spacecraft in our solar
system measuring all of  the components of the plasma. One of the
most successful line of plasma instruments came out of the
group founded by James Van Allen:

http://www-pw.physics.uiowa.edu/

(don't forget to check out their fantastic space sounds page:
http://www-pw.physics.uiowa.edu/space-audio/)

Dust particles are a  kind plasma probe too because they
collect ions and electrons on their  surfaces which cause
the dust to charge up. The trajectories of the smallest
dust follow exactly as predicted for a charged particle
influenced/dominated by Lorentz forces

http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/dustgroup/~graps/earth/charging.html

>I thought I saw a paper recently that attributed at least the iron
>meteorites to having a limited set of sources (planetesimals) which
>were large enough to have undergone gravitational compression.

A limited set of planetesimals being the source of all/most of
the meteorites collected on Earth?  Given the 5 billion year
collisional history of our solar system, this sounds fishy to me.

Amara



From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 16 22:25:38 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:25:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs/and Asatru too
In-Reply-To: <20060216201440.10642.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV101680E0037865E6E1872EB7FB0@phx.gbl>



--- BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> That is a very silly, smart-alec statement unworthy
> of you, Dirk.
> 
> Either,
> 
> 1) You have very little knowledge of the way cult
> persuaders work and
> the techniques they use. (Which I find hard to
> believe), or,
> 
> 2) You are intent on defending the cult persuaders
> techniques by
> equating them with a group of people having a
> discussion.
> (Which is a ridiculous comparison. Naive people
> meeting these cult
> persuaders for the first time are like children in
> the lions den).
> 
> 3) Or maybe it was just a cynical remark that
> appealed to you at the time.

>Actually there is a another possibility:

>4) Dirk realizes that cult persuasion techniques are
>the same ones that get people to join ANY organization
>from the military to the PTA. The techniques
>themselves are employed separately for such things as
>fraternity initiations, soliciting charitable
>donations, and prospective sales. So apparently the
>difference between cult persuasion and girl scout
>recruitment is simply the nature of the organization
>one is being persuaded to join. Therefore if you are
>favorably disposed toward the military, you could
>truthfully say that U.S. Marine Corp bootcamp is
>"persuading" its recruits to be good soldiers, but if
>you don't, you could make a very strong case that it
>is instead "brainwashing" them.


And another possibility:

5) Perhaps Dirk is in a cult and or a Cult leader himself. Or perhaps not.
But he is an Asatru. http://www.neopax.com/

The question is what do the Asatru do?

Well, they practice something called "Experimental Heathenism." See
http://www.neopax.com/nineworlds/index.htm and Dirk wrote:
http://www.neopax.com/asatru/pk/index.html 

My question to Dirk would be, "Given that you admire L. Ron Hubbard, do you
think he was on to something?  Do you believe that he HAD acquired knowledge
of the "Gods" that you speak about in your literature. See
http://www.neopax.com/asatru/gods/index.html 





 He writes," There is no overall committee and nobody has the power to set
up any rules either for or against any activity, person, group, belief, view
etc. There is no 'official' Nine Worlds publication, website, contact list,
meetings etc. And what I (Dirk Bruere) write here is merely a matter of what
interests me and a few others who attend meetings called 'Nine Worlds'.
Other people may have other views, and are welcome to them.

If you want to set up meetings, publish 'The Official Nine Worlds Magazine'
etc nobody is going to stop you. You will find, however, that you cannot
claim exclusive copyright to the title 'Nine Worlds' as used in the context
of the bulleted points above, nor stop anyone else doing the same. That's
all folks!

It should be noted that the public meetings are mainly concerned about what
the people who turn up want to do outside of that venue. The 'real stuff'
will not be advertised (at least by me).

Also, individual projects may be run under different rules at the discretion
of those engaged in them.

Projects - volunteers needed

There are currently two projects that interest me. 
Anyone who has any to add to the list are welcome to do so.

The Ghost Project:
This stems from the essay here. 
We are looking for women or couples in order to create/maintain a gender
balance within the group(s).
Be warned, however, that this will likely require substantial commitment.
Ideally weekly meetings will probably be necessary over a period of months.
Currently based in London.

The type of people we are looking for are those who have flexible belief
systems and are not wed to one particular worldview. Additionally, anyone
with a history of mental illness, drug addiction problems or epilepsy should
not apply. On the plus side we are looking for knowledge of parapsychology,
sciences, magickal practices, hypnotism and NLP, or familiarity with
psychoactive drugs. However, mainly we are looking for stable, reliable and
committed people.

If you wish to take part contact dirk.bruere at gmail.com
I will then arrange an interview and we'll take it from there.
Note that ongoing results will not be published, so if you want to know
what's happening - be there.



    


From benboc at lineone.net  Thu Feb 16 22:09:13 2006
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:09:13 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 29, Issue 23
In-Reply-To: <mailman.471.1140105429.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.471.1140105429.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <43F4F809.7040708@lineone.net>

Operation Clam Bake

Peter K.  Bertine, Jr foolishly admitted:

 >  I am willing to do anything

 >:>

ben <rubbing his hands together and grinning evilly>




From benboc at lineone.net  Thu Feb 16 22:01:26 2006
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:01:26 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <mailman.459.1140076201.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.459.1140076201.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <43F4F636.2050004@lineone.net>

I did say 'incomprehensible'. That means we *don't know* what it's
motivations, it's ideas about what's worthwhile or not, or it's sense of
humour might be. Discussing how the economics of strip-mining a planet
might influence the actions of a powerful AI, makes as much sense as a
beaver being critical of the Sydney Opera House.

Mikhail John wrote:
> I'm assuming that it would be difficult to maintain a distributed 
> intellect while boiling oceans and ripping continents apart

Why on earth would you assume that?

Even i can think of ways to do that, and i'm a very long way from the
kind of intellectual ability that we are assuming an AI would have. But
even if i couldn't, that makes no difference.

My whole point is that we cannot predict the abilities or motivations of
a hugely powerful AI. We'd be wasting our time (we are wasting our time,
sadly) trying.

> Now that I've thought about it, the chance that an AI will leave and 
> ignore us completely ...

You, me, all of us, have absolutely no clue what an AI would be
able/want to do. Not only is it pointless to fool ourselves into
thinking we have got a clue, it's probably dangerous.

ben


From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Thu Feb 16 22:04:57 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:04:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientology and Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <BAY112-DAV126315088423B0A3B0027FB7FB0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY112-DAV126315088423B0A3B0027FB7FB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <43F4F709.9050604@goldenfuture.net>

I think you mean http://www.theconsensus.org

Joseph

Pete Bertine wrote:

>On 2/16/06, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>On 2/16/06, Dirk Bruere wrote:
>>    
>>
>>> I am pursuaded, but you are brainwashed etc
>>> The fact that two people can come to conflicting conclusions given the
>>>      
>>>
>>same
>>    
>>
>>>data means that there is likely no objective position.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>That is a very silly, smart-alec statement unworthy of you, Dirk.
>>
>>Either,
>>
>>1) You have very little knowledge of the way cult persuaders work and
>>the techniques they use. (Which I find hard to believe), or,
>>
>>2) You are intent on defending the cult persuaders techniques by
>>equating them with a group of people having a discussion.
>>(Which is a ridiculous comparison. Naive people meeting these cult
>>persuaders for the first time are like children in the lions den).
>>
>>3) Or maybe it was just a cynical remark that appealed to you at the time.
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>4) Caveat Emptor - I do not like the idea that people should be 'saved
>>    
>>
>>from themselves' when they do something you don't like. What
>  
>
>>consenting adults do amongst themselves is not my business, nor is it
>>yours IMO.
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>Dirk
>>    
>>
>
>Hang on, I just googled you.  www.theconsensus.com Now I see why you like
>Hubbard !
>
>Your 8 pointed star looks a lot like the church of scientology's "cross"
>
>
>http://www.theconsensus.org/uk/copyrights/index.html
>
>
>For the CoS symbol look half way down wikipedia's site
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
>
>
>
>
>
>Dirk - These aren't people being sold a lousy stereo or used car with the
>odo turned back.  In many cases children are abused in a cult and adults who
>become aware that they are in a cult are not allowed to leave, are
>terrorized, even killed.
>
>You said," What consenting adults do amongst themselves is not my business,
>nor is it yours IMO."  That is a poorly reasoned sentence.  You allow that
>all people have a right to do as they chose, then you insist that others
>must agree with you.
>
>We are not talking about saving an individual from themself.  We are talking
>about a group of people who have spun a fairytale out of an egomaniacs drug
>induced fantasy world.  We are talking about L Ron Hubbard who fed his son
>phenobarb laced chewing gum. A man who injected his son with speed and wrote
>a book about how his son thought he had become a clam. A book that later
>became Scientology gospel  
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 23:05:54 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:05:54 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs/and Asatru too
In-Reply-To: <BAY112-DAV101680E0037865E6E1872EB7FB0@phx.gbl>
References: <20060216201440.10642.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
	<BAY112-DAV101680E0037865E6E1872EB7FB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602161505o3d2ef3d3h981727bb14d71fd7@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Pete Bertine <pkbertine at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >4) Dirk realizes that cult persuasion techniques are
> >the same ones that get people to join ANY organization
> >from the military to the PTA. The techniques
> >themselves are employed separately for such things as
> >fraternity initiations, soliciting charitable
> >donations, and prospective sales. So apparently the
> >difference between cult persuasion and girl scout
> >recruitment is simply the nature of the organization
> >one is being persuaded to join. Therefore if you are
> >favorably disposed toward the military, you could
> >truthfully say that U.S. Marine Corp bootcamp is
> >"persuading" its recruits to be good soldiers, but if
> >you don't, you could make a very strong case that it
> >is instead "brainwashing" them.

True.

>
> And another possibility:
>
> 5) Perhaps Dirk is in a cult and or a Cult leader himself. Or perhaps not.
> But he is an Asatru. http://www.neopax.com/

'Asatruar'.

> The question is what do the Asatru do?
>
> Well, they practice something called "Experimental Heathenism." See
> http://www.neopax.com/nineworlds/index.htm and Dirk wrote:
> http://www.neopax.com/asatru/pk/index.html

No, that's what *I* do.
The nearest thing we (as an international religion) have ever agreed
upon to define ourselves is this FAQ:
http://www.neopax.com/asatru/faq/index.html

> My question to Dirk would be, "Given that you admire L. Ron Hubbard, do you
> think he was on to something?  Do you believe that he HAD acquired knowledge
> of the "Gods" that you speak about in your literature. See
> http://www.neopax.com/asatru/gods/index.html

I think Elron had access to psychological techniques decades ahead of
their time. A lot would now fall under the heading of NLP, but some
are still 'out there'. Not that he invented all of this, because he
didn't. He was part of a well documented 'underground' where magickal
techniques met science. He was also intimately connected with various
intelligence agencies and 'fellow travellers' like Jack Parsons who
founded JPL. His background, and the origins of Scientology are
fascinating.

Dirk



From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Thu Feb 16 23:05:55 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:05:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] human / chimp breeding
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602161139t7787a9e6k785b4451cf26755e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BAY112-DAV18F0244DA41D9AEA1EBE30B7FB0@phx.gbl>	<004c01c6330d$be2bc9d0$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<8d71341e0602161139t7787a9e6k785b4451cf26755e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43F50553.1030101@goldenfuture.net>

Could you be thinking of the report that Stalin wanted to create an army 
of ape-human hybrids that came out a month or two ago?

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2434192005

Joseph

Russell Wallace wrote:

> (on human-chimp hybrids)
>
> On 2/16/06, *kevinfreels.com <http://kevinfreels.com>* 
> <kevin at kevinfreels.com <mailto:kevin at kevinfreels.com>> wrote:
>
>     Scientific experiments always stem from questions being asked.
>     Certainly the question gets quite a bit about humans and chimps in
>     that field. There are many debates about whether or not it would
>     work. But as far as I know, the actual study has never been done.
>
>
> I read somewhere that it has. I don't remember who by, it was some 
> crowd who were, shall we say, not overly burdened with moral 
> principles; maybe the Nazis. But IIRC the embryo was fortunately not 
> viable, aborted after a couple of months or somesuch.
>
> - Russell
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>  
>



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Feb 16 21:57:27 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:57:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602161145i1e1cbbaaxe2f5358b88e1d9a2@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <ee50357e0602161132g5f243040rccbe13bd71f930c0@mail.gmail.com>
	<c0a791b40602160512v7831198ei91887fcc1fce131f@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY112-DAV2046305621AD804F71CE6BB7FB0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060216131151.02fc41b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<c0a791b40602161053p16d2d92co48ce0689c9668b17@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0602161132g5f243040rccbe13bd71f930c0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216155818.02c61118@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 07:45 PM 2/16/2006 +0000, Dirk wrote:

snip

>4) Caveat Emptor - I do not like the idea that people should be 'saved
>from themselves' when they do something you don't like. What
>consenting adults do amongst themselves is not my business, nor is it
>yours IMO.

Being deeply influenced by RAH, I held this position for decades, one might 
say I was cult-ish about it even.

And in *most* cases I still feel that way.

However, humans are _social_ primates.  To an extent that is not well 
understood yet, sanity is a group endeavor and so is the heavy reduction in 
the ability to think rationally when caught up in xenophobic war memes.

The practical problem with cults, particularly scientology, is that 
consenting adults pay drug level prices to get intense attention that 
releases their brain reward chemicals.  "So what?" you say, "Shrinks are in 
exactly the same game."  Well, the cult uses the drug level profits to pay 
lawyers to harass critics in court and PI thugs to harass them and stalk 
their kids.

The critics include ex members and anyone else who tries to get the word 
out about them.  Thus new cult victims don't have the information to make 
an informed choice before they start mainlining "auditine."

Add to that corrupting the courts, terrorizing law enforcement and framing 
people for crimes and getting the government to help harass.

Check out the stories about Paulette Cooper and Tom Klemesrud.

The net has been hard for them to control, but Google caved in on xenu.net 
just like they did to the Chinese government.

Fortunately we have Tom Cruise on our side (though he doesn't know it).

Keith Henson




From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 23:19:33 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:19:33 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientology and Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <BAY112-DAV126315088423B0A3B0027FB7FB0@phx.gbl>
References: <c0a791b40602161145i1e1cbbaaxe2f5358b88e1d9a2@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY112-DAV126315088423B0A3B0027FB7FB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602161519n1ae4b271h9cda0324bcc79227@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Pete Bertine <pkbertine at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/16/06, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/16/06, Dirk Bruere wrote:
> > >
> > >  I am pursuaded, but you are brainwashed etc
> > >  The fact that two people can come to conflicting conclusions given the
> > same
> > > data means that there is likely no objective position.
> > >
> >
> > That is a very silly, smart-alec statement unworthy of you, Dirk.
> >
> > Either,
> >
> > 1) You have very little knowledge of the way cult persuaders work and
> > the techniques they use. (Which I find hard to believe), or,
> >
> > 2) You are intent on defending the cult persuaders techniques by
> > equating them with a group of people having a discussion.
> > (Which is a ridiculous comparison. Naive people meeting these cult
> > persuaders for the first time are like children in the lions den).
> >
> > 3) Or maybe it was just a cynical remark that appealed to you at the time.
>
> >4) Caveat Emptor - I do not like the idea that people should be 'saved
> >from themselves' when they do something you don't like. What
> >consenting adults do amongst themselves is not my business, nor is it
> >yours IMO.
>
> >Dirk
>
> Hang on, I just googled you.  www.theconsensus.com Now I see why you like
> Hubbard !

www.theconsensus.org
And I neither like, nor dislike, Hubbard. Never met him or had and
desire to do so.

> Your 8 pointed star looks a lot like the church of scientology's "cross"

Perhaps, but it is also the WTA symbol.
It has a specific mythological history going back millenia.
It's simultaneously the symbol of JC and Lucifer, as well as being the
ancient Goddess symbol (which became the pentacle when the path of
Venus was finally traced in the sky). It's Promethean.
http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/28/2828.html
http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/44/4412.html

> http://www.theconsensus.org/uk/copyrights/index.html
>
>
> For the CoS symbol look half way down wikipedia's site
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

Actually, never seen that before.
Clearly it's a ripoff of the Xian version.


> Dirk - These aren't people being sold a lousy stereo or used car with the
> odo turned back.  In many cases children are abused in a cult and adults who
> become aware that they are in a cult are not allowed to leave, are
> terrorized, even killed.

Happens anyway - don't need a cult for that.

> You said," What consenting adults do amongst themselves is not my business,
> nor is it yours IMO."  That is a poorly reasoned sentence.  You allow that
> all people have a right to do as they chose, then you insist that others
> must agree with you.

True. But people who disagree with me have a nasty habit of trying to
create coercive laws to back up their 'save them from themselves'
crusade. I don't.

> We are not talking about saving an individual from themself.  We are talking
> about a group of people who have spun a fairytale out of an egomaniacs drug
> induced fantasy world.  We are talking about L Ron Hubbard who fed his son
> phenobarb laced chewing gum. A man who injected his son with speed and wrote
> a book about how his son thought he had become a clam. A book that later
> became Scientology gospel

Feel free not to buy it - I haven't.
Mohammed did worse IMO, and I don't own a copy of the Koran either.

Dirk



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 23:23:36 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:23:36 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] human / chimp breeding
In-Reply-To: <43F50553.1030101@goldenfuture.net>
References: <BAY112-DAV18F0244DA41D9AEA1EBE30B7FB0@phx.gbl>
	<004c01c6330d$be2bc9d0$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<8d71341e0602161139t7787a9e6k785b4451cf26755e@mail.gmail.com>
	<43F50553.1030101@goldenfuture.net>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602161523y5dd5120fod4526a0846bdf8cd@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Joseph Bloch <transhumanist at goldenfuture.net> wrote:
>
> Could you be thinking of the report that Stalin wanted to create an army
> of ape-human hybrids that came out a month or two ago?
>
> http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2434192005
>

That might be the one.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/7a15ce89/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 23:24:15 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:24:15 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216155818.02c61118@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <c0a791b40602160512v7831198ei91887fcc1fce131f@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY112-DAV2046305621AD804F71CE6BB7FB0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060216131151.02fc41b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<c0a791b40602161053p16d2d92co48ce0689c9668b17@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0602161132g5f243040rccbe13bd71f930c0@mail.gmail.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060216155818.02c61118@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602161524x144ed036h96f70730cc571472@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/16/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> At 07:45 PM 2/16/2006 +0000, Dirk wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >4) Caveat Emptor - I do not like the idea that people should be 'saved
> >from themselves' when they do something you don't like. What
> >consenting adults do amongst themselves is not my business, nor is it
> >yours IMO.
>
> Being deeply influenced by RAH, I held this position for decades, one might
> say I was cult-ish about it even.
>
> And in *most* cases I still feel that way.
>
> However, humans are _social_ primates.  To an extent that is not well
> understood yet, sanity is a group endeavor and so is the heavy reduction in
> the ability to think rationally when caught up in xenophobic war memes.
>
> The practical problem with cults, particularly scientology, is that
> consenting adults pay drug level prices to get intense attention that
> releases their brain reward chemicals.  "So what?" you say, "Shrinks are in
> exactly the same game."  Well, the cult uses the drug level profits to pay
> lawyers to harass critics in court and PI thugs to harass them and stalk
> their kids.

Whereas the real 'war on drugs' fills the prisons and the drug money,
some $500billion pa, goes to corrupting governments and financial
institutions on a planetary scale. Elron is petty when viewed in that
light. That's where the 'save them from themselves' leads. I'm not
buying *any* of it.

Dirk



From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Fri Feb 17 00:04:35 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:04:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs/and Asatru too
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602161505o3d2ef3d3h981727bb14d71fd7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV184D8ECE2AF9F365B84917B7F80@phx.gbl>

> My question to Dirk would be, "Given that you admire L. Ron Hubbard, do
you
> think he was on to something?  Do you believe that he HAD acquired
knowledge
> of the "Gods" that you speak about in your literature. See
> http://www.neopax.com/asatru/gods/index.html

>I think Elron had access to psychological techniques decades ahead of
>their time. A lot would now fall under the heading of NLP, but some
>are still 'out there'. Not that he invented all of this, because he
>didn't. He was part of a well documented 'underground' where magickal
>techniques met science. He was also intimately connected with various
>intelligence agencies and 'fellow travellers' like Jack Parsons who
>founded JPL. His background, and the origins of Scientology are
>fascinating.

>Dirk

Sorry, "Asatruar."  I am not making fun of your religion or you.

Hitler's background and the origin of Nazism and its attempt to create a
"religion" are fascinating.  But I know you don't admire Hitler (he co-opted
your good luck symbol after all http://www.neopax.com/asatru/index.html )

But you said that you admire L. Ron, a guy who ripped off Jack Parsons
(founder of CalTec?), a guy who trashed Parsons' name and claimed to have
been sent to infiltrate Parsons' "cult of Black Magic"

If the only reason that you admire Hubbard is because he made "billions" off
of people who believed his silly religion, then you don't sound like you
live up to Asatruarian values. Honestly, how can you admire Hubbard, a man
who never "put his soul where his mouth is," man who lied constantly, a man
totally devoted to "samskrita," a man who has made no commitment to what is
Right.

I've tried to understand your morality described at
http://www.neopax.com/asatru/oath/index.html 
and I don't see where admiration for Hubbard fits in.

pete

perhaps we should take this off list :)   

pete at petebertine.com

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Fri Feb 17 00:06:36 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:06:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 29, Issue 23
In-Reply-To: <43F4F809.7040708@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV173F25C581F661A7D7D14DB7F80@phx.gbl>

Oh ben, your hands are so gentle ;)

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ben
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:09 PM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 29, Issue 23

Operation Clam Bake

Peter K.  Bertine, Jr foolishly admitted:

 >  I am willing to do anything

 >:>

ben <rubbing his hands together and grinning evilly>


_______________________________________________
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 Feb 17 00:57:58 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:57:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216195751.02c58dc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 06:53 PM 2/16/2006 +0000, you wrote:


>On 2/16/06, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> 
>wrote:
>>At 04:17 PM 2/16/2006 +0000, Dirk wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>
>> >The difference being that pretty much all Elron's victims signed up for it.
>>
>>That becomes a *very* tricky question as we understand more about the human
>>mind/brain.
>>
>>Were you ever given a flower in an airport by one of the Moonie cult members?
>
>No, but I have visited their HQ in London

That probably shows my age as much as anything.  I don't remember when they 
were driven out of airports, 20 years ago?

>>They were playing on a human psychological trait of reciprocation that is
>>almost hardwired into us.
>
>I know - just like those charities that send pens, cards etc in 
>expectation of reciprocity.
>I make a point of throwing them away - not using them at all.
>
>>Scientology and other cults mostly use "attention-reward," love-bombing and
>>scientology's "training routines."  Rewarding drugs hit the same brain areas.
>
>So does every successful meme I would guess.

Hmm.  Maybe memes of the cult class.  "Meme" as elements of culture is a 
really big group.

>>There is also the fraud aspects.  Scientology promises virtually
>>everything, power over matter, energy, space and time--verbally.  The
>>papers you sign after high pressure sales pitches take it all away and then
>>some.
>>
>><http://www.xs4all.nl/~jeta/scn/scans/Introspection-Release.html>http://www.xs4all.nl/~jeta/scn/scans/Introspection-Release.html 
>>
>>
>>Scientology is a vicious organization run by a vicious little prick.  None
>>the less, I can't really hate him any more than I can hate someone for
>>being infected with HIV.
>>
>>Worse than HIV, most people with HIV understand it's bad.  People in cults
>>are blind to their situation.  The mechanisms were discussed recently here
>>in the fMRI work of Drew Westen.
>
>So they have to be saved from themselves?
>I don't like where that goes...

If they were *just*  cutting their balls off I would never have noticed 
them--at least no more than Heaven's Gate.  I got into this battle when 
they tried to destroy part of the net--Kobrin's famous rmgroup.  Later they 
ran the longest denial of service attack in history.

My conviction and becoming a fugitive was because they didn't like me 
drawing attention to two women they murdered in 2000.  That was a direct 
and successful attack on classical free speech--picketing.  I had a history 
of free speech activism before this (the AABBS case).

>>Cults, scientology only being an example, are the memetic equivalent of
>>segregation distorters genes which can drive mouse populations to local
>>extinction.  In fact, the Shaker cult did that to its group of humans.
>
>And something similar is happening to the  indigenous European population.
>So?

You missed the point.  Cults are examples of "cheater" or parasitic 
memes.  But if you are concerned about the future of the indigenous 
European population, you definitely need to understand EP.  (And having 
some kids would help too.  :-)  )

>>People on this list really should have a better model of what humans
>>are.  Depressing, but it's important at least till you are a few light
>>years out.
>
>I am pursuaded, but you are brainwashed etc
>The fact that two people can come to conflicting conclusions given the 
>same data means that there is likely no objective position.

If two people come to conflicting conclusions given the same data, you 
*can* tell with fMRI if one of them is using the reasoning parts or the 
emotional parts of their brains.

If a lot of people are using the reasoning parts of their brains on some 
subject that may come to _define_ the objective position.  If two people 
are arguing about religion, I would be surprised to find either one of them 
had the reasoning parts engaged.  :-)

Keith




From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Feb 17 01:04:33 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:04:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216200408.02c9b990@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 07:27 AM 2/16/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>On 2/16/06, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> 
>wrote:
>> >The model of economic productivity as "cargo" - something delivered from
>> >outside, with a fixed supply to be divided among a population - works well
>> >for a hunter-gatherer economy where wealth is collected largely as-is from
>> >the environment, but not for an industrial one where wealth is largely
>> >produced by people.
>>
>>Jeeze, guys, you would think am asking a trick question.  The income per
>>capital goes UP.
>
>(When the population starts dying out, I assume you mean.)

No.

You cut too much.  My question was:

 >>places. But in any case, with population growth below economic growth,
 >>what happens?

>In the "cargo" economic model which is approximately true of 
>hunter-gatherer societies, that's approximately correct. In an industrial 
>society, half the capita means half the minds and hands available to 
>produce the income in the first place, so the total income also drops by 
>half - no increase per capita. (Unfortunately, we evolved in 
>hunter-gatherer societies, so the "cargo" economic model is more 
>attractive than the industrial one, irrespective of the data.)

You put your finger on the critical point, "we evolved in hunter-gatherer 
societies."  Populations (bands) killed each other when their population 
growth overtaxed the ecosystem.  We are still set up to react that way to 
falling population wide income per capita and/or the prospects that it will 
get worse in the future.

>(If the population falls too far, you start losing economies of scale, so 
>the per capita income will go down. I suspect other factors will come into 
>play before that happens, though long beforehand the increased ratio of 
>old age pensioners to workers will cause a drop in per capita income - 
>that's starting to be observed in some countries already.)

This would be interesting to extrapolate, but I have not tried to apply the 
model beyond the deep past and the immediate future.

Unlike hunter-gatherer societies (and largely due to technological 
innovation) within broad limits we can have economic growth.  But if you 
want to keep the gain setting on xenophobic memes turned down so you don't 
get wars or related social disruptions, then the population growth has to 
stay below the economic growth.

The paper and the model makes the case that--because economic growth got 
ahead of population growth in Ireland--the average gain on the mechanism in 
the population was turned down.  (I.e., a behavior switch was 
flipped.)  With a gain of less than one, the circulating memes encouraging 
the warriors to fight were damped till they lost motivational force and the 
IRA went out of business.

>>Well, do you know of a population that supported war with a rising income
>>per capita and bright looking future prospects?  (One that was not attacked
>>of course.)  Examples will refute the model.
>>
>>This maps back to the stone age where such conditions shut off war.
>
>If you want me to shoot holes in your model, I'll be happy to oblige :) So 
>that everyone (including those list subscribers who haven't read it) are 
>clear what target I'm shooting at, why don't you post a brief summary of 
>it here?

Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War
By H. Keith Henson

Abstract:   Evolutionary psychology and memetics are used to propose a 
model of war.  Population growth leads to a resource crisis.  An impending 
resource crisis activates a behavioral switch in humans allowing the build 
up of xenophobic or dehumanizing memes, which synchronizes attacks on 
neighboring tribes.  Hamilton's criterion of inclusive fitness is invoked 
to account for the evolution of this species typical behavior.  War as a 
species typical behavior in the EEA for humans is discussed, first as an 
attack response and second as unprovoked attacks.  Unprovoked attacks are 
proposed to require the build up of xenophobic or dehumanizing 
memes.  Evolved brain mechanisms are proposed to cause these memes to 
become more common when the subject population anticipates "looming 
privation."  The well-known reduction in the ability of humans to think 
rationally in war situations is explained in evolutionary terms as a 
divergence in interest between the individual and his genes.  The problem 
of avoiding wars is examined in terms of these mechanisms.  Population 
growth at a higher rate than economic growth is proposed as the causal 
factor for wars in the modern world.  This model and the "excess males" 
model make different predictions about where future wars will start.  The 
model is then applied to analyze current events.

I would be *delighted* if you can find holes in the model.  Most depressing 
work I have ever done.

And if anyone wants a copy of the paper, just ask.

Keith Henson






From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Fri Feb 17 00:21:43 2006
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:21:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [don't] pare replies
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F5E8E708FAA8FA1B5C31B7B4FB0@phx.gbl>
References: <200602161627.k1GGQdSb020975@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<BAY103-F5E8E708FAA8FA1B5C31B7B4FB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <47237.72.236.102.76.1140135703.squirrel@main.nc.us>

> I disagree. I don't mind seeing the entire thread in an email.

I understand where you're coming from, but not everybody has high speed
access, and some places in the world have Net related expenses we do not
usually have in the US.

Also, many people do not use reply/quote in a reasonable manner, or
perhaps it's all HTML and doesn't show correctly in a text mail reader.

Regards,
MB



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Fri Feb 17 00:59:14 2006
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:59:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] CBS NEWS:  Freezing Their Assets (Cryonics)
Message-ID: <380-22006251705914665@M2W084.mail2web.com>

Thought you all might find something of interest in this read:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/opinion/main1323253.shtml 

"But what Christ couldn't or didn't do, our modern American plutocrats are
readying themselves to accomplish."

Natasha

___________________________

Natasha Vita-More, President
Extropy Institute
http://www.extorpy.org



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





From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Feb 17 02:09:33 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:09:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs/and Asatru too
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602161505o3d2ef3d3h981727bb14d71fd7@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <BAY112-DAV101680E0037865E6E1872EB7FB0@phx.gbl>
	<20060216201440.10642.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
	<BAY112-DAV101680E0037865E6E1872EB7FB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216210235.02c7eec8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 11:05 PM 2/16/2006 +0000, Dirk wrote:

>I think Elron had access to psychological techniques decades ahead of
>their time. A lot would now fall under the heading of NLP, but some
>are still 'out there'. Not that he invented all of this, because he
>didn't. He was part of a well documented 'underground' where magickal
>techniques met science. He was also intimately connected with various
>intelligence agencies and 'fellow travellers' like Jack Parsons who
>founded JPL. His background, and the origins of Scientology are
>fascinating.

I am not going to correct the above errors because it would be an obvious 
waste of time.

But as someone who has studied this business for some years, I suggest 
anyone who cares do some research rather than relying on Dirk's statements.

Keith Henson



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Fri Feb 17 02:09:15 2006
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:09:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CBS NEWS:  Freezing Their Assets (Cryonics)
In-Reply-To: <380-22006251705914665@M2W084.mail2web.com>
References: <380-22006251705914665@M2W084.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <47468.72.236.102.76.1140142155.squirrel@main.nc.us>

> Thought you all might find something of interest in this read:
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/opinion/main1323253.shtml
>

That certainly has an unpleasantly snide, snotty and sarcastic overtone...

Regards,
MB



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Feb 17 02:20:06 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:20:06 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientology and Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602161519n1ae4b271h9cda0324bcc79227@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <BAY112-DAV126315088423B0A3B0027FB7FB0@phx.gbl>
	<c0a791b40602161145i1e1cbbaaxe2f5358b88e1d9a2@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY112-DAV126315088423B0A3B0027FB7FB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216211031.02c9bad8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 11:19 PM 2/16/2006 +0000, you wrote:
> > For the CoS symbol look half way down wikipedia's site
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
>
>Actually, never seen that before.
>Clearly it's a ripoff of the Xian version.

Actually it is a ripoff of Crowley's tarot cards which is known as the 
crossed out cross.

http://www.lermanet.com/scientology-and-occult/

Google Results 1 - 10 of about 164 for scientology "crossed out cross"

Keith HHenson



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Fri Feb 17 02:16:41 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:16:41 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216200408.02c9b990@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216200408.02c9b990@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602161816u3fc1ef64q1e8d2bf806c76813@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/17/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> The paper and the model makes the case that--because economic growth got
> ahead of population growth in Ireland--the average gain on the mechanism
> in
> the population was turned down.  (I.e., a behavior switch was
> flipped.)  With a gain of less than one, the circulating memes encouraging
> the warriors to fight were damped till they lost motivational force and
> the
> IRA went out of business.


Ah, okay - population wasn't involved as a causal factor, only as a later
effect, but yes, economic growth in Ireland did play a role in damping down
the level of sectarian violence. (Damping down, not eliminating - the IRA
are still very much in business - but they're moving more in the direction
of a Mafia-style outfit these days; there isn't as much hatred and killing
as there was.) I suspect memetics played a larger role, though it's hard to
untangle the different causes for something like this.

Abstract:   Evolutionary psychology and memetics are used to propose a
> model of war.  Population growth leads to a resource crisis.  An impending
> resource crisis activates a behavioral switch in humans allowing the build
> up of xenophobic or dehumanizing memes, which synchronizes attacks on
> neighboring tribes.  Hamilton's criterion of inclusive fitness is invoked
> to account for the evolution of this species typical behavior.  War as a
> species typical behavior in the EEA for humans is discussed, first as an
> attack response and second as unprovoked attacks.  Unprovoked attacks are
> proposed to require the build up of xenophobic or dehumanizing
> memes.  Evolved brain mechanisms are proposed to cause these memes to
> become more common when the subject population anticipates "looming
> privation."  The well-known reduction in the ability of humans to think
> rationally in war situations is explained in evolutionary terms as a
> divergence in interest between the individual and his genes.  The problem
> of avoiding wars is examined in terms of these mechanisms.  Population
> growth at a higher rate than economic growth is proposed as the causal
> factor for wars in the modern world.  This model and the "excess males"
> model make different predictions about where future wars will start.  The
> model is then applied to analyze current events.
>
> I would be *delighted* if you can find holes in the model.  Most
> depressing
> work I have ever done.
>

I know that feeling! Okay, let's see...

1) Population growth only results in economic decline in a hunter-gatherer
economy where wealth is gathered from the environment; in an industrial
economy, where wealth is produced by people, higher population results in
higher GNP. (I'm repeating this because I think the error is contributing to
the lack of effective action to address Europe's current population crash -
but it isn't central to your model, which is really about economics rather
than population, so I'll move on.)

2) The evolutionary effect you postulate is somewhat doubtful. Remember the
idea that noncombatants are sacrosanct is a modern one. In the ancestral
environment, starting a war was only a good idea if you were going to win;
losing could mean your entire tribe was wiped out. Yes, sometimes the
winners would keep the women, but not always. There's an example in the Old
Testament where the Israelites were ordered to keep only the virgin girls of
a conquered people and exterminate the rest; that's not a large percentage
of genes surviving. There are plenty of other cases where the losing tribe
was wiped out to the last infant. It looks to me like a tribe faced with a
food shortage, say because the rain failed this year or whatever, would be
better off just taking some losses from starvation rather than starting a
war it wasn't going to win.

I've even seen one study that found in some primitive culture - might have
been the Yanomamo, not sure - there was a _positive_ correlation between
wealth and aggressive raiding. The author's suggested explanation was that
if a tribe is sufficiently well off that a man's wife and children can
survive without him, that reduces the risk to his genes of raiding the
neighbors to try to capture more women, eliminate competitors or whatever.

3) In historical times it doesn't seem to me that there are a lot of
examples supporting your theory. Rome was one of the wealthiest
civilizations around when it wiped out Carthage and invaded Gaul. The
Spanish weren't exactly short of a few bob when they launched the Armada.
Germany's economy was going gangbusters in 1914. Conversely, Mexico for
example is a lot poorer than the US; when was the last time Mexico went to
war?

In fact, the Weimar Republic is the only positive example I can think of
offhand, and even that one's not as simple as it looks.

4) There is some empirical basis for the idea that bad economic prospects
encourage urban violence, but that doesn't mean they lead to war. Consider
that once you're past the Stone Age, the decision to go to war _is not made
by the common people_. It's made by the ruling classes, who are exactly the
group that will _not_ be affected by an economic downturn. Therefore, _even
if your theory is correct up to this point_ we should still expect to see
wars actually start for reasons unrelated to economics - and that is just
what we do observe when we look at history.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060217/6fa27210/attachment.html>

From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Fri Feb 17 02:20:37 2006
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:20:37 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] CBS NEWS:  Freezing Their Assets (Cryonics)
Message-ID: <380-22006251722037975@M2W026.mail2web.com>

From: MB mbb386 at main.nc.us

>>Thought you all might find something of interest in this read:
>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/opinion/main1323253.shtml

>That certainly has an unpleasantly snide, snotty and sarcastic overtone...

Yes it did.

N

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





From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Fri Feb 17 02:26:13 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:26:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] CBS NEWS:  Freezing Their Assets (Cryonics)
In-Reply-To: <380-22006251705914665@M2W084.mail2web.com>
References: <380-22006251705914665@M2W084.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <43F53445.9040104@goldenfuture.net>

Wow... I'm a member of the American Plutocracy???

I want my t-shirt, dagnabbit!

Seriously, this is a terrible article; nothing more than a retread of 
the various stereotypes surrounding cryonics and those who sign up for 
it. Apparently because I think that although cryonics may be an 
incredible long-shot, the cost is well worth the potential benefit, I'm 
Rich Uncle Pennybags oppressing the downtrodden masses. Let's see them 
write a similarly snyde article decrying all the millions that are 
wasted at Starbucks coffee that could otherwise be spent saving baby 
seals or some crap.

I am certainly not in any position to put "a couple of million bucks" 
into a trust fund, and I certainly did not sign up for cryonics as a 
lark because I got tired of lighting my cigars with $100 bills. Then 
again, I note that the article originally comes from The Nation magazine 
(http://www.thenation.com), so I am not all that surprised at its 
ridiculous Annalee Newitz-esque tone.

Joseph

nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote:

>Thought you all might find something of interest in this read:
>
>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/opinion/main1323253.shtml 
>
>"But what Christ couldn't or didn't do, our modern American plutocrats are
>readying themselves to accomplish."
>
>Natasha
>
>___________________________
>
>Natasha Vita-More, President
>Extropy Institute
>http://www.extorpy.org
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Feb 17 03:08:22 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:08:22 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] [don't] pare replies
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F5E8E708FAA8FA1B5C31B7B4FB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <200602170335.k1H3Zcg2014663@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Ja I see your point, however we may have those unfortunates
among us who have dialup connections, perhaps because of
where they live.  Secondly, the sight-impaired may need to
have their email read aloud, in which case they would be
eager to cut to the chase.  I don't know if either of these
apply to anyone here, perhaps not.

Open to suggestion Exi-ers.  What say ye?  spike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brian Lee
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 9:36 AM
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] [don't] pare replies
> 
> I disagree. I don't mind seeing the entire thread in an email. I can
> filter
> out the pieces I don't care about pretty quickly...
> BAL
> 
> >From: "spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
> >To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> >Subject: [extropy-chat] pare replies
> >Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:52:56 -0800
> >
> >When replying to a post, please delete most of
> >the text of the original post, leaving only that
> >which is ...
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Feb 17 03:40:36 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:40:36 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] human / chimp breeding
In-Reply-To: <43F50553.1030101@goldenfuture.net>
Message-ID: <200602170340.k1H3eYPn016226@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] human / chimp breeding
> 
> Could you be thinking of the report that Stalin wanted to create an army
> of ape-human hybrids that came out a month or two ago?
> 
> http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2434192005
> 
> Joseph


The North Vietnamese were doing this back in the 60s.  I
recall as a child hearing of those Viet Cong gorillas.

spike









From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Fri Feb 17 03:49:07 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:49:07 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] human / chimp breeding
In-Reply-To: <200602170340.k1H3eYPn016226@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200602170340.k1H3eYPn016226@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <43F547B3.1070609@goldenfuture.net>

"badum-CHING!"

spike wrote:

>>bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch
>>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] human / chimp breeding
>>
>>Could you be thinking of the report that Stalin wanted to create an army
>>of ape-human hybrids that came out a month or two ago?
>>
>>http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2434192005
>>
>>Joseph
>>    
>>
>
>
>The North Vietnamese were doing this back in the 60s.  I
>recall as a child hearing of those Viet Cong gorillas.
>
>spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Fri Feb 17 04:07:37 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 04:07:37 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] [don't] pare replies
In-Reply-To: <200602170335.k1H3Zcg2014663@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <BAY103-F5E8E708FAA8FA1B5C31B7B4FB0@phx.gbl>
	<200602170335.k1H3Zcg2014663@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602162007r94cbf8bv7a8ed41586d5d206@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/17/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Ja I see your point, however we may have those unfortunates
> among us who have dialup connections, perhaps because of
> where they live.  Secondly, the sight-impaired may need to
> have their email read aloud, in which case they would be
> eager to cut to the chase.  I don't know if either of these
> apply to anyone here, perhaps not.
>
> Open to suggestion Exi-ers.  What say ye?  spike
>

I think there are two good ways to do things: bottom-posting while snipping
everything which isn't being replied to (like I'm doing now), or top-posting
while leaving everything in. The first way is better when there are several
points to be replied to individually, the second is better otherwise. With
top-posting you cut to the chase right away, you don't have to wait at all
for the new material. I usually bottom-post on mailing lists except where
the custom seems to be otherwise, because many of them have this as the
custom inherited from Usenet, but I think it should be changed to make
top-posting while leaving everything in the norm except where there's a
specific reason to do otherwise.

The one thing I think is definitely a _bad_ idea is bottom-posting without
snipping. If you're not going to snip, please top-post so we don't have to
page down through all the existing material.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060217/7560dc96/attachment.html>

From mehranraeli at comcast.net  Fri Feb 17 04:04:09 2006
From: mehranraeli at comcast.net (Mehran)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:04:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults
In-Reply-To: <mailman.459.1140076201.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <004501c63377$37a828d0$799f6041@DBX6XT21>

Let's be fair to Scientologists:

Is Scientology a Scam?
 
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/scam.htm
 
The claim that Scientology is a scam, dressed up as a religion, and that
cult founders are con men exploiting brainwashed victims for personal wealth
and power is often made by critics. In fact, it's a very common myth which
anticultists launch at a great variety of groups.

Why is this a myth? Because a scam would mean that leaders are *knowingly*
exploiting others, that they  know perfectly well that their doctrine is
pure fantasy but somehow manage to hypnotize followers into accepting it. In
other words, that they don't believe their own doctrine themselves. This, in
my opinion, and that of many scholars who have studied cults, is false.

If leaders really believed their own doctrine, would it still be a scam? Of
course not. At the worst, it would qualify as a form of illusion.

If one thus assume that leaders are themselves as convinced about their own
doctrine as any dedicated member (and this is what I witnessed in the cult
myself), then he will view the claim that the group is a scam as a myth. Not
just a myth, in fact, but a derogatory, false, and dangerous accusation.

The scam myth works together with the mind-control myth in promoting
ostracism against unpopular groups and bring authorities to over-react.

The FBI, who made the mistake to follow anti-cult advises in the Waco
tragedy, now seems to realize this important aspect. In their Law
Enforcement Bulletin of September 2000, they describe this particular myth
and its dangers: 

NRMs often are stereotyped as con games run by opportunistic leaders.
Undoubtedly, some founders establish NRMs to intentionally bilk followers
out of money or to unilaterally promote their own interests. More
frequently, though, NRM leaders genuinely believe in their teachings,
however outlandish or fantastic these seem. Such leaders or prophets will
undergo great sacrifices-up to and including death-for the sake of their
message, and it is dangerous for law enforcement officers to approach such
leaders as if they were disingenuous con artists.

Certain practices sometimes are mistaken for indicators that leaders are
insincere. For example, the fact that NRM leaders enjoy benefits or living
comforts that their followers do not simply may reflect the honor that the
groups attach to the leaders' positions. Similarly, groups' requirement that
members turn over their assets to the movements may be prompted by a genuine
attempt to promote an ascetic lifestyle among the members. Law enforcement
officers should be very hesitant to assume that the leaders of NRMs are not
sincere.

If officers suspect that NRM officials have improper motives, they should
examine the leaders' backgrounds. Sociopaths or con artists generally will
not invest years trying to spread their messages and form groups without a
guaranteed payoff. Officers also should remember that NRM leaders and
followers may have many complex motivations for their behavior, not all of
which are internally consistent. NRM leaders may manipulate others and, yet,
still hold sincere religious beliefs. Thus, even if leaders display signs of
sociopathic or criminal behavior, officers should not assume that these
individuals are insincere about their religious beliefs.

In the absence of contrary evidence, officers should assume that NRM leaders
are true to their spiritual convictions.

Read more:  http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/scam.htm
 
ex-Scientology story:
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/my_story.htm



LOVE
Mehran
www.rael.org






From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Feb 17 04:01:34 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:01:34 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs/and Asatru too
In-Reply-To: <BAY112-DAV184D8ECE2AF9F365B84917B7F80@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <200602170435.k1H4ZSoT002176@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Pete Bertine
...
> pete
> 
> perhaps we should take this off list :)


A fine suggestion by Pete.  ExI-chat is not the place
for stuff about cults.  Check out the Extropian
Principles when in doubt.  By engaging Dirk on this
you may be causing him to overpost.  I didn't actually
count, but I think I saw a lot of posts from him today
and yesterday.  We ask a voluntary limit of five a day
with a mandatory maximum of eight.

Pete it is always a good thing to lurk for a while
before posting much.  I did for over half a year
before I posted anything.  That was nine years
ago.

Thanks guys!

spike

http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm







From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Feb 17 04:59:20 2006
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:29:20 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's home computer
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602160049q5882cd9ek8fe3e26e52d671fd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c0a791b40602151750h2fa65487n4dd30c93a9e70b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0602151853k7e4ec74bh@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.0.20060215210927.01c214f0@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e0602160049q5882cd9ek8fe3e26e52d671fd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0602162059t54d11841g@mail.gmail.com>

I've seen that photo a few times recently, didn't realise it was a
fake. Oh well :-(

Emlyn

On 16/02/06, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Damien Broderick wrote:
> > But *all* the people from the dying world of Metaluna look like that!
> > This is not really a home computer, though, it's an interociter. You
> > can tell by the big steering wheel.
> >
>
> Dirk did say it was a joke.  :)
>
> <http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp>
>
> Although the photograph displayed could represent what some people in
> the early 1950s contemplated a "home computer" might look like (based
> on the technology of the day), it isn't, as the accompanying text
> claims, a RAND Corporation illustration from 1954 of a prototype "home
> computer." The picture is actually an entry submitted to a Fark.com
> image modification competition, taken from an original photo of a
> submarine maneuvering room console found on U.S. Navy web site,
> converted to grayscale, and modified to replace a modern display panel
> and TV screen with pictures of a decades-old teletype/printer and
> television (as well as to add the gray-suited man to the left-hand
> side of the photo).
>
> BillK
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Feb 17 05:08:43 2006
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:08:43 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults
In-Reply-To: <004501c63377$37a828d0$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
References: <mailman.459.1140076201.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<004501c63377$37a828d0$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060216230731.01a64cd8@satx.rr.com>

At 11:04 PM 2/16/2006 -0500, some nameless wonder wrote:

>Let's be fair to Scientologists:

Okay, this list has finally reached rock bottom.

So long, and thanks for all the fish during the last decade.

Damien Broderick



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Feb 17 05:13:29 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:13:29 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602161134v25a3759vf819770bfa6981d7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602170513.k1H5DSUW026532@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready


Robert Bradbury:
...? For example there isn't a large meteor body at the bottom of Meteor
Crater [1].? Presumably this is because much of it was vaporized upon
impact...  Robert



Robert, ja I didn't make my previous post very clear, so allow me to come at
it with a five part thought experiment which might help illustrate
hydrodynamic impact.

1.  You are sitting on the back of the last car on a kilometer-long bullet
train travelling at 100 meters per second.  You see a vertical rock wall
ahead with a tunnel entrance, but it is a trick!  Some joker has ended the
track at the base of a solid sheer cliff and painted a black semicircular
arc right where the track ends.

At the instant when the front of the train, 1 km away, hits the wall, you
feel nothing at first, but after some short interval of time you begin to
feel increasing deceleration, before your own car crunches.  Perhaps this
deceleration will be sufficient to stop your car before it looks like the
crunched cars up front.  Let us hope so, and be glad this is a mere thought
experiment.

2.  A plane travels at 1 km per second (which is about thrice the speed of
sound) at a constant altitude of 330 meters.  A shock wave forms at the nose
of the aircraft which is kind of like a bunch of sound waves all piled up on
top of each other.  It is an oblique shock wave: it travels in the direction
perpendicular to the wave at the speed of sound, however its track along the
ground travels at thrice that speed.  That's why we know its angle to the
ground is about 19.5 degrees.  Is the shock wave traveling at mach 1 or mach
three?  Depends on how you look at it.

3.  Since this is a thought experiment, I am free to set up some strange
sounding scenarios, such as a shotgun that has a muzzle velocity of 1 km per
second, firing pellets that do not slow down as they travel thru the air.
You are hunting with a high-ranking U.S. government official, standing at a
distance of about 1 km.  Every time he fires, you see a flash and three
seconds later hear a bang.  Suddenly he mistakes you for a duck or a liberal
and fires upon your ass!  This time you actually hear something, not after
three seconds but after only one second.  Why?  Well each pellet is creating
an oblique shock wave, like the aircraft in scenario 2 above.  Now imagine
this shotgun firing 1000 pellets of 1 millimeter each.  The oblique
shockwave of each pellet sort of adds together with all the other shockwaves
to form a composite shockwave traveling at 1000 meters per second.  Now
imagine instead of 1000 pellets of 1 mm, one million pellets of .1 mm.  Or a
billion pellets of .01 mm.  With those scenarios, it is a little easier to
imagine a transverse shock wave traveling at mach 3.  It sounds impossible,
but it isn't.

4.  Imagine you want to make a spacecraft that will endure impact with the
surface of Pluto.  You might wish to create something that would munch on
impact, but the aft end might decelerate sufficiently to survive, like the
last train car example in scenario 1.  At sufficiently low speeds, such a
thing might be possible.  But what actually happens in the hydrodynamic
impact regime is that a shock wave forms, a little like the interface
between the munched train cars and the undamaged cars in scenario 1.  The
shock wave travels aft thru the spacecraft at some velocity which is a
function of the impacting velocity, kinda like the airplane in scenario 2.
The shock wave is transverse, and is driven by the colliding interface
between the planetary surface and the spacecraft, a little like the pellets
driving the transverse shockwave in scenario 3.  

5.  Imagine you are a tungsten molecule sitting in the aft end of the 1
meter long impact lander in the above scenario.  You can see everything,
since the impact lander is transparent to you (atoms are, after all, nearly
all empty space, with a tiny dense wad of nucleus way inside this
probability- wave of electrons).  You approach the planet surface at 10 km
per second, or rather 10 millimeters per microsecond (a microsecond to an
atom is a long time).  Like the train passenger in scenario 1, you watch the
impact begin at time 0.  As the microseconds tick by, you study the
interface between the spacecraft and the quickly vaporizing planetary
surface.  This is a wild place, with solid material being blasted to plasma.
This interface is coming toward you at a rate of 2 mm per microsecond.
Unlike in scenario 1 above, you experience no deceleration at all.  You can
see that the shockwave interface vaporizes everything as it passes, but the
molecules upstream of the shock wave experience nothing at all.  Here's the
punchline: if the spacecraft is in the hydrodynamic regime, there is nothing
that can be done, no explosive devices, no springs, not one thing, that can
save that aftmost molecule from experiencing that bond-shattering shockwave.
Like the meteor that created that crater near Winslow Arizona, physical law
dictates that the impact lander will be vaporized, completely.  The crater
will end up being about five meters deep, with its diameter a function of
the mass and speed of what used to be the impact lander.

Some meteors do survive impact with the ground.  These are going relatively
slow when they hit, a couple hundred meters per second.  But anything above
about 3 km/sec there's no chance of anything surviving, utterly regardless
of all other factors. 

So if we wish to ever land on Pluto, we must figure a way to reduce the
relative velocity of lander and planet.  On these fast missions, ones that
arrive within ten or fifteen years of launch, the relative velocities must
be enormous.

spike



     

 








From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Feb 17 05:31:27 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:31:27 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Superintelligence
In-Reply-To: <BAY115-F12511DCD14CC99853F52C4D0FA0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY115-F12511DCD14CC99853F52C4D0FA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <41377A11-E8EE-4B24-BCDF-06953EFF0C63@mac.com>


On Feb 15, 2006, at 11:02 AM, Mikhail John wrote:
> I didn't say that humanity was worthless, I said that humanity is  
> flawed.
> You can sit on a cracked chair and that's better than sitting on  
> the dirt
> floor, but that crack in the leg might shatter at any time. We've been
> sitting on that chair with that crack for a long time, but that  
> doesn't mean
> that there is no reason to repair the crack.
>

Yep.  Of course it is inescapable that any and all actually existing  
beings will be "flawed" to some degree.   Only the terminally  
religious get to dream of absolute perfection.

> Philisophical arguments aside, a superintelligent being might  
> decide that
> the paranoid monkeys are going to try and nuke it.  Maybe the  
> stupid little
> fleshlings are going to try and build an anti-matter bomb, then  
> trip over it
> and set it off. If they are stupid enough to destroy their own  
> atmosphere,
> then they are stupid enough for anything. Rather than risk it, the  
> AI might
> just decide to destroy the humans before that happens.

That is certainly possible.

>
>>
>>> These, however, are flaws of society, not biology. The culture of
>>> the most
>>> powerful portion of the world believe that the world was made for
>>> humans by
>>> God and will last forever, no matter what we do to it.
>>
>> What the heck is a "culture" and where does it say that whatever it
>> is believes any such thing?
>
> The culture is what people think, believe, and do. The Human OS.  
> Some people
> use OpenBuddha, others KoranWord, but America, the most influential  
> and
> powerful nation is the word, runs on PraiseJesus ME, the PraiseJesus
> mercantile edition.
>

The entire country?  The majority?  I think not or at least I hope  
not.  Even among Christian fundamentalists it is not standard to  
believe that the wold will last forever.


> Google says that Acts 25 of the old testament of the bible includes  
> the line
> "He sustains the universe in its existence, giving life and breath  
> to all
> things, and hence, as the source whence they all proceed, must  
> Himself lack
> nothing nor stand in need of any human service;"
>

That is about God rather than about earth though.

>>
>> What, I can't make autonomous, self-reproducing androids that are
>> less bothersome than human beings?   Not much of an AI am I?
>
> Eh, why bother? It'd probably be kind of hard.

Maybe not harder and with a more tractable and capable result than  
modding humans.

>>
>> It is not inevitable simply because the continued existence of a
>> sufficiently technologically advanced humanity is not inevitable.  It
>> is not time to "sit back".
>
> Eh, sit back, work for it... Somebody is going to work for it. I  
> don't mind
> working for it. I probably will work for it. I could NOT work for  
> it, and I
> don't think it'd matter much. There are many people much, much  
> smarter and
> more driven than me, and some of them are trying to do this. I  
> believe it
> will happen. I might be wrong.
>

Guesswork about how smart or capable I am or am not seems like self- 
indulgent BS and an excuse.   I can decide what I want to see in the  
world and do what I can to bring it about coherent with all my  
values.  I accomplish however much I accomplish with less wasted  
energy or self-defeat.  There isn't enough time to second guess how  
big or small my own contribution will or could be compared to that of  
known or hypothetical others.  I have no right at all to assume  
someone else will do more than enough to justify my slacking off.

- samantha



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Feb 17 05:53:00 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:53:00 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI is a myth
In-Reply-To: <BAY112-DAV2C02BFE4FD9549077CFA9B7FA0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY112-DAV2C02BFE4FD9549077CFA9B7FA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <26ABD476-EDC7-4798-B53B-EEB09FA8D19C@mac.com>


On Feb 15, 2006, at 12:27 PM, Peter K. Bertine, Jr wrote:

> Samantha,
>
>
>
> I promise not to be a toady anymore.
>
>
>
> You have a funny concept of Singularity.  Please offer your proof  
> of why a > human AI is impossible.  If there is no such proof then  
> there is no basis for calling such a "myth".  I didn?t use the word  
> impossible. I said I didn?t believe in a common AI meme. My  
> understanding of an AI singularity is that when enough computers  
> are hooked up, with enough power, something magic happens and  
> ?life? is created in a process that we will not understand.  By  
> ?life? I mean a conscious entity based on silicon powered by  
> electricity.  I place the burden of proof upon the people trying to  
> create AI.  AI is an extraordinary concept, a very sexy meme,  
> humans love it.  Merry Shelly created the first AI meme when she  
> wrote Frankenstein.  The success of her work, a 19 year old girl?s  
> short novel eclipsing  her husband and Lord Byron, is extraordinary  
> and is proof that there is something in the human psyche that longs  
> for spontaneous life, the regeneration of Jesus, the rising of the  
> dead.  AI is a fantastic scientific possibility, but I am dubious  
> that it is inevitable.  It will require enormous human effort to  
> make a conscious machine.  It is fun to think that some network of  
> Cray?s or some distant generation of Play Station will suddenly  
> wake up, think therefore it is, and demand a seat at the UN; but  
> that is all it is, fun, it?s fiction, it?s The Terminator or War  
> Games, it?s a myth.
>
>

That isn't a very good model of Singularity.  Read the following and  
see if you still have the same opinion.

http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html
http://www.singinst.org/what-singularity.html

>
>
> Peter, until someone comes up with a *really* good explanation for  
> the "missing mass" you have to admit that our current picture of  
> reality is quite incomplete.  Robert, I do not have to admit  
> reality is incomplete due to the ?missing mass? in the universe.  A  
> is A.  Until I can probe it, measure it and repeat it and get  
> others to probe it, measure it and repeat it, with the same  
> results, then it is far worse than *theory*,  it is wishful  
> thinking and nothing more than the very human urge to find meaning  
> out of randomness
>
>
>
> Read again.  "Our *picture* of reality is incomplete."
>
>
>
> I have read it again and again and my point is weak here but what I  
> wanted to do was challenge Robert from the start.  Our picture of a  
> universal model is incomplete.  We don?t know if the universe will  
> expand forever or implode.  But ?reality? is a big word.  Robert  
> was setting up an argument with me in which I had to admit in the  
> likelihood of alien civilizations playing god with solar systems,  
> galaxies, and even us.  Taken out of context the sentence is  
> correct if reality refers to cosmology.  But the sentence is the  
> first step to get me to agree to a long string of sentences that  
> lead up to a ?concept? that I do not believe.  In reality we have  
> no evidence of advanced civilizations playing god with solar  
> systems. I wish we did !  And if Robert was just chatting with me  
> about how such civilizations might function I would be honored and  
> we?d have a hell of a conversation.  However, I got into this whole  
> mess with Robert because his memes had become myths to a poster to  
> this site.  Someone who showed evidence of mental instability was  
> taking what Robert said and using it to support his fantasy.  This  
> person is now going back to his cult and saying that he has been in  
> continuous contact with Robert and that Robert supports the basis  
> of their religion/cult.  I don?t want Transhumanism to be  
> associated with a religion/cult and I needed to confront Robert.
>
>
>
>

Wow.  You sure make it complicated.   There is a chain of observation  
and reasoning that leads inexorably to the possibility of  >human  
intelligence which leads to a Singularity.  What is on the other side  
of that is anyone's guess.  However, there is nothing in reality that  
precludes an intelligence sufficiently powerful to simulate an entire  
world or universe from coming into being.   Some of Robert's comments  
come from recognition of this possibility.  Just because someone you  
consider unbalanced bounces off of the implications is no reason to  
attempt to deny the entire chain of reasoning that led to such an  
implication.  If you want to challenge the conclusion then you will  
have to wade into the argument and show flaws along the way.  It is  
no good simply denying because you don't like the implications or how  
some people take them.

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/fbf232ba/attachment.html>

From alito at organicrobot.com  Fri Feb 17 06:20:23 2006
From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:20:23 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <200602170513.k1H5DSUW026532@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200602170513.k1H5DSUW026532@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <1140157223.13078.195.camel@alito.homeip.net>

On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 21:13 -0800, spike wrote:
> 5.  Imagine you are a tungsten molecule sitting in the aft end of the 1
> meter long impact lander in the above scenario.  You can see everything,
> since the impact lander is transparent to you (atoms are, after all, nearly
> all empty space, with a tiny dense wad of nucleus way inside this
> probability- wave of electrons).  You approach the planet surface at 10 km
> per second, or rather 10 millimeters per microsecond (a microsecond to an
> atom is a long time).  Like the train passenger in scenario 1, you watch the
> impact begin at time 0.  As the microseconds tick by, you study the
> interface between the spacecraft and the quickly vaporizing planetary
> surface.  This is a wild place, with solid material being blasted to plasma.
> This interface is coming toward you at a rate of 2 mm per microsecond.
> Unlike in scenario 1 above, you experience no deceleration at all.  You can
> see that the shockwave interface vaporizes everything as it passes, but the
> molecules upstream of the shock wave experience nothing at all.  Here's the
> punchline: if the spacecraft is in the hydrodynamic regime, there is nothing
> that can be done, no explosive devices, no springs, not one thing, that can
> save that aftmost molecule from experiencing that bond-shattering shockwave.
> Like the meteor that created that crater near Winslow Arizona, physical law
> dictates that the impact lander will be vaporized, completely.  The crater
> will end up being about five meters deep, with its diameter a function of
> the mass and speed of what used to be the impact lander.

Thanks for the excellent explanation, Spike.  
A query:  The incoming energy is provided by the kinetic energy of the
lander, which is proportional to its mass. The energy is going into
vaporising it, which is also proportional to its mass, but some of the
planet is getting vaporised too, and the more lander there is, the more
planet that is going to get vaporised (if I read your explanation
correctly).  Wouldn't this vaporisation energy then, at some large
enough lander mass,  be above the kinetic energy of the lander?



From jonano at gmail.com  Fri Feb 17 07:19:22 2006
From: jonano at gmail.com (Jonathan Despres)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:19:22 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Canadian Researchers Discover A Natural Defence
	Mechanism For Alzheimer's Disease
Message-ID: <6030482a0602162319v756b43bp9e81f3b192d94243@mail.gmail.com>

A team from the Faculty of Medicine at Universit? Laval and the
research centre at CHUQ (Centre hospitalier universitaire de Qu?bec)
has discovered a natural defence mechanism that the body deploys to
combat nerve cell degeneration observed in persons with Alzheimer's
disease (AD). Investigators Alain R. Simard, Denis Soulet, Genevieve
Gowing, Jean-Pierre Julien and Serge Rivest describe this major
discovery in the February 16th issue of the scientific journal Neuron.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060216192251.htm



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Feb 17 08:10:18 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:10:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602161816u3fc1ef64q1e8d2bf806c76813@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216200408.02c9b990@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060216200408.02c9b990@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060217013433.02c5a768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 02:16 AM 2/17/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>On 2/17/06, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> 
>wrote:
>>The paper and the model makes the case that--because economic growth got
>>ahead of population growth in Ireland--the average gain on the mechanism in
>>the population was turned down.  (I.e., a behavior switch was
>>flipped.)  With a gain of less than one, the circulating memes encouraging
>>the warriors to fight were damped till they lost motivational force and the
>>IRA went out of business.
>
>Ah, okay - population wasn't involved as a causal factor, only as a later 
>effect, but yes, economic growth in Ireland did play a role in damping 
>down the level of sectarian violence. (Damping down, not eliminating - the 
>IRA are still very much in business - but they're moving more in the 
>direction of a Mafia-style outfit these days; there isn't as much hatred 
>and killing as there was.) I suspect memetics played a larger role, though 
>it's hard to untangle the different causes for something like this.

How should I put this?   Perception of bad future prospects turn up the 
gain for xenophobic memes.  *Some* xenophobic meme will become dominate, 
like some frequency will on a microphone squeal.  Pre WWII there was a time 
when an observer in Germany would have been hard pressed to decide if 
communism or nazism would become dominate.

Point being that memes are a link between ultimate cause of war and wars or 
related social disruptions such as the IRA was engaged in.  Pre existing 
xenophobic memes, particularly "religions" are likely to be the seed 
meme.  But if people feel the need to fight, they can *always* amplify some 
kind of meme up to a "reason" to fight.  The *particular* meme the 
attackers are using is an artifact of pre existing memes and a positive 
feedback process.

snip

>>I would be *delighted* if you can find holes in the model.  Most depressing
>>work I have ever done.
>
>I know that feeling! Okay, let's see...
>
>1) Population growth only results in economic decline in a hunter-gatherer 
>economy where wealth is gathered from the environment; in an industrial 
>economy, where wealth is produced by people, higher population results in 
>higher GNP. (I'm repeating this because I think the error is contributing 
>to the lack of effective action to address Europe's current population 
>crash - but it isn't central to your model, which is really about 
>economics rather than population, so I'll move on.)

No it isn't about economics per se.  It is about a population's 
*perception* of future prospects.  People in the Stone Age who were 
sensitive to this went to war before their warriors were starving and 
became the dominate genotype.

>2) The evolutionary effect you postulate is somewhat doubtful.

First war is a species typical behavior.  That means that this behavior 
evolved, i.e., was selected for in the EEA.

>Remember the idea that noncombatants are sacrosanct is a modern one. In 
>the ancestral environment, starting a war was only a good idea if you were 
>going to win; losing could mean your entire tribe was wiped out.

That's rational.  The specifically model specifically incorporates 
psychological mechanisms that inhibit rational thinking.  I think Drew 
Westen's fMRI work has demonstrated this mechanism.  The only way this 
mechanism could have been selected is if there are situation where non 
rational thinking leads to better gene survival.  Since non rational thing 
all too often toasts your bacon, you have to invoke Hamilton's inclusive 
fitness for such a trait to evolve.

>Yes, sometimes the winners would keep the women, but not always.

As long as girls were booty enough of the time, the trait of taking insane 
risks  would survive.

>There's an example in the Old Testament where the Israelites were ordered 
>to keep only the virgin girls of a conquered people and exterminate the 
>rest; that's not a large percentage of genes surviving. There are plenty 
>of other cases where the losing tribe was wiped out to the last infant.

Infants were among the most *likely* to be killed if you look at if from 
the gene's view.

>It looks to me like a tribe faced with a food shortage, say because the 
>rain failed this year or whatever, would be better off just taking some 
>losses from starvation rather than starting a war it wasn't going to win.

Even from a rational viewpoint a weak tribe is better off 
attacking.  Because if they don't (and the ecological conditions conducive 
to war affect their neighbors) they *will be* attacked.   With the 
advantage of surprise, they might win

>I've even seen one study that found in some primitive culture - might have 
>been the Yanomamo, not sure - there was a _positive_ correlation between 
>wealth and aggressive raiding.

For the second modality to war, absolute wealth has little to do with 
it.  It is a drop in current wealth and/or poor future prospects.(First 
modality is being attacked.)

>The author's suggested explanation was that if a tribe is sufficiently 
>well off that a man's wife and children can survive without him, that 
>reduces the risk to his genes of raiding the neighbors to try to capture 
>more women, eliminate competitors or whatever.

Hmm.  Please look for this study.

>3) In historical times it doesn't seem to me that there are a lot of 
>examples supporting your theory. Rome was one of the wealthiest 
>civilizations around when it wiped out Carthage and invaded Gaul. The 
>Spanish weren't exactly short of a few bob when they launched the Armada. 
>Germany's economy was going gangbusters in 1914. Conversely, Mexico for 
>example is a lot poorer than the US; when was the last time Mexico went to war?

Sort out who started the wars.  Being attacked will always work to get into 
a war.

>In fact, the Weimar Republic is the only positive example I can think of 
>offhand, and even that one's not as simple as it looks.
>
>4) There is some empirical basis for the idea that bad economic prospects 
>encourage urban violence, but that doesn't mean they lead to war. Consider 
>that once you're past the Stone Age, the decision to go to war _is not 
>made by the common people_.

I disagree.  You only have to go back to WWII for a war that the ruling 
classes, particularly the president, wanted to get into for some time and 
they just could not do so because of the lack of public support.  Till the 
US was attacked of course.

>It's made by the ruling classes, who are exactly the group that will _not_ 
>be affected by an economic downturn. Therefore, _even if your theory is 
>correct up to this point_ we should still expect to see wars actually 
>start for reasons unrelated to economics - and that is just what we do 
>observe when we look at history.

Gak.  And I thought *my* model was depressing.  It's bad enough to have a 
model where you can at least see a way to stay out of wars even if you 
can't see a way to impose women's lib on a zillion Islamic women.

There is another theory that too many unattached men (somehow) are the 
cause of wars.  If so, China will start a war right away.  If rising income 
per capita keeps war mode shut off, we should see no wars with China unless 
some other country starts one.

Keith Henson



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Fri Feb 17 12:29:17 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:29:17 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientology and Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216211031.02c9bad8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <c0a791b40602161145i1e1cbbaaxe2f5358b88e1d9a2@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY112-DAV126315088423B0A3B0027FB7FB0@phx.gbl>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060216211031.02c9bad8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602170429i66b3cc4dq7b5854f2e45434d3@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/17/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> At 11:19 PM 2/16/2006 +0000, you wrote:
> > > For the CoS symbol look half way down wikipedia's site
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
> >
> >Actually, never seen that before.
> >Clearly it's a ripoff of the Xian version.
>
> Actually it is a ripoff of Crowley's tarot cards which is known as the
> crossed out cross.
>
> http://www.lermanet.com/scientology-and-occult/
>
> Google Results 1 - 10 of about 164 for scientology "crossed out cross"

As I said before, it's a symbol that has millenia of mythology behind
it, as Crowley undoubtedly knew.
I'd like to know who chose it for the WTA, and whhether they knew this.

Dirk



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Fri Feb 17 13:34:43 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:34:43 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216195751.02c58dc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216195751.02c58dc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602170534n37516f9buc3fd5c58bc85fe68@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/17/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

> If they were *just*  cutting their balls off I would never have noticed
> them--at least no more than Heaven's Gate.  I got into this battle when
> they tried to destroy part of the net--Kobrin's famous rmgroup.  Later they
> ran the longest denial of service attack in history.

I don't deny that they are often a nasty bunch of people.

...
> >I am pursuaded, but you are brainwashed etc
> >The fact that two people can come to conflicting conclusions given the
> >same data means that there is likely no objective position.
>
> If two people come to conflicting conclusions given the same data, you
> *can* tell with fMRI if one of them is using the reasoning parts or the
> emotional parts of their brains.
>
> If a lot of people are using the reasoning parts of their brains on some
> subject that may come to _define_ the objective position.  If two people
> are arguing about religion, I would be surprised to find either one of them
> had the reasoning parts engaged.  :-)

Yet, from the above, I strongly suspect that if we had both our brains
scanned it would be your emotion centres that lit up - not mine. I
have almost no emotional investment in Scientology either for or
against.

Dirk



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Fri Feb 17 14:40:57 2006
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:40:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] [please] pare replies
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F5E8E708FAA8FA1B5C31B7B4FB0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY103-F5E8E708FAA8FA1B5C31B7B4FB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <E5AA1187-D1F6-4A24-9EAD-427774766AB6@bonfireproductions.com>


On Feb 16, 2006, at 12:35 PM, Brian Lee wrote:

>  I don't read every single message so I
> frequently read every 10th as a sort of digest version of the list.

Hi Brian,

You are begging the question: If you don't read all the messages,  
then why suggest policy on message presentation!  : )

I have seen, in the past few weeks in particular, some really, really  
mangled postings. The text colors didn't coordinate, font changes,  
top and bottom and insert remarks within the same text body, and in a  
worst case scenario, someone sent an email that left Samantha's .sig  
at the bottom, and it was obviously not an email from Samantha. I  
couldn't make head nor tail of it, and know I wouldn't be too  
thrilled with people basically signing my name to their emails.


> I think that not including the entire quote is valid in a medium  
> like a
> bulletin board, but for listservs it's acceptable to have the entire
> previous post included in your quote.

But I am only responding specifically to these two points of your  
email. How better to convey my point than to address your points  
directly, one at a time? The entire message in some of these threads  
is many pages. If I am asking a question about paragraph 3, I should  
not be expected to send all 3 pages in return, should I ?

Anyhow, just my two cents!

Thanks,
Bret K.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060217/fe9bcf40/attachment.html>

From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Fri Feb 17 15:16:03 2006
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:16:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <200602160711.k1G7Boqt027099@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200602160711.k1G7Boqt027099@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <F9FDAA75-B4A3-4E38-93F6-76F531BB642B@bonfireproductions.com>


Hi spike!

If we just accept the necessary increase in mass to do this (since  
we're forgoing fuel to land, why not), could we not build some sort  
of kinetic ladder for the lander to step down?

If there were multiple projectiles of different materials landing in  
(very) rapid succession, then we could build an environment starting  
at the surface and working its way up to the actual "lander" in the  
milliseconds before impact. This environment would gradually increase  
the density of the medium the craft was passing through until it  
reached the surface. Sort of like skidding to a halt. It could be  
done with either materials or perhaps other forms of energy release,  
depending on what was more economical to carry. If you consider the  
timing necessary to reach critical mass in a fission-fusion-fission  
reaction, I think this would be equally as "easy".

Thoughts?

Bret K.


On Feb 16, 2006, at 1:36 AM, spike wrote:

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
>
> Sounds like you need a combination orbiter + lander.  Let the  
> lander just
> worry about getting signals up to the orbiter and the orbiter worry  
> about
> getting them back to Earth.  But they you still have the deceleration
> problem again.  I think an inflatable antenna on a hard-impact  
> lander might
> be the way to go.  The crater problem can be solved if you can  
> bring it in
> at a low angle and/or let it bounce/roll along until it came to a
> stop...Robert
>
>
> Robert and all space fans,
>
> I thought this over and remembered a project I was on about fifteen
> years ago.  When the kinetic energy of a projectile is large with
> respect to the sum of the heat of fusion plus the heat of vaporization
> of the projectile material, you are in what is termed the hydrodynamic
> impact regime.  Upon impact, a compression wave is sufficiently  
> violent
> to break the chemical bonds in both the projectile and the target.   
> The
> projectile and the target are vaporized in this regime, regardless
> of the material of either the projectile or the target.
>
> Above the hydrodynamic impact regime velocity, increasing velocity
> of the projectile does not punch a deeper hole in the target, it
> only punches a wider hole.  This explains why the craters on the
> moon are wide but not particularly deep.  It also explains why
> super high speed armor piercing shells are long skinny things: the
> length is all that matters above a certain speed.
>
> On the project previously mentioned, the velocities we were working
> were all in the 3 to 4 km/sec range.  This was sufficient to
> enter the hydrodynamic impact regime for the second highest
> energy of vaporization material we know of: tungsten.  Only
> carbon is higher, and that not by much.
>
> So if we were to try an impact landing on Pluto,
> we would still need to reduce the relative velocity down to
> about that of a high-speed rifle bullet, which is in the 0.4
> to 0.6 km/sec range.  You know what happens to a rifle bullet
> when it hits a target; you can dig out the slug usually.  It's
> messed up, but still mostly there.
>
> So if we attempt to land on Pluto, the required deceleration
> is not 14 km/sec but rather only about 13.5 km/sec.
>
> If we suggest something like what one poster proposed, to
> drop a cable and allow the drag across the surface to
> decelerate the vehicle, keep in mind that it might take
> a lot of cable.  If the relative velocity of spacecraft
> to planet is 14 km/sec and it is strong enough to withstand
> a tension of 100 times the mass of the vehicle, you need to
> reel out 14 km of cable in the first second after the craft
> passes the planet, 13 km in the next second, and so on, for
> a total of about 120 km.  This assumes you can somehow
> maintain a nice steady 100 G deceleration, and you
> somehow solve the problem of hydrodynamic impact
> vaporizing the cable upon impact.
>
> If you decide to go the route of chemical rocket
> deceleration, you have a problem of how to keep
> the fuel from freezing if you use hydrazine or
> how to keep it from boiling away if you use
> cryogenic fuels.
>
> Of all the possibilities, the one most attractive
> to me is to send it out on a Hohmann orbit, which
> obviates most of the fuel problem, since the relative
> velocity of spacecraft to Pluto is low upon arrival.  The
> main drawback to this approach is that it takes about
> 62 years to get there, assuming gravitational assist
> from Jupiter.  That would make me 107 by the time it
> gets there, assuming we launch right away.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Fri Feb 17 14:24:53 2006
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:24:53 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] CBS NEWS:  Freezing Their Assets (Cryonics)
In-Reply-To: <380-22006251705914665@M2W084.mail2web.com>
References: <380-22006251705914665@M2W084.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <A798DBBC-97D4-4C26-96CA-535B08558A0A@bonfireproductions.com>


This is starting in a direction that has a pretty high potential, and  
it is not a comforting one.

With the religious fervor currently roving the planet in search of  
something to suppress, I don't know how many of these articles we  
will be able to withstand. It is not an enjoyable trend. We will need  
to think through tactical responses to articles like this, and  
cultivate a somewhat protective (but open and honest) strategy until  
a few current cultures mature. The assignment of the notion of wealth  
and thereby superiority is immensely more dangerous than the  
assumption of wealth. This strikes me at a personal level, with my  
surname indicative of my family having gone through all this "once  
before" at the turn of the last century in Russia.

I would like to start by offering that in general, most local  
representations of religious institutions expect a tithe of 3-5% of  
household income. This amount easily covers one's arrangements for  
cryopreservation instead. Being a millionaire/plutocrat is not a  
prerequisite for this option, only a belief in the human capability  
to overcome its greatest obstacles. It could be argued ~ not where I  
stand personally  ~ "How better to do God's work, than continue my  
devout life in the future." Perhaps a meme worth keeping on the  
backburner for some.

Bret K.



On Feb 16, 2006, at 7:59 PM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote:

> Thought you all might find something of interest in this read:
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/opinion/main1323253.shtml
>
> "But what Christ couldn't or didn't do, our modern American  
> plutocrats are
> readying themselves to accomplish."
>
> Natasha
>
> ___________________________
>
> Natasha Vita-More, President
> Extropy Institute
> http://www.extorpy.org
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Feb 17 15:28:17 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 07:28:17 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <1140157223.13078.195.camel@alito.homeip.net>
Message-ID: <200602171528.k1HFSJVA009774@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alejandro Dubrovsky
...

>  The crater
> > will end up being about five meters deep, with its diameter a function
> of the mass and speed of what used to be the impact lander.
> 
> Thanks for the excellent explanation, Spike.
> A query:  The incoming energy is provided by the kinetic energy of the
> lander, which is proportional to its mass. The energy is going into
> vaporising it, which is also proportional to its mass, but some of the
> planet is getting vaporised too, and the more lander there is, the more
> planet that is going to get vaporised (if I read your explanation
> correctly).  Wouldn't this vaporisation energy then, at some large
> enough lander mass,  be above the kinetic energy of the lander?


Good question thanks.  You are right: it is a puzzling output of the finite
element sim they were running, but it makes sense.  Above a certain
velocity, the mass of the projectile did not result in significant change in
the diameter of the hole.  The length of the projectile is directly
proportional to the depth of the hole and the projectile velocity is
directly proportional to the diameter of the hole.

The equations all get much simpler above about 3 km/sec.

spike


  




From natasha at natasha.cc  Fri Feb 17 15:49:15 2006
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:49:15 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  Cults, Scientology and UFOs
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060217094406.04a4f2f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

List members:

Please take posts on these topics off list. Too many list members these 
topics annoying and abusive to the level of intelligence and emotional 
well-being of extropy and transhumanists who strive to create a better 
future for humanity.

Thank you for paying attention to and adding to the quality of this list 
and thinking before your post.

Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist - Designer
Future Studies, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Senior Associate, <http://foresight.org/>Foresight Institute
Advisor, <http://alcor.org/>Alcor Life Extension Foundation

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective.
Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060217/906dd26c/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Feb 17 16:28:48 2006
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:28:48 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Leaving list
Message-ID: <22360fa10602170828x3e4f4fcfnf1988d497739b571@mail.gmail.com>

For several months I've been struggling with the realization that a
significant portion of my available time is spent reading emails which
have been providing far less than 1% payoff in terms of new or refined
understanding.  While I feel a strong attachment to the ExI list, and
I have a deep philosophical appreciation of what is being pointed at
by Max's Principles of Extropy, I have to face the fact that for me,
participation in this list has become predominately entropic.

I've seen many intelligent, thoughtful, and passionate posters come
and go, and I'll miss the unique social flavor of this list, but it's
time for me to apply more of my time to more personally creative,
productive and satisfying efforts.

I offer my thanks to those who have tried, and succeeded in various
ways, to promote extropian values and who are still here on the list
to read this.  Thanks also to those who have been in personal contact
and have made a real difference in my thinking and my life over the
last ten years.  You know who you are and how to stay in contact.

I'm unsubscribing today.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net
Increasing awareness for increasing morality




On 2/17/06, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>  List members:
>
>  Please take posts on these topics off list. Too many list members these
> topics annoying and abusive to the level of intelligence and emotional
> well-being of extropy and transhumanists who strive to create a better
> future for humanity.
>
>  Thank you for paying attention to and adding to the quality of this list
> and thinking before your post.
>

Classic.



From natasha at natasha.cc  Fri Feb 17 16:46:43 2006
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:46:43 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Leaving list
In-Reply-To: <22360fa10602170828x3e4f4fcfnf1988d497739b571@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <22360fa10602170828x3e4f4fcfnf1988d497739b571@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060217104240.02f6bd48@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 10:28 AM 2/17/2006, Jef wrote:

>For several months I've been struggling with the realization that a
>significant portion of my available time is spent reading emails which
>have been providing far less than 1% payoff in terms of new or refined
>understanding.  While I feel a strong attachment to the ExI list, and
>I have a deep philosophical appreciation of what is being pointed at
>by Max's Principles of Extropy, I have to face the fact that for me,
>participation in this list has become predominately entropic.

I see Jef's post as a call to action!

  We will miss you Jef!

Natasha

>On 2/17/06, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> >  List members:
> >
> >  Please take posts on these topics off list. Too many list 
> [find]members these
> > topics annoying and abusive to the level of intelligence and emotional
> > well-being of extropy and transhumanists who strive to create a better
> > future for humanity.
> >
> >  Thank you for paying attention to and adding to the quality of this list
> > and thinking before your post.
> >
>
>Classic.
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist - Designer
Future Studies, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
Honorary Vice-Chair, <http://transhumanism.org/>World Transhumanist 
Association
Senior Associate, <http://foresight.org/>Foresight Institute
Advisor, <http://alcor.org/>Alcor Life Extension Foundation

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective.
Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060217/dbfe54a0/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Fri Feb 17 17:38:41 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:38:41 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Cults, Scientology and UFOs
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060217094406.04a4f2f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060217094406.04a4f2f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602170938q15d070e2o725410a6f2c090a6@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/17/06, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>
> List members:
>
> Please take posts on these topics off list. Too many list members these
> topics annoying and abusive to the level of intelligence and emotional
> well-being of extropy and transhumanists who strive to create a better
> future for humanity.
>
> Thank you for paying attention to and adding to the quality of this list
> and thinking before your post.



No problem.
However, there are lessons to be learned from successful cults.
If ExI had the power and resources of Scientology or the Unification Church
things would be looking up.
It may only be a matter of time before Transhumanism spawns such a
successful cult itself. Raelianism is close, but too outdated to make the
jump IMO.

It's worth keeping your eyes open. Transhumanism, in its incarnation as an
imminent apocalyptic meme promising eternal life and heaven on Earth, has
every ingredient necessary, and is more firmly based in modern science than
any cult/religion I can think of. I'm almost tempted...

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060217/e13249a0/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Feb 17 17:57:09 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:57:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta--Fair to clams (was Cults)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060216230731.01a64cd8@satx.rr.com>
References: <004501c63377$37a828d0$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
	<mailman.459.1140076201.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<004501c63377$37a828d0$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060217125450.02d18eb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 11:08 PM 2/16/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>At 11:04 PM 2/16/2006 -0500, some nameless wonder wrote:
>
> >Let's be fair to Scientologists:
>
>Okay, this list has finally reached rock bottom.

Surely a list that has persisted as long as this one has a method to weed 
out this level of silliness.

Keith Henson




From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Fri Feb 17 18:05:28 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:05:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen cells
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060217125450.02d18eb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV190EEBBC706B9173E539E8B7F80@phx.gbl>

Does anyone know of practical hydrogen cell technology that could be
utilized for off the grid home power?
[PKB] 


From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Fri Feb 17 18:56:47 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:56:47 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <200602171528.k1HFSJVA009774@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <1140157223.13078.195.camel@alito.homeip.net>
	<200602171528.k1HFSJVA009774@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602171056s67b62c62j47f6731739d1b243@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/17/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Good question thanks.  You are right: it is a puzzling output of the
> finite
> element sim they were running, but it makes sense.  Above a certain
> velocity, the mass of the projectile did not result in significant change
> in
> the diameter of the hole.  The length of the projectile is directly
> proportional to the depth of the hole and the projectile velocity is
> directly proportional to the diameter of the hole.
>

That doesn't sound right. Consider extreme cases: taking a 1 meter
projectile with a mass of 1 ton, suppose the velocity were 0.5c; then the
crater depth would be far more than a few meters. Or suppose it were made of
aerogel, then the diameter would be substantially reduced.

I'm wondering whether the above conclusions are approximately correct within
a certain range of density and velocity, or whether there are effects the
simulation in question didn't take into account, or what.

(I read somewhere that all impact craters are roughly the same shape,
diameter something like 20 times the depth, with the dimensions being
proportional to the cube root of energy; but I don't have a reference to
hand, and don't know whether the statement is true or not.)

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060217/4806ceda/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Fri Feb 17 19:39:13 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:39:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <200602171528.k1HFSJVA009774@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <1140157223.13078.195.camel@alito.homeip.net>
	<200602171528.k1HFSJVA009774@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602171139h16ef37aaqebda858fdf260033@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/17/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Above a certain velocity, the mass of the projectile did not result in
> significant change in the diameter of the hole.  The length of the
> projectile is directly proportional to the depth of the hole and the
> projectile velocity is directly proportional to the diameter of the hole.


It sounds like the  velocity, which determines the kinetic energy of the
"first impacting" atoms is transferred down and to the sides (of course it
can't get transferred "down" very far because the atoms in the rest of the
planet are only going to compress just so much and no more.  The only place
the compression can get transferred to is outward and ultimately upward
(which is why the walls of the crater rise up above the initial surface
plane at the point of impact).  Of course some of the atoms gain enough
energy to move into the gas/plasma state and may settle out someplace far
from the crater or go into orbit.  Now the length effect is fairly easy to
explain as the front portion of the probe keeps getting vaporized and pushes
material out of the way the portion behind it keeps penetrating deeper and
deeper into the surface.  Sounds like one doesn't need nuclear weapons for
"bunker busters".  Sounds like one needs really long narrow cone shaped
weapons coming in at extremely hypersonic velocities.

Now, to return to the question at hand...  I don't care if all of this
material is getting vaporized and if the vaporization wave is proceeding
through the shield at the speed of sound.  Light travels a foot in a
nanosecond. I believe we are now timing things down to femtoseconds or even
attoseconds. Given a velocity of 14 km/sec it looks like you have ~70 msec
in the last km of descent to decide what to do.  To me this sounds like a
rather significant amount of time before the nanosecond of impact.

If we are impacting Pluto at 14 km/sec all I have to do is get the lander
going at a speed of ~ -14.XX km/sec to put enough distance between it and
the impact conflagration to allow it to survive and make a nice soft landing
elsewhere.  So long as the net negative velocity is somewhat greater than
the impact velocity and less than the escape velocity from Pluto one should
be ok.  So what it looks like is that one wants to launch the probe away
from the impactor at a few tens of meters per second some number of seconds
shortly before impact.  Mind you if you were *really* clever you would
launch it in a somewhat horizontal direction that could put it into orbit so
you could survey the entire planet.

Now it looks like high speed bullets max out around 1.5 km/sec. But various
explosives used in nuclear weapon detonations can manage ~5-9 km/sec [1].
So some set of nesting bullets (e.g. Matrioshka Bullets) containing the
"probe" (or mini-probe-components) should be able to do the trick.  While
"normal" rail guns only manage 2.5 km/sec [2] this doesn't appear to be a
hard limit as Sandia's Z machine can accelerate objects to velocities to
13-34 km/sec [3,4] in less than a second.  As the speed of sound in solids,
e.g. steel, is ~5 km/sec if you can manage about -20 km/sec at the precise
moment of impact you could negate both your forward velocity and avoid the
back propagating pressure wave.  So this *isn't* impossible.  And you've got
all that time from Jupiter to Pluto to store up the electricity from the RTG
to produce the power required.  (Mind you you are going to need some large
capacitors to store it in but perhaps that is where nanotech comes in --
nanotubes appear to have the capability of making great capacitors).

It should be noted that the acceleration in rail guns can reach 250,000 g
and in the Z machine reaches a billion g's *without* destroying the object
being accelerated.  So very high deceleration rates can be tolerated.  The
problem is to slow the propagation of the energy of impact from nanoseconds
to seconds so the probe contents can remain in a functional state.

I would lay odds that the simulations Spike mentions did not try to
structure the impactor so the maximum amount of energy was transferred to
the surrounding planetary material rather than the impactor itself because
that long ago I don't think we had the supercomputer power required to do
atomic level simulations of materials engineered to reflect IR & vibrational
energy.

Robert

1. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-1.html
2. http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_RailGuns,,00.html
3. http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project459.html
4.
http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/nuclear-power/z-saturn.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060217/47b73c27/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Fri Feb 17 20:16:05 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:16:05 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen cells
In-Reply-To: <BAY112-DAV190EEBBC706B9173E539E8B7F80@phx.gbl>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060217125450.02d18eb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<BAY112-DAV190EEBBC706B9173E539E8B7F80@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602171216n5d7d2eascade7248939c3299@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/17/06, Peter K. Bertine, Jr <pkbertine at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know of practical hydrogen cell technology that could be
> utilized for off the grid home power?


Your best bet is solar to DC electric to split H2O and then use the H2
directly.  Appliances that can run off of methane (natural gas) can probably
run off of H2 as well.  You just have to be more careful about the
connections so it doesn't leak.  H2 also has the nasty property that it
embrittles metals that are not designed to specifically transport it.

Alternatively you can use anaerobic bacteria (methanogens) to convert most
biomaterial (animal waste, garbage, etc.) into methane and use that.

If you are talking *just* the fuel cells, then I believe a number of
companies off them.  FuelCellWorks.com looks like a good portal, see:
http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Companies.html

Google lists something like 1.8 million pages for "Hydrogen fuel cell
prices" so you may want to refine your search criteria as much as possible.

It is worth noting that most hydrogen production is now done from methane
which comes out of the ground.  That makes the hydrogen both expensive and
dependent upon a unsustainable (and potentially global ecology damaging)
resource.

The best resource would be solar + H2O + CO2 directly to methane or solar +
H2O directly to hydrogen but genome engineering isn't quite up to that task
yet.  The major flaws in the U.S./DOE push towards hydrogen are (1) the
current non-sustainable production methods and (2) the complete lack of
infrastructure (e.g. tanks, pipelines & trucks) capable of storing or
transporting it.  Even if a miracle of nanoengineering results in
inexpensive solar splitting of water to yield H2 one *still* hasn't solved
the storage and transport problems.  Methane from solar is absolutely the
way to go because it can go directly into existing pipelines or be converted
into propane or even octane and use existing infrastructure.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060217/01e4a5a0/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 17 20:25:10 2006
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:25:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602170938q15d070e2o725410a6f2c090a6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060217202510.9269.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
> Transhumanism, in
> its incarnation as an
> imminent apocalyptic meme promising eternal life and
> heaven on Earth, has
> every ingredient necessary, and is more firmly based
> in modern science than
> any cult/religion I can think of. I'm almost
> tempted...

Allow me to tempt you further. I'll see your heaven on
Earth and raise you a diaspora across the stars. I
have been thinking much along these lines for quite
some time. Transhumanism is already viewed by the
masses as some kind of cult. I don't see what there
would be to lose. I can think of much to gain. Think
about the potential. A cult based upon empiricism,
philosophy, and rational optimism where we canonize
the likes of Plato, Darwin, Neitszche, and Einstein. A
religion that actually imparted immeninently useful
truths upon the faithful that were of consequence in
the HERE AND NOW and not some illusory afterlife. 

A seamless blending of ancient wisdom from around the
world and cutting edge science. After a life time of
scientific enquiry and spiritual seeking, I literally
have faith in the potential for humanity to transcend
its limitations. And why should we not? We alone of
amongst the creatures of the world have any concept of
the scope of this vast universe and how little of it
we have explored. Why would we be able to discern it
at all, if we were not meant to explore it? 

Whether the gods created us in their image or we
created them in ours, we are nonetheless CREATORS. Why
should we not then strive to create a future that is
to our liking and embrace that future? Unless and
until Fermi's Great Silence is unequivocally broken,
then we alone are the avatars of the sentient living
universe. It is time we started acting like the
godlings we are. To paraphrase the Buddha, "In all of
heaven and earth, I alone am holy."





Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science [...] Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress" 
- St. Darwin

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From benboc at lineone.net  Fri Feb 17 21:37:10 2006
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:37:10 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] [don't] pare replies
In-Reply-To: <mailman.491.1140150930.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.491.1140150930.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <43F64206.3080808@lineone.net>

spike asked:
 > Open to suggestion Exi-ers.  What say ye?  spike


I say: Use your common sense. But please do pay attention to whichever 
you do.

Very long replies that quote previous posts in their entirety are 
tedious, but sometimes it's a worthwhile thing to do. I suspect most 
people who do it, do it out of laziness or not paying attention, though, 
and i'd prefer them not to.

ben (who recently broke the 'don't use "Re: Extropy-chat Digest xxx" as 
a subject line' rule!)


From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Feb 17 22:18:12 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:18:12 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602170534n37516f9buc3fd5c58bc85fe68@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216195751.02c58dc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<c0a791b40602170534n37516f9buc3fd5c58bc85fe68@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <847018D4-4D72-452E-B477-45E89DDB1EC6@mac.com>


On Feb 17, 2006, at 5:34 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote:
> Yet, from the above, I strongly suspect that if we had both our brains
> scanned it would be your emotion centres that lit up - not mine. I
> have almost no emotional investment in Scientology either for or
> against.
>

Being neutral when the available evidence is decidedly negative is  
neither a rational or moral  position.

- samantha



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Fri Feb 17 22:33:26 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:33:26 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults/drugs
In-Reply-To: <847018D4-4D72-452E-B477-45E89DDB1EC6@mac.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216195751.02c58dc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<c0a791b40602170534n37516f9buc3fd5c58bc85fe68@mail.gmail.com>
	<847018D4-4D72-452E-B477-45E89DDB1EC6@mac.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602171433h5e4fca09q2d82b6e9084c8092@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/17/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 17, 2006, at 5:34 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote:
> > Yet, from the above, I strongly suspect that if we had both our brains
> > scanned it would be your emotion centres that lit up - not mine. I
> > have almost no emotional investment in Scientology either for or
> > against.
> >
>
> Being neutral when the available evidence is decidedly negative is
> neither a rational or moral  position.


'Negative' is a value judgement.
You make yours, I'll make mine.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060217/0be3b1f4/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Sat Feb 18 00:03:40 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:03:40 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <20060217202510.9269.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <c0a791b40602170938q15d070e2o725410a6f2c090a6@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060217202510.9269.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602171603h6094563djbef437ab5b6e3043@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/17/06, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Transhumanism, in
> > its incarnation as an
> > imminent apocalyptic meme promising eternal life and
> > heaven on Earth, has
> > every ingredient necessary, and is more firmly based
> > in modern science than
> > any cult/religion I can think of. I'm almost
> > tempted...
>
> Allow me to tempt you further. I'll see your heaven on
> Earth and raise you a diaspora across the stars. I
> have been thinking much along these lines for quite
> some time. Transhumanism is already viewed by the
> masses as some kind of cult. I don't see what there
> would be to lose. I can think of much to gain. Think
> about the potential. A cult based upon empiricism,
> philosophy, and rational optimism where we canonize
> the likes of Plato, Darwin, Neitszche, and Einstein. A
> religion that actually imparted immeninently useful
> truths upon the faithful that were of consequence in
> the HERE AND NOW and not some illusory afterlife.
>
> A seamless blending of ancient wisdom from around the
> world and cutting edge science. After a life time of
> scientific enquiry and spiritual seeking, I literally
> have faith in the potential for humanity to transcend
> its limitations. And why should we not? We alone of
> amongst the creatures of the world have any concept of
> the scope of this vast universe and how little of it
> we have explored. Why would we be able to discern it
> at all, if we were not meant to explore it?
>
> Whether the gods created us in their image or we
> created them in ours, we are nonetheless CREATORS. Why
> should we not then strive to create a future that is
> to our liking and embrace that future? Unless and
> until Fermi's Great Silence is unequivocally broken,
> then we alone are the avatars of the sentient living
> universe. It is time we started acting like the
> godlings we are. To paraphrase the Buddha, "In all of
> heaven and earth, I alone am holy."



That is a very good summary of what is required.
For more on the topic, see my other post.
Care to join the conspiracy?

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060218/38034c8b/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Sat Feb 18 00:24:09 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:24:09 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602171603h6094563djbef437ab5b6e3043@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c0a791b40602170938q15d070e2o725410a6f2c090a6@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060217202510.9269.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
	<c0a791b40602171603h6094563djbef437ab5b6e3043@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602171624i605f4fdv16e2860554a6df49@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/18/06, Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> That is a very good summary of what is required.
> For more on the topic, see my other post.
> Care to join the conspiracy?
>

Oops!
I was referring to something that I answered in an offlist conversation that
I did not notice was offlist until just now. I won't quote the sender's
text, but I will quote my reply.

"Well, right now someone made me a business offer I cannot refuse.
If things go well I may have a few $million to spare in three or four
years:-)

However, you are correct in your assessment.
The Consensus grew out of a project that started in the early 90s that was
(in my mind) gearing up to be just this kind of cult (to use a perjorative
term). I did a lot of writing to get my thoughts in order, and dropped it
for a few years because it would not gel. I started looking at it again
around 1999 and decided to split the writings into sections. The political
stuff I bundled up and put in the form of a political party. I did that for
a number of reasons, including memetic engineering as well as using it as a
method of (excuse for) accessing people from doorsteps to major politicians.
In that sense it seems to be paying off.

The rest of the writings can roughly be divided into two sections. The first
is well advanced in the form of a book that deals with the interface of
technology and magick. Specifically, using models of the mind (eg Minsky)
coupled with rather interesting consciousness altering tech that isn't
widely publicised. I had intended to build some machines to sell as a
followup. The remaining stuff is something like a cross between NLP and Zen
and is far less developed. Fortunately I met a man who can fill in that
missing gap. His name is Marc Power, and it's just possible that Keith
Henderson might recognise the name. We mesh extremely well technically and
psychologically. I met him at a shamanic drumming session run by my other
half, Fiona.

So, maybe something will come together in the near future since he's now
back from Holland and we are all fired up to restart our conspiracy:-)

However, there is one major item missing that is essential. Namely, what's
in it for the average 'member'? real cults *do* offer something quite
substantial, at least in the minds of those involved. We have yet to decide
what that something should be.

Suggestions, conspiratorial members etc are welcome. All loot will be
divided unequally:-)"

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060218/29980ff2/attachment.html>

From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Sat Feb 18 00:42:00 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:42:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen cells
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602171216n5d7d2eascade7248939c3299@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV1C8B322375D68BDF04478B7F90@phx.gbl>

Thank you Robert,

 

This site was very helpful  <http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Companies.html>
http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Companies.html

 

I agree that solar DC to split H2O to H2 is the best way to go and this
company seems to have the most robust H2 system for powering a home:

 
<http://www.havepower.com/Questions/Engineering_Questions/engineering_questi
ons.html>
http://www.havepower.com/Questions/Engineering_Questions/engineering_questio
ns.html 

H2 is very explosive though and setting up the electrolyzing set in a stand
alone shed from the main house still doesn't make me feel safe.  And you
just can't rely on timely H2 delivery to power your home.

 

This company
<http://www.mesoscopic.com/article_flat.fcm?articleid=828&subsite=9209>
http://www.mesoscopic.com/article_flat.fcm?articleid=828&subsite=9209 has a
delightful little model that runs on propane or kerosene (good delivery
infrastructure) and if a large DC battery bank with AC inverter were setup
so that 3 of these little baby's switched on when the batteries drained
below 90% then I think my in-development-ultra-contempo-modern- home-model
has a new power source !   

 

Thanks again !

 

pete

 

 

  _____  

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:16 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Hydrogen cells

 

On 2/17/06, Peter K. Bertine, Jr <pkbertine at hotmail.com> wrote:

Does anyone know of practical hydrogen cell technology that could be
utilized for off the grid home power?


Your best bet is solar to DC electric to split H2O and then use the H2
directly.  Appliances that can run off of methane (natural gas) can probably
run off of H2 as well.  You just have to be more careful about the
connections so it doesn't leak.  H2 also has the nasty property that it
embrittles metals that are not designed to specifically transport it. 

Alternatively you can use anaerobic bacteria (methanogens) to convert most
biomaterial (animal waste, garbage, etc.) into methane and use that.

If you are talking *just* the fuel cells, then I believe a number of
companies off them.  FuelCellWorks.com looks like a good portal, see:
http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Companies.html

Google lists something like 1.8 million pages for "Hydrogen fuel cell
prices" so you may want to refine your search criteria as much as possible. 

It is worth noting that most hydrogen production is now done from methane
which comes out of the ground.  That makes the hydrogen both expensive and
dependent upon a unsustainable (and potentially global ecology damaging)
resource. 

The best resource would be solar + H2O + CO2 directly to methane or solar +
H2O directly to hydrogen but genome engineering isn't quite up to that task
yet.  The major flaws in the U.S./DOE push towards hydrogen are (1) the
current non-sustainable production methods and (2) the complete lack of
infrastructure ( e.g. tanks, pipelines & trucks) capable of storing or
transporting it.  Even if a miracle of nanoengineering results in
inexpensive solar splitting of water to yield H2 one *still* hasn't solved
the storage and transport problems.  Methane from solar is absolutely the
way to go because it can go directly into existing pipelines or be converted
into propane or even octane and use existing infrastructure. 

Robert

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060217/dc12d2a6/attachment.html>

From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Sat Feb 18 01:45:59 2006
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:45:59 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602171624i605f4fdv16e2860554a6df49@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c0a791b40602170938q15d070e2o725410a6f2c090a6@mail.gmail.com>	<20060217202510.9269.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>	<c0a791b40602171603h6094563djbef437ab5b6e3043@mail.gmail.com>
	<c0a791b40602171624i605f4fdv16e2860554a6df49@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43F67C57.8020308@goldenfuture.net>

Dirk Bruere wrote:

>
> Fortunately I met a man who can fill in that missing gap. His name is 
> Marc Power, and it's just possible that Keith Henderson might 
> recognise the name. We mesh extremely well technically and 
> psychologically. I met him at a shamanic drumming session run by my 
> other half, Fiona.


His real name wouldn't happen to be "Marc Harris" by any chance?

Joseph


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 18 00:48:30 2006
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:48:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602171603h6094563djbef437ab5b6e3043@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060218004830.65917.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
> That is a very good summary of what is required.
> For more on the topic, see my other post.
> Care to join the conspiracy?

I thought I just did. :)



Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science [...] Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress" 
- St. Darwin

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From emerson at singinst.org  Sat Feb 18 00:38:37 2006
From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:38:37 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Reminder: SIAI Challenge expires this Sunday | SIAI
	February news
Message-ID: <000a01c63423$a912a930$6701a8c0@toshibauser>

The Singularity Institute's 2006 $100,000 Challenge with Peter Thiel, the
former CEO of PayPal, will expire this Sunday, February 19. Any donation you
make will be matched dollar-for-dollar. So far, SIAI has matched $93,486. 

You can donate and track our progress here:
http://www.singularitychallenge.com

Personal checks postmarked by Sunday will be matched. If you send a donation
by check, please let us know so we can keep the donation total accurate.

Matching the Challenge is really crucial for our growth. Below is a summary
of our present projects, which I hope gives you a sense of our dedication. 

Your tax-deductible Challenge gift will support:

* The production and promotion of the Stanford Singularity Summit, a
conference to educate up to 1700 people in Silicon Valley about the
singularity hypothesis - representing an unprecedented chance to promote and
further the nascent fields of singularity and global risk studies. A
well-executed conference will increase the interest of gifted students,
raise the legitimacy of the research, and expand the range of investors. 

Summit homepage teaser: 
http://www.singinst.org/summit/

* Our second full-time Research Fellow. We are looking for someone
exceptional to collaborate with Yudkowsky on the challenge of a workable
theory for self-improving, motivationally stable Artificial Intelligence.

http://www.singinst.org/employment/researchfellow.html 

* A remarkable Development Director and Communications Director. I'm now
looking for skilled and dedicated collaborators to scale the Institute.  

http://www.singinst.org/employment/development.html
http://www.singinst.org/employment/communications.html 

* Our forthcoming monthly speaker series, the Future of Humanity Forum, at
Stanford Hewlett Teaching Center (its main lecture hall seats 500). The
Forum will be an ongoing series to complement and expand on the Singularity
Summit. Date and time for the inaugural event will be announced shortly. 

* Yudkowsky's Friendly AI theory and design work, conference presentations,
and published writing. He completed recently his two chapter drafts for Nick
Bostrom and Milan Cirkovic's Global Catastrophic Risks (forthcoming): the
first on cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks,
the second on the unique global risks of Artificial Intelligence. 

* The Singularity Institute Partner Network. Later this year, we'll begin
approaching potential inaugural partners to be our cornerstone for building
a network of companies, foundations, individuals, and organizations
committed to advancing beneficial AI, singularity, and global risk studies.

* Medina's academic presentations. In January, Medina was awarded full
financial support to attend a workshop on Bayesian inference, nonparametric
statistics, and machine learning at the Statistical and Applied Mathematical
Sciences Institute in North Carolina. One of the most popular academic
conferences on the interdisciplinary study of the mind, Tucson VII - Toward
a Science of Consciousness, has accepted his proposal for a talk on the
ethics of recursive self-improvement in April. He will also speak on
Artificial General Intelligence ethics at AGIRI's first workshop on moving
from narrow AI to AGI, and at Stanford Law School on a new problem for
personhood ethics in light of human enhancement technologies, both in May. 

* Our organizational identity and website overhaul, after the Summit. 

Further details: 
http://www.singinst.org/challenge/index.html#our_work_details 

~~

If you aren't familiar with our work, please see:

What Is the Singularity? 
http://www.singinst.org/what-singularity.html 

Why Work Toward the Singularity?
http://www.singinst.org/why-singularity.html 

~~

Additional news:

* Yudkowsky will give a talk on February 24 at the Bay Area Future Salon at
SAP Labs (attendance ranges from 70-100), to discuss the implications of
recursive self-improvement for Friendly AI implementation, and the unique
theoretical challenge that recursive self-improvement poses.

Time: 
6:00-7:00PM (networking, refreshments), 7:00-9:00PM (talk, discussion)

Location:
SAP Labs, Building D
3410 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304

Details:
http://www.futuresalon.org/2006/02/hard_ai_future_.html

* Peter Thiel has joined The Singularity Institute's Board of Advisors:

http://www.singinst.org/advisoryboard.html 

~~

Comments are welcomed on the Summit teaser. Note that "What Others Have
Said" has some known headshot-display and text issues that will be fixed.

Feedback: 
emerson at singinst.org

~~

Thank you to everyone helping with the Challenge! 

Sincerely,

~~
Tyler Emerson | Executive Director
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence 
P.O. Box 50182 | Palo Alto, CA 94303 U.S. 
T-F: 866-667-2524 | emerson at singinst.org 
www.singinst.org | www.singularitychallenge.com




From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Sat Feb 18 02:35:48 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 02:35:48 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <43F67C57.8020308@goldenfuture.net>
References: <c0a791b40602170938q15d070e2o725410a6f2c090a6@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060217202510.9269.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
	<c0a791b40602171603h6094563djbef437ab5b6e3043@mail.gmail.com>
	<c0a791b40602171624i605f4fdv16e2860554a6df49@mail.gmail.com>
	<43F67C57.8020308@goldenfuture.net>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602171835m74ea71dan1c3f25dad16fd8d3@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/18/06, Joseph Bloch <transhumanist at goldenfuture.net> wrote:
>
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
> >
> > Fortunately I met a man who can fill in that missing gap. His name is
> > Marc Power, and it's just possible that Keith Henderson might
> > recognise the name. We mesh extremely well technically and
> > psychologically. I met him at a shamanic drumming session run by my
> > other half, Fiona.
>
>
> His real name wouldn't happen to be "Marc Harris" by any chance?


No. It's  Greek and rather more complex than that.
Anyway, got a note from Natasha asking me to cut down on the postings.
So any fellow conspirators should email me privately.
BTW, I will try to get to the ExtroBritannia meeting in London next week, if
I remember:-)
I'll see if Marc is interested in attending.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060218/5122c1b6/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 18 01:38:35 2006
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:38:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602171624i605f4fdv16e2860554a6df49@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060218013835.92624.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
> However, there is one major item missing that is
> essential. Namely, what's
> in it for the average 'member'? real cults *do*
> offer something quite
> substantial, at least in the minds of those
> involved. We have yet to decide
> what that something should be.

Simple. I will summarize pages of benefits that we can
offer humanity in this one sentence: We give them back
their "original face", that society has robbed them
of, one tiny bit at a time.  

> Suggestions, conspiratorial members etc are welcome.
> All loot will be
> divided unequally:-) 

Let's table discussing the loot until we have some to
divide. For now, its a labor of love.

 



Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science [...] Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress" 
- St. Darwin

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Feb 18 02:45:32 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:45:32 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602171056s67b62c62j47f6731739d1b243@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602180245.k1I2jTvX024213@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Wallace
...

>That doesn't sound right. Consider extreme cases: taking a 1 meter
projectile with a mass of 1 ton, suppose the velocity were 0.5c; then the
crater depth would be far more than a few meters...


Ja of course with an example that extreme, all bets are off.  A 1 ton
projectile going 0.5c would shatter the planet, forming a second asteroid
belt.  (I think.  I need to do the calcs on that, but I suspect it would
punch clean thru like a bullet thru an apple, taking a bunch of stuff along
with it as it leaves the solar system.  Or that particular material would be
left behind with a few megatons of material from the other side of the earth
blasted into space.  Or I don't know: would it fuse a bunch of material to
iron in an endothermic nuclear reaction that would absorb most of the
energy?  Amara et.al. what would happen if a ton of stuff hit the earth at
.5c?  Surely it would be a bad hair day for humanity and the rest of
animalty.)


> Or suppose it were made of aerogel, then the diameter would be
substantially reduced...



Ja, I don't think the models deal with anything as fluffy as aerogel.  {8-]


>I'm wondering whether the above conclusions are approximately correct
within a certain range of density and velocity, or whether there are effects
the simulation in question didn't take into account, or what...


I think so.  We were offered a number of decommissioned nuclear missiles to
propose nonmilitary applications.  The notion was to see what happens if we
made a tungsten cylinder, approximately 80 mm diameter and a couple meters
long, hurl it half an earth radius aloft, then let it come back down and
punch a hole in the ground.  We did the computer models on it and found it
doesn't go all that deep, so we looked at rocket boosting the terminal
velocity.  We found that it didn't go any deeper.  That was kinda cool for
me, because it caused me to realize why the moon looks the way it does.

We never did do the experiment.  The notion was to make our money back by
selling video of the impact or by sponsoring a contest to see who could
guess the impact site.  Most of the profit scenarios involved gambling of
some sort, which the company didn't like, the bunny huggers didn't like the
notion of vaporizing a quarter ton of tungsten, the no-nukes crowd didn't
like our using the decommissioned missiles as playthings, the usual nervous
nellies didn't like the idea of this enormous spear possibly going off
course and accidentally punching a hole reactor of the Springfield nuclear
power plant, or the Vatican, the local elementary school, that kinda stuff.
{8^D 


>(I read somewhere that all impact craters are roughly the same shape,
diameter something like 20 times the depth, with the dimensions being
proportional to the cube root of energy; but I don't have a reference to
hand, and don't know whether the statement is true or not.)

- Russell


Cool, thanks Russell.  One must be careful of overapplying the simple rules.
The simplifications I described should be used only for a long pointy
projectile, even tho I used it to theorize that any kind of anchor or cable
one tried to drop on Pluto at 14 km/sec would be toast.  I still think
nothing would survive impact at those speeds, but the hydrodynamic impact
relationships were for long pointy things.

spike 







From dgc at cox.net  Sat Feb 18 03:02:15 2006
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:02:15 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto--dissipating energy
In-Reply-To: <200602170513.k1H5DSUW026532@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200602170513.k1H5DSUW026532@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <43F68E37.2090501@cox.net>

It's all about dissipating the energy.

Spike has been trying to educate us, but the real problem is energy 
dissipation.

Most of us just do not think about the total energy, but that is the 
best way to think about
the problem.

Let's start with a completely different problem.  What happens when you 
stretch a Kevlar fiber until it breaks? The experiment is much easier to 
implement than a Pluto probe: just tie one end of the fiber to a truly 
fixed point, wrap the other end of the fiber around a big drum,and then 
turn the drum (using suitable reduction gears) until the fiber breaks.

What happens? Stop at this point and attempt a prediction.


OK, here is what happens. As yo turn the crank, you add energy to the 
system. The energy is stored in the very strong molecular bonds along 
the length of the Kevlar fiber. Since the Kevlar is very strong, the 
amount of energy stored per unit length is very high.

What happens? Stop at this point and attempt another prediction.


What happens is that the energy stored per unit length of the Kevlar is 
higher than the energy needed to vaporize that unit length of Kevlar. 
eventually, The force you apply to the Kevlar exceed the tensile 
strength,and the kevlar breaks at the weakest point along its length.

What happens? Stop at this point and attempt another prediction.


The Kevlar strand breaks. The energy stored in the molecular bonds is 
instantaneously released along the length of The kevlar strand, and the 
kevlar is vaporized along its entire length: The fiber explodes. For me, 
this is an entirely counter-intuitive result, but is is an inevitable 
consequence of the law of conservation of energy.


Transfer to Pluto.
   When the fast spacecraft reaches Pluto, it carries a certain amount 
of kinetic energy. to come to rest relative to Pluto, that energy must 
go somewhere. If you simply smash the spacecraft into the planet, the 
energy WILL vaporize the spacecraft (and a portion of the planet) unless 
you provide a means to transfer the energy to somewhere else.  This is a 
counterintuitive result: you can make the probe out of diamond or out of 
jelly, the result will be the same, since the KE of probe exceeds the 
energy needed to vaporize the probe.

This is why I proposed a dangling filament. the filament will impact the 
planet at an oblique angle and will therefore not decelerate instantly. 
The angle is controllable, from the barest touch to a direct impact.




From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Sat Feb 18 04:52:47 2006
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:52:47 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prediction markets and Second Life virtual economy
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0602172052t53b52a63p3d71f91b3b74f571@mail.gmail.com>

Below is an email which I recently sent to the Foresight Exchange discussion
list, which I thought might be of interest to this group. I think it would
be very interesting to try some of these ideas out, but unfortunately I have
too many time pressures from grad school to coordinate such an effort
myself. Would anybody in this group be interested in pursuing this?

There were some pretty interesting follow-up responses to my email. You can
see the entire thread here:
http://forum.javien.com/conv.php?new=true&convdata=id::GjKLIYRD-eMmu-ZaAz-ztrl-89xB1SINPC_J

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Neil H. <neuronexmachina at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2006 11:05 PM
Subject: fx-discuss: Idea: Prediction markets and Second Life virtual
economy
To: fx-discuss at ideosphere.com

A quick idea I had which I wanted to toss into the open...

A little while back I read this Wired article about the Second Life virtual
world, and its active virtual economy:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70153-0.html?tw=wn_technology_1

Has anybody considered taking advantage of Second Life's economy and
scriptable world to create an in-game prediction market? Instead of using a
purely reputation-based currency such a market could use the game's Linden
Dollars. It seems that in-game scripts can communicate with external
servers<http://secondlife.com/badgeo/wakka.php?wakka=communications>via
email or XML-RPC, so one could probably have such an in-game script
placing orders with a server running the open-source Foresight Exchange
software.

One might even imagine creating a Futarchy-like system, with bids made on
decisions about how to make the market prosper in the Second Life world.
That could be interesting.

I should add the caveat that I haven't actually tried Second Life myself
yet, as I currently lack a personal computer.

-- Neil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060217/705599c5/attachment.html>

From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Sat Feb 18 04:18:34 2006
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:18:34 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Old stomping ground News Paper Coverage!
References: <22360fa10602170828x3e4f4fcfnf1988d497739b571@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01e601c63442$e0233f10$0200a8c0@Nano>

Lookie, lookie:

Download a readable version here: http://www.nanogirl.com/lassen.htm 
and you are absolutely invited to comment on it here at my blog: 
http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/

Hope you enjoy it!
I look forward to hearing from you.



Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html
Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/
Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm
Microscope Jewelry
http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060217/cdd0b116/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat Feb 18 03:32:59 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:32:59 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <20060218013835.92624.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <c0a791b40602171624i605f4fdv16e2860554a6df49@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060217222242.02d15b48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 05:38 PM 2/17/2006 -0800, Stuart LaForge wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:

snip

>  >real cults *do* offer something quite substantial, at least in the 
> minds of those
> > involved.

snip

>Simple. I will summarize pages of benefits that we can
>offer humanity in this one sentence:

snip

Google Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for sex drugs cults "Keith Henson"

Take the first link.

Keith Henson





From alito at organicrobot.com  Sat Feb 18 05:48:56 2006
From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 15:48:56 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Prediction markets and Second Life
	virtual	economy
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce0602172052t53b52a63p3d71f91b3b74f571@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e88b73ce0602172052t53b52a63p3d71f91b3b74f571@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1140241736.13078.224.camel@alito.homeip.net>

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 20:52 -0800, Neil H. wrote:
> Below is an email which I recently sent to the Foresight Exchange
> discussion list, which I thought might be of interest to this group. I
> think it would be very interesting to try some of these ideas out, but
> unfortunately I have too many time pressures from grad school to
> coordinate such an effort myself. Would anybody in this group be
> interested in pursuing this? 
> 
> There were some pretty interesting follow-up responses to my email.
> You can see the entire thread here:
> http://forum.javien.com/conv.php?new=true&convdata=id::GjKLIYRD-eMmu-ZaAz-ztrl-89xB1SINPC_J
> 

Sounds like an excellent idea.  I can't see the various governments with
jurisprudence staying away from Linden Labs for too long if SL becomes
popular though, and if it doesn't then Linden Labs will probably be
forced to fold (they were close to bankruptcy not too long ago IIRC).
Either way, not good for 15 year long bets,  but short term (< 1 year?)
bets would probably be fine.

On a related note, an alpha version of the linux client got released
recently (http://secondlife.com/community/linux-alpha.php)   Quite a few
problems with textures, and dog slow on an old computer like mine, so
you better have a Geforce 5xxx or something like that, but worth a look
in any case.



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Feb 18 05:55:21 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:55:21 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <20060217202510.9269.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060217202510.9269.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <94DCA510-507B-4971-AEFD-64967ACFFE76@mac.com>


On Feb 17, 2006, at 12:25 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
> Allow me to tempt you further. I'll see your heaven on
> Earth and raise you a diaspora across the stars. I
> have been thinking much along these lines for quite
> some time. Transhumanism is already viewed by the
> masses as some kind of cult. I don't see what there
> would be to lose. I can think of much to gain. Think
> about the potential. A cult based upon empiricism,
> philosophy, and rational optimism where we canonize
> the likes of Plato, Darwin, Neitszche, and Einstein. A
> religion that actually imparted immeninently useful
> truths upon the faithful that were of consequence in
> the HERE AND NOW and not some illusory afterlife.
>

I have thought, as you know, along similar lines often enough.   
Humans have all of this spiritual/mystical leaning wiring that is  
some of the most accessible and motivational available.  It might be  
necessary and prudent to avail ourselves of these aspects of reality  
in order to maximize achieving our goals.  Of course that breaks down  
if these aspects contain such deep inherent problems that they self- 
sabotage what we hope to achieve.

> A seamless blending of ancient wisdom from around the
> world and cutting edge science. After a life time of
> scientific enquiry and spiritual seeking, I literally
> have faith in the potential for humanity to transcend
> its limitations.

Sure.  But the "seamless" bit seem nearly impossible to achieve.    
There is too much nonsensical baggage that has adhered to "ancient  
wisdom".



> And why should we not? We alone of
> amongst the creatures of the world have any concept of
> the scope of this vast universe and how little of it
> we have explored. Why would we be able to discern it
> at all, if we were not meant to explore it?
>

Pointless speculation that assumes some higher power whose permission  
we need to seek or be assured of.  Insidious isn't it?


> Whether the gods created us in their image or we
> created them in ours, we are nonetheless CREATORS. Why
> should we not then strive to create a future that is
> to our liking and embrace that future?

Of course we should or not "should" but can and must to reach our  
maximum potential.  Yes I am assuming that is a Good Thing.

> Unless and
> until Fermi's Great Silence is unequivocally broken,
> then we alone are the avatars of the sentient living
> universe. It is time we started acting like the
> godlings we are. To paraphrase the Buddha, "In all of
> heaven and earth, I alone am holy."

Hmm.  I am all for taking ourselves seriously but "holy"?   I got out  
of that sort of thinking/feeling and I am not sure I see any good  
reason to go back.  I found it dangerous to my rationality and sanity.

- samantha




From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au  Sat Feb 18 08:23:14 2006
From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:23:14 +1100 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat]  Transhumanism and Ayn Rand
Message-ID: <20060218082314.56437.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com>

*sigh*

Another cult to add to the list (Objectivism).

You know a person reading on the net or hanging out
with high IQ folks can be inundated with bullshit if
one is not careful.  The amount of bullshit I've had
to cut though in the couple of years since I came to
the transhumanist lists is unbelieveable and more and
more bullshit just keeps popping up all the time.  The
trouble is that there are some really powerful, almost
hypnotic personalities in the transhumanist movement,
and if one is not careful one can be mesmerized.

Here are my current opinions of various ideologies and
positions advocated or mentioned by people on the
transhumanist lists over the years:

*Socialism
BULLSHIT

*Libertarianism
BULLSHIT

*Objectivism
BULLSHIT

*Terrence Mckenna
BULLSHIT

*ESP
BULLSHIT

*The Singularity Institutes AI Design
BULLSHIT

*World destroying unfriendly AI
BULLSHIT

*True general intelligence without qualia
BULLSHIT

*Vitamin/Dietary supplements
BULLSHIT

*Caloric restriction

Not entirely bullshit, but effect in humans so small
that it may as well be
BULLSHIT

*Significant advances in life extension in the next 20
years
BULLSHIT

*Materialism
BULLSHIT

*Supernaturalism
BULLSHIT





"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?


		
____________________________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database. 
http://au.movies.yahoo.com


From amara at amara.com  Sat Feb 18 09:07:19 2006
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:07:19 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Impact Effects (was: Pluto New Horizons launch
	-getting ready)
Message-ID: <p06230900c01c8f73806d@[150.146.134.133]>

For the record, I'm really sad to lose Damien. Mehran went far beyond
the parameters of this list (and some wanted serious discussion with him!).
And adding the dangerous presence of Despres, the list suddenly took on the
personality of flypaper-for-the-bizarre.

>Amara et.al. what would happen if a ton of stuff hit the earth at
>.5c?  Surely it would be a bad hair day for humanity and the rest of
>animalty.)

The inputs are strange, but according to the results of the
impacts program, assuming a spherical iron density impactor on a head-on
collision, it would break up and leave a crater-strewn field.

This is the easiest way to check, since they've done the work for us:

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

PDF document that explains their equations: 
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~marcus/CollinsEtAl2005.pdf

I didn't finish reading the document to see all of their assumptions,
so perhaps the .5c is beyond what the program is designed to handle.
(although they say that it can handle 'science-fiction parameters')

------------------------
My notes:
The maximum velocity of an object orbiting the sun is 72 km/sec

Checking the energy, I get 1E19 J before impact, so how did they arrive
at 1E17 J, unless I did something wrong.

1 ton = 910 kg
Energy = 1/2 mv^2 = 1E19 Joules

------------------------ Results
Impact Effects
Robert Marcus, H. Jay Melosh, and Gareth Collins

Please note: the results below are estimates based on current
(limited) understanding of the impact process and come with large
uncertainties; they should be used with caution, particularly in the
case of peculiar input parameters. All values are given to three
significant figures but this does not reflect the precision of the
estimate. For more information about the uncertainty associated with
our calculations and a full discussion of this program, please refer
to this article

Your Inputs:
     Distance from Impact: 100.00 km = 62.10 miles
     Projectile Diameter: 0.60 m = 1.97 ft = 0.00 miles
     Projectile Density: 8000 kg/m3

     Impact Velocity: 15000.00 km/s = 9315.00 miles/s (Your chosen
     velocity is higher than the maximum for an object orbiting the
     sun)
     Impact Angle: 90 degrees
     Target Density: 2500 kg/m3
     Target Type: Sedimentary Rock

Energy:
     Energy before atmospheric entry: 1.02 x 1017 Joules = 2.43 x 101
     MegaTons TNT

     The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on
     Earth during the last 4 billion years is 1.3 x 103years

Atmospheric Entry:
     The projectile begins to breakup at an altitude of 123000 meters =
     403000 ft

     The projectile bursts into a cloud of fragments at an altitude of
     65300 meters = 214000 ft

     The residual velocity of the projectile fragments after the burst
     is 14700 km/s = 9150 miles/s

     The energy of the airburst is 3.51 x 1015 Joules = 0.84 x 100
     MegaTons.

     Large fragments strike the surface and may create a crater strewn
     field. A more careful treatment of atmospheric entry is required
     to accurately estimate the size-frequency distribution of
     meteoroid fragments and predict the number and size of craters
     formed.

Major Global Changes:
     The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses
     negligible mass.

     The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's
     rotation period or the tilt of its axis.

     The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.

Air Blast:

     The air blast at this location would not be noticed. (The
     overpressure is less than 1 Pa)


Earth Impact Effects Program Copyright 2004, Robert Marcus, H.J.
Melosh, and G.S. Collins
These results come with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY
-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"It is intriguing to learn that the simplicity of the world depends
upon the temperature of the environment." ---John D. Barrow


From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Sat Feb 18 10:39:02 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:39:02 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Keeping my mouth shut (again)
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602180239o4f9eedeamff8f9232b5c00cc2@mail.gmail.com>

I have been asked by Natasha (as mentioned) and more forcefully by Spike to
not post any more on the 'cult' theme, which I presume includes discussion
of a Transhumanist religion. Seems some of the locals have been getting a
bit uptight and have complained. Since I have no desire at present to be
thrown out/banned from ExI like I was from the WTA I will comply.

I know several have done so already, but would all those interested in
taking this idea further contact me offlist please?
If we make some progress I'll open a separate mailing list.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060218/405796a1/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 18 10:53:05 2006
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 02:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060217222242.02d15b48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <20060218105305.42916.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> Google Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for sex drugs
> cults "Keith Henson"
> 
> Take the first link.

Alright, Keith. I have read your paper and understand
it. So then the question I have for you is: is it
necessary to trigger the capture-bonding instinct in
people to give them a rewarding cult experience? I do
not mind triggering attention-reward serotonin
pathways in people as attention, social acceptance,
and a sense of belonging are all necessary to give a
cult member their money's worth. But inducing
Stockholme syndrome in people seems unnecessarily
ruthless and if it can be avoided and still make for a
successful religion, I think it should.

 



Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science [...] Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress" 
- St. Darwin

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From mehranraeli at comcast.net  Sat Feb 18 14:38:03 2006
From: mehranraeli at comcast.net (Mehran)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:38:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Big Brain Thinking
In-Reply-To: <mailman.508.1140198840.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <002201c63498$efc2c430$799f6041@DBX6XT21>


Monday, February 13, 2006

Big Brain Thinking

http://www.technologyreview.com/BioTech/wtr_16325,306,p1.html

Stanford neuroscientist Bill Newsome wants to implant an electrode 
in his brain to better understand human consciousness.

By Emily Singer

Scientists are learning volumes about the brain -- how it can make 
split-second decisions, how it learns from past mistakes, how it 
converts pulses of light into a complex visual scene. But, for some, 
deciphering the "language" of the electrical pulses that travel 
through our brains is only half the story. The second part, and one 
that is far more philosophical and complex, is how that brain 
activity translates into consciousness -- a person's self-awareness 
and perception of the world around them. 


Bill Newsome, a neuroscientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, 
CA, has spent the last twenty years studying how neurons encode 
information and how they use it to make decisions about the world. 
In the 1990s, he and collaborators were able to change the way a 
monkey responded to its environment by sending electric jolts to 
certain parts of its brain. The findings gave neuroscientists 
enormous insight into the inner workings of the brain. 


But Newsome is obsessed with a lingering question: How does 
consciousness arise from brain function? He feels the best way to 
answer that question is by implanting an electrode into his own 
brain -- and seeing how the electric current changes his perception 
of the world. 


Newsome would not be the first person with a brain implant. Epilepsy 
patients undergo electrical stimulation prior to brain surgery. A 
paralyzed man in New England has an experimental implant that 
translates his brain activity into movements of a robotic arm. And, 
perhaps most famously, Kevin Warwick, a cybernetics professor at the 
University of Reading, U.K., first implanted a chip into nerve 
fibers in his arm in 2002, then implanted a chip in his wife's arm, 
as part of his quest to become a cyborg. 


It's not certain that Newsome will get approval for such a radical 
undertaking. But, if he does, his experiment won't be in the 
interest of curing a disease or become a human machine. He's hoping 
to do something broader: understand consciousness.


Technology Review: Why is understanding consciousness so important 
to you?


Bill Newsome: I think that how consciousness arises out of brain 
function is one of the most fascinating and important questions in 
all of neurobiology. If we understand the system completely (from 
input to output) at a cellular level, but still do not know exactly 
what causes conscious mental phenomena, we will have failed.

....

http://www.technologyreview.com/BioTech/wtr_16325,306,p1.html




From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat Feb 18 15:23:24 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:23:24 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta Transhumanism and Axx Rxxx
In-Reply-To: <20060218082314.56437.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060218095354.02d546d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 07:23 PM 2/18/2006 +1100, Marc Geddes wrote:

snip

>You know a person reading on the net or hanging out
>with high IQ folks can be inundated with bullshit if
>one is not careful.

snip

Would you, would the list, be up to a Meta level discussion of *why* the 
evolved social primates known as humans believe mutually incompatible 
things?  Why they believe anything at all?  Why they kill each other over 
beliefs?  Why people resist learning about these subjects?  (MetaMeta level!)

I *think* I know some of the reasons, but good discussion (which is hard to 
find) files the rough edges off the memes.

Keith Henson

PS.  If you think that serious life extension will *ever* happen, then 
"we're only haggling over the price."  :-)

(old joke)



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Feb 18 16:17:19 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:17:19 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Impact Effects (was: Pluto New Horizons
	launch-getting ready)
In-Reply-To: <p06230900c01c8f73806d@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <200602181617.k1IGHUv9014958@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps
...
> ------------------------
> My notes:
> The maximum velocity of an object orbiting the sun is 72 km/sec
> 
> Checking the energy, I get 1E19 J before impact, so how did they arrive
> at 1E17 J, unless I did something wrong.
> 
...
> 
> Your Inputs:
>      Distance from Impact: 100.00 km = 62.10 miles
>      Projectile Diameter: 0.60 m = 1.97 ft = 0.00 miles
>      Projectile Density: 8000 kg/m3
> 
>      Impact Velocity: 15000.00 km/s = 9315.00 miles/s (Your chosen
>      velocity is higher than the maximum for an object orbiting the
>      sun)...
> ********************************************************************
>

 Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com



Cool Amara thanks!  The input velocity is off by a decimal place,
which is why the energy is off by two decimal places.  

The object is clearly nothing natural, but rather some kind of cannonball
fired by some evil interstellar deathstar emperor, or perhaps some
indifferent advanced intelligence, attempting to create a bunch of
interplanetary dust and gravel upon which to start billions of
nano-civilizations.  The velocity of the ordinary stuff in the solar system
is all negligible by comparison.  {8-]  spike








From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Feb 18 16:41:16 2006
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:41:16 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and xxxBS
In-Reply-To: <20060218082314.56437.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060218082314.56437.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060218104003.04588aa0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 02:23 AM 2/18/2006, Marc wrote:
>*sigh*
>
>Another cult to add to the list (Objectivism).

(snip)

Great BS list! :-)  I agree to 97.9%.

Natasha

>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist - Designer
Future Studies, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
Honorary Vice-Chair, <http://transhumanism.org/>World Transhumanist 
Association
Senior Associate, <http://foresight.org/>Foresight Institute
Advisor, <http://alcor.org/>Alcor Life Extension Foundation

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective.
Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060218/f6c7fea9/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Feb 18 16:49:16 2006
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:49:16 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <94DCA510-507B-4971-AEFD-64967ACFFE76@mac.com>
References: <20060217202510.9269.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
	<94DCA510-507B-4971-AEFD-64967ACFFE76@mac.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060218104136.045886c8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 11:55 PM 2/17/2006, S. wrote:

>On Feb 17, 2006, at 12:25 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:
>
> > Allow me to tempt you further. I'll see your heaven on
> > Earth and raise you a diaspora across the stars. I
> > have been thinking much along these lines for quite
> > some time. Transhumanism is already viewed by the
> > masses as some kind of cult. I don't see what there
> > would be to lose. I can think of much to gain. Think
> > about the potential. A cult based upon empiricism,
> > philosophy, and rational optimism where we canonize
> > the likes of Plato, Darwin, Neitszche, and Einstein. A
> > religion that actually imparted immeninently useful
> > truths upon the faithful that were of consequence in
> > the HERE AND NOW and not some illusory afterlife.

It is unfortunate that society places value on religion rather than philosophy

>I have thought, as you know, along similar lines often enough.
>Humans have all of this spiritual/mystical leaning wiring that is
>some of the most accessible and motivational available.  It might be
>necessary and prudent to avail ourselves of these aspects of reality
>in order to maximize achieving our goals.  Of course that breaks down
>if these aspects contain such deep inherent problems that they self-
>sabotage what we hope to achieve.

Good points.

> > A seamless blending of ancient wisdom from around the
> > world and cutting edge science. After a life time of
> > scientific enquiry and spiritual seeking, I literally
> > have faith in the potential for humanity to transcend
> > its limitations.
>
>Sure.  But the "seamless" bit seem nearly impossible to achieve.
>There is too much nonsensical baggage that has adhered to "ancient
>wisdom".

Even in the arts where we try to achieve seamless results; it is virtually 
impossible.  There is always a space in-and-between the various elements.

> > And why should we not? We alone of
> > amongst the creatures of the world have any concept of
> > the scope of this vast universe and how little of it
> > we have explored. Why would we be able to discern it
> > at all, if we were not meant to explore it?
>
>Pointless speculation that assumes some higher power whose permission
>we need to seek or be assured of.  Insidious isn't it?

Only if that "higher power" is our voice of reason.

> > Whether the gods created us in their image or we
> > created them in ours, we are nonetheless CREATORS. Why
> > should we not then strive to create a future that is
> > to our liking and embrace that future?
>
>Of course we should or not "should" but can and must to reach our
>maximum potential.  Yes I am assuming that is a Good Thing.
>
> > Unless and
> > until Fermi's Great Silence is unequivocally broken,
> > then we alone are the avatars of the sentient living
> > universe. It is time we started acting like the
> > godlings we are. To paraphrase the Buddha, "In all of
> > heaven and earth, I alone am holy."
>
>Hmm.  I am all for taking ourselves seriously but "holy"?   I got out
>of that sort of thinking/feeling and I am not sure I see any good
>reason to go back.  I found it dangerous to my rationality and sanity.

As much as I honor Buddha and the followers, I agree.


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist - Designer
Future Studies, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
Honorary Vice-Chair, <http://transhumanism.org/>World Transhumanist 
Association
Senior Associate, <http://foresight.org/>Foresight Institute
Advisor, <http://alcor.org/>Alcor Life Extension Foundation

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective.
Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060218/54d23c32/attachment.html>

From brian at posthuman.com  Sat Feb 18 17:10:19 2006
From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:10:19 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and xxxBS
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060218104003.04588aa0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <20060218082314.56437.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20060218104003.04588aa0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <43F754FB.7010906@posthuman.com>

Natasha Vita-More wrote:
> 
> Great BS list! :-)  I agree to 97.9%.
> 
> Natasha
> 

I think I'll take this as my cue to join Jef and Damien in subliming off to 
somewhere else.

It's been a mostly good 10 years here, and even catalyzed some key events in my 
life, but lately just not worth even the time of deleting the headers.

Bye folks, see some of you around in other spots.
-- 
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/


From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Sat Feb 18 17:11:30 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:11:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and Ayn Rand
In-Reply-To: <20060218082314.56437.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV140A5BB793E90DB185D4CDB7F90@phx.gbl>

Amen brother !


From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Sat Feb 18 17:12:53 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:12:53 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta Transhumanism and Axx Rxxx
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060218095354.02d546d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV11BE843E66D6D70F069F3B7F90@phx.gbl>

Count me in Keith !

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson
> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 10:23 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta Transhumanism and Axx Rxxx
> 
> At 07:23 PM 2/18/2006 +1100, Marc Geddes wrote:
> 
> snip
> 
> >You know a person reading on the net or hanging out
> >with high IQ folks can be inundated with bullshit if
> >one is not careful.
> 
> snip
> 
> Would you, would the list, be up to a Meta level discussion of *why* the
> evolved social primates known as humans believe mutually incompatible
> things?  Why they believe anything at all?  Why they kill each other over
> beliefs?  Why people resist learning about these subjects?  (MetaMeta
> level!)
> 
> I *think* I know some of the reasons, but good discussion (which is hard
> to
> find) files the rough edges off the memes.
> 
> Keith Henson
> 
> PS.  If you think that serious life extension will *ever* happen, then
> "we're only haggling over the price."  :-)
> 
> (old joke)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Feb 18 16:54:44 2006
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:54:44 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Reminder: SIAI Challenge expires this Sunday |
 SIAI February news
In-Reply-To: <000a01c63423$a912a930$6701a8c0@toshibauser>
References: <000a01c63423$a912a930$6701a8c0@toshibauser>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060218105318.045882f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 06:38 PM 2/17/2006, Tyler wrote:

>Summit homepage teaser:
>http://www.singinst.org/summit/

This event has a "wow" factor!


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist - Designer
Future Studies, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
Honorary Vice-Chair, <http://transhumanism.org/>World Transhumanist 
Association
Senior Associate, <http://foresight.org/>Foresight Institute
Advisor, <http://alcor.org/>Alcor Life Extension Foundation

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective.
Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060218/df615f10/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat Feb 18 17:45:11 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:45:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bad idea, was Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <20060218105305.42916.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060217222242.02d15b48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060218120006.021a9318@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 02:53 AM 2/18/2006 -0800, Stuart LaForge wrote:

>--- Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> > Google Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for sex drugs
> > cults "Keith Henson"
> >
> > Take the first link.
>
>Alright, Keith. I have read your paper and understand
>it. So then the question I have for you is: is it
>necessary to trigger the capture-bonding instinct in
>people to give them a rewarding cult experience?

I don't think so,  I put capture-bonding in mainly as an obvious example of 
an evolved psychological trait before going on to the less obvious 
attention-reward and drug connection.

On second thought,  the cults I know about in some detail use it, the 
Moonies in recruiting when they take (or took) people 30 miles out of town 
for a "religious retreat," and the S cult uses it to re bond staff members 
who are becoming less attached (the RPF).  (Ex Moonies often recall fear at 
their first extended contact with the cult.)  This is too small a sample to 
say anything definitive.

>I do not mind triggering attention-reward serotonin

Endorphin and dopamine.  Serotonin might be involved since these pathways 
all influence each other.

>pathways in people as attention, social acceptance,
>and a sense of belonging are all necessary to give a
>cult member their money's worth.  But inducing
>Stockholme syndrome in people seems unnecessarily
>ruthless and if it can be avoided and still make for a
>successful religion, I think it should.

"Convert or die!" vs "Please come to our prayer meeting."  Both work.  The 
first is faster.  If list people could keep it at a theory level, we could 
discuss the historical religions along this axis, extending to ones that 
don't try to spread horizontally.

We could even discuss the nature of the groups near to the memetic space of 
Extropians but that's sure to turn into flame wars.

Shame because I have an amusing story that gores a nearby ox but is now 
understandable based on the work of Drew Westen.

I have gone from evolutionary psychology axiom, to the lemma of 
evolved-in-the-Stone Age psychological mechanisms, to the theory of how 
cult/religious memes activate those mechanisms and capture the 
person--often to their personal and genetic disadvantage.

I balk at taking the step to praxis.

Among other reasons, my wife would divorce me.  :-)

Also, I don't think I am cut out to be a cult guru, though I admit (having 
sampled them) the rewards are sweet.

Almost two decades ago I made the observation that cults either die or 
mellow out as they age into religions but historically this process takes 
about 300 years.  Now I think the process is deeply tied up with the same 
mechanisms that lead to wars and that is my current main interest.

Best wishes,

Keith Henson





From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Sat Feb 18 18:01:12 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 13:01:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and Ayn Rand
In-Reply-To: <20060218082314.56437.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060218082314.56437.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602181001y73008977tb9b71e418caedeec@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/18/06, Marc Geddes <m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Here are my current opinions of various ideologies and
> positions advocated or mentioned by people on the
> transhumanist lists over the years:


I'm glad you said "opinion", as there are several claims which are quite
questionable.

*True general intelligence without qualia
> BULLSHIT


I would love to see your definition of "general intelligence".  I think
there are ample examples of a number of species (chimpanzees, dolphins,
dogs, parrots & their kin) which exhibit a fair amount of it.  I suspect you
have a very narrow (personal) definition of "true" which gives rise to the
"BULLSHIT" assertion.
(Note I'll emphasize the "declarative" nature of of these assertions since
virtually no evidence was presented.)

*Vitamin/Dietary supplements
> BULLSHIT


Tell that to the people who fail to consume enough beta-carotene/Vitamin A
who end up going blind as a result.  Or the people who would be anemic were
it not for iron enriched foods.  And then of course there is the example of
lifespan extension in at least 3 species including one vertebrate based on
diets high in resveratrol.

*Caloric restriction
> Not entirely bullshit, but effect in humans so small
> that it may as well be
> BULLSHIT


The current studies in Rhesus monkeys are showing the standard improvements
that one would expect from CR which are associated with lifespan extension.
Any results of statistical significance will not be in for humans for
probably several decades.  So all you can say is we just don't know what the
effect will be, we don't know that it is "BULLSHIT".

*Significant advances in life extension in the next 20 years
> BULLSHIT


This is most probably completely wrong if current trends continue.  Just
reading the statement as made I'd probably agree if you chose, 5, perhaps 10
years but not 15 or 20.

Since the statements were made on the basis of personal assertions I will do
the same.  The last three assertions are not BULLSHIT and the first has
significant problems with word definitions.  Since there is no way we are
going to resolve this (I can't hand you my knowledge base in the last 3 and
you can't hand me yours on the first) particularly on an email list we might
as well simply agree to disagree.

I simply provide my assertions as counterpoints to yours for people who may
not have been around on transhumanist lists as long as you or I and may
therefore be be mislead into believing the statements have a high
probability of being valid.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060218/329410f8/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Feb 18 17:35:52 2006
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:35:52 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE:  website
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060218112952.02c49d70@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

For those of you tired of the latest posts that have caused you to pull 
your hair out, here is a cool website that I just came 
across:  http://www.space.com/futureofflight/   Very entertaining (a few 
ads, but not terribly distracting).

Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist - Designer
Future Studies, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
Advisor, <http://alcor.org/>Alcor Life Extension Foundation

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective.
Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060218/e3aacd32/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Feb 18 18:17:57 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:17:57 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bad idea, was Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060218120006.021a9318@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <200602181823.k1IINQ0I013501@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson
...
> 
> ...If list people could keep it at a theory level, we could
> discuss the historical religions along this axis, extending to ones that
> don't try to spread horizontally.
...
> Keith Henson


I am interested in what Keith has to say on this, and evolution knows he has
had a front row seat on it.  Do let us proceed thus:

1.  No promoting cults here.  Promote science and reason.

2.  Commentary on cults, human interaction therein, welcome.

3.  Don't feel compelled to answer everything.

4.  Don't be evil.  Even if profitable.  

5.  Be smart.

spike










From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Feb 18 18:27:16 2006
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:27:16 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and xxxBS
In-Reply-To: <43F754FB.7010906@posthuman.com>
References: <20060218082314.56437.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20060218104003.04588aa0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<43F754FB.7010906@posthuman.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060218122136.03034988@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 11:10 AM 2/18/2006, Brian wrote:
> > Great BS list! :-)  I agree to 97.9%.
>
>I think I'll take this as my cue to join Jef and Damien in subliming off to
>somewhere else.

Okay, so I get a tomato in my face for being a lousy BSer.  I was 
joking.  I should have put the "not" after,  the "I doubt it" response.


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist - Designer
Future Studies, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Senior Associate, <http://foresight.org/>Foresight Institute
Advisor, <http://alcor.org/>Alcor Life Extension Foundation

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective.
Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060218/9d9206c2/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Feb 18 18:47:48 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:47:48 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE:  website
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060218112952.02c49d70@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200602181848.k1IIm02P023635@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha
Vita-More
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 9:36 AM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: website

For those of you tired of the latest posts that have caused you to pull your
hair out, here is a cool website that I just came across:?
http://www.space.com/futureofflight/?? Very entertaining (a few ads, but not
terribly distracting).

Natasha
Natasha Vita-More 


COOOOOL!  Thanks Natasha.  spike






From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Sat Feb 18 17:47:57 2006
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:47:57 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism and xxxBS
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060218104003.04588aa0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <20060218082314.56437.qmail@web50503.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20060218104003.04588aa0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4E465FFA-3AE2-4BF2-8C04-7279E66D20F3@ceruleansystems.com>


On Feb 18, 2006, at 8:41 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
> Great BS list! :-)  I agree to 97.9%.
>


I know this list jumped the shark years ago, but this is getting so  
bad that it borders on sick comedy.  Apparently even the most  
tenacious old-timers cannot stomach the  technical vapidity and  
milquetoast standards of the current kudzu infestation.

Spinning in their dewars, they are.

Since the extropians list has unsubscribed itself from extropy-chat,  
I do not see why I should not as well.

Later,

J. Andrew Rogers


From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Sat Feb 18 19:10:59 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Peter K.  Bertine, Jr)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:10:59 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Green H2 production
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV12E22B676A26419C60BDFBB7F90@phx.gbl>

Can anyone come up with some good suggestions for viable, small scale, off
the grid production of H2 to power individual home fuel cells, provide
cooking and heating and fuel for H2 powered vehicles?  The property for this
project is in the town of Forestburg, NY, 85 miles from NYC and totals 1700
acres with the Neversink River running through it.  Part of the property
will have full utilities, electric and phone, to ensure the commercial
success of the project.  The first phase of the project is already underway
with the construction of 5 homes from www.ecocontempo.com
<http://www.ecocontempo.com/>  .  One of these homes will be a model and
will be totally off the grid, yet be as ?comfortable? as the other 4, if not
more so, and be much more fun to live in with everything contemporary
technology has to offer.. 

 

The H2 solution would have to use off the shelf commercially available
technology and be powered by solar, wind and hydro-electric, many of the
homes will be powered this way as well.  The H2 produced would need to be
bottled in existing H2 transport tanks from an H2 production facility
remotely located on the 1700 acres.  This facility could be placed on the
river running through the property that would provide electric and water for
the H2 production.  One question is how much electric power is needed to
make the H2 in order to fuel 1 utility pick up truck (for bottled H2
transport), one H2 powered car and supply H2 for at least 1000 watts of
continuous electric generation for 1 house and meet the heating and cooking
needs of a well insulated 1400 sqft structure see
http://www.ecocontempo.com/models_plat.php  

 

pete 

 

Peter K.  Bertine, Jr

 

www.petebertine.com

 

"You are to live and to learn to laugh. You are to learn to listen to the
cursed radio music of life and to reverence the spirit behind it and to
laugh at its distortions. So there you are. More will not be asked of you." 
Mozart in Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060218/23af456f/attachment.html>

From jonano at gmail.com  Sun Feb 19 11:23:17 2006
From: jonano at gmail.com (Jonathan Despres)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 06:23:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Images About The Future
Message-ID: <6030482a0602190323m3368c4e1y3040a87d3781513a@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I created a page with many images about the future, if you have some
images in mind and would like to give them to the project dont
hesitate to contact me.

Here is the page:

http://www.nanoaging.com/wiki/Images_Future

--Jon



From max at maxmore.com  Sun Feb 19 17:55:19 2006
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:55:19 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Decision making articles in January 2006 issue of HBR
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060219114404.04e8bbe8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060219/e679a77f/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Sun Feb 19 20:03:00 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:03:00 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bad idea, was Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <200602181823.k1IINQ0I013501@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060218120006.021a9318@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<200602181823.k1IINQ0I013501@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602191203p4081e670qe7dddbac90a762c1@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/18/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson
> ...
> >
> > ...If list people could keep it at a theory level, we could
> > discuss the historical religions along this axis, extending to ones that
> > don't try to spread horizontally.
> ...
> > Keith Henson
>
>
> I am interested in what Keith has to say on this, and evolution knows he
> has
> had a front row seat on it.  Do let us proceed thus:
>
> 1.  No promoting cults here.  Promote science and reason.
>
> 2.  Commentary on cults, human interaction therein, welcome.
>
> 3.  Don't feel compelled to answer everything.
>
> 4.  Don't be evil.  Even if profitable.
>
> 5.  Be smart.


You mean everyone else should post on this topic, except me because I don't
toe the party line?
Sounds like the WTA all over again.
Dissent will not be tolerated etc (except approved dissent).

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060219/b46e2808/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Sun Feb 19 20:16:24 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:16:24 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060218104136.045886c8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <20060217202510.9269.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
	<94DCA510-507B-4971-AEFD-64967ACFFE76@mac.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20060218104136.045886c8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602191216j4b26bd6tab6412977a14ceb6@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/18/06, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>
>
> Hmm.  I am all for taking ourselves seriously but "holy"?   I got out
> of that sort of thinking/feeling and I am not sure I see any good
> reason to go back.  I found it dangerous to my rationality and sanity.
>
>
> As much as I honor Buddha and the followers, I agree.



Maybe a course in etymology is called for.
Start with the word 'holy'.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060219/b73b6d97/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Feb 19 20:16:34 2006
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 14:16:34 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  ExI List Quality & Future
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


?
 a wide-open forum is a relic of the Cretaceous period of the Internet.
The size of the net has probably grown by 8 or 9 orders of magnitude
since the Early Days when the list was open.  I'm grateful it was back then,
but it's time to change.?    Greg Burch, 2006

_________________

"I say: the List is dead! Long live the list!?  Max More, 2006
________________________________________________


Before you read any further, I would like you to know that ExI?s 2006 
formal Strategic Plan, which is being formatted for public viewing, 
indicates that ExI is currently undergoing a transformational change.  One 
of the initiatives of the Plan is restructuring and modernizing its email 
list.  The Strategic Plan is not public yet, and the initiatives are 
scheduled for implementing after March 1, 2006, although I believe we can 
expedite this initiative sooner.

Please read on 


The following are my thoughts about the current state of the email 
list:  It is evident that list members cannot or will not actively manage 
the list as they once did. This could be because of the list volume,  I?m 
not sure.

Years ago, list members did not want to be controlled. They carried on 
high-level discussions and, every now and then someone would cause a 
conflict, and the list would work though problems.   The list was a virtual 
team of extropians who thought about the future and their unified 
worldview.  Newcomers to the list were scrutinized and, eventually, 
welcomed into the forum.

Then extropians were criticized for being an ?elitist? group and one had to 
be highly intelligent, enormously creative, and exceptionally knowledgeable 
about science and technology to fit in.  As the years passed and the ideas 
became more widely known, the list maintained its dignity and also welcomed 
more diversity and input from different disciplines.

There were several very difficult times when the list was unbalanced, 
attracting dogmatic posters on religion and politics.  It angered some list 
members and they left for a while, started their own lists, but eventually 
came back because they found something of value on ExI?s list.  That 
something is a sense of quality, depth, reasoning, dignity.  List members 
expected quality and they usually got it.

There have been ups and downs and time and time again, because the list is 
an open forum a few soapbox posters demanded that their point of view was 
right.  Then there were trolls who came onto the list to cause 
havoc.  Weeding out these posters with skill and tact, while at the same 
time valuing a non-censored sentiment and uncontrolled list environment, 
has been the job of list moderators.

Balancing these elements is not easy.  And for the posters, confidence 
wanes, conflict arises and discontent prevails, until a transformation occurs.

But transformation does not come easy. Conflict tends to shift focus away 
from the basic goals of the list posters, reducing productivity and the 
bottom line of ?list quality.?  Surveys show that list moderators and 
managers spend about 20 to 50 percent (could be more) of their time on 
conflict resolution. And as a result, the list owners, such as ExI, have 
increased house cleaning tasks to empower list posters to move beyond the 
conflict.  This repeated loop reinforces confusion and distrust of list 
quality and makes the list more vulnerable to problems, annoyances and 
distrust than ever.

As the Internet grows, posters are ?supposed? to continue to be 
self-directed, contribute their opinions, and communicate with a greater 
number of list members. List posters have to be focused on avoiding, 
accommodating, competing, compromising, and collaborating with other list 
members.  By this, the individual list posters need to be ready, at an 
instant?s notice, to access to their own conflict management skills.

This is asking a lot of list posters who are on the list to communicate - 
not manage.  Over time this reinforcing cycle breaks down the foundations 
of the environment, the extropy list, and the only choice is to terminate 
the list or transform it into something new.

Greg Burch commented yesterday that ?a wide-open forum is a relic of the 
Cretaceous period of the Internet.  The size of the net has probably grown 
by 8 or 9 orders of magnitude since the Early Days when the list was 
open.  I'm grateful it was back then, but it's time to change.?

Max More said today: ?When the Extropians e-mail list began 15 years ago -- 
an eon in Internet time -- posters were intensely enthusiastic people who 
clearly shared a core set of values and goals. Few people outside the list 
had the necessary information or inclination to participate. Years passed. 
Some time ago, we changed the name of the list to "Extropy-Chat" to reflect 
the much looser collection of posters and content.

?Now is the time to change the list again. Many other e-mail lists now 
exist where people can chat about any topic imaginable. Extropy Institute 
and its principals have moved on to more focused, solutions-oriented, 
practical thinking. A chat list fits poorly with that shift.

?It is time to terminate this list, or radically transform it, depending on 
how you look at it. I favor an invitation-only list so as to maximize the 
quality of postings. If feasible, read-only status will also be an option. 
I say: the List is dead! Long live the list!?

I look forward to seeing you in the future!

Natasha

The best defense is ProAction!


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060219/aa666493/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Sun Feb 19 20:36:33 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:36:33 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602191236s4bacdedx65dad1813fdf5138@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/19/06, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>
> "? a wide-open forum is a relic of the Cretaceous period of the Internet.
>
> The size of the net has probably grown by 8 or 9 orders of magnitude
> since the Early Days when the list was open.  I'm grateful it was back
> then,
> but it's time to change."    Greg Burch, 2006
>
> _________________
>
> "I say: the List is dead! Long live the list!"  Max More, 2006
> ________________________________________________
>
>
> Before you read any further, I would like you to know that ExI's 2006
> formal Strategic Plan, which is being formatted for public viewing,
> indicates that ExI is currently undergoing a transformational change.  One
> of the initiatives of the Plan is restructuring and modernizing its email
> list.  The Strategic Plan is not public yet, and the initiatives are
> scheduled for implementing after March 1, 2006, although I believe we can
> expedite this initiative sooner.
>
> Please read on ?
>
> The following are my thoughts about the current state of the email list:
> It is evident that list members cannot or will not actively manage the list
> as they once did. This could be because of the list volume,  I'm not sure.
>
> Years ago, list members did not want to be controlled. They carried on
> high-level discussions and, every now and then someone would cause a
> conflict, and the list would work though problems.   The list was a virtual
> team of extropians who thought about the future and their unified
> worldview.  Newcomers to the list were scrutinized and, eventually, welcomed
> into the forum.
>
> Then extropians were criticized for being an "elitist" group and one had
> to be highly intelligent, enormously creative, and exceptionally
> knowledgeable about science and technology to fit in.  As the years passed
> and the ideas became more widely known, the list maintained its dignity and
> also welcomed more diversity and input from different disciplines.
>
> There were several very difficult times when the list was unbalanced,
> attracting dogmatic posters on religion and politics.  It angered some list
> members and they left for a while, started their own lists, but eventually
> came back because they found something of value on ExI's list.  That
> something is a sense of quality, depth, reasoning, dignity.  List members
> expected quality and they usually got it.
>
> There have been ups and downs and time and time again, because the list is
> an open forum a few soapbox posters demanded that their point of view was
> right.  Then there were trolls who came onto the list to cause havoc.
> Weeding out these posters with skill and tact, while at the same time
> valuing a non-censored sentiment and uncontrolled list environment, has been
> the job of list moderators.
>
> Balancing these elements is not easy.  And for the posters, confidence
> wanes, conflict arises and discontent prevails, until a transformation
> occurs.
>
> But transformation does not come easy. Conflict tends to shift focus away
> from the basic goals of the list posters, reducing productivity and the
> bottom line of "list quality."  Surveys show that list moderators and
> managers spend about 20 to 50 percent (could be more) of their time on
> conflict resolution. And as a result, the list owners, such as ExI, have
> increased house cleaning tasks to empower list posters to move beyond the
> conflict.  This repeated loop reinforces confusion and distrust of list
> quality and makes the list more vulnerable to problems, annoyances and
> distrust than ever.
>
> As the Internet grows, posters are "supposed" to continue to be
> self-directed, contribute their opinions, and communicate with a greater
> number of list members. List posters have to be focused on avoiding,
> accommodating, competing, compromising, and collaborating with other list
> members.  By this, the individual list posters need to be ready, at an
> instant's notice, to access to their own conflict management skills.
>
> This is asking a lot of list posters who are on the list to communicate -
> not manage.  Over time this reinforcing cycle breaks down the foundations of
> the environment, the extropy list, and the only choice is to terminate the
> list or transform it into something new.
>
> Greg Burch commented yesterday that "a wide-open forum is a relic of the
> Cretaceous period of the Internet.  The size of the net has probably grown
> by 8 or 9 orders of magnitude since the Early Days when the list was open.
> I'm grateful it was back then, but it's time to change."
>
> Max More said today: "When the Extropians e-mail list began 15 years ago
> -- an eon in Internet time -- posters were intensely enthusiastic people who
> clearly shared a core set of values and goals. Few people outside the list
> had the necessary information or inclination to participate. Years passed.
> Some time ago, we changed the name of the list to "Extropy-Chat" to reflect
> the much looser collection of posters and content.
>
> "Now is the time to change the list again. Many other e-mail lists now
> exist where people can chat about any topic imaginable. Extropy Institute
> and its principals have moved on to more focused, solutions-oriented,
> practical thinking. A chat list fits poorly with that shift.
>
> "It is time to terminate this list, or radically transform it, depending
> on how you look at it. I favor an invitation-only list so as to maximize the
> quality of postings. If feasible, read-only status will also be an option. I
> say: the List is dead! Long live the list!"
>
> I look forward to seeing you in the future!


I rather doubt it since I do not expect to be invited.
Essentially, what you propose is to cut all social interaction between
ordinary members, especially anything that fosters dissent. In addition, to
narrowly define what are, and are not, suitable topics.

IMO it's a recipe for disaster from the POV of ExI membership.
If that happens I'm gone, invitation or not.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060219/33a70323/attachment.html>

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sun Feb 19 20:37:13 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:37:13 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <200602180245.k1I2jTvX024213@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <8d71341e0602171056s67b62c62j47f6731739d1b243@mail.gmail.com>
	<200602180245.k1I2jTvX024213@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602191237l5697444ds989567fc65756c9f@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/18/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Ja of course with an example that extreme, all bets are off.  A 1 ton
> projectile going 0.5c would shatter the planet, forming a second asteroid
> belt.  (I think.  I need to do the calcs on that, but I suspect it would
> punch clean thru like a bullet thru an apple, taking a bunch of stuff
> along
> with it as it leaves the solar system.  Or that particular material would
> be
> left behind with a few megatons of material from the other side of the
> earth
> blasted into space.  Or I don't know: would it fuse a bunch of material to
> iron in an endothermic nuclear reaction that would absorb most of the
> energy?  Amara et.al. what would happen if a ton of stuff hit the earth at
> .5c?  Surely it would be a bad hair day for humanity and the rest of
> animalty.)


Not that bad! I see Amara's used an estimating program to get some data,
thanks Amara - a couple orders of magnitude need to be added to that, since
the entered speed was 15,000 km/s rather than 150,000, but the energy still
comes out in the ballpark of 20 gigatons TNT equivalent. Not something you'd
want to stand around watching, but not a mass extinction event either.

(I suspect the field of craters is an artifact of the program being designed
to handle things like the Tunguska impact. A relativistic projectile would
certainly turn into plasma as soon as it hit atmosphere; I'm guessing there
wouldn't be time for the plasma to disperse much, though, and would stay in
a reasonably concentrated beam, making a single crater.)

We never did do the experiment.  The notion was to make our money back by
> selling video of the impact or by sponsoring a contest to see who could
> guess the impact site.  Most of the profit scenarios involved gambling of
> some sort, which the company didn't like, the bunny huggers didn't like
> the
> notion of vaporizing a quarter ton of tungsten, the no-nukes crowd didn't
> like our using the decommissioned missiles as playthings, the usual
> nervous
> nellies didn't like the idea of this enormous spear possibly going off
> course and accidentally punching a hole reactor of the Springfield nuclear
> power plant, or the Vatican, the local elementary school, that kinda
> stuff.
> {8^D


Spoilsports :P That sounds fun! Though AFAIK such a weapon would be of
doubtful utility, since a solid slug needs to score a direct hit to kill the
target, and it'd be hard to guide it accurately with the plasma sheath
blinding it while it was ploughing through the atmosphere.

Cool, thanks Russell.  One must be careful of overapplying the simple rules.
> The simplifications I described should be used only for a long pointy
> projectile, even tho I used it to theorize that any kind of anchor or
> cable
> one tried to drop on Pluto at 14 km/sec would be toast.  I still think
> nothing would survive impact at those speeds, but the hydrodynamic impact
> relationships were for long pointy things.
>

Definitely - you wrote a good explanation of why soft landing on a solid
surface at 14 km/s is a nonstarter.

You could try aerobraking, but that's a tricky maneuver and there's the
question of whether there'll still be enough atmosphere not yet frozen out
by the time the probe gets there. A flyby was the best option for this
mission, given the time and budget constraints.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060219/d92f71cc/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Sun Feb 19 21:32:12 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 16:32:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602191237l5697444ds989567fc65756c9f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d71341e0602171056s67b62c62j47f6731739d1b243@mail.gmail.com>
	<200602180245.k1I2jTvX024213@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<8d71341e0602191237l5697444ds989567fc65756c9f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602191332w6fba5b2bhdfdc3ac7fbea41ab@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/19/06, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Definitely - you wrote a good explanation of why soft landing on a solid
> surface at 14 km/s is a nonstarter.


I *never* suggested that one could achieve a  "soft" landing.  What I
suggested was that we weren't being clever enough with respect to
engineering a probe that could survive getting to the surface (or orbit the
planet).  And as I pointed out in my last message it doesn't matter (much)
what speed the  rest of the probe is going when it hits the surface so long
as the part you desire to have functioning can withstand or entirely avoid
the consequences of that impact.

Since the folks at MIT are now building what sounds like a nanotechnology
based bolometer which seem to be capable of single photon detection the
question for Spike or Amara would be how much power would you need to pump
into an LED array (or laser) on Pluto to guarantee more than one photon
would be available to say a 1 m mirror with a nanobolometer detector on
Earth?  The reason I ask is because 1m optical mirrors are relatively cheap
and the bandwidth claimed by the MIT folks was on the order of ethernet
rates (they were talking about streaming video from Mars).  You could make
the mirror larger but you are starting to talk expensive telescope land
now.  I'm assuming that if one throws out the silly dish required for a RF
downlink that the next heaviest item in the mix is the RTG.  Lower the power
required for the down-link and you can decrease the mass of the RTG you have
to transport/land.  I presume its running on plutonium -- so you could also
decrease the mass by using a hotter/lighter radioisotope.  The up-link isn't
a problem because we can obviously put lots of power into the instructions
being sent to Pluto (though I presume with the transit time that New
Horizons is operating on autopilot during the flyby -- yes?)

I don't recall whether I ask this or not -- does anyone know if the data
storage on the New Horizons (or for that matter even the Mars Landers) is
being handled by flash, disk or tape?

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060219/df320e6f/attachment.html>

From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Sun Feb 19 20:38:05 2006
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:38:05 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bad idea, was Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <200602181823.k1IINQ0I013501@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200602181823.k1IINQ0I013501@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <FEF914E7-6561-4238-A2EB-1AE8B3BD42FE@bonfireproductions.com>



Phew. It has been a heck of a week. Sorry not to chime in sooner -  
Just to remark on the overall notion:

ExI/Transhumanism in its current form is _compatible_ with almost all  
religions.

Once you make it a religion in and of itself, you are now competing  
with these other groups. That is why eventually all cults fail. They  
get too big, too threatening, and bottom out.

Some of the most successful and fastest growing elements of human  
culture, particularly in the past few decades, rode "on-top-of"  
something else. For example, the web is "on-top-of" the internet. It  
is more practical use-wise and compatible with all machines. That is  
where we need to be. On-top-of, more practical than, and compatible  
with, the majority of religions. A culture of inclusivity rather than  
exclusivity will always win out. A Meta-religion at worst.

Bret K.



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Feb 19 21:44:45 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:44:45 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Reminder: SIAI Challenge expires this Sunday |
	SIAI February news
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060218105318.045882f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <000a01c63423$a912a930$6701a8c0@toshibauser>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20060218105318.045882f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <8525D8D6-EE1D-4CB6-807A-488038CB3FAF@mac.com>

RSVP button is broken.  :-(


On Feb 18, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote:

> At 06:38 PM 2/17/2006, Tyler wrote:
>
>> Summit homepage teaser:
>> http://www.singinst.org/summit/
>
> This event has a "wow" factor!
>
>
> Natasha Vita-More
> Cultural Strategist - Designer
> Future Studies, University of Houston
> President, Extropy Institute
> Member, Association of Professional Futurists
> Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture
> Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association
> Senior Associate, Foresight Institute
> Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation
>
> If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the  
> circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what  
> is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that  
> is an open system perspective.
> Buckminster Fuller
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060219/74054ec5/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Feb 19 21:40:59 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:40:59 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bad idea, was Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <200602181823.k1IINQ0I013501@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200602181823.k1IINQ0I013501@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <3AFD7034-E6C9-4696-90CE-F78E00EF684E@mac.com>

If we are to discuss cults then we would need to start with agreement  
as to the definition.  Without that such discussion seems a lot like  
a waste of time to me.

- samantha

On Feb 18, 2006, at 10:17 AM, spike wrote:

>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson
> ...
>>
>> ...If list people could keep it at a theory level, we could
>> discuss the historical religions along this axis, extending to  
>> ones that
>> don't try to spread horizontally.
> ...
>> Keith Henson
>
>
> I am interested in what Keith has to say on this, and evolution  
> knows he has
> had a front row seat on it.  Do let us proceed thus:
>
> 1.  No promoting cults here.  Promote science and reason.
>
> 2.  Commentary on cults, human interaction therein, welcome.
>
> 3.  Don't feel compelled to answer everything.
>
> 4.  Don't be evil.  Even if profitable.
>
> 5.  Be smart.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sun Feb 19 22:27:12 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:27:12 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060217013433.02c5a768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216200408.02c9b990@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060217013433.02c5a768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602191427s58bf9768pa3303ccad15cd05@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/17/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> Point being that memes are a link between ultimate cause of war and wars
> or
> related social disruptions such as the IRA was engaged in.  Pre existing
> xenophobic memes, particularly "religions" are likely to be the seed
> meme.  But if people feel the need to fight, they can *always* amplify
> some
> kind of meme up to a "reason" to fight.  The *particular* meme the
> attackers are using is an artifact of pre existing memes and a positive
> feedback process.


Oh, I understand what you're saying, and I think the approach of searching
for explanations in evolutionary psychology makes sense. But theories need
to be tested against observed data, and it seems to me that when you look at
history, it just doesn't support that level of determinism.

>Remember the idea that noncombatants are sacrosanct is a modern one. In
> >the ancestral environment, starting a war was only a good idea if you
> were
> >going to win; losing could mean your entire tribe was wiped out.
>
> That's rational.  The specifically model specifically incorporates
> psychological mechanisms that inhibit rational thinking.  I think Drew
> Westen's fMRI work has demonstrated this mechanism.  The only way this
> mechanism could have been selected is if there are situation where non
> rational thinking leads to better gene survival.  Since non rational thing
> all too often toasts your bacon, you have to invoke Hamilton's inclusive
> fitness for such a trait to evolve.


By "starting a war was only a good idea if you were going to win", I don't
mean our ancestors necessarily made rational calculations along these lines.
I mean getting your tribe wiped out was bad for inclusive fitness, therefore
genes that encouraged imprudent attacks would tend to be eliminated from the
population.

As long as girls were booty enough of the time, the trait of taking insane
> risks  would survive.


Not compared to having the tribe survive!

>There's an example in the Old Testament where the Israelites were ordered
> >to keep only the virgin girls of a conquered people and exterminate the
> >rest; that's not a large percentage of genes surviving. There are plenty
> >of other cases where the losing tribe was wiped out to the last infant.
>
> Infants were among the most *likely* to be killed if you look at if from
> the gene's view.


Quite so.

>It looks to me like a tribe faced with a food shortage, say because the
> >rain failed this year or whatever, would be better off just taking some
> >losses from starvation rather than starting a war it wasn't going to win.
>
> Even from a rational viewpoint a weak tribe is better off
> attacking.  Because if they don't (and the ecological conditions conducive
> to war affect their neighbors) they *will be* attacked.   With the
> advantage of surprise, they might win


Surprise isn't generally a war-winner. If it was, you wouldn't want to wait
for hard times to launch your surprise attack.

>The author's suggested explanation was that if a tribe is sufficiently
> >well off that a man's wife and children can survive without him, that
> >reduces the risk to his genes of raiding the neighbors to try to capture
> >more women, eliminate competitors or whatever.
>
> Hmm.  Please look for this study.


It was on paper rather than the Internet, and many years ago, so I've no
idea where to look.

Wait, I think I know where I might have seen the reference: a book called
'Demonic Males: Apes and the Origin of Human Violence'. Don't mind the
tabloid style title, it's written by a pair of serious scholars, one of the
best works on evolutionary psychology I've come across.

>3) In historical times it doesn't seem to me that there are a lot of
> >examples supporting your theory. Rome was one of the wealthiest
> >civilizations around when it wiped out Carthage and invaded Gaul. The
> >Spanish weren't exactly short of a few bob when they launched the Armada.
> >Germany's economy was going gangbusters in 1914. Conversely, Mexico for
> >example is a lot poorer than the US; when was the last time Mexico went
> to war?
>
> Sort out who started the wars.  Being attacked will always work to get
> into
> a war.


Most of my reading of history was awhile ago, and didn't generally include
graphs of per capita GNP of the belligerents in the years leading up to any
given war, but I definitely don't remember low or declining GNP being
correlated with starting wars. If you have data to the contrary, by all
means show it.

And what about the counterexamples like Mexico and Latin America generally,
poor countries where lots of people have bad economic prospects, and which
by and large haven't been starting wars?

>4) There is some empirical basis for the idea that bad economic prospects
> >encourage urban violence, but that doesn't mean they lead to war.
> Consider
> >that once you're past the Stone Age, the decision to go to war _is not
> >made by the common people_.
>
> I disagree.  You only have to go back to WWII for a war that the ruling
> classes, particularly the president, wanted to get into for some time and
> they just could not do so because of the lack of public support.  Till the
> US was attacked of course.


I'll grant you that's a counterexample to my idea that the decision isn't
usually made by the common people, but it's also a counterexample to your
theory: the US had been through the Depression! By your theory, they should
have been all out to fight someone in the 1930s.

>It's made by the ruling classes, who are exactly the group that will _not_
> >be affected by an economic downturn. Therefore, _even if your theory is
> >correct up to this point_ we should still expect to see wars actually
> >start for reasons unrelated to economics - and that is just what we do
> >observe when we look at history.
>
> Gak.  And I thought *my* model was depressing.  It's bad enough to have a
> model where you can at least see a way to stay out of wars even if you
> can't see a way to impose women's lib on a zillion Islamic women.


Well, I don't think there is a single general solution to the problem of
discouraging war - if there was, the job of the Nobel Peace Prize committee,
not to mention life itself, would be easier than it is! I think there are
lots of things that can be done that are helpful, but no guarantees.

There is another theory that too many unattached men (somehow) are the
> cause of wars.  If so, China will start a war right away.  If rising
> income
> per capita keeps war mode shut off, we should see no wars with China
> unless
> some other country starts one.
>

I'm inclined to think we'll see no war with China because their leadership
is calm and rational enough to realize they've more to lose than to gain by
it.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060219/e93a7372/attachment.html>

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sun Feb 19 22:29:25 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:29:25 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602191332w6fba5b2bhdfdc3ac7fbea41ab@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d71341e0602171056s67b62c62j47f6731739d1b243@mail.gmail.com>
	<200602180245.k1I2jTvX024213@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<8d71341e0602191237l5697444ds989567fc65756c9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0602191332w6fba5b2bhdfdc3ac7fbea41ab@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602191429raffda0w77ea7709839b9b9a@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/19/06, Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't recall whether I ask this or not -- does anyone know if the data
> storage on the New Horizons (or for that matter even the Mars Landers) is
> being handled by flash, disk or tape?
>

Flash. (Or some solid state memory anyway, I think it's flash.)

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060219/66d7d17f/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Feb 19 22:32:16 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 14:32:16 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bad idea, was Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <FEF914E7-6561-4238-A2EB-1AE8B3BD42FE@bonfireproductions.com>
References: <200602181823.k1IINQ0I013501@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<FEF914E7-6561-4238-A2EB-1AE8B3BD42FE@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <C6C3C537-E726-45AA-AA26-A1E4BD83E6DF@mac.com>

Bret,

How does that which will effectively "revalue all values" including  
the very nature and place of humanity manage to be compatible with  
the majority of religions that contain rigid value systems and  
dogmatic assertions about many aspects of reality and especially  
about the nature and place of humanity?  This rigidity and dogmatism  
is held by the adherents as being of the very essence of their  
religions.  Thus I don't see how you can seriously expect this to  
work.   Am I missing something?

- samantha

On Feb 19, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>
>
> Phew. It has been a heck of a week. Sorry not to chime in sooner -
> Just to remark on the overall notion:
>
> ExI/Transhumanism in its current form is _compatible_ with almost all
> religions.
>
> Once you make it a religion in and of itself, you are now competing
> with these other groups. That is why eventually all cults fail. They
> get too big, too threatening, and bottom out.
>
> Some of the most successful and fastest growing elements of human
> culture, particularly in the past few decades, rode "on-top-of"
> something else. For example, the web is "on-top-of" the internet. It
> is more practical use-wise and compatible with all machines. That is
> where we need to be. On-top-of, more practical than, and compatible
> with, the majority of religions. A culture of inclusivity rather than
> exclusivity will always win out. A Meta-religion at worst.
>
> Bret K.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Feb 19 21:59:54 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:59:54 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602191236s4bacdedx65dad1813fdf5138@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<c0a791b40602191236s4bacdedx65dad1813fdf5138@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0B9EA6CA-6F38-42AE-B4ED-C65BE8CCBE40@mac.com>


On Feb 19, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote:

<snip>

>
> I rather doubt it since I do not expect to be invited.
> Essentially, what you propose is to cut all social interaction  
> between ordinary members, especially anything that fosters dissent.  
> In addition, to narrowly define what are, and are not, suitable  
> topics.
>
> IMO it's a recipe for disaster from the POV of ExI membership.
> If that happens I'm gone, invitation or not.
>

If you would leave just over the attempt to come up with a better way  
of doing things then why are you here in the first place?

- samantha




From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Sun Feb 19 23:18:59 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:18:59 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <0B9EA6CA-6F38-42AE-B4ED-C65BE8CCBE40@mac.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<c0a791b40602191236s4bacdedx65dad1813fdf5138@mail.gmail.com>
	<0B9EA6CA-6F38-42AE-B4ED-C65BE8CCBE40@mac.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602191518m3498eb80w679ae4b4a327c260@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/19/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 19, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > I rather doubt it since I do not expect to be invited.
> > Essentially, what you propose is to cut all social interaction
> > between ordinary members, especially anything that fosters dissent.
> > In addition, to narrowly define what are, and are not, suitable
> > topics.
> >
> > IMO it's a recipe for disaster from the POV of ExI membership.
> > If that happens I'm gone, invitation or not.
> >
>
> If you would leave just over the attempt to come up with a better way
> of doing things then why are you here in the first place?
>
> - samantha
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


On 2/19/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 19, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > I rather doubt it since I do not expect to be invited.
> > Essentially, what you propose is to cut all social interaction
> > between ordinary members, especially anything that fosters dissent.
> > In addition, to narrowly define what are, and are not, suitable
> > topics.
> >
> > IMO it's a recipe for disaster from the POV of ExI membership.
> > If that happens I'm gone, invitation or not.
> >
>
> If you would leave just over the attempt to come up with a better way


Not the attempt - the proposed solution dangled before us by Natasha.


of doing things then why are you here in the first place?



To interact with the *all* the members who want to post, mostly with regards
to *opinions*.
I seldom see technical stuff here I don't get elsewhere. The tech
discussions on physics, chem, computers, electronics, qualia, Godel etc are
things that in general I am very familiar with and would not miss in the
slightest. I find regurgitated news items boring. People should just sub to
Kurzweil or various journals if they want it first hand.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060219/9fd9f59a/attachment.html>

From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Sun Feb 19 23:21:42 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:21:42 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602191427s58bf9768pa3303ccad15cd05@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216200408.02c9b990@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060217013433.02c5a768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<8d71341e0602191427s58bf9768pa3303ccad15cd05@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602191521yaf52f91yfe693f91541bd23f@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/19/06, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm inclined to think we'll see no war with China because their leadership
> is calm and rational enough to realize they've more to lose than to gain by
> it.
>
> - Russell



A classic!
Er... how about if the US starts one with China?

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060219/c7eaa6e3/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Feb 19 23:37:43 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:37:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <0B9EA6CA-6F38-42AE-B4ED-C65BE8CCBE40@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20060219233743.96935.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

On Feb 19, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote:
> I rather doubt it since I do not expect to be invited.
> Essentially, what you propose is to cut all social interaction  
> between ordinary members, especially anything that fosters dissent.

Dissent != completely off-topic discussions.  Except when it
comes to the definition of "off-topic".

> In addition, to narrowly define what are, and are not, suitable  
> topics.

Insofar as any set less than everything can be called "narrow",
yes.  And perhaps a narrow definition would serve ExI's
interests.

> IMO it's a recipe for disaster from the POV of ExI membership.

Anyone can call themself an ExI member, but there is a certain,
definiable set of things that is extropian - and, conversely,
a certain, definable set of things that is not.  Coming up with
better ways of doing things is usually extropian.

> If that happens I'm gone, invitation or not.

Something like that is likely to happen.  You might want to save
yourself some time and leave now.


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Mon Feb 20 00:32:55 2006
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:32:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602191518m3498eb80w679ae4b4a327c260@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<c0a791b40602191236s4bacdedx65dad1813fdf5138@mail.gmail.com>
	<0B9EA6CA-6F38-42AE-B4ED-C65BE8CCBE40@mac.com>
	<c0a791b40602191518m3498eb80w679ae4b4a327c260@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49986.72.236.103.122.1140395575.squirrel@main.nc.us>

Since I'm mostly a lurker, I do not expect an invitation to any new list.
That's going to be a disappointment, but I must agree the list has changed
in the years I've been here and it's less exciting than it was.

Regards,
MB



From kerry_prez at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 20 00:51:01 2006
From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 16:51:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <20060219233743.96935.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060220005101.62565.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>

Haven't read the lead-in to this post, but would you perhaps consider having what WTA has? a wta-politics list? It appears Dr. Hughes understands that a politics list can act as a safety valve channeling the runoff of emotional toxic waste.  
  

 
  On Feb 19, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote:
> I rather doubt it since I do not expect to be invited.
> Essentially, what you propose is to cut all social interaction 
> between ordinary members, especially anything that fosters dissent.

Dissent != completely off-topic discussions. Except when it
comes to the definition of "off-topic".

> In addition, to narrowly define what are, and are not, suitable 
> topics.

Insofar as any set less than everything can be called "narrow",
yes. And perhaps a narrow definition would serve ExI's
interests.

> IMO it's a recipe for disaster from the POV of ExI membership.

Anyone can call themself an ExI member, but there is a certain,
definiable set of things that is extropian - and, conversely,
a certain, definable set of things that is not. Coming up with
better ways of doing things is usually extropian.

> If that happens I'm gone, invitation or not.

Something like that is likely to happen. You might want to save
yourself some time and leave now.
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


		
---------------------------------
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
 PhotoMail  - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060219/27cb6c7c/attachment.html>

From mehranraeli at comcast.net  Mon Feb 20 01:57:23 2006
From: mehranraeli at comcast.net (Mehran)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:57:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Images About The Future
In-Reply-To: <mailman.582.1140388343.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <002101c635c1$03c796d0$799f6041@DBX6XT21>

This kind of future was supposed to be here by now but they preferred to
build 4 billion dollar a piece nuclear subs by our tax money instead, 

LOVE
Mehran
www.rael.org


Message: 1
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 06:23:17 -0500
From: "Jonathan Despres" <jonano at gmail.com>
Subject: [extropy-chat] Images About The Future
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Message-ID:
	<6030482a0602190323m3368c4e1y3040a87d3781513a at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi,

I created a page with many images about the future, if you have some
images in mind and would like to give them to the project dont
hesitate to contact me.

Here is the page:

http://www.nanoaging.com/wiki/Images_Future

--Jon





From mehranraeli at comcast.net  Mon Feb 20 02:03:28 2006
From: mehranraeli at comcast.net (Mehran)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:03:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Images About The Future
Message-ID: <002201c635c1$dd601660$799f6041@DBX6XT21>

Jon,

I was not criticizing your effort which I think is valuable, but just making
an observation...

LOVE
Mehran
www.rael.org


-----Original Message-----
From: Mehran [mailto:mehranraeli at comcast.net] 
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:57 PM
To: 'extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org'
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Images About The Future


This kind of future was supposed to be here by now but they preferred to
build 4 billion dollar a piece nuclear subs by our tax money instead, 

LOVE
Mehran
www.rael.org


Message: 1
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 06:23:17 -0500
From: "Jonathan Despres" <jonano at gmail.com>
Subject: [extropy-chat] Images About The Future
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Message-ID:
	<6030482a0602190323m3368c4e1y3040a87d3781513a at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi,

I created a page with many images about the future, if you have some
images in mind and would like to give them to the project dont
hesitate to contact me.

Here is the page:

http://www.nanoaging.com/wiki/Images_Future

--Jon






From brentn at freeshell.org  Mon Feb 20 02:57:04 2006
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:57:04 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <49986.72.236.103.122.1140395575.squirrel@main.nc.us>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1043-930A6783A1BC11DA9A74000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (2/19/06 19:32) MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:

>Since I'm mostly a lurker, I do not expect an invitation to any new list.
>That's going to be a disappointment, but I must agree the list has changed
>in the years I've been here and it's less exciting than it was.


I agree, with the exception of the fact that its gotten a lot better since the political stuff was banished to another list.  I'll be sad to be cut off, but its ExI's list, and their right to do what they want to with it.

B

-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein



From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Feb 20 02:32:11 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:32:11 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] clarification of discussing cults and religion on
	exi-chat
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602191203p4081e670qe7dddbac90a762c1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602200310.k1K3ADp8006104@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



...??Do let us proceed thus:

1.??No promoting cults here.??Promote science and reason.

2.??Commentary on cults, human interaction therein, welcome.

3.??Don't feel compelled to answer everything.

4.??Don't be evil.??Even if profitable. 

5.??Be smart.

You mean everyone else should post on this topic, except me because I don't
toe the party line?
Sounds like the WTA all over again.
Dissent will not be tolerated etc (except approved dissent).

Dirk



Not everyone else Dirk.  I recognize that my request looks self
contradictory, so let me make it perfectly clear: Keith Henson is *the man*
that we want to hear from on this topic, not everyone else, not anyone else.
Keith has been thru the war, he's a Magna Cum Laude PhD in cultology, he has
put his money where his mouth is, he has fought the good fight and paid the
price.  No one here is as qualified to comment on this topic as he.
Extro-chatters, let us sit quietly at this man's feet and let him teach us
if he is willing.  I have known Keith for many years, enjoyed his cutting up
at the cryoschmoozes, we have seen him post really smart and valuable stuff
for many years on ExI-chat, from long before this whole cult thing began.
When he speaks, the pearls of wisdom fall like a hailstorm.  There is a
*chapter* about him in Regis' Great Mambo Chicken fer crying out loud!  {8-]


After he is finished, assuming he is still willing to share what he has
learned, then let us restart the clatter.  I recognize that this is like
temporary censorship, but it is for a good cause.  {8-]

Keith, the floor is yours bud.

spike



 





From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Feb 20 03:14:03 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:14:03 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602191237l5697444ds989567fc65756c9f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602200314.k1K3EDem005802@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Wallace
...

...A relativistic projectile would certainly turn into plasma as soon as it
hit atmosphere; I'm guessing there wouldn't be time for the plasma to
disperse much, though, and would stay in a reasonably concentrated beam,
making a single crater...


Ja I don't know how to calculate that.  It would only be in the atmosphere
for about a millisecond.  perhaps it would form a shock wave of such
intensity that elements would be fused to iron on the leading edge.  This is
so far out on the scales that engineers are accustomed to working, we may
not be able to trust our usual models.



... the usual nervous nellies didn't like the idea of this enormous spear
possibly going off course and accidentally punching a hole reactor of the
Springfield nuclear power plant, or the Vatican, the local elementary
school, that kinda stuff. {8^D

Spoilsports :P That sounds fun! Though AFAIK such a weapon would be of
doubtful utility...



Ja it wasn't really a weapon but rather an experiment designed to increase
the understanding of very high speed impacts.  It was one of those stunts
you always wanted to pull, especially if you can get someone else to pay for
it.  If you have ever watched Mythbusters, it would be a very high power
version of the stunts they like to do.  (Isn't Mythbusters a cool show?
Those guys are locals, out of Mountain View I think.)




...You could try aerobraking, but that's a tricky maneuver and there's the
question of whether there'll still be enough atmosphere not yet frozen out
by the time the probe gets there. A flyby was the best option for this
mission, given the time and budget constraints.  - Russell...


I did the alpha*T^4 calculation and saw that the radiation equilibrium
temperature on Pluto is about 45K.  At the pressures I expect on a body that
size and that temperature, everything is solid except helium and hydrogen,
neither of which would be much use for aerobraking.  We may need to fall
back on the good old Hohmann transfer orbit, and wait out the 62 years.  How
many of you guys are young enough to be still here in
twenty-seventy-something?  I probably won't be, but Isaac Jones likely will.
{8-] 

spike








From tankdoc at adelphia.net  Mon Feb 20 03:07:49 2006
From: tankdoc at adelphia.net (tankdoc)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:07:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
References: <r02010500-1043-930A6783A1BC11DA9A74000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <000701c635cc$1c92c8a0$50efa745@firstbase>


>>Since I'm mostly a lurker, I do not expect an invitation to any new list.
>>That's going to be a disappointment, but I must agree the list has changed
>>in the years I've been here and it's less exciting than it was.

As a lurker since the early 90's and a self teaching work in progress, I can 
only tell you that the hints of, go read this, go look into that etc have 
changed my life for the better. If the list changes please consider a read 
only option, thats all I really need.

Jerry Imbriale 



From tankdoc at adelphia.net  Mon Feb 20 03:16:58 2006
From: tankdoc at adelphia.net (tankdoc)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:16:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
References: <r02010500-1043-930A6783A1BC11DA9A74000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <000801c635cc$239f97e0$50efa745@firstbase>

> I agree, with the exception of the fact that its gotten a lot better since 
> the political stuff was >banished to another list.  I'll be sad to be cut 
> off, but its ExI's list, and their right to do what they >want to with it.

As a lurker on this list since the early 90's and a self teaching work in 
progress, I can only say that the hints of, go read this, look into that and 
most importantly, where are your references, have all changed my life for 
the better. Just reading the discussion back and forth between the more 
logical members has been worth wading through the recent list troubles.

If the list becomes something different please consider a read only option.

Jerry Imbriale Jr. 



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Mon Feb 20 03:28:50 2006
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:28:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <000801c635cc$239f97e0$50efa745@firstbase>
References: <r02010500-1043-930A6783A1BC11DA9A74000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
	<000801c635cc$239f97e0$50efa745@firstbase>
Message-ID: <50171.72.236.102.117.1140406130.squirrel@main.nc.us>


> I can only say that the hints of, go read this, look into that
> and
> most importantly, where are your references, have all changed my life for
> the better. Just reading the discussion back and forth between the more
> logical members has been worth wading through the recent list troubles.
>
> If the list becomes something different please consider a read only
> option.
>

What he said.... :)

Regards,
MB



From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Feb 20 03:46:01 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:46:01 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602191332w6fba5b2bhdfdc3ac7fbea41ab@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602200346.k1K3kBIU013330@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
...

...Since the folks at MIT are now building what sounds like a nanotechnology
based bolometer which seem to be capable of single photon detection the
question for Spike or Amara would be how much power would you need to pump
into an LED array (or laser) on Pluto to guarantee more than one photon
would be available to say a 1 m mirror with a nanobolometer detector on
Earth?...


Oy I don't know.  That sounds cool tho, single photon detection.
 

...I don't recall whether I ask this or not -- does anyone know if the data
storage on the New Horizons (or for that matter even the Mars Landers) is
being handled by flash, disk or tape? Robert


Hmmm, tape surely wouldn't hold up at these temperatures (45-50K range).  I
would think it would be not flexible enough.  I suppose they could warm it
with waste heat from the RTG.  Lockmart built the booster and the RTG, but I
don't think we did the probe itself.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/LockMart_Thermoelectric_Generator_Powers_N
ASA_Pluto_New_Horizons_Probe.html


spike







From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Mon Feb 20 03:57:00 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 03:57:00 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready
In-Reply-To: <200602200346.k1K3kBIU013330@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <deaa866a0602191332w6fba5b2bhdfdc3ac7fbea41ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<200602200346.k1K3kBIU013330@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602191957q2dff8c8bvb003b04884fed790@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/20/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Hmmm, tape surely wouldn't hold up at these temperatures (45-50K
> range).  I
> would think it would be not flexible enough.  I suppose they could warm it
> with waste heat from the RTG.  Lockmart built the booster and the RTG, but
> I
> don't think we did the probe itself.
>

I believe most of the earlier probes, including the Voyagers, used tape,
with the RTG keeping the whole thing warm enough to function. New Horizons
uses solid state memory.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060220/6124eb4a/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Feb 20 03:58:44 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:58:44 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Reminder: SIAI Challenge expires this Sunday
	|SIAI February news
In-Reply-To: <8525D8D6-EE1D-4CB6-807A-488038CB3FAF@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200602200358.k1K3wrdr002673@andromeda.ziaspace.com>




On Feb 18, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote:


Summit homepage teaser: 
http://www.singinst.org/summit/


This event has a "wow" factor!



Natasha Vita-More 


Thanks Natasha!  Ill be all over this like half a ton of
linemen on a loose football, or a geek wanting to learn
some cool stuff.  {8-]  If this is anything like nerdfest
at Stanford on 1 April 2001, you might want to bring a sack 
of food and camp out there the night before.

Their RSVP button is the teaser tho: it doesn't do anything.

spike





From alex at ramonsky.com  Mon Feb 20 04:07:24 2006
From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 04:07:24 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  ExI List Quality & Future
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <43F9407B.2010206@ramonsky.com>

The list fulfils other functions as well as chat. Many people visit the 
list as a non-prejudiced, up-to-the-minute, reliable information source 
about matters scientific. They may not post often (I don't get much time 
to, for example) but find the list very worthwhile nevertheless. :  )
***********************

Natasha Vita-More wrote:

> "... a wide-open forum is a relic of the Cretaceous period of the 
> Internet. 
> The size of the net has probably grown by 8 or 9 orders of magnitude
> since the Early Days when the list was open.  I'm grateful it was back 
> then,
> but it's time to change."    Greg Burch, 2006
>
> _________________
>
> "I say: the List is dead! Long live the list!"  Max More, 2006
> ________________________________________________
>
>  
> Before you read any further, I would like you to know that ExI's 2006 
> formal Strategic Plan, which is being formatted for public viewing, 
> indicates that ExI is currently undergoing a transformational change.  
> One of the initiatives of the Plan is restructuring and modernizing 
> its email list.  The Strategic Plan is not public yet, and the 
> initiatives are scheduled for implementing after March 1, 2006, 
> although I believe we can expedite this initiative sooner. 
>  
> Please read on ...
>  
> The following are my thoughts about the current state of the email 
> list:  It is evident that list members cannot or will not actively 
> manage the list as they once did. This could be because of the list 
> volume,  I'm not sure.
>  
> Years ago, list members did not want to be controlled. They carried on 
> high-level discussions and, every now and then someone would cause a 
> conflict, and the list would work though problems.   The list was a 
> virtual team of extropians who thought about the future and their 
> unified worldview.  Newcomers to the list were scrutinized and, 
> eventually, welcomed into the forum.
>  
> Then extropians were criticized for being an "elitist" group and one 
> had to be highly intelligent, enormously creative, and exceptionally 
> knowledgeable about science and technology to fit in.  As the years 
> passed and the ideas became more widely known, the list maintained its 
> dignity and also welcomed more diversity and input from different 
> disciplines.
>  
> There were several very difficult times when the list was unbalanced, 
> attracting dogmatic posters on religion and politics.  It angered some 
> list members and they left for a while, started their own lists, but 
> eventually came back because they found something of value on ExI's 
> list.  That something is a sense of quality, depth, reasoning, 
> dignity.  List members expected quality and they usually got it.
>  
> There have been ups and downs and time and time again, because the 
> list is an open forum a few soapbox posters demanded that their point 
> of view was right.  Then there were trolls who came onto the list to 
> cause havoc.  Weeding out these posters with skill and tact, while at 
> the same time valuing a non-censored sentiment and uncontrolled list 
> environment, has been the job of list moderators.
>  
> Balancing these elements is not easy.  And for the posters, confidence 
> wanes, conflict arises and discontent prevails, until a transformation 
> occurs.
>  
> But transformation does not come easy. Conflict tends to shift focus 
> away from the basic goals of the list posters, reducing productivity 
> and the bottom line of "list quality."  Surveys show that list 
> moderators and managers spend about 20 to 50 percent (could be more) 
> of their time on conflict resolution. And as a result, the list 
> owners, such as ExI, have increased house cleaning tasks to empower 
> list posters to move beyond the conflict.  This repeated loop 
> reinforces confusion and distrust of list quality and makes the list 
> more vulnerable to problems, annoyances and distrust than ever.
>  
> As the Internet grows, posters are "supposed" to continue to be 
> self-directed, contribute their opinions, and communicate with a 
> greater number of list members. List posters have to be focused on 
> avoiding, accommodating, competing, compromising, and collaborating 
> with other list members.  By this, the individual list posters need to 
> be ready, at an instant's notice, to access to their own conflict 
> management skills.
>  
> This is asking a lot of list posters who are on the list to 
> communicate - not manage.  Over time this reinforcing cycle breaks 
> down the foundations of the environment, the extropy list, and the 
> only choice is to terminate the list or transform it into something new.
>  
> Greg Burch commented yesterday that "a wide-open forum is a relic of 
> the Cretaceous period of the Internet.  The size of the net has 
> probably grown by 8 or 9 orders of magnitude since the Early Days when 
> the list was open.  I'm grateful it was back then, but it's time to 
> change."
>  
> Max More said today: "When the Extropians e-mail list began 15 years 
> ago -- an eon in Internet time -- posters were intensely enthusiastic 
> people who clearly shared a core set of values and goals. Few people 
> outside the list had the necessary information or inclination to 
> participate. Years passed. Some time ago, we changed the name of the 
> list to "Extropy-Chat" to reflect the much looser collection of 
> posters and content.
>
> "Now is the time to change the list again. Many other e-mail lists now 
> exist where people can chat about any topic imaginable. Extropy 
> Institute and its principals have moved on to more focused, 
> solutions-oriented, practical thinking. A chat list fits poorly with 
> that shift.
>
> "It is time to terminate this list, or radically transform it, 
> depending on how you look at it. I favor an invitation-only list so as 
> to maximize the quality of postings. If feasible, read-only status 
> will also be an option. I say: the List is dead! Long live the list!"
>
> I look forward to seeing you in the future!
>  
> Natasha
>  
> The best defense is ProAction!
>  
>
>     Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More <http://www.natasha.cc/>
>     President, Extropy Institute <http://www.extropy.org/> If you draw
>     a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then
>     that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside
>     the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open
>     system perspective. Buckminster Fuller
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060220/438f9495/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Feb 20 04:33:08 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:33:08 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <000701c635cc$1c92c8a0$50efa745@firstbase>
Message-ID: <200602200457.k1K4v4ji020612@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of tankdoc
...
> As a lurker since the early 90's and a self teaching work in progress, I
> can
> only tell you that the hints of, go read this, go look into that etc have
> changed my life for the better. If the list changes please consider a read
> only option, thats all I really need.
> 
> Jerry Imbriale

Welcome Jerry!  Thanks that's a hell of an idea.  Or some version of that,
where anyone can post but those without a reputation place their stuff in a
buffer that can be reviewed and rated, then later posted if it is good.  

One of the things we need is to figure a way a team of volunteer moderators
can review as they have time.  I have a life change coming soon that will
cut my available time to nearly nada.  Its a good change tho.  {8-]

spike




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Feb 20 04:25:00 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:25:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <20060220005101.62565.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060220042500.9588.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Haven't read the lead-in to this post, but would you perhaps consider
> having what WTA has? a wta-politics list? It appears Dr. Hughes
> understands that a politics list can act as a safety valve channeling
> the runoff of emotional toxic waste.  

I forget whether there is or is not an exi-politics list, but...

While that is a good suggestion, there inevitably comes the
problem of what happens when, not if, people start discussing
politics on the main list instead of the -politics list.
Perhaps the members have not bothered to subscribe to (and might
not be aware of) -politics, perhaps the members simply wish to
discuss in front of the largest audience (the main list), or
perhaps the same thread inertia which leads to discussions going
on under increasingly incorrect subject headers also suppresses
the less malleable/more discrete change of moving a discussion
from one list to another once it becomes no longer appropriate
for the original list.

Without solving that problem, a -politics list does not seem
like it could solve the original problem well enough.

Onr possibility - although there are obvious objections to it -
would be to auto-subscribe anyone subscribed to the main list to
-politics as well, to make it easier for discussions to be
migrated (as that in theory does not lose anyone), yet also
makes it easier for uninterested parties to auto-round-file any
-politics discussions (since they'll be automaticaly tagged with
the list name).


From mfj.eav at gmail.com  Mon Feb 20 06:05:18 2006
From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:05:18 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <20060220042500.9588.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20060220005101.62565.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20060220042500.9588.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <61c8738e0602192205q8985c21g6eb1ec3a3fbf23fa@mail.gmail.com>

 I too keep the list as a way to save time by allowing "motivated reviewers
" to seive
information and sometimes in quite a timely fashion.

The quality has really gone downhill as political/religeous/philosophical
rants and flames have taken over  substantially from leading edge  hard
science content these last few months.  I have been on the list since 1987
and think it would be  a bloody embarrassment if people who purport
intelligence let this discussion group twist in the wind.  I've been getting
better content from the Uof S databases lately than from the list.

As of late the "OM" gang such as Robin Hansen only post infrequently as they
are likely like me quite consumed with their  own off-list endeavors.

Perhaps the list could periodically track and deliver to our
inboxes updates from these  guys for those of us without the extra minutes
of the day to spare to surf.

I've been going pretty well 24/7 with just some bare bones time for sleep
 between our business activities at home 300 miles away from where I'm
attending HACCP Classes and other and sundry research networking on Campus
here at Saskatoon.(U of S aging research group, flavonoid anti-oxidative
stress pharmacy student projects, agroforestry cmmercialization inititiative
..... ..etc)


Morris Johnson
306-290-8734


--
> LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc.
> Extropian Agroforestry Ventures  Inc.
> Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan
> Plant-based Natural-health Bio-product Bio-pharmaceuticals
> http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan
> http://www.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com
> megao at sasktel.net,  arla_j at hotmail.com, mfj.eav at gmail.com
> extropian.pharmer at gmail.com
>
> Extreme Life-Extension ..."The most dangerous idea on earth"
> -Leon Kass , Bioethics Advisor to George Herbert Walker Bush,
> June 2005
>
> Radical Life-Extension Bioscience
> +   Total Information Awareness Globalized Info-science
> =   The 21st Century Paradigm    ........
> Re-inventing the Human Condition with  Quantum to
> Macro  Biomolecular-engineering
> *"I will live each and every  50 years, one at a time, like the days of a
> week".... Morris Johnson - June 2005*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060220/b029a291/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Mon Feb 20 06:22:38 2006
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:22:38 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Impact Effects (was: Pluto New Horizons launch
	-getting ready)
Message-ID: <p06230912c01f10508a38@[23.237.66.13]>

Russell and Spike:
>...A relativistic projectile would certainly turn into plasma as soon as it
>hit atmosphere; I'm guessing there wouldn't be time for the plasma to
>disperse much, though, and would stay in a reasonably concentrated beam,
>making a single crater...

>Ja I don't know how to calculate that.  It would only be in the atmosphere
>for about a millisecond.  perhaps it would form a shock wave of such
>intensity that elements would be fused to iron on the leading edge.  This is
>so far out on the scales that engineers are accustomed to working, we may
>not be able to trust our usual models.

This is what the meteorite community do all of the  time though. For
example: http://www.issi.unibe.ch/teams/Meteo/ If you make an ADS
search on some of those people on that ISSI team, then you will find
many papers.

Also, I gave you folks a pointer to an excellent tool
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

I suggest to read through the document to know their assumptions and
equations. I see comments and questions here that tells me that no one
read it. A discussion of the pressures, shock wave, vaporization and
plasma produced (in the instance of fireballs) is discussed in that
paper.

(http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~marcus/CollinsEtAl2005.pdf)


Robert, I don't know about the MER, but the DAWN mission uses Flash
memory (not that it will do anyone any good if the spacecraft hull
sits on the ground and the instruments remain in long-term storage.)

Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"It is intriguing to learn that the simplicity of the world depends
upon the temperature of the environment." ---John D. Barrow


From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Feb 20 09:56:20 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 01:56:20 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <49986.72.236.103.122.1140395575.squirrel@main.nc.us>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<c0a791b40602191236s4bacdedx65dad1813fdf5138@mail.gmail.com>
	<0B9EA6CA-6F38-42AE-B4ED-C65BE8CCBE40@mac.com>
	<c0a791b40602191518m3498eb80w679ae4b4a327c260@mail.gmail.com>
	<49986.72.236.103.122.1140395575.squirrel@main.nc.us>
Message-ID: <45F597F9-94A5-4216-A7A4-2078AF8F9AA0@mac.com>

Don't sell yourself short.  I have enjoyed your posts and I have  
heard many other people say the same.

- s

On Feb 19, 2006, at 4:32 PM, MB wrote:

> Since I'm mostly a lurker, I do not expect an invitation to any new  
> list.
> That's going to be a disappointment, but I must agree the list has  
> changed
> in the years I've been here and it's less exciting than it was.
>
> Regards,
> MB
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From maxm at mail.tele.dk  Mon Feb 20 11:51:10 2006
From: maxm at mail.tele.dk (Max M)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:51:10 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Don't worry everything is less than 10 years away
Message-ID: <43F9AD2E.2010007@mail.tele.dk>

I made some Google searches on the phrase "n years away" to see how 
predictions are made.

Amusingly enough the predictions are more dependent on the decimal 
system than on actual facts.

Due to the grouing in the results my guess is that predictions under 5 
years er based on development, while predictions >= 10 years are based 
on research, and predictions >= 20 are just wild guessing.

So much for 2038 ;-)




	Google Hits

	
1 year away 	9110
2 years away 	40900
3 years away 	28800
4 years away 	16000
5 years away 	29600
6 years away 	666
7 years away 	940
8 years away 	548
9 years away 	608
10 years away 	83400
11 years away 	2430
12 years away 	904
13 years away 	726
14 years away 	1010
15 years away 	30200
16 years away 	457
17 years away 	586
18 years away 	541
19 years away 	283
20 years away 	52900
21 years away 	763
22 years away 	1260
23 years away 	239
24 years away 	431
25 years away 	943
26 years away 	161


-- 

hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark

http://www.mxm.dk/
IT's Mad Science



From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Feb 20 13:26:41 2006
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:26:41 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Farewell to Luca Coscioni
Message-ID: <470a3c520602200526l32d273bfq4d36e4ad433ac568@mail.gmail.com>

Luca Coscioni died on 20 February 2006 at 11.00 in his home in Orvieto.
http://www.freedomofresearch.org/
Farewell to a great man.
G.



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Mon Feb 20 15:53:54 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:53:54 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist Religion List
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602200753s69a6ec85vc000898aa6cc6fcc@mail.gmail.com>

This is a brief note to let everyone know that a temporary Google group
("dualspace") has been created for those who wish to discuss a Transhumanist
religion.
The group's blurb runs:

"A temporary group designed to explore the possibilities and opportunities
afforded by research into a putative Transhumanist religion."

All those interested in positively contributing to such an undertaking
should contact me at dirk.bruere at gmail.com
We have an initial signup amounting to 8 members and once we are up and
running I expect that there will be a lot of input into what is required to
fill what seems to be a vast gap in the Transhumanist 'market'. Although
rather early in the process, I would expect the emphasis is going to be less
on the theoretical side and more on the 'what can we offer Joe Public',
coupled with a structure and admin we can all live with.

Still, at this stage nothing ruled in or out and no censorship of any kind
(with the exception of warnings for verbal abuse...) will be enforced.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060220/a21b7f0f/attachment.html>

From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Feb 20 18:21:06 2006
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:21:06 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c520602201021i224bbcaevb3c186a475c6f17e@mail.gmail.com>

Natasha, pleeeeease! Nooooooo! Don't do this! This is the wrong way to go!!!
OK listen on:
This looks like trying to go back to the "Good Old Heroic Times" of
this list. But it would be like trying to recapture the taste of your
first kiss. Unfortunately, your first kiss is gone. Past. No other
kiss will taste like that, ever. But there will be other kisses, good
in their own right. Perhaps, in some sense, better.
I have been on this list since 1998 or 1999, I was just lurking for
the first couple of years and then started posting. At that time there
was much less diversity on the list. For me, it was terribly
interesting because reading the list was a total immersion in a
well-defined worldview that I had not been previously exposed to - at
least not in a systematic fashion. But as you say, at that time there
were not so meny of us on the net. Now we have a much larger community
on the net, very diverse in terms of geography, education and
lifestyle and, listen to me, *this is good*.
I value the diversity on this list, and even the occasional passionate debate.
If this list is transformed into an invitation-only list, I am afraid
it will soon degenerate in a small group of people who preach to the
converted. Not very effective for spreading our worldview.
We want immortality, uploading, merging flesh with sand, freedom (yes
I am a leftwinger and I want freedom, I may have occasionally tried to
explain what I mean), endless discovery and exploration, and leaving
many old things behind. But I don't want to want what I want like an
ostrich who stick his head in the sand because it is afraid to see the
world. I want to continue wanting what I want *after* having heard,
and considered, other points of view, sometimes defending the old
things we wish to leave behind. Perhaps we can learn a couple of
things that we can integrate in our own worldview..
If you wish to create something like a focused working group, fine, I
think it would be a very good initiative. But please, *besides* and
not *instead of* the public list.
G.

On 2/19/06, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> "? a wide-open forum is a relic of the Cretaceous period of the Internet.
> The size of the net has probably grown by 8 or 9 orders of magnitude
> since the Early Days when the list was open.  I'm grateful it was back then,
> but it's time to change."    Greg Burch, 2006
>
> _________________
>
> "I say: the List is dead! Long live the list!"  Max More, 2006
> ________________________________________________
>
>
> Before you read any further, I would like you to know that ExI's 2006 formal
> Strategic Plan, which is being formatted for public viewing, indicates that
> ExI is currently undergoing a transformational change.  One of the
> initiatives of the Plan is restructuring and modernizing its email list.
> The Strategic Plan is not public yet, and the initiatives are scheduled for
> implementing after March 1, 2006, although I believe we can expedite this
> initiative sooner.
>
> Please read on ?
>
> The following are my thoughts about the current state of the email list:  It
> is evident that list members cannot or will not actively manage the list as
> they once did. This could be because of the list volume,  I'm not sure.
>
> Years ago, list members did not want to be controlled. They carried on
> high-level discussions and, every now and then someone would cause a
> conflict, and the list would work though problems.   The list was a virtual
> team of extropians who thought about the future and their unified worldview.
>  Newcomers to the list were scrutinized and, eventually, welcomed into the
> forum.
>
> Then extropians were criticized for being an "elitist" group and one had to
> be highly intelligent, enormously creative, and exceptionally knowledgeable
> about science and technology to fit in.  As the years passed and the ideas
> became more widely known, the list maintained its dignity and also welcomed
> more diversity and input from different disciplines.
>
> There were several very difficult times when the list was unbalanced,
> attracting dogmatic posters on religion and politics.  It angered some list
> members and they left for a while, started their own lists, but eventually
> came back because they found something of value on ExI's list.  That
> something is a sense of quality, depth, reasoning, dignity.  List members
> expected quality and they usually got it.
>
> There have been ups and downs and time and time again, because the list is
> an open forum a few soapbox posters demanded that their point of view was
> right.  Then there were trolls who came onto the list to cause havoc.
> Weeding out these posters with skill and tact, while at the same time
> valuing a non-censored sentiment and uncontrolled list environment, has been
> the job of list moderators.
>
> Balancing these elements is not easy.  And for the posters, confidence
> wanes, conflict arises and discontent prevails, until a transformation
> occurs.
>
> But transformation does not come easy. Conflict tends to shift focus away
> from the basic goals of the list posters, reducing productivity and the
> bottom line of "list quality."  Surveys show that list moderators and
> managers spend about 20 to 50 percent (could be more) of their time on
> conflict resolution. And as a result, the list owners, such as ExI, have
> increased house cleaning tasks to empower list posters to move beyond the
> conflict.  This repeated loop reinforces confusion and distrust of list
> quality and makes the list more vulnerable to problems, annoyances and
> distrust than ever.
>
> As the Internet grows, posters are "supposed" to continue to be
> self-directed, contribute their opinions, and communicate with a greater
> number of list members. List posters have to be focused on avoiding,
> accommodating, competing, compromising, and collaborating with other list
> members.  By this, the individual list posters need to be ready, at an
> instant's notice, to access to their own conflict management skills.
>
> This is asking a lot of list posters who are on the list to communicate -
> not manage.  Over time this reinforcing cycle breaks down the foundations of
> the environment, the extropy list, and the only choice is to terminate the
> list or transform it into something new.
>
> Greg Burch commented yesterday that "a wide-open forum is a relic of the
> Cretaceous period of the Internet.  The size of the net has probably grown
> by 8 or 9 orders of magnitude since the Early Days when the list was open.
> I'm grateful it was back then, but it's time to change."
>
> Max More said today: "When the Extropians e-mail list began 15 years ago --
> an eon in Internet time -- posters were intensely enthusiastic people who
> clearly shared a core set of values and goals. Few people outside the list
> had the necessary information or inclination to participate. Years passed.
> Some time ago, we changed the name of the list to "Extropy-Chat" to reflect
> the much looser collection of posters and content.
>
> "Now is the time to change the list again. Many other e-mail lists now exist
> where people can chat about any topic imaginable. Extropy Institute and its
> principals have moved on to more focused, solutions-oriented, practical
> thinking. A chat list fits poorly with that shift.
>
> "It is time to terminate this list, or radically transform it, depending on
> how you look at it. I favor an invitation-only list so as to maximize the
> quality of postings. If feasible, read-only status will also be an option. I
> say: the List is dead! Long live the list!"
>
> I look forward to seeing you in the future!
>
> Natasha
>
> The best defense is ProAction!



From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Feb 20 19:11:21 2006
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:11:21 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520602201021i224bbcaevb3c186a475c6f17e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<470a3c520602201021i224bbcaevb3c186a475c6f17e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0602201111t15374dddue57bc480614068ec@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/20/06, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> Natasha, pleeeeease! Nooooooo! Don't do this! This is the wrong way to go!!!
> OK listen on:

> I value the diversity on this list, and even the occasional passionate debate.
> If this list is transformed into an invitation-only list, I am afraid
> it will soon degenerate in a small group of people who preach to the
> converted. Not very effective for spreading our worldview.
> We want immortality, uploading, merging flesh with sand, freedom (yes
> I am a leftwinger and I want freedom, I may have occasionally tried to
> explain what I mean), endless discovery and exploration, and leaving
> many old things behind. But I don't want to want what I want like an
> ostrich who stick his head in the sand because it is afraid to see the
> world. I want to continue wanting what I want *after* having heard,
> and considered, other points of view, sometimes defending the old
> things we wish to leave behind. Perhaps we can learn a couple of
> things that we can integrate in our own worldview..
> If you wish to create something like a focused working group, fine, I
> think it would be a very good initiative. But please, *besides* and
> not *instead of* the public list.
> G.


I like the diversity also.

But the present extropy-chat needs a Terminator to banish the trolls
and timewasters. No endless discussion about 'Should we, shouldn't
we?', 'Is this post off-topic, or might we be able to allow it?'  If
in doubt, just ban them from posting for week on first offence, no
questions allowed.  No public arguing about Terminator decisions
allowed either. His/her decision is final.

Sure, occasionally someone might be unfairly treated, but it's not
like it's a death sentence, is it?

The signal to noise ratio would improve instantly.

The only thing to watch out for is the Terminator going insane and
terminating at random. Then the list owners would have to
strait-jacket the Terminator. :)

BillK



From hemm at openlink.com.br  Mon Feb 20 18:53:28 2006
From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk))
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:53:28 -0300
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  ExI List Quality & Future
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <03dc01c6364e$f169ce70$fe00a8c0@cpd01>

Speaking for myself, I know I'm not as smart as some members of this list an 
I can be hardly classified like "highly intelligent, enormously creative, 
and exceptionally knowledgeable about science and technology to fit in", but 
I love this list and on the other side I can be hardly classified as a 
source of conflict or any disruptive behaviour to the list. There are other 
members of this list that can fit my shoes and I think I'm speaking for all 
of them when I say we don't want to be cast out or prevented from making an 
eventual comment on some subject.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Natasha Vita-More
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Cc: brian at posthuman.com ; mail at HarveyNewstrom.com ; gts_2000 at yahoo.com ; 
lcorbin at tsoft.com ; jef at jefallbright.net ; tespike at satx.rr.com ; 
amara at amara.com
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:16 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future

"It is time to terminate this list, or radically transform it, depending on 
how you look at it. I favor an invitation-only list so as to maximize the 
quality of postings. If feasible, read-only status will also be an option. I 
say: the List is dead! Long live the list!"



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Mon Feb 20 20:11:33 2006
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:11:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <03dc01c6364e$f169ce70$fe00a8c0@cpd01>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<03dc01c6364e$f169ce70$fe00a8c0@cpd01>
Message-ID: <50619.72.236.102.67.1140466293.squirrel@main.nc.us>

> Speaking for myself, I know I'm not as smart as some members of this list
> an I can be hardly classified like "highly intelligent, enormously
> creative, and exceptionally knowledgeable about science and technology
> to fit in", but I love this list and on the other side I can be hardly
> classified as a source of conflict or any disruptive behaviour to the
> list. There are other members of this list that can fit my shoes and I
> think I'm speaking for all of them when I say we don't want to be cast
> out or prevented from making an eventual comment on some subject.
>

Yes, I think you speak for me!

Every now and then I actually have something to say on the list.  ;)

Or something to ask.

Regards,
MB



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Mon Feb 20 21:55:26 2006
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:55:26 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  ExI List Quality & Future
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<03dc01c6364e$f169ce70$fe00a8c0@cpd01>
Message-ID: <003e01c63668$5c052ea0$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)"

> Speaking for myself, I know I'm not as smart as some members of this list 
> an I can be hardly classified like "highly intelligent, enormously 
> creative, and exceptionally knowledgeable about science and technology to 
> fit in"

Henrique, IMO you may not be as "smart" as some members about some things, 
but probably smarter than other members about other things.

"Intelligence" itself is difficult to define and, therefore, to measure.  I 
know several people who are "exceptionally knowledgeable about science and 
technology" - but whom I personally (LOL!) do not consider to be intelligent 
in an interdisciplinary way.  I know interior decorators who are 
scientifically inclined, and scientists who attend to evangelical churches 
on Sunday.   (In a facetious aside, if getting on this list would require 
taking a grammar or spelling test, I would probably get in ... but some of 
principals (not principles! ;-)) would not.)

Olga 




From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Mon Feb 20 21:55:25 2006
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:55:25 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bad idea, was Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <C6C3C537-E726-45AA-AA26-A1E4BD83E6DF@mac.com>
References: <200602181823.k1IINQ0I013501@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<FEF914E7-6561-4238-A2EB-1AE8B3BD42FE@bonfireproductions.com>
	<C6C3C537-E726-45AA-AA26-A1E4BD83E6DF@mac.com>
Message-ID: <8277BDA3-CC0B-4F07-874B-B24EBB401E1F@bonfireproductions.com>


Hi Samantha,

I can see this happening through a couple of different ways. For  
starters, the vast majority of religious adherents are not 100%  
enthusiastic maintainers of every aspect of their given observances.  
Certainly there are state-sponsored religions, and more and less  
religious parts of the planet, but let's start with the West as an  
example.

Many people hold ideas along side, and compatible with, their own  
religious beliefs. Many modern versions of certain religions have  
ideas piggy-backed onto them that are accessory. I have talked to  
many members of different groups that uphold their current belief  
framework, while applying some sort of hereditary framework. For  
instance, Christians that have Shaker/Quaker relations and therefore,  
certain habits and ethics, et cetera. A much-simplified example could  
also be the notion of guardian angels - something that is neither  
proper canon nor in the KJE bible.

So positive, humanity-affirming pro-scientific thoughts and  
meditative points could be woven into simple formats. If we could get  
the idea out, for example, that something is worth doing "for the  
good of our species" - then perhaps that could challenge the foothold  
of SUVs and Monday Night Football in todays Emo-cultured youth.

The Vatican has released recently statements affirming that evolution  
and Catholicism are compatible. Logically speaking, people who  
espouse that religion and science are separate and incompatible, are  
technically denigrating the greatness of god, by their own  
definition. Am I making sense? I am trying to be concise.

As far as "seriously expecting to work" - this is about setting  
proper horizons for Transhumanism to take hold, and then take place.  
"The stone is hard, the water patient." type horizons, as far as some  
parts of the world go.


Bret K.


On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:32 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> Bret,
>
> How does that which will effectively "revalue all values" including
> the very nature and place of humanity manage to be compatible with
> the majority of religions that contain rigid value systems and
> dogmatic assertions about many aspects of reality and especially
> about the nature and place of humanity?  This rigidity and dogmatism
> is held by the adherents as being of the very essence of their
> religions.  Thus I don't see how you can seriously expect this to
> work.   Am I missing something?
>
> - samantha
>
> On Feb 19, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Phew. It has been a heck of a week. Sorry not to chime in sooner -
>> Just to remark on the overall notion:
>>
>> ExI/Transhumanism in its current form is _compatible_ with almost all
>> religions.
>>
>> Once you make it a religion in and of itself, you are now competing
>> with these other groups. That is why eventually all cults fail. They
>> get too big, too threatening, and bottom out.
>>
>> Some of the most successful and fastest growing elements of human
>> culture, particularly in the past few decades, rode "on-top-of"
>> something else. For example, the web is "on-top-of" the internet. It
>> is more practical use-wise and compatible with all machines. That is
>> where we need to be. On-top-of, more practical than, and compatible
>> with, the majority of religions. A culture of inclusivity rather than
>> exclusivity will always win out. A Meta-religion at worst.
>>
>> Bret K.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From neptune at superlink.net  Mon Feb 20 22:04:35 2006
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:04:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  ExI List Quality & Future
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><03dc01c6364e$f169ce70$fe00a8c0@cpd01>
	<50619.72.236.102.67.1140466293.squirrel@main.nc.us>
Message-ID: <009e01c63669$a36355a0$f6893cd1@pavilion>

Again, I offer up the idea of limiting the number and size of posts per
member.  This limit, if fairly and strictly enforced, would, IMO,
increase list quality because any member will have to be selective about
her or his participation.  It imposes a "cost" on posting to the list,
yet does not target specific content and thus requires no moderator
intervention.  The cost would be weighed by each person against the
benefit of participating in a given discussion.  Each person would
experience the cost in a different way, making for a spontaneous,
extropic order.  Someone might not want to blow her three posts, for
instance, on one discussion, so she might be more concise and more
wisely use posts.

It would also prevent most flame wars.  If you have, say, only 5K of
post and can only post 3 times per day, then it's going to be hard to
flame someone in the usual sense.  The adversary would, likewise, have
to choose between devoting her or his daily limit to continuing the
flame war.  Sure, a slow motion flame war might smolder on, but I think
most flame wars come about because of the heat of debate.  Checking the
amount of material someone can throw at another person will reduce the
heat, IMHO.

Yes, conflicts are likely to still arise, but my guess is this would
limit their damage, provided the limit is low enough.  E.g., if the
limit is 50 posts per day with each post having a maximum size of 50K,
it's too high and would likely have no impact.  Of course, one wouldn't
want to make the limit so low that it stifles relevant, serious
discussions.  E.g., one wouldn't want a post limit of 1 per day with a
1K limit.  That would probably strangle communication of any sort -- 
other than posting URLs.  This might have to be fine tuned, but I
propose an initial limit of 5 posts per person per day with a post size
limit of 5K -- and nothing carries over.  In other words, use 'em or
lose.

Another variation on this might be to allow for trading in limits, but
that would require more overhead and I don't have any ideas on how to
implement it.

Regards,

Dan
    See my works at:
http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Mon Feb 20 23:07:42 2006
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:07:42 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bad idea, was Transhumanism as Religion
References: <200602181823.k1IINQ0I013501@andromeda.ziaspace.com><FEF914E7-6561-4238-A2EB-1AE8B3BD42FE@bonfireproductions.com><C6C3C537-E726-45AA-AA26-A1E4BD83E6DF@mac.com>
	<8277BDA3-CC0B-4F07-874B-B24EBB401E1F@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <000901c63672$75f770c0$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Bret Kulakovich" <bret at bonfireproductions.com>
> The Vatican has released recently statements affirming that evolution  and 
> Catholicism are compatible.

The Vatican admits they are failed fundamentalists.

> Logically speaking, people who espouse that religion and science are 
> separate and incompatible, are technically denigrating the greatness of 
> god, by their own  definition. Am I making sense? I am trying to be 
> concise.

Once a "god" (which god?) is introduced into the equation, all logic heads 
for the back door.

Olga




From hkhenson at rogers.com  Mon Feb 20 21:22:30 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:22:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602191427s58bf9768pa3303ccad15cd05@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060217013433.02c5a768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060216200408.02c9b990@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060217013433.02c5a768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060220075214.02d568a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 10:27 PM 2/19/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>On 2/17/06, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> 
>wrote:
>>Point being that memes are a link between ultimate cause of war and wars or
>>related social disruptions such as the IRA was engaged in.  Pre existing
>>xenophobic memes, particularly "religions" are likely to be the seed
>>meme.  But if people feel the need to fight, they can *always* amplify some
>>kind of meme up to a "reason" to fight.  The *particular* meme the
>>attackers are using is an artifact of pre existing memes and a positive
>>feedback process.
>
>Oh, I understand what you're saying, and I think the approach of searching 
>for explanations in evolutionary psychology makes sense. But theories need 
>to be tested against observed data, and it seems to me that when you look 
>at history, it just doesn't support that level of determinism.

EP does not support determinism.  EP and genes have to make do with 
probabilistic outcomes--which means lots of noise in the data.  As for 
history, we just don't have it where it would be really useful.   This is 
really excellent background.

Published in Anthropological Quarterly, 73.1 (2000), 20-34.
THE HUMAN MOTIVATIONAL COMPLEX :
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AND THE CAUSES OF
HUNTER-GATHERER FIGHTING
Azar Gat
Part I: Primary Somatic and Reproductive Causes
At the centre of this study is the age-old philosophical and psychological 
inquiry into the
nature of the basic human system of motivation. Numerous lists of basic 
needs and desires
have been put together over the centuries, more or less casually or 
convincingly. The most
recent ones show little if any marked progress over the older, back to 
Thomas Hobbes's
Leviathan, 6 (e.g. Maslow 1970 [1954]; Burton 1990
)
. In the absence of an evolutionary
perspective, these lists have always had something arbitrary and trivial 
about them. They
lacked a unifying regulatory rationale that would suggest why the various 
needs and
desires came to be, or how they related to one another.

Arguing that the human motivational system as a whole should be approached from
the evolutionary perspective, this study focuses on the causes of fighting. 
It examines what
can be meaningfully referred to as the 'human state of nature', the 99.5 
percent of the
genus Homo's evolutionary history in which humans lived as 
hunter-gatherers. In this 'state
of nature' people's behaviour patterns are generally to be considered as 
evolutionarily
adaptive. They form the evolutionary inheritance that we have carried with 
us throughout
later history, when this inheritance has constantly interacted and been 
interwoven with the
human staggering cultural development. In the anthropological literature, 
the concept of
'primitive war', which makes no distinction between hunter-gatherers and 
pre-state
agriculturalists, is commonly used to describe 'original', pre-state, 
warfare. While this
category has some value, in evolutionary terms it lumps together the 
aboriginal condition
of all humans with a quite recent cultural innovation. Thus, this study 
will give priority to
the evidence from hunter-gatherers' warfare, which reflects the vast 
time-span of the
evolution-shaped 'human state of nature'. Evidence from primitive 
agriculturalists will only
be cited in support, where there is good reason to believe that they show 
little significant
change from hunter-gatherers.
The causes of 'primitive warfare' remain a puzzle in anthropology, with 
explanations
ranging from the materialist to cultural and psychological ('sheer pugnacity').
1
In recent
years, the discussion has been largely dominated by what has been presented 
as a
controversy between the evolutionist and cultural-materialist theories.

snip (read it all)

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Qj9DZVvPBOsJ:cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf+hunter+gatherer+azar+gat&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5

>> >Remember the idea that noncombatants are sacrosanct is a modern one. In
>> >the ancestral environment, starting a war was only a good idea if you were
>> >going to win; losing could mean your entire tribe was wiped out.
>>
>>That's rational.  The specifically model specifically incorporates
>>psychological mechanisms that inhibit rational thinking.  I think Drew
>>Westen's fMRI work has demonstrated this mechanism.  The only way this
>>mechanism could have been selected is if there are situation where non
>>rational thinking leads to better gene survival.  Since non rational thing
>>all too often toasts your bacon, you have to invoke Hamilton's inclusive
>>fitness for such a trait to evolve.
>
>By "starting a war was only a good idea if you were going to win", I don't 
>mean our ancestors necessarily made rational calculations along these 
>lines. I mean getting your tribe wiped out was bad for inclusive fitness, 
>therefore genes that encouraged imprudent attacks would tend to be 
>eliminated from the population.

That's true.  But an what is "imprudent" changes with the conditions.  When 
the other choices were worse, war was not "imprudent" even if you chances 
were poor.

>>As long as girls were booty enough of the time, the trait of taking insane
>>risks  would survive.
>
>Not compared to having the tribe survive!

Tribes often *don't* survive.  "These estimates range from less than 1% to 
just over 30% per generation (Soltis et al. 1995)."

snip

>>Even from a rational viewpoint a weak tribe is better off
>>attacking.  Because if they don't (and the ecological conditions conducive
>>to war affect their neighbors) they *will be* attacked.   With the
>>advantage of surprise, they might win
>
>Surprise isn't generally a war-winner. If it was, you wouldn't want to 
>wait for hard times to launch your surprise attack.

It only has to be a war winner enough of the time.

There is a description by Steven LeBlanc of a dawn attack on corn farmers 
you might want to read.

>> >The author's suggested explanation was that if a tribe is sufficiently
>> >well off that a man's wife and children can survive without him, that
>> >reduces the risk to his genes of raiding the neighbors to try to capture
>> >more women, eliminate competitors or whatever.
>>
>>Hmm.  Please look for this study.
>
>It was on paper rather than the Internet, and many years ago, so I've no 
>idea where to look.
>
>Wait, I think I know where I might have seen the reference: a book called 
>'Demonic Males: Apes and the Origin of Human Violence'. Don't mind the 
>tabloid style title, it's written by a pair of serious scholars, one of 
>the best works on evolutionary psychology I've come across.
>
>> >3) In historical times it doesn't seem to me that there are a lot of
>> >examples supporting your theory. Rome was one of the wealthiest
>> >civilizations around when it wiped out Carthage and invaded Gaul. The
>> >Spanish weren't exactly short of a few bob when they launched the Armada.
>> >Germany's economy was going gangbusters in 1914. Conversely, Mexico for
>> >example is a lot poorer than the US; when was the last time Mexico went 
>> to war?
>>
>>Sort out who started the wars.  Being attacked will always work to get into
>>a war.
>
>Most of my reading of history was awhile ago, and didn't generally include 
>graphs of per capita GNP of the belligerents in the years leading up to 
>any given war, but I definitely don't remember low or declining GNP being 
>correlated with starting wars. If you have data to the contrary, by all 
>means show it.

Huge research job.  And it probably is not the most important element 
anyway.  It is the average population *expectation* on how bright the 
prospects for the future are that flips the gain on xenophobic memes.  I 
first figured as you did, and the America civil war didn't fit, times were 
ok.  But when you considered the aftermath, it was clear that they had 
reason to fear for a bleak future.

After Lincoln was elected, it was fairly clear that one way or the other 
slavery was going.  That was a $30 billion dollar hit on the south's 
"capital," and people could see it coming.  (Don't take this as advocating 
anything!)

>And what about the counterexamples like Mexico and Latin America 
>generally, poor countries where lots of people have bad economic 
>prospects, and which by and large haven't been starting wars?

Again consider *relative.* Mexico has an escape valve that has bled off 
millions of people.  Not to mention that those areas have had wars, lots of 
them.  And the Falkland war is simply classic.  War is something our remote 
ancestors did only when the other prospects were worse.

The effects of technology have made prospects more look better than they 
otherwise would everywhere.  It is hard to say if this is justified or 
not.  Clearly we can't sustain those prospects without additional advances.

>> >4) There is some empirical basis for the idea that bad economic prospects
>> >encourage urban violence, but that doesn't mean they lead to war. Consider
>> >that once you're past the Stone Age, the decision to go to war _is not
>> >made by the common people_.
>>
>>I disagree.  You only have to go back to WWII for a war that the ruling
>>classes, particularly the president, wanted to get into for some time and
>>they just could not do so because of the lack of public support.  Till the
>>US was attacked of course.
>
>I'll grant you that's a counterexample to my idea that the decision isn't 
>usually made by the common people, but it's also a counterexample to your 
>theory: the US had been through the Depression! By your theory, they 
>should have been all out to fight someone in the 1930s.

As I make the case it isn't so much the absolute level or India would be in 
continuos war.  I don't know how people viewed their prospect in the 
Depression.  Missed that one, but it could probably be dug out of the 
history of the time.  But don't forget, this tendency toward wars is only 
probabilistic.  And who would you fight?  As the Germans did, they split 
out a groups (Jews, and others) and killed most of them.  The US had 
similar traits at the time which didn't go far.

>> >It's made by the ruling classes, who are exactly the group that will _not_
>> >be affected by an economic downturn. Therefore, _even if your theory is
>> >correct up to this point_ we should still expect to see wars actually
>> >start for reasons unrelated to economics - and that is just what we do
>> >observe when we look at history.
>>
>>Gak.  And I thought *my* model was depressing.  It's bad enough to have a
>>model where you can at least see a way to stay out of wars even if you
>>can't see a way to impose women's lib on a zillion Islamic women.
>
>Well, I don't think there is a single general solution to the problem of 
>discouraging war - if there was, the job of the Nobel Peace Prize 
>committee, not to mention life itself, would be easier than it is! I think 
>there are lots of things that can be done that are helpful, but no guarantees.

"A single general solution to the problem" is my claim.  Population growth 
less than economic growth *everywhere* and you won't have problems with wars.

>>There is another theory that too many unattached men (somehow) are the
>>cause of wars.  If so, China will start a war right away.  If rising income
>>per capita keeps war mode shut off, we should see no wars with China unless
>>some other country starts one.
>
>I'm inclined to think we'll see no war with China because their leadership 
>is calm and rational enough to realize they've more to lose than to gain by it.

That's true, but *why* is their leadership calm and rational?   It is 
because there is a low level of circulating xenophobic memes and they have 
not been attacked.  Bad prospects building up xenophobic memes *or* being 
attacked and you no longer have rational leaders.  You can make a case that 
contributed to the foolishness of the US in recent times.

Keith

>- Russell
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Mon Feb 20 23:00:21 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:00:21 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><470a3c520602201021i224bbcaevb3c186a475c6f17e@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0602201111t15374dddue57bc480614068ec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <011f01c63671$6dab3920$640fa8c0@kevin>

This is BS. Plain and simple. Since when was shutting out those deemed
"inferior" been any benefit to any society?
How many times have baffled scientists gathered together and been unable to
solve somthing when suddenly the answer comes out of some left-field source
as a patent clerk or a med school dropout? How much "noise" has been created
by such people as Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Tesla, Hawking, etc? Is every
word of their's of some higher value?
If there are people who wish to have some isolated group, then have one.
Heck, I think I found one for you already:
ExI-Solutions Email List   (Scientific, Technological, and Cultural Minds
discuss world problems and possible solutions.)

This is a new invitation only email list which focuses on world problems and
possible solutions.  A keynote speaker is invited bi-monthly to take on a
topic which is addressed through a series of scenarios based on ExI's "The
Futurist QUIZ".  If you would like to receive an invitation to this list,
please send us a topic your would like to discuss, your bio, and links to
your writings.

But don't take a public list and turn it private as a solution to your
problem. If there is a small group of people here who wish to have some
smaller forum without noise, perhaps THEY should do the leaving.

Kevin Freels

Certified Logic Artist, Doctor of common sense.




> On 2/20/06, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> > Natasha, pleeeeease! Nooooooo! Don't do this! This is the wrong way to
go!!!
> > OK listen on:
>
> > I value the diversity on this list, and even the occasional passionate
debate.
> > If this list is transformed into an invitation-only list, I am afraid
> > it will soon degenerate in a small group of people who preach to the
> > converted. Not very effective for spreading our worldview.
> > We want immortality, uploading, merging flesh with sand, freedom (yes
> > I am a leftwinger and I want freedom, I may have occasionally tried to
> > explain what I mean), endless discovery and exploration, and leaving
> > many old things behind. But I don't want to want what I want like an
> > ostrich who stick his head in the sand because it is afraid to see the
> > world. I want to continue wanting what I want *after* having heard,
> > and considered, other points of view, sometimes defending the old
> > things we wish to leave behind. Perhaps we can learn a couple of
> > things that we can integrate in our own worldview..
> > If you wish to create something like a focused working group, fine, I
> > think it would be a very good initiative. But please, *besides* and
> > not *instead of* the public list.
> > G.
>
>
> I like the diversity also.
>
> But the present extropy-chat needs a Terminator to banish the trolls
> and timewasters. No endless discussion about 'Should we, shouldn't
> we?', 'Is this post off-topic, or might we be able to allow it?'  If
> in doubt, just ban them from posting for week on first offence, no
> questions allowed.  No public arguing about Terminator decisions
> allowed either. His/her decision is final.
>
> Sure, occasionally someone might be unfairly treated, but it's not
> like it's a death sentence, is it?
>
> The signal to noise ratio would improve instantly.
>
> The only thing to watch out for is the Terminator going insane and
> terminating at random. Then the list owners would have to
> strait-jacket the Terminator. :)
>
> BillK
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: arrow1.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3173 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060220/9bef7137/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bd14752_1.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 958 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060220/9bef7137/attachment.gif>

From hal at finney.org  Tue Feb 21 00:08:18 2006
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:08:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
Message-ID: <20060221000818.C461657FAF@finney.org>

I applaud this concept.  This mailing list has been around in some
form or another for, what, 15 years?   That is an eternity in net time.
It is time for something new.

Extropy is about change.  It is not a philosophy of stagnation.  Yes,
change can be scary.  It takes us out of our comfort zone and forces
us to be mentally flexible and adaptable.  But such traits are, after
all, an important part of Extropian philosophy.  We should always be on
the lookout for ways to challenge comfortable old habits and to shake
ourselves out of our ruts.

The Exi-chat list is the deepest rut around, and it needs to die.
Of course, it will fight back.  This is a new form of danger and risk
that we face: domination by our memetic creations.  The list doesn't
want to die.  It fights for life by activating its minions: you and me
and all of the lurkers.  When people write about how they love the list
and want to see it continue as it is, they are responding to memetic
pressure from the list itself.

You have to fight back.  Any time you have created something and it
starts to control your life, think about whether you really want to be
in thrall to your creation.  Often the best thing to do is to move on.
Start something new.  It is all part of staying flexible and avoiding
memetic domination.

Hal


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Mon Feb 20 23:50:03 2006
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:50:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  ExI List Quality & Future
Message-ID: <380-22006212023503281@M2W103.mail2web.com>


From: Olga Bourlin 

From: "Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)"

> Speaking for myself, I know I'm not as smart as some members of this list 
> an I can be hardly classified like "highly intelligent, enormously 
> creative, and exceptionally knowledgeable about science and technology to 
> fit in"

"Henrique, IMO you may not be as "smart" as some members about some things, 
but probably smarter than other members about other things.

"'Intelligence' itself is difficult to define and, therefore, to measure. 
I 
know several people who are "exceptionally knowledgeable about science and 
technology" - but whom I personally (LOL!) do not consider to be
intelligent 
in an interdisciplinary way."

I would prefer not to have the content of my formal address to the list
reduced to anything less than what it was intended to be.  It is not about
who is more intelligent than another, or who is better at not making
typographical errors. 

Thank you for your courtesy,

Natasha Vita-More

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





From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Tue Feb 21 00:59:02 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:59:02 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  ExI List Quality & Future
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060219140838.02f050b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><03dc01c6364e$f169ce70$fe00a8c0@cpd01><50619.72.236.102.67.1140466293.squirrel@main.nc.us>
	<009e01c63669$a36355a0$f6893cd1@pavilion>
Message-ID: <000701c63682$022fe720$640fa8c0@kevin>

I can see where limiting the number of posts would help, but I see no use
for limiting the size of a post. Surely if a post is full of garbage, no one
would waste their time reading the entire thing. I really don't think
computer resources are a problem for most users either. I would prefer
someone take the time to put together a lengthy, well thought out post than
resort to slimming down the content to fit into some arbitrary file size
limit.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune at superlink.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future


> Again, I offer up the idea of limiting the number and size of posts per
> member.  This limit, if fairly and strictly enforced, would, IMO,
> increase list quality because any member will have to be selective about
> her or his participation.  It imposes a "cost" on posting to the list,
> yet does not target specific content and thus requires no moderator
> intervention.  The cost would be weighed by each person against the
> benefit of participating in a given discussion.  Each person would
> experience the cost in a different way, making for a spontaneous,
> extropic order.  Someone might not want to blow her three posts, for
> instance, on one discussion, so she might be more concise and more
> wisely use posts.
>
> It would also prevent most flame wars.  If you have, say, only 5K of
> post and can only post 3 times per day, then it's going to be hard to
> flame someone in the usual sense.  The adversary would, likewise, have
> to choose between devoting her or his daily limit to continuing the
> flame war.  Sure, a slow motion flame war might smolder on, but I think
> most flame wars come about because of the heat of debate.  Checking the
> amount of material someone can throw at another person will reduce the
> heat, IMHO.
>
> Yes, conflicts are likely to still arise, but my guess is this would
> limit their damage, provided the limit is low enough.  E.g., if the
> limit is 50 posts per day with each post having a maximum size of 50K,
> it's too high and would likely have no impact.  Of course, one wouldn't
> want to make the limit so low that it stifles relevant, serious
> discussions.  E.g., one wouldn't want a post limit of 1 per day with a
> 1K limit.  That would probably strangle communication of any sort -- 
> other than posting URLs.  This might have to be fine tuned, but I
> propose an initial limit of 5 posts per person per day with a post size
> limit of 5K -- and nothing carries over.  In other words, use 'em or
> lose.
>
> Another variation on this might be to allow for trading in limits, but
> that would require more overhead and I don't have any ideas on how to
> implement it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>     See my works at:
> http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Feb 21 01:24:28 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:24:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <011f01c63671$6dab3920$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20060221012428.7378.qmail@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
> This is BS. Plain and simple. Since when was shutting out those
> deemed
> "inferior" been any benefit to any society?

See: jails, crime, economic effects of crime.

> How many times have baffled scientists gathered together and been
> unable to
> solve somthing when suddenly the answer comes out of some left-field
> source
> as a patent clerk or a med school dropout? How much "noise" has been
> created
> by such people as Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Tesla, Hawking, etc?

"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also
laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Just because someone is a school dropout, does not by itself
automatically make their words worth listening to.  (Insert
other obvious statements here, but this needed saying.)

> But don't take a public list and turn it private as a solution to
> your
> problem. If there is a small group of people here who wish to have
> some
> smaller forum without noise, perhaps THEY should do the leaving.

Public forums with minimal noise are of benefit - sometimes, to
some groups, even measurable benefit.  See all the laws against
making a disturbance - it's not so much the disturbance itself
that is a negative, as the taking away from the public, the
value of a forum in which to discuss certain things.


From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Feb 21 02:55:39 2006
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:55:39 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <20060221000818.C461657FAF@finney.org>
References: <20060221000818.C461657FAF@finney.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060220205420.02e9e6c8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 06:08 PM 2/20/2006, Hal wrote:

>I applaud this concept.  This mailing list has been around in some
>form or another for, what, 15 years?   That is an eternity in net time.
>It is time for something new.

Thank you Hal.  And thank you for speaking words of wisdom.

>Extropy is about change.  It is not a philosophy of stagnation.  Yes,
>change can be scary.  It takes us out of our comfort zone and forces
>us to be mentally flexible and adaptable.  But such traits are, after
>all, an important part of Extropian philosophy.  We should always be on
>the lookout for ways to challenge comfortable old habits and to shake
>ourselves out of our ruts.
>
>The Exi-chat list is the deepest rut around, and it needs to die.
>Of course, it will fight back.  This is a new form of danger and risk
>that we face: domination by our memetic creations.  The list doesn't
>want to die.  It fights for life by activating its minions: you and me
>and all of the lurkers.  When people write about how they love the list
>and want to see it continue as it is, they are responding to memetic
>pressure from the list itself.
>
>You have to fight back.  Any time you have created something and it
>starts to control your life, think about whether you really want to be
>in thrall to your creation.  Often the best thing to do is to move on.
>Start something new.  It is all part of staying flexible and avoiding
>memetic domination.
>
>Hal
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist - Designer
Future Studies, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & 
<http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Culture
Senior Associate, <http://foresight.org/>Foresight Institute
Advisor, <http://alcor.org/>Alcor Life Extension Foundation

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective.
Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060220/c60431be/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Tue Feb 21 04:40:32 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:40:32 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] clarification of discussing cults and religion
 on exi-chat
In-Reply-To: <200602200310.k1K3ADp8006104@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <c0a791b40602191203p4081e670qe7dddbac90a762c1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060220223248.02189f88@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 06:32 PM 2/19/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>Not everyone else Dirk.  I recognize that my request looks self
>contradictory, so let me make it perfectly clear: Keith Henson is *the man*

(clipped out of shear embarrassment)

>Keith, the floor is yours bud.

I don't want to pontificate on this business.  I want serious, reasoned, 
researched discussion.

It's far too important a topic for me to be a guru and pass out "pearls of 
wisdom."

I could actually use several hundred historians to develop numbers, and a 
dozen simulation programmers to create models.

How does one frame the questions and then get historians to do the work for 
you?

Frank Sulloway, author of the book BORN TO REBEL got them to do it.  How?

Keith Henson




From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Feb 21 03:57:39 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:57:39 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602201111t15374dddue57bc480614068ec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602210436.k1L4an6h015629@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK
...
> I like the diversity also.
> 
> But the present extropy-chat needs a Terminator to banish the trolls
> and timewasters. No endless discussion about 'Should we, shouldn't
> we?', 'Is this post off-topic, or might we be able to allow it?'  If
> in doubt, just ban them from posting for week on first offence, no
> questions allowed.  No public arguing about Terminator decisions
> allowed either. His/her decision is final. BillK

Thanks BillK.

OK we are going to try something new.  I will continue thus until Natasha,
Max or Greg tells me to stop.

Consensus seems to be that starting a new sub-list for the old time inner
circle isn't right, and the light-handed moderation isn't right, so let's
take a cue from SL4 and try vigorous moderation.  This will take the form of
something Damien's distributed moderation site suggested.  It is a kind of
one-off from that.  

If a particular poster offends thee, send an offlist note to the Exi-list
Benevolent Dictator.  If you are a highly regarded poster with a lot of
positive reputation, then that complaint means a lot.  If one is new without
a reputation, your post will be noted but may have less effect.  If you have
a negative reputation, well...  Its a kind of unscientific judgement-based
version of something that was suggested some time ago, but we didn't
implement it.

Now, we will have a rotating volunteer Benevolent Dictator who will make the
judgment on the complaint's weight, based on the complainer's reputation.
For the first three-month hitch, I nominate me.  OK vote is unanimous.  I
agree to serve as the list ExI-list Benevolent Dictator until 1 June 2006.
The BD will not make his or her own value judgment on posts, but rather
collect the opinions of others, then use his or her judgment on the
reputation of the plaintiff, then take action as he or she sees fit.

Five posters have earned a ton of complaints, so I placed them all on
moderated, where they shall stay until at least 1 June 2006, at which time
the next BD may take them back out if he or she thinks it the right thing to
do.  The Exi Benevolent Dictator is kind of like the SL4 List Sniper: his or
her judgment is final, until the end of his or her three month hitch.
Appeals are OK, and I will listen if one agrees to cut the offensive
whatever and straighten up.  Benevolent Dictators will (I hope) remonstrate
with wayward posters offlist.

If you have friends who have left ExI-chat because it was being unmoderated
or undermoderated, do invite them back.

Any questions?

Benevolent Dictator spike 


(I mean it.)  {8-]

 
 




From hkhenson at rogers.com  Tue Feb 21 03:30:46 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:30:46 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602191427s58bf9768pa3303ccad15cd05@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060217013433.02c5a768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060216200408.02c9b990@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060217013433.02c5a768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060220222942.02187228@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 10:27 PM 2/19/2006 +0000, Russell wrote:

snip

>I'm inclined to think we'll see no war with China because their leadership 
>is calm and rational enough to realize they've more to lose than to gain by it.

Incidentally, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this dire subject.

Keith Henson



From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Feb 21 04:54:22 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:54:22 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution fights back
In-Reply-To: <000901c63672$75f770c0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <200602210454.k1L4sUs6000178@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 3:08 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bad idea, was Transhumanism as Religion
> 
> From: "Bret Kulakovich" <bret at bonfireproductions.com>
> > The Vatican has released recently statements affirming that evolution
> and
> > Catholicism are compatible.
> 
> The Vatican admits they are failed fundamentalists... Olga



Wait, hold the phone.  There is hope:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/02/20/science.evolution.reut/index.html

spike


Scientists enlist clergy in evolution battle

Monday, February 20, 2006; Posted: 9:31 a.m. EST (14:31 GMT) 

-- American scientists fighting back against creationism, intelligent design
and other theories that seek to deny or downgrade the importance of
evolution have recruited unlikely allies -- the clergy.

And they have taken their battle to a new level, trying to educate high
school and even elementary school teachers on how to hold their own against
parents and school boards who want to mix religion with science.

While they feel they have won the latest round against efforts to bring God
into the classroom, the scientists say they have little doubt their
opponents are merely regrouping.

"It's time to recognize that science and religion should never be pitted
against one another," American Association for the Advancement of Science
President Gilbert Omenn told a news conference on Sunday. The AAAS has held
several sessions on the evolution issue at its annual meeting in St. Louis.

"The faith community needs to step up to the plate," agreed Eugenie Scott,
Executive Director, National Center for Science Education in Oakland,
California.

Scott said many people held the "toxic" idea that "you are either a
Christian creationist or you are a bad-guy athiest".

Recent court and electoral battles have made clear that judges and voters
will reject efforts to sneak creationism into the classroom under the guise
of making a scientific curriculum clearer or fairer, Scott said.

By a vote of 11 to 4, the Ohio Board of Education last week pulled a model
lesson plan it had approved in 2004. The plan had permitted science teachers
to encourage students to look at questions about evolution, something
proponents of "intelligent design" call "teaching the controversy."

Last year in Pennsylvania, a federal court ruled the theory could not be
taught in a public school and the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, which
approved the teaching, was voted out.

Intelligent design proponents see the hand of God behind evolution because,
they say, life is too complex to be random.

"As a legal strategy intelligent design is dead. It will be very difficult
for any school district in the future to successfully survive a legal
challenge," Scott said. "That doesn't mean intelligent design is dead as a
very popular social movement. This is an idea that has got legs."

But pastors are speaking out against it. Warren Eschbach, a retired Church
of the Brethren pastor and professor at Lutheran Theological Seminary in
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania helped sponsor a letter signed by more than 10,000
other clergy.

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth,
one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human
knowledge and achievement rests," they wrote.

Catholic experts have also joined the movement.

"The intelligent design movement belittles God. It makes God a designer, an
engineer," said Vatican Observatory Director George Coyne, an astrophysicist
who is also ordained. "The God of religious faith is a god of love. He did
not design me."

Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers
Association said some teachers feared losing their jobs if they taught
evolution. "The pressures come from the students and the parents," he said.

Copyright 2006 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.






From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Feb 21 04:37:20 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:37:20 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] META:  ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <03dc01c6364e$f169ce70$fe00a8c0@cpd01>
Message-ID: <200602210511.k1L5BjiV025377@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 10:53 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
> 
> Speaking for myself, I know I'm not as smart as some members of this list
> an
> I can be hardly classified like "highly intelligent, enormously creative,
> and exceptionally knowledgeable about science and technology to fit in",
> but
> I love this list and on the other side I can be hardly classified as a
> source of conflict or any disruptive behaviour to the list. There are
> other
> members of this list that can fit my shoes and I think I'm speaking for
> all
> of them when I say we don't want to be cast out or prevented from making
> an
> eventual comment on some subject.

Well said Henrique, thanks.  

Keith Henson has proposed offlist a software implementation of something
like what I proposed doing.  Instead of having a human Benevolent Dictator,
the process is automated, taking the human judgment out of the loop.  That
looks like a great way to do list moderation.  

I personally do not like the idea of wielding power, I have never been
comfortable with that, nor with those who are comfortable wielding power.  I
am a reluctant Benevolent Dictator.  Until Keith or another volunteer gets
that software going, the previous sitch is in effect.  My timing is lousy: I
hafta go on a business trip tomorrow and will be out the rest of the week,
but we needed action, not just now, but a long time ago.  If you have
complaints, send them on, I will work them this weekend.  Thanks!

spike






From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Tue Feb 21 05:02:41 2006
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:02:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat]  META: ExI List Quality & Future, Natasha,
	pleeeeease! Nooooooo!
Message-ID: <20060221050241.38494.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I have learned so much from the extropy site.  
  Don't persecute those that really want to learn, be educated and want to create
  new ideas.
  I like extropy.org because it's neutral.
  It ways the positive against the negative. (Thanks Spike)
  It's a really great site.
  You should be proud at what you've created.
  Thanks Natasha
   
   
   
   
   

		
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060221/8f2d0b48/attachment.html>

From transcend at extropica.com  Tue Feb 21 05:55:05 2006
From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:55:05 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] More Than Human
Message-ID: <200602210650.k1L6o9eV029154@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Have any of you read "More Than Human" by Ramez Naam? ISBN 0-7679-1843-6

 

I found the book to be interesting for the reason that it is decidedly
conservative in its tone (for transhumanist thinking). The author is very
careful about what technologies he mentions and what terminology he uses.
For example, Mr. Naam never once mentions nanotechnology. Several of his
discussions elude to it, but instead of saying "nanotechnology" he uses the
term "tiny tools." The book is written to a low reading level, so Mr. Naam
may be trying to introduce a concept without using the term. Later, when
talking about brain scanning he again fails to mention possible invasive
brain scanning methods using nanotechnology. This made me wonder if the
author is skeptical of nanotech.

 

The book is like a high school level primer on transhumanism with (what I
interpret as) a slight socialist bent. (Note that I just read Simon Young,
whose techno-libertarianism can skew the perception a bit, hehe). Ramez Naam
manages to cover a lot of subject ground, without much depth of analysis and
without any "dangerous" words. No "transhumanism," "posthuman," "artificial
intelligence," "singularity," etc. Any technology above shock level 1 is
"purely science fiction."

 

At the same time, he lays a compelling groundwork for understanding what
near-generation biotechnology and robotics really means, with an emphasis on
culture. I also think the book does a good job of demonstrating the
international scope of science, showing the spectrum of research taking
place in various parts of the world due to varying levels of regulation.

 

For any established transhumanist, this book is unnecessary. But it may
serve as a useful tool for promoting a SL0 thinker to SL1. To that end, I
recommend you check it out.

 

This concept of promoting a thinker from one shock level to another has been
on my mind as a result of reading Simon Young. I can't see handing my dad a
copy of Designer Evolution without first sowing the seeds with a lighter
book. I've got Alcor paperwork on my desk. I don't want to simply explain to
my family why I believe what I do, I want them to understand my perspective.
This means I have to find ways of waging the meme-war at home. "More Than
Human" might be a good first book in building that understanding.

 

Brandon Reinhart

transcend at extropica.com

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060220/16357503/attachment.html>

From hal at finney.org  Tue Feb 21 07:38:33 2006
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:38:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
Message-ID: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>

We probably all saw the study that came out a couple of weeks ago
from the Woman's Health Initiative, which showed that a low-fat diet
failed to offer protection from cancer or heart disease.  This was
a major blow to the conventional wisdom on this issue and there have
been a number of excuses and explanations offered to try to explain the
results.  (At about the same time, a different study found that calcium
supplementation failed to prevent osteoporosis, further contradicting
what public health officials have been saying for years.)

Max More posted a couple of days ago about a business initiative
for "evidence-based" decision-making, attempts to actually measure
decision-making methodologies and see which ones work and which fail.
The article drew an analogy to the new trend in evidence-based medicine.
Unfortunately, as the response to the low-fat result has shown,
evidence-based medicine is still preached more than practiced.  A good
analysis of the situation was in the NY Times yesterday, also available
for non-subscibers at this location:

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060219/LIFESTYLE03/602190328/1040/LIFESTYLE

The article discusses the long-standing belief in the West that "you
are what you eat" - that it should be possible to become healthy if we
could just find the right diet.  It goes over some of the failed dietary
recommendations of the past, and it talks about the recent fat study.

It's the first article I've seen that lets the people behind the study
respond to their critics.  Other reporting on the issue has been careful
to let the authorities have their say, to make sure that we heard
from defenders of the conventional wisdom eager to deny the evidence.
The women didn't reduce their fat enough, or they reduced the wrong kind
of fat.

According to this Times article, there were good reasons why the study
was set up as it was.  The fat reductions were substantial, and the
prior evidence for a cancer-fat link was total fats, not animal fats.
Researchers point out that if they had just reduced saturated fat and
not found improved health, they would have been lambasted for failing
to reduce total fat intake.

But what I really enjoyed reading were the comments from doctors and
health experts who were truly devoted to the concept of evidence-based
medicine, people who were not so wedded to the preconceived notions that
forced so many others to reject the new results out of hand.  I'll quote
the last few paragraphs of the article:

> Not everyone is attacking the study. Many scientists applaud its findings
> and say it is about time that some cherished dietary notions be put to
> a rigorous test. And some nonscientists are shocked by the reactions of
> the study's critics.
>
> "Whatever is happening to evidence-based treatment?" Dr. Arthur Yeager,
> a retired dentist in Edison, N.J., wrote in an e-mail message. "When
> the facts contravene conventional wisdom, go with the anecdotes?"
>
> The problem, some medical scientists said, is that many people --
> researchers included -- get so wedded to their beliefs about diet and
> disease that they will not accept rigorous evidence that contradicts it.
>
> "Now it's almost a political sort of thing," said Dr. Jules Hirsch,
> physician in chief emeritus at Rockefeller University. "We're all supposed
> to be lean and eat certain things."
>
> And so the notion of a healthful diet, he said, has become more than just
> a question for scientific inquiry. "It is woven into cultural notions of
> ourselves and our behavior," he said. "This is the burden you get going
> into a discussion, and this is why we get so shocked by this evidence."
>
> The truth, said Dr. David Altshuler, an endocrinologist and geneticist
> at Massachusetts General Hospital, is that while the Western diet and
> lifestyle are clearly important risk factors for chronic disease, tweaking
> diet in one way or another -- a bit less fat or a few more vegetables --
> may not, based on studies like the Women's Health Initiative, have major
> effects on health. "We should limit strong advice to where randomized
> trials have proven a benefit of lifestyle modification," Altshuler wrote
> in an e-mail message.
>
> Still, he said, he understands the appeal of dietary prescriptions.
>
> The promise of achieving better health through diet can be so alluring
> that even scientists and statisticians who know all about clinical trial
> data say they sometimes find themselves suspending disbelief when it
> comes to diet and disease.
>
> "I fall for it, too," says Brad Efron, a Stanford statistician. "I really
> don't believe in the low-fat thing, but I find myself doing it anyway."

This is an area where life extension supporters need to be especially
cautious.  There are a great many supplements and nutrients being
advocated by the extension community, where there is no direct evidence
that adding these supplements will improve the situation for healthy
people.  In fact what studies exist have actually shown substantial
toxicity in some of the vitamin cocktails that have been recommended
(primarily due to vitamins A and E).  It is far from clear that most
of these supplements are doing more good than harm.

Many prominent advocates of supplementation are also in the business of
selling them, as well.  You have to be very careful before subjecting
yourself to these regimens.  Skepticism should be the watchword.
Look what happened to the low-fat advocate.  You don't want to end up
like him, with low-cal egg substitute all over his face.

Hal


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Feb 21 07:46:59 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:46:59 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI-chat slogan contest: was ExI List Quality &
	Future, Natasha, pleeeeease! Nooooooo!
In-Reply-To: <20060221050241.38494.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200602210820.k1L8KGPm008648@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anne-Marie Taylor
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future, Natasha,pleeeeease!
Nooooooo!

I have learned so much from the extropy site.? 
Don't persecute those that really want to learn, be educated and want to
create new ideas.
I like extropy.org because it's neutral.
It ways the positive against the negative. (Thanks Spike)
It's a really great site.
You should be proud at what you've created.
Thanks Natasha
?
?
?
Thank YOU Anne-Marie.  This commentary is eloquent in its own way.  Let us
try this latest approach.  Evolution knows we have tried everything else, or
at least talked about it.  {8-]

But ExI-chat will not be neutral, Anne-Marie, that is how the trouble
started.  For the duration of my watch I will actively snipe threads that
are clearly counter to the principles, the reason why we hang out here, the
basis of what ExI has created.  I will warn if the thread is merely
pointless, even if not counter to the ExI principles.  Then if it continues
it gets sniped by the Temporary Benevolent Dictator.

Let's do it for a while, see if we can sharpen up the S/N ratio.  The
principles are broad, they cover a lot of ground, there is plenty of room to
derive constructive commentary.  If your favorite thread gets sniped, just
wait it out until the next TBD takes over.    

I propose an ExI-chat slogan contest.  We should have a snappy slogan like
Google's Don't Be Evil.

The grand prize: my everlasting admiration.  Or at least my temporary
admiration, until I forget.  {8^D

In light of the recent events here, my entry:

Post Smart Stuff.

spike

 





From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb 21 10:47:37 2006
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:47:37 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/21/06, "Hal Finney" wrote:
> We probably all saw the study that came out a couple of weeks ago
> from the Woman's Health Initiative, which showed that a low-fat diet
> failed to offer protection from cancer or heart disease.  This was
> a major blow to the conventional wisdom on this issue and there have
> been a number of excuses and explanations offered to try to explain the
> results.  (At about the same time, a different study found that calcium
> supplementation failed to prevent osteoporosis, further contradicting
> what public health officials have been saying for years.)
>

This article seems to be pop-sci journalism at work.

Try:
<http://www.nelm.nhs.uk/Record%20Viewing/viewRecord.aspx?id=560359>
and
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4690230.stm>

Researchers running the Women's Health Initiative study of
post-menopausal health asked more than 19,500 women aged 50 to 79 to
reduce their total fat consumption and eat more fruit and vegetables.
The women were then monitored over eight years during the 1990s, and
compared with another group of 29,300 women whose diet was unchanged.
---------------------------

Ifs and buts.......

Various study flaws have been highlighted, both by the investigators
and by health professionals in the UK (See BBC news report), for
example:

? The dietary intervention did not include advice that is now given -
there was no restriction on salt intake, intakes of polyunsaturated
fat, vegetables and fruits, and fibre were lower than now recommended,
plus there was no focus on consumption of fish (the difference between
'good' and 'bad' fats was not known at the time of trial initiation)

? The difference in the percentage of energy from fat between the
women in the intervention group and women in the comparison group was
only about 70% of the design goal

? A large proportion of study participants were overweight or obese
(hence at an increased risk of heart disease).
----------------------------

>From the BBC report:

The American researchers say that they are not disheartened by the results.
They said the difference between "good" and "bad" fats was not
recognised when the study started, so women were only told to reduce
fat consumption - rather than to reduce levels of trans-fats, which
are classed as bad, while fats in nuts, fish and vegetable oils are
said to have health benefits.

But Judy O'Sullivan, a cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation,
said: "Numerous studies have confirmed there are huge heart benefits
from maintaining a healthy lifestyle which involves a balanced diet
and regular physical activity.

"It is easy to identify a number of important reasons why this study
did not agree with previous research.
"It didn't reflect current advice for good heart health, such as salt
reduction, increasing intake of good fats such as those in oily fish,
and increasing exercise.
"Additionally, most of the women in the study were overweight or
obese, which increases your risk of developing diabetes - another risk
factor for heart disease."

Dr Emma Knight, science information manager at Cancer Research UK,
said: "People should continue to eat a healthy balanced diet, with
lots of fruit and veg.
"At present, the only diet-related factors that definitely increase
breast cancer risk are obesity and alcohol.
"Bowel cancer risk can be increased by a diet high in red and
processed meat, but is lowered by eating a high-fibre diet."



BillK



From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Tue Feb 21 14:54:48 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:54:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bad idea, was Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <000901c63672$75f770c0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
References: <200602181823.k1IINQ0I013501@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<FEF914E7-6561-4238-A2EB-1AE8B3BD42FE@bonfireproductions.com>
	<C6C3C537-E726-45AA-AA26-A1E4BD83E6DF@mac.com>
	<8277BDA3-CC0B-4F07-874B-B24EBB401E1F@bonfireproductions.com>
	<000901c63672$75f770c0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602210654j5db779b1u6f1d6714dbb9d77d@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/20/06, Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:

> Once a "god" (which god?) is introduced into the equation, all logic heads
> for the back door.


As I've explained offlist to others the problem is in the definition of
"god".  You can clearly have "gods" with powers greater than yours or an
understanding of the world deeper than yours, etc.  The problem arises when
one involves "God" with a capital G where the definition tends to involve
lots of words beginning with omni- and some of those come into direct
conflict with reality as it is currently understood.  (Mind you the
"current" deep understanding of that reality is extremely problematic IMO).

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060221/d5cbd8e3/attachment.html>

From scerir at libero.it  Tue Feb 21 15:10:06 2006
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir at libero.it)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:10:06 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI-chat slogan contest
Message-ID: <IV1M4U$FCDBC6B419345A7210D3F50E2E84914B@libero.it>

> I propose an ExI-chat slogan contest. [...]  
> In light of the recent events here, my entry:
> Post Smart Stuff.
> spike

"More is different."
[ Philip Warren Anderson,
http://www.nobelwinners.com/Physics/philip_warren_anderson.html ]




From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Tue Feb 21 17:19:58 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:19:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Images About The Future
In-Reply-To: <002201c635c1$dd601660$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
References: <002201c635c1$dd601660$799f6041@DBX6XT21>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602210919k76bcade8l141d4b15f384eca1@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/19/06, Mehran <mehranraeli at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I was not criticizing your effort which I think is valuable, but just
> making
> an observation...
>

Mehran may not but I feel I must.  Examining the page reveals two things:

1) That the logo in the upper left hand corner is largely a massaged version
of the Intitute for Molecular Manufacturing's Molecular Differential Gear
designed by Drexler.  I know for a fact that that those images are
copyrighted by IMM because I investigated this when I wrote the
Nano at Homeproposal.

The logo image appears to be the molecular differential gear slightly
reorientated from the images on the IMM web site (http://www.imm.org/)
combined with another image whose origin is unclear (it kind of looks like
DNA but doesn't have the base structures or the proper element colors to be
consistent with the MDG).  Nor does it really make much sense to attach the
MDG to a piece of DNA.

Whether the copying and manipulation of the images constitutes a copyright
violation would be up to a court.

2. The image of a Dyson shell seems to be lifted directly from Thierry
Lombry's Astrosurf/Luxorion web site (
http://www.astrosurf.org/lombry/Images/dyson-sphere.jpg) which is dated Dec.
1, 2002.  That in turn seems to have been inspired by Anders' Early stage
Dyson Sphere construction image (
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Megascale/d_early.gif) which must date back
to perhaps '97 or '98.  [Anders' images may not be copyrighted but Lombrey's
are.]

In no case is there any attempt to credit the image sources or confirm that
permission to copy them has been obtained. Even in cases where the images
are not copyrighted it does a disservice to the creators not to cite them.
It would appear to me that the page potentially has significant legal
problems.  It is also a disservice to the futurist community as a whole as
its current presentation makes backtracking the images to the original
sources (necessary for any type of in depth research or discussion) an
extremely tedious task.

I would urge that people not promote this page until such problems have been
clearly resolved.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060221/d25dd897/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Feb 21 17:37:20 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:37:20 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Images About The Future
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602210919k76bcade8l141d4b15f384eca1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200602211737.k1LHbXEj003457@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Images About The Future

On 2/19/06, Mehran <mehranraeli at comcast.net> wrote:
I was not criticizing your effort which I think is valuable, but just making
an observation...

Mehran may not but I feel I must.? Examining the page reveals two things:

1) That the logo in the upper left hand corner is largely a massaged version
of the Intitute for Molecular Manufacturing's Molecular Differential Gear
designed by Drexler...Whether the copying and manipulation of the images
constitutes a copyright violation would be up to a court...I would urge that
people not promote this page until such problems have been clearly
resolved...Robert



I examined the site and my independent conclusion was similar to Robert's.
Mr. Mehran is in the penalty box until the next list Temporary Benevolent
Dictator distributes get-outta-jail-free cards on 1 June 2006.  Sorry
Mehran.  Appeals may be sent to Natasha, Greg or Max, all of whom outrank me
as honorary Eternal Super-Benevolent Ultra-Dictators.

spike

{8-]









From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Tue Feb 21 17:37:26 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:37:26 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
References: <20060221012428.7378.qmail@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00b501c6370d$7b9d5990$640fa8c0@kevin>




> --- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
> > This is BS. Plain and simple. Since when was shutting out those
> > deemed
> > "inferior" been any benefit to any society?
>
> See: jails, crime, economic effects of crime.

No, jail is not for "inferior" people. It is for people who break the laws
that govern society. This list has rules which serve the same purpose. It is
not my point that anyone should be allowed to say anything, only that those
who follow the rules should not be further be censored based on the
"quality" of their posts.

On another note, it is interesting how you seem to think of criminals as
"inferior" and "inferior" people as potential criminals. I wasn;t aware that
ignorance was a crime.
>
> > How many times have baffled scientists gathered together and been
> > unable to
> > solve somthing when suddenly the answer comes out of some left-field
> > source
> > as a patent clerk or a med school dropout? How much "noise" has been
> > created
> > by such people as Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Tesla, Hawking, etc?
>
> "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also
> laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Right, so using YOUR point, since Bozo is an idiot, we should have ignored
Newton as well? Personally I would prefer to see bozo speaking here as I can
always choose to ignore him. It's much better than the alternative.


>
> Just because someone is a school dropout, does not by itself
> automatically make their words worth listening to.  (Insert
> other obvious statements here, but this needed saying.)

No, and I never said it does. Using your logic though, I should request that
your ignorant post be removed because your logic is flawed.
My point is that the alternative of keeping a person out because they are a
high school dropout is less beneficial than allowing all high-school
dropouts a chance to be heard. Most would never even step to the stage. The
few who do, may not have much worth listening to, but you never know, do
you? Apparently you think that having a superior education equals superior
intellect. I can assure you that this is not always the case.

>
> > But don't take a public list and turn it private as a solution to
> > your
> > problem. If there is a small group of people here who wish to have
> > some
> > smaller forum without noise, perhaps THEY should do the leaving.
>
> Public forums with minimal noise are of benefit - sometimes, to
> some groups, even measurable benefit.  See all the laws against
> making a disturbance - it's not so much the disturbance itself
> that is a negative, as the taking away from the public, the
> value of a forum in which to discuss certain things.
> _______________________________________________
>
Again, the rule of law is not in question here. I am perfectly aware of the
laws regarding public distubance. I never said there should be no laws. How
about a simple analogy? Your argument would have Martin Luther King Jr.
presenting his speaches before a government committee to approve before he
was allowed to go out and speak.

Sometimes we have to sacrifice to gain the ultimate benefit. My opinion is
that the sacrifice of time is worth the benefit of knowledge. I am sure many
would prefer to sit around and preach to the choir, but I don;t think that
will benefit anyone in the long term.



From pkbertine at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 21 18:42:00 2006
From: pkbertine at hotmail.com (Pete Bertine)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:42:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bad idea, was Transhumanism as Religion
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602210654j5db779b1u6f1d6714dbb9d77d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY112-DAV128BFEB77D067D01C944E1B7FC0@phx.gbl>

 

On 2/20/06, Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:

Once a "god" (which god?) is introduced into the equation, all logic heads
for the back door.


As I've explained offlist to others the problem is in the definition of
"god".  You can clearly have "gods" with powers greater than yours or an
understanding of the world deeper than yours, etc.  The problem arises when
one involves "God" with a capital G where the definition tends to involve
lots of words beginning with omni- and some of those come into direct
conflict with reality as it is currently understood.  (Mind you the
"current" deep understanding of that reality is extremely problematic IMO). 

Robert

 

[PKB]  Why use the word ?god? at all?  How would you clearly define ?god? or
?gods  vs.  God??  Wouldn?t the definition have to include omni-words to the
effect of ?God like powers? or ?meaning knowable only to god/gods? ?  I fear
that the word ?god? however you try to modify it is so loaded,  carries so
much baggage that it would be better off to use ?new? words like super
advanced intelligences or Sai?s .  That way there would be no *gods* moving
planets around solar systems, but SAI?s playing marbles with planets.

 

This way there can be no (or less) confusion if the list gets penetrated by
?religious Transhumanists? or cult members.

 

Pete

www.petebertine.com <http://www.petebertine.com/>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060221/ff7c1533/attachment.html>

From aiguy at comcast.net  Tue Feb 21 19:35:36 2006
From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:35:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI-chat slogan contest
In-Reply-To: <IV1M4U$FCDBC6B419345A7210D3F50E2E84914B@libero.it>
Message-ID: <007c01c6371d$fd68a230$74550318@ZANDRA2>

 
When the Great AI is born you will be judged by the words you write here!

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of
scerir at libero.it
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:10 AM
To: extropy-chat
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ExI-chat slogan contest

> I propose an ExI-chat slogan contest. [...] In light of the recent 
> events here, my entry:
> Post Smart Stuff.
> spike

"More is different."
[ Philip Warren Anderson,
http://www.nobelwinners.com/Physics/philip_warren_anderson.html ]


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From James.Rayburn at chw.edu  Tue Feb 21 19:42:19 2006
From: James.Rayburn at chw.edu (Rayburn, James)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:42:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
Message-ID: <A863C4A90FDE9845A37676AE8E71D07103FC4D45@aznv-msg-004.chw.edu>

"I wasn't aware that ignorance was a crime."
Ignorance is no crime, but perpetuation of ignorance is a crime against the
betterment of mankind. Don't we all learn something from the ignorance of
others? Those who come here are here, for the most part, to learn. Teach
those who commit infractions the proper protocol and etiquette. 
If you make the group exclusive you'll run the risk of loosing touch with
the general zeitgeist and you will cut yourselves off from those who are
coming to the fountain.
Jim





From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Feb 21 20:07:43 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:07:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <00b501c6370d$7b9d5990$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20060221200743.32492.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
> > --- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
> > > This is BS. Plain and simple. Since when was shutting out
> those
> > > deemed
> > > "inferior" been any benefit to any society?
> >
> > See: jails, crime, economic effects of crime.
> 
> No, jail is not for "inferior" people. It is for people who
> break the
> laws
> that govern society. This list has rules which serve the same
> purpose.

It would, perhaps, be superior to enforce the rules, and to make
sure the rules clearly forbid off-topic discussions such as
those that spurred these proposals.  But the list administration
is apparently claiming that they are no longer capable of said
enforcement by the usual means, as they no longer have the time
to do so.  (Moderation was supposedly delegated to list members
- but normal list members have no power to enforce the rules
when, as has happened, those who continue the  off-topic
discussions ignore requests to cease them on the list.)

So, perhaps an alternate solution would be to find new
moderators who have both the time to tend to said duties, and
the willpower to enforce the rules (including temporary banning
for continuing off-topic discussions after the mods have said
it's time to stop them - and perhaps to set the limit a little
tighter on when something counts as "off-topic" than it has been
in practice) when necessary.

> On another note, it is interesting how you seem to think of
> criminals
> as
> "inferior" and "inferior" people as potential criminals.

The former is a correct perception in this particular case; the
latter is not.  You asked for an example of *those deemed as
inferior*, and certainly criminals have been a class of people
that many societies have historically labelled as inferior, and
some societies have been able to measure improvements to various
qualities they care about as a result of shutting out those who
violate the law.  In this case, the label of "inferior" comes as
a result of the violation, so there is no "potential" about it:
criminals are only labelled "inferior" after they break the law.

> I
> wasn;t
> aware that
> ignorance was a crime.

I wasn't discussing ignorance.  I was discussing off-topic
discussions, off-topic to the point that they either are or
should be (given the purpose of this list) in violation of this
list's rules.

> > "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they
> also
> > laughed at Bozo the Clown."
> 
> Right, so using YOUR point,

I quoted it to indicate it's someone else's words.  :P

> since Bozo is an idiot, we should have
> ignored
> Newton as well?

Yes - if and when Newton cared to discuss cults and similar
things outside of this topic's list.  The theory of gravity was
not the only thing to come from his mouth.  Of course, proposal
of a new scientific theory with evidence (like, say, if he was
alive today and came up with a coherent theory of quanum
gravity) might merit listening to - whether stated by Bozo or
by Newton.

It's the what, not the who, that matters in this case.

> Personally I would prefer to see bozo speaking here
> as I can
> always choose to ignore him.

Many on this list have tried just that.  The problem comes when
most of the list's content should be ignored - as has happened
for quite a few people of late.  The logical choice then is to
ignore all of the list, and unsubscribe - but then that also
ignores any valuable content, of which there has been some in
the past.  Many people here would prefer not to lose that
valuable content.

> It's much better than the
> alternative.

The alternative being to say, "You can discuss it, but not
here".  This is not a government-run forum; there is no absolute
right to free speech.  The speech that occurs here costs the
forum's maintainers, so they have every right to say that it
should be limited to topics they care about.  (Libertarianism
may be fine for things that everyone pays for, but when's the
last time that most of us sent a penny in to ExI?)

> How
> about a simple analogy? Your argument would have Martin Luther
> King
> Jr.
> presenting his speaches before a government committee to
> approve
> before he
> was allowed to go out and speak.

Your misunderstanding of my words is so severe as to border on
an insult, but I choose to believe that was not how you meant
it.  That said, here are two major errors in your analogy:

* This is a private forum, and this matter is about something
  where the rules for government are dramatically different from
  the rules for private forums.

* Even ignoring that, in the analogy, this would be like a judge
  saying that MLK can't given his speech on civil rights in a
  court case about a parking ticket where everyone involved -
  offender, police officer, et cetera - was white, and therfore
  civil rights and race relations did not enter into it.  This
  would not prevent MLK from preaching to the public at large,
  just prevent him from disrupting a court case with something
  totally irrelevant.  (Which the real MLK knew better than to
  do anyway: he knew that such an approach would just make
  those involved in the case less willing to listen to his
  words, without gaining his movement anything.)


From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Tue Feb 21 20:28:44 2006
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:28:44 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI-chat slogan contest
References: <IV1M4U$FCDBC6B419345A7210D3F50E2E84914B@libero.it>
Message-ID: <008c01c63725$d0167c50$0200a8c0@Nano>

"Evolve"


Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html
Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/
Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm
Microscope Jewelry
http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: scerir at libero.it 
  To: extropy-chat 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:10 AM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ExI-chat slogan contest


  > I propose an ExI-chat slogan contest. [...]  
  > In light of the recent events here, my entry:
  > Post Smart Stuff.
  > spike

  "More is different."
  [ Philip Warren Anderson,
  http://www.nobelwinners.com/Physics/philip_warren_anderson.html ]


  _______________________________________________
  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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060221/8d804f91/attachment.html>

From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Tue Feb 21 21:18:36 2006
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:18:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI-chat slogan contest: was ExI List Quality &
	Future, Natasha, pleeeeease! Nooooooo!
In-Reply-To: <200602210820.k1L8KGPm008648@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200602210820.k1L8KGPm008648@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <FE4F9F3A-18BE-4964-9DB6-C4AC1A404268@bonfireproductions.com>


spike,

I think your subject on that previous article summed it all up:

"evolution fights back"



Bret K.



On Feb 21, 2006, at 2:46 AM, spike wrote:

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anne-Marie Taylor
> Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future,  
> Natasha,pleeeeease!
> Nooooooo!
>
> I have learned so much from the extropy site.
> Don't persecute those that really want to learn, be educated and  
> want to
> create new ideas.
> I like extropy.org because it's neutral.
> It ways the positive against the negative. (Thanks Spike)
> It's a really great site.
> You should be proud at what you've created.
> Thanks Natasha
>
>
>
> Thank YOU Anne-Marie.  This commentary is eloquent in its own way.   
> Let us
> try this latest approach.  Evolution knows we have tried everything  
> else, or
> at least talked about it.  {8-]
>
> But ExI-chat will not be neutral, Anne-Marie, that is how the trouble
> started.  For the duration of my watch I will actively snipe  
> threads that
> are clearly counter to the principles, the reason why we hang out  
> here, the
> basis of what ExI has created.  I will warn if the thread is merely
> pointless, even if not counter to the ExI principles.  Then if it  
> continues
> it gets sniped by the Temporary Benevolent Dictator.
>
> Let's do it for a while, see if we can sharpen up the S/N ratio.  The
> principles are broad, they cover a lot of ground, there is plenty  
> of room to
> derive constructive commentary.  If your favorite thread gets  
> sniped, just
> wait it out until the next TBD takes over.
>
> I propose an ExI-chat slogan contest.  We should have a snappy  
> slogan like
> Google's Don't Be Evil.
>
> The grand prize: my everlasting admiration.  Or at least my temporary
> admiration, until I forget.  {8^D
>
> In light of the recent events here, my entry:
>
> Post Smart Stuff.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Tue Feb 21 22:18:58 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:18:58 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
References: <20060221200743.32492.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <03cc01c63734$d02c9e90$640fa8c0@kevin>

> Your misunderstanding of my words is so severe as to border on
> an insult, but I choose to believe that was not how you meant
> it.  That said, here are two major errors in your analogy:
>
> * This is a private forum, and this matter is about something
>   where the rules for government are dramatically different from
>   the rules for private forums.
>
> * Even ignoring that, in the analogy, this would be like a judge
>   saying that MLK can't given his speech on civil rights in a
>   court case about a parking ticket where everyone involved -
>   offender, police officer, et cetera - was white, and therfore
>   civil rights and race relations did not enter into it.  This
>   would not prevent MLK from preaching to the public at large,
>   just prevent him from disrupting a court case with something
>   totally irrelevant.  (Which the real MLK knew better than to
>   do anyway: he knew that such an approach would just make
>   those involved in the case less willing to listen to his
>   words, without gaining his movement anything.)


I'm sorry if you were insulted but my original reply was in response to
suggestions that postings be reviewed for "qualilty content" before being
posted to the list. As for the analogy, I apologize. I was always under the
impression that this was an open forum with rules - much like any public
spot where people gather. In this case, it would be a cafe where people
gather together to discuss an extremely broad topic. I agree it wouldn;t do
for people to walk into a poerty club and start spouting basketball scores
or talking about the war in Iraq, but my impression of the direction of
things was one where would-be poets were turned away before they even got in
the door because their poetry was deemed lousy by the doorman. It makes
perfect sense however that if a person repeatedly showed up with poetry that
turned out to be nothing but screaming and no one in the place liked it,
they would be asked to first quit, then leave, then finally asked not to
return because they don't fit in.

If this is where you were going I am truly sorry. I see your point about
people being either unwilling or unable to enforce those rules. I guess I am
missing something rather obvious; Namely, how an organization with an eye
for the future still has to have a manually controlled mailing list when all
the necessary tools for this are already available at almost no cost. I'm
all for a true message board with a "rate this response" button and a star
rating by each member that could be sorted by member rating as well as by
topics. This should be easy enough to do with the resources that are
available for message forums right now. If this is what was intended I
sincerely apologize.






From hal at finney.org  Tue Feb 21 23:34:37 2006
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inadvertant insult
Message-ID: <20060221233437.B883A57FAF@finney.org>

One problem with mailing lists, and email in general, is that people
miscommunicate their mood and intentions, leading to insult where none is
intended (or its counterpart, failure to appreciate a well-aimed barb).
A recent study investigated this effect:

<http://content.apa.org/journals/psp/89/6/925> requires a
subscription, but Wired Online had an article about it last week,
<http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html>.

> The researchers took 30 pairs of undergraduate students and gave
> each one a list of 20 statements about topics like campus food or the
> weather. Assuming either a serious or sarcastic tone, one member of
> each pair e-mailed the statements to his or her partner. The partners
> then guessed the intended tone and indicated how confident they were in
> their answers.
>
> Those who sent the messages predicted that nearly 80 percent of the
> time their partners would correctly interpret the tone. In fact the
> recipients got it right just over 50 percent of the time.
> ...
> At the same time, those reading messages unconsciously interpret them
> based on their current mood, stereotypes and expectations. Despite this,
> the research subjects thought they accurately interpreted the messages
> nine out of 10 times.

So writers predicted that their tone would be understood 80% of the time,
readers thought they had received the tone accurately 90% of the time, but
actually the tone was only communicated correctly about 50% of the time.

Now, this is a particularly hard case since I gather that only one
sentence was sent.  In practice with email, probably the whole message
adopts a particular tone.  Nevertheless the significant datum is the
discrepency between people's impression of their own communication
effectiveness, 80-90%, and their actual ability level, ~50%, only slightly
better than flipping a coin.  This is in accord with a wide range of
studies showing that people systematically overestimate their abilities.

We've seen this kind of communication problem often here on this list,
including a message I just read a few minutes ago.  Studies like this
one suggest that this is a bigger problem than most people realize.

I've long had a dream for this mailing list, and ExI's communication media
more generally, as a place where we could experiment with non-standard
techniques with the goal of improving our ability to communicate.
I've been so frustrated over the years to see us falling again and
again into the same kinds of pointless debates that could be found on
virtually any other mailing list in the world, particularly the political
arguments which have followed the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq war.  I don't
necessarily have any brilliant suggestions for how to fix things, but I do
believe in the homespun saying, if you always do what you've always done,
you'll always get what you've always got.  You have to make changes if
you want something different to happen.  This is why I continue to hope
that ExI will press on with their plans to find new ways for people who
share a vision to communicate and coordinate their efforts.

In the mean time, we can certainly benefit by increasing awareness of the
limitations of this text medium.  I wrote earlier about evidence-based
medicine; Max wrote about evidence-based business methods.  We should
dedicate ourselves to evidence-based communication!  In fact, we could
do worse than to set as our goal, moving towards an evidence-based
lifestyle.  (The Left has co-opted "reality-based" to refer to their
own ideological biases, but AFAIK "evidence-based" still has objective,
academic connotations.)

In terms of this recent study, the obvious conclusion is that where mood
is important, we need to be much more explicit in stating our intentions.
A simple proposal along those lines is to use smileys :).  I am not a
fan of this technique personally - I don't like unbalanced parentheses!
Too many years writing code.  I used to always try to work my smileys into
parenthetical expressions (like this :) so that the parentheses balanced.
A bit of compulsiveness on my part, I'm afraid.  But it can certainly be
helpful, if you are joking or making what you intend to be a light-hearted
comment, to add the smiley and lessen any chance of misinterpretation.

On the receiving end, as a general rule it is safe to assume that the
other guy probably does not mean to be insulting.  If you read something
that seems vicious or angry, try to read it as if it were said in a
bantering, light-hearted tone, and see if that helps.

Hal


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Feb 21 22:43:51 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:43:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <03cc01c63734$d02c9e90$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20060221224351.4397.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
> If this is where you were going I am truly sorry. I see your
> point
> about
> people being either unwilling or unable to enforce those rules.

Now we are in agreement.  I thought it might have been a
misunderstanding along those lines.  :)

> I
> guess I am
> missing something rather obvious; Namely, how an organization
> with an
> eye
> for the future still has to have a manually controlled mailing
> list
> when all
> the necessary tools for this are already available at almost
> no cost.

Ah...I would contend that this is not so obvious - even for us.
Someone has to build the future, in order for the future we want
to arrive.

> I'm
> all for a true message board with a "rate this response"
> button and a
> star
> rating by each member that could be sorted by member rating as
> well
> as by
> topics. This should be easy enough to do with the resources
> that are
> available for message forums right now.

Well...we do, technically, have a Web board that mirrors the
mailing list, right?  But it doesn't seem like many people use
that interface.  (I saw a "Karma" feature on the board, but it
looked like it only applied to the Web board - useless to anyone
whose interface is the email list itself, as it probably is for
most members of this list.)

How about this?  Anyone who wants to help moderate the list, can
register for that Web board with the same email address as used
to subscribe to this list.  Then, whenever they see something
that in their opinion requires moderation, they log on to the
board and give karma, Slashdot-style (although, not tracked
long-term), with negative and positive karma cancelling out.
Any poster who reaches a certain threshold of positive karma
over a certain time period (say, a day) will be automatically
sent an email saying so.  Any poster who reaches a certain
threshold of negative karma over a certain time period will be
temporarily banned from posting to the email list - and, again,
get an email explaining this (including which emails were
objected to and by how much, in case people are objecting to a
certain thread and anyone participating in it).  Any poster who
accumulates a certain number of karma-temp-bans in a certain
space of time will be temp-banned for a longer period - say, 3
bans in a week means a month-long temp-ban - plus the list
admins will be notified.  Using the example timeframes, the
admins then have a month to decide if the temp-ban should be
made permanent.

Or does something like this already exist?  I found the Web
board by googling on my name, and running into caches of my
posts to this list.  That's encounter by random chance - not
reliable.

Which leads to a simpler, but far more important, suggestion:
regular reminders of this feature.  I forget off the top of my
head whether this list already sends monthly or quarterly
reminder emails; if so, alter them, if not, create them.  Either
way, explain the moderation system in brief - *and remind users
that they can moderate the list*.  That way, if people
experience a fresh surge of off-topicness (like what recently
happened), they will be more likely to remember that when the
next reminder comes...and then they will be more likely to start
using the moderation features.  (Mod features intended for the
average list member to use, don't matter much if said average
list member doesn't know they exist.)

Hopefully, even lurkers will be able to help with the moderation
this way: even if they have nothing to say, they can
(anonymously) say whether a certain kind of discussion should be
on this list.


From mfj.eav at gmail.com  Wed Feb 22 00:17:33 2006
From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:17:33 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Anything you want to know?
Message-ID: <61c8738e0602211617n661540fw46498123cd6564f4@mail.gmail.com>

The extopian list member from this address looked at my recent post on my
use of the list
over the years.

I think the list is worth salvaging but the quality of info and signal to
noise ratio has to go way down.

And I for one am as much a part of the problem as of the solution.

I have my futuretag postings going to a mail address I have not been
physically to for a month
but I know one of the taks was to commercialize as well as socialize and
that
model of qualified members and read only VS posting seiving might just get
the
old heavy hitters to spend some time with us again.

I do agree with natasha that things have to be redesigned and the futuretag
angle was going that way I think.

G..can you fwd me some update or link or should I re-subscribe to
futuretag???

My time is very limited, but I have gone as far over the years as to
incorporate a company
which is still operating based on the extropian principals.
"extropian agroforestry ventures Inc."

Now that our Saskatchewan wants to convert 200,000 acres of conventional
farmland  a year for the next 20 years into agroforestry, that venture might
see a bit more life.

So lets not let the foundling group dwindle and die, just when its mandate
is looking like becoming real all over the place.

Morris Johnson
306-290-8734





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Morris Johnson <mfj.eav at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 21, 2006 5:58 PM

Brg Business Research Group Ltd

mail.brg.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060221/be7bb51f/attachment.html>

From max at maxmore.com  Tue Feb 21 23:51:22 2006
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:51:22 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI-chat slogan contest
In-Reply-To: <200602210820.k1L8KGPm008648@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <20060221050241.38494.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<200602210820.k1L8KGPm008648@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060221174959.04b2c328@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Here's a quick, instant reaction, candidate:

Are You Part of the Signal, or Part of the Noise?

Max


At 01:46 AM 2/21/2006, spike:

>I propose an ExI-chat slogan contest.  We should have a snappy slogan like
>Google's Don't Be Evil.
>
>The grand prize: my everlasting admiration.  Or at least my temporary
>admiration, until I forget.  {8^D
>
>In light of the recent events here, my entry:
>
>Post Smart Stuff.




_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max at maxmore.com or more at extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org <more at extropy.org>
________________________________________________________________
Director of Content Solutions, ManyWorlds Inc.: http://www.manyworlds.com
--- Thought leadership in the innovation economy
m.more at manyworlds.com
_______________________________________________________ 



From max at maxmore.com  Wed Feb 22 00:05:02 2006
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:05:02 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inadvertant insult
In-Reply-To: <20060221233437.B883A57FAF@finney.org>
References: <20060221233437.B883A57FAF@finney.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060221180050.04b9d7d0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 05:34 PM 2/21/2006, Hal wrote:

>In the mean time, we can certainly benefit by increasing awareness of the
>limitations of this text medium.  I wrote earlier about evidence-based
>medicine; Max wrote about evidence-based business methods.  We should
>dedicate ourselves to evidence-based communication!  In fact, we could
>do worse than to set as our goal, moving towards an evidence-based
>lifestyle.

Hal -- I just wanted to highlight this part of your post. I like 
it!  [Big, gleeful and comradely smiley here.]

Maybe we should get T-shirts printed that say:
"EVIDENCE-BASED LIVING--TRY IT!"

On smileys -- they do seem a bit goofy, but I agree they can help, in 
the absence of richer media for our communications.

Max





From rhanson at gmu.edu  Tue Feb 21 23:47:25 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:47:25 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060221184514.0236fa88@gmu.edu>

At 05:47 AM 2/21/2006, BillK wrote:
>On 2/21/06, "Hal Finney" wrote:
> > We probably all saw the study that came out a couple of weeks ago
> > from the Woman's Health Initiative, which showed that a low-fat diet
> > failed to offer protection from cancer or heart disease.  This was
> > a major blow to the conventional wisdom on this issue and there have
> > been a number of excuses and explanations offered to try to explain the
> > results.  (At about the same time, a different study found that calcium
> > supplementation failed to prevent osteoporosis, further contradicting
> > what public health officials have been saying for years.)
>
>This article seems to be pop-sci journalism at work.
>Try:
><http://www.nelm.nhs.uk/Record%20Viewing/viewRecord.aspx?id=560359>
>and
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4690230.stm>
>
>Researchers running the Women's Health Initiative study of
>post-menopausal health asked more than 19,500 women aged 50 to 79 to
>reduce their total fat consumption and eat more fruit and vegetables.
>The women were then monitored over eight years during the 1990s, and
>compared with another group of 29,300 women whose diet was unchanged.
>---------------------------
>
>Ifs and buts.......
>
>Various study flaws have been highlighted, both by the investigators
>and by health professionals in the UK (See BBC news report), for
>example: ....

Every study has flaws one can point out.   The point is that people 
are quick to
use the flaws to dismiss studies whose conclusions they don't like, and they
hardly notice the flaws of the studies whole conclusions they do like.  That
habit allows one to pretty much ignore the evidence in favor of preconceived
expectations.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From shogyo.mujo at gmail.com  Wed Feb 22 01:36:02 2006
From: shogyo.mujo at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tom=E1s_Arribas?=)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:36:02 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI-chat slogan contest
In-Reply-To: <IV1M4U$FCDBC6B419345A7210D3F50E2E84914B@libero.it>
References: <IV1M4U$FCDBC6B419345A7210D3F50E2E84914B@libero.it>
Message-ID: <bf3d71290602211736y6b5afe06x@mail.gmail.com>

> I propose an ExI-chat slogan contest. [...]
> In light of the recent events here, my entry:
> Post Smart Stuff.
> spike


"AI carumba!"   :-)

--
Emergency e-mail: mobile at forbidden-games.com



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Wed Feb 22 01:38:32 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:38:32 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Impact Effects (was: Pluto New Horizons launch
	-getting ready)
In-Reply-To: <p06230912c01f10508a38@23.237.66.13>
References: <p06230912c01f10508a38@23.237.66.13>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602211738t601dba44o55f201d38e5b2a1d@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/20/06, Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
>
> Also, I gave you folks a pointer to an excellent tool
> http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/
>
> I suggest to read through the document to know their assumptions and
> equations. I see comments and questions here that tells me that no one
> read it. A discussion of the pressures, shock wave, vaporization and
> plasma produced (in the instance of fireballs) is discussed in that
> paper.
>

Guilty as charged :) Having now read that section, though, it doesn't seem
to invalidate my statement - while they do use the relativistic energy
equation, their model is explicitly designed to handle meteors, not science
fiction projectiles travelling at a large fraction of lightspeed, and I
would still expect a relativistic impactor on hitting atmosphere to turn
into a beam of plasma rather than several discrete chunks (how wide a beam,
I don't know).

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060222/ea20e173/attachment.html>

From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Feb 22 01:17:28 2006
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:17:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI-chat slogan contest
Message-ID: <380-22006232211728846@M2W103.mail2web.com>


From: Max More 

>Here's a quick, instant reaction, candidate:
>
>Are You Part of the Signal, or Part of the Noise?

Easy, to the point, and reflective.  Like it.

Natasha

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





From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Wed Feb 22 01:59:37 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:59:37 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060220075214.02d568a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216200408.02c9b990@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060217013433.02c5a768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060220075214.02d568a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602211759o66ccb8b1mf8a94e4b6c7d7143@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/20/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> Huge research job.  And it probably is not the most important element
> anyway.  It is the average population *expectation* on how bright the
> prospects for the future are that flips the gain on xenophobic memes.  I
> first figured as you did, and the America civil war didn't fit, times were
> ok.  But when you considered the aftermath, it was clear that they had
> reason to fear for a bleak future.
>
> After Lincoln was elected, it was fairly clear that one way or the other
> slavery was going.  That was a $30 billion dollar hit on the south's
> "capital," and people could see it coming.  (Don't take this as advocating
> anything!)


But wasn't it the North that attacked the South? (Don't take this as
advocating anything either - I'm not commenting on the morality of it - but
from what I've read it was the northerners going "let's go stomp those
slave-owning southerners" not vice versa.)

I think we've explored this question about as far as is going to be feasible
here - to do the sort of detailed analysis required for a more rigorous test
would, as you say, be a huge research job. The approach of applying
evolutionary psychology makes sense, but to the extent the theory makes
predictions, those predictions don't seem to me to be borne out in real
history; though while encouraging economic growth through technological
advance isn't a silver bullet, it's certainly helpful.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060222/c3c634f9/attachment.html>

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Wed Feb 22 02:00:01 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:00:01 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060220222942.02187228@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216200408.02c9b990@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060217013433.02c5a768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060220222942.02187228@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602211800j2be35257v13d3ccd05bf9e170@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/21/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> Incidentally, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this dire subject.


No problem, it was an interesting discussion.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060222/d8ccb102/attachment.html>

From mfj.eav at gmail.com  Wed Feb 22 02:02:53 2006
From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:02:53 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI-chat slogan contest
In-Reply-To: <380-22006232211728846@M2W103.mail2web.com>
References: <380-22006232211728846@M2W103.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <61c8738e0602211802n6b4a26c7k79ef41e3a8de23e2@mail.gmail.com>

Extropian Signals Walk softly but carry a big Schick.

On 2/21/06, nvitamore at austin.rr.com <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Max More
>
> >Here's a quick, instant reaction, candidate:
> >
> >Are You Part of the Signal, or Part of the Noise?
>
> Easy, to the point, and reflective.  Like it.
>
> Natasha
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060221/d9af5765/attachment.html>

From mfj.eav at gmail.com  Wed Feb 22 02:04:34 2006
From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:04:34 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI-chat slogan contest
In-Reply-To: <61c8738e0602211802n6b4a26c7k79ef41e3a8de23e2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <380-22006232211728846@M2W103.mail2web.com>
	<61c8738e0602211802n6b4a26c7k79ef41e3a8de23e2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <61c8738e0602211804l3686cf35i12475c98fa313e9b@mail.gmail.com>

or beter yet:

On 2/21/06, Morris Johnson <mfj.eav at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Extropian Signals Waft softly but carry a big Schick.
>
> On 2/21/06, nvitamore at austin.rr.com <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Max More
> >
> > >Here's a quick, instant reaction, candidate:
> > >
> > >Are You Part of the Signal, or Part of the Noise?
> >
> > Easy, to the point, and reflective.  Like it.
> >
> > Natasha
> >
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060221/39e5c4ab/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Feb 22 03:41:22 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:41:22 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inadvertant insult
In-Reply-To: <20060221233437.B883A57FAF@finney.org>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060221213029.02cf6ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 03:34 PM 2/21/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>One problem with mailing lists, and email in general, is that people
>miscommunicate their mood and intentions, leading to insult where none is
>intended (or its counterpart, failure to appreciate a well-aimed barb).
>A recent study investigated this effect:
>
><http://content.apa.org/journals/psp/89/6/925> requires a
>subscription, but Wired Online had an article about it last week,
><http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html>.
>
> > The researchers took 30 pairs of undergraduate students and gave
> > each one a list of 20 statements about topics like campus food or the
> > weather. Assuming either a serious or sarcastic tone, one member of
> > each pair e-mailed the statements to his or her partner. The partners
> > then guessed the intended tone and indicated how confident they were in
> > their answers.
> >
> > Those who sent the messages predicted that nearly 80 percent of the
> > time their partners would correctly interpret the tone. In fact the
> > recipients got it right just over 50 percent of the time.
> > ...
> > At the same time, those reading messages unconsciously interpret them
> > based on their current mood, stereotypes and expectations. Despite this,
> > the research subjects thought they accurately interpreted the messages
> > nine out of 10 times.
>
>So writers predicted that their tone would be understood 80% of the time,
>readers thought they had received the tone accurately 90% of the time, but
>actually the tone was only communicated correctly about 50% of the time.

I am not surprised at the result, it is great that someone actually set up 
a study.

>Now, this is a particularly hard case since I gather that only one
>sentence was sent.  In practice with email, probably the whole message
>adopts a particular tone.  Nevertheless the significant datum is the
>discrepency between people's impression of their own communication
>effectiveness, 80-90%, and their actual ability level, ~50%, only slightly
>better than flipping a coin.  This is in accord with a wide range of
>studies showing that people systematically overestimate their abilities

No kidding!

>We've seen this kind of communication problem often here on this list,
>including a message I just read a few minutes ago.  Studies like this
>one suggest that this is a bigger problem than most people realize.

And you need to add to the problem that some people have very different 
(and often much worse) personalities on line than they do in real life.  I 
can think of several examples.

>I've long had a dream for this mailing list, and ExI's communication media
>more generally, as a place where we could experiment with non-standard
>techniques with the goal of improving our ability to communicate.
>I've been so frustrated over the years to see us falling again and
>again into the same kinds of pointless debates that could be found on
>virtually any other mailing list in the world, particularly the political
>arguments which have followed the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq war.  I don't
>necessarily have any brilliant suggestions for how to fix things, but I do
>believe in the homespun saying, if you always do what you've always done,
>you'll always get what you've always got.  You have to make changes if
>you want something different to happen.  This is why I continue to hope
>that ExI will press on with their plans to find new ways for people who
>share a vision to communicate and coordinate their efforts.

Your goal splits into two areas.  How to keep the list from being invaded 
by people who come across as scammers like JD and how to get more 
intelligent conversation.

On the latter, I think people should make a real effort to raise the 
discussion to a meta level.  I.e., it is ok to talk about wars and politics 
but the current situations should only be used as examples in discussions 
of the meta level.  (Why wars?  Why are humans captured by both socialist 
and libertarian politics/memes)?

I think in order to do this list contributors are going to have to come to 
some understanding of what humans are.  I know of nothing besides 
evolution/evolutionary psychology that gives a logical and consistent 
description of human nature, but I am always willing to consider other 
foundations if they can be found.

>In the mean time, we can certainly benefit by increasing awareness of the
>limitations of this text medium.  I wrote earlier about evidence-based
>medicine; Max wrote about evidence-based business methods.  We should
>dedicate ourselves to evidence-based communication!  In fact, we could
>do worse than to set as our goal, moving towards an evidence-based
>lifestyle.  (The Left has co-opted "reality-based" to refer to their
>own ideological biases, but AFAIK "evidence-based" still has objective,
>academic connotations.)
>
>In terms of this recent study, the obvious conclusion is that where mood
>is important, we need to be much more explicit in stating our intentions.
>A simple proposal along those lines is to use smileys :).  I am not a
>fan of this technique personally - I don't like unbalanced parentheses!
>Too many years writing code.  I used to always try to work my smileys into
>parenthetical expressions (like this :) so that the parentheses balanced.
>A bit of compulsiveness on my part, I'm afraid.  But it can certainly be
>helpful, if you are joking or making what you intend to be a light-hearted
>comment, to add the smiley and lessen any chance of misinterpretation.
>
>On the receiving end, as a general rule it is safe to assume that the
>other guy probably does not mean to be insulting.  If you read something
>that seems vicious or angry, try to read it as if it were said in a
>bantering, light-hearted tone, and see if that helps.

Excellent advice. :-)

One of my posts bounced recently and by the time it came back the issue was 
moot.  Your comments induced me to fish it out.

At 03:53 PM 2/20/2006 -0300, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote:
 >Speaking for myself, I know I'm not as smart as some members of this list an
 >I can be hardly classified like "highly intelligent, enormously creative,
 >and exceptionally knowledgeable about science and technology to fit in", but
 >I love this list and on the other side I can be hardly classified as a
 >source of conflict or any disruptive behaviour to the list. There are other
 >members of this list that can fit my shoes and I think I'm speaking for all
 >of them when I say we don't want to be cast out or prevented from making an
 >eventual comment on some subject.

You and several others have made what I consider to be a very cogent 
argument to change the list administration in a minimal way.

The problem with a list moderator is that it just takes too much time from 
very busy people *and* having to silence bozos is a thankless task.

Another list had the same problem about a year ago, as a matter of fact 
with one of the same people. The list administrator generated a completely 
automated system that kept the clutter out of mailboxes. It lets people 
rate postings on a connected web site. Those who got some magic number of 
low ratings on their postings were snipped out of the mailings (though they 
were webbed).

People who post rarely would never be binned, it takes consistent annoying, 
off topic or scamming behavior to induced people even to click on a link.

********************

The problem (now that I consider it as an engineering problem) is lack of 
feedback.  If list readers could be induced to click a link that a post was 
below minimum or well above average, the first would guide either automatic 
or manual silencing and the second would reward posters you want to 
see.  The only way to do that now is to respond (hard to do if you agree) 
and if you don't have much to say, it clutters the list.

So Hal should take my post as a reenforcing reward and we should deeply 
consider this feedback business.

Keith Henson



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Wed Feb 22 03:59:45 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 03:59:45 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inadvertant insult
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060221213029.02cf6ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <20060221233437.B883A57FAF@finney.org>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221213029.02cf6ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602211959y56935d8eh61ca173217739d57@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/22/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> On the latter, I think people should make a real effort to raise the
> discussion to a meta level.  I.e., it is ok to talk about wars and
> politics
> but the current situations should only be used as examples in discussions
> of the meta level.  (Why wars?  Why are humans captured by both socialist
> and libertarian politics/memes)?


Agreed with pretty much everything Keith says here, with an addendum: I
think even using current situations as examples in broader discussions is,
where possible, better eschewed in favor of historical examples. As a
general guideline, I'd recommend taking examples from at least a few decades
back. (Eliezer Yudkowsky, when the question came up over on SL4, suggested
1920 or earlier.)

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060222/780a8abf/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Wed Feb 22 03:21:03 2006
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:21:03 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat]  Impact Effects
Message-ID: <p06230900c0218809462d@[23.237.66.13]>

Russell Wallace russell.wallace at gmail.com
>while they do use the relativistic energy
>equation, their model is explicitly designed to handle meteors, not science
>fiction projectiles travelling at a large fraction of lightspeed, and I
>would still expect a relativistic impactor on hitting atmosphere to turn
>into a beam of plasma rather than several discrete chunks (how wide a beam,
>I don't know).


Shock waves occur in relativistic conditions too (many phenomena in
space). Plasmas are created on Earth laboratories for extreme
conditions. These are both physical phenomena where one can get
numbers. For parameters one would use the relativistic parameters. It
seems to me that if one knows the conditions for a shock in Earth's
atmosphere, conditions for vaporization, creating a plasma cloud, and
so on, which are given in that paper, and focuses on the basics:
energy (temperature), pressure, then it's a good start. We can't say
we know nothing, when in fact we know quite a lot.

Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"It is intriguing to learn that the simplicity of the world depends
upon the temperature of the environment." ---John D. Barrow


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Feb 22 04:39:58 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:39:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602211759o66ccb8b1mf8a94e4b6c7d7143@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060220075214.02d568a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060216200408.02c9b990@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060217013433.02c5a768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060220075214.02d568a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060221232255.02e2c5c0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 01:59 AM 2/22/2006 +0000, Russell wrote:
>On 2/20/06, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> 
>wrote:
>>Huge research job.  And it probably is not the most important element
>>anyway.  It is the average population *expectation* on how bright the
>>prospects for the future are that flips the gain on xenophobic memes.  I
>>first figured as you did, and the America civil war didn't fit, times were
>>ok.  But when you considered the aftermath, it was clear that they had
>>reason to fear for a bleak future.
>>
>>After Lincoln was elected, it was fairly clear that one way or the other
>>slavery was going.  That was a $30 billion dollar hit on the south's
>>"capital," and people could see it coming.  (Don't take this as advocating
>>anything!)
>
>But wasn't it the North that attacked the South? (Don't take this as 
>advocating anything either - I'm not commenting on the morality of it - 
>but from what I've read it was the northerners going "let's go stomp those 
>slave-owning southerners" not vice versa.)

"The Civil War began when, under orders from President Jefferson Davis 
Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard opened fire upon Fort Sumter in 
Charleston, South Carolina on April 12, 
1861."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

>I think we've explored this question about as far as is going to be 
>feasible here - to do the sort of detailed analysis required for a more 
>rigorous test would, as you say, be a huge research job. The approach of 
>applying evolutionary psychology makes sense, but to the extent the theory 
>makes predictions, those predictions don't seem to me to be borne out in 
>real history;

You would not expect them to be borne out in more than a probabilistic 
sense, but I don't know of any wars that were started by people who were 
looking at a bright future, and lots that were started by people facing an 
awful situation, Easter Island being the worst.

>though while encouraging economic growth through technological advance 
>isn't a silver bullet, it's certainly helpful.

It isn't a sliver bullet.  It is the numerator of income per capita.  If 
"capita" grows faster it's gonna be time for war sooner or later.

Read that article by Anzar Gat.

Keith Henson




From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Wed Feb 22 05:11:44 2006
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:11:44 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Idea
References: <200602211737.k1LHbXEj003457@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <01a001c6376e$f728bc10$0200a8c0@Nano>

Okay so my birthday is on Thursday, just a suggestion, you guys could hold a secret meeting that I am not aware of : ) and all pitch in to get me an AFM - just an idea. By the way I have a present for you: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/avatars.htm

Kind regards,

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html
Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/
Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm
Microscope Jewelry
http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: spike 
  To: 'ExI chat list' 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:37 AM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Images About The Future



  bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Images About The Future

  On 2/19/06, Mehran <mehranraeli at comcast.net> wrote:
  I was not criticizing your effort which I think is valuable, but just making
  an observation...

  Mehran may not but I feel I must. Examining the page reveals two things:

  1) That the logo in the upper left hand corner is largely a massaged version
  of the Intitute for Molecular Manufacturing's Molecular Differential Gear
  designed by Drexler...Whether the copying and manipulation of the images
  constitutes a copyright violation would be up to a court...I would urge that
  people not promote this page until such problems have been clearly
  resolved...Robert



  I examined the site and my independent conclusion was similar to Robert's.
  Mr. Mehran is in the penalty box until the next list Temporary Benevolent
  Dictator distributes get-outta-jail-free cards on 1 June 2006.  Sorry
  Mehran.  Appeals may be sent to Natasha, Greg or Max, all of whom outrank me
  as honorary Eternal Super-Benevolent Ultra-Dictators.

  spike

  {8-]







  _______________________________________________
  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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060221/8cddd8fd/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Feb 22 04:11:34 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:11:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060221184514.0236fa88@gmu.edu>
References: <ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 06:47 PM 2/21/2006 -0500, Robin Hanson wrote:

snip

>Every study has flaws one can point out.   The point is that people
>are quick to
>use the flaws to dismiss studies whose conclusions they don't like, and they
>hardly notice the flaws of the studies whole conclusions they do like.  That
>habit allows one to pretty much ignore the evidence in favor of preconceived
>expectations.

Just like:

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly 
engaged," Westen said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the 
cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then 
they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative 
emotional states and activation of positive ones."

"Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral 
prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning."

Now to raise this to a meta level, why do people get stuck on preconceived 
expectations?

Ground rules are: your explanation for this psychological trait has to have 
its origin in the stone age among hunter gather tribes *and* it has to have 
contributed to our ancestor's "reproductive success."    You may need to 
invoke Hamilton's inclusive fitness in your model to account for this trait.

I don't have more than a foggy idea of how to account for why people get 
stuck on preconceived expectations, but this is the formula for attacking 
the question.

Any ideas?

Keith henson




From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Feb 22 09:16:36 2006
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:16:36 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Machinations
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060221232255.02e2c5c0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060216200408.02c9b990@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060217013433.02c5a768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060220075214.02d568a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221232255.02e2c5c0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0602220116g30f973bfw611ab860e8f12a6b@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/22/06, Keith Henson wrote:
>
> "The Civil War began when, under orders from President Jefferson Davis
> Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard opened fire upon Fort Sumter in
> Charleston, South Carolina on April 12,
> 1861."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
>

Tut,tut! This proves nothing.  :)

The buildup to war takes years of building up forces, getting them
trained, equipped and in the right place. Who fires the first shot is
irrelevant.

An excuse can always be found when you want one.

BillK



From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Feb 22 09:46:05 2006
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:46:05 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060221184514.0236fa88@gmu.edu>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060221184514.0236fa88@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0602220146y2d4ac908mf3b6ea8023c2cd79@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/21/06, Robin Hanson wrote:
>
> Every study has flaws one can point out.   The point is that people
> are quick to use the flaws to dismiss studies whose conclusions they don't like,
> and they hardly notice the flaws of the studies whole conclusions they do like.
> That habit allows one to pretty much ignore the evidence in favor of
> preconceived expectations.
>
>

Agreed, but evidence based actions must be based on *relevant* evidence.
The diet and health field is full of contradictory evidence, so you
can easily pick and choose what you want.

In this survey, ten years ago, 20000 old, overweight or obese women
changed their diet slightly in a rather unspecific fashion, but didn't
exercise or reduce their alcohol consumption, and they found no effect
on their heart disease or cancer levels.

Well that's a surprise!

It is much more *relevant* evidence to go along with the statements:

"The survey didn't reflect current advice for good heart health, such as salt
reduction, increasing intake of good fats such as those in oily fish,
and increasing exercise."

Dr Emma Knight, science information manager at Cancer Research UK,
said: "People should continue to eat a healthy balanced diet, with
lots of fruit and veg.
"At present, the only diet-related factors that definitely increase
breast cancer risk are obesity and alcohol.
"Bowel cancer risk can be increased by a diet high in red and
processed meat, but is lowered by eating a high-fibre diet."


BillK



From hemm at openlink.com.br  Wed Feb 22 12:18:25 2006
From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk))
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:18:25 -0300
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI-chat slogan contest
References: <007c01c6371d$fd68a230$74550318@ZANDRA2>
Message-ID: <00de01c637aa$15160350$fe00a8c0@cpd01>

What about "Shall you post forever" or "Welcome back my friends to this show 
that never ends"... But this one's been already used...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary Miller" <aiguy at comcast.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ExI-chat slogan contest


>
> When the Great AI is born you will be judged by the words you write here!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of
> scerir at libero.it
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:10 AM
> To: extropy-chat
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ExI-chat slogan contest
>
>> I propose an ExI-chat slogan contest. [...] In light of the recent
>> events here, my entry:
>> Post Smart Stuff.
>> spike
>
> "More is different."
> [ Philip Warren Anderson,
> http://www.nobelwinners.com/Physics/philip_warren_anderson.html ]



From rhanson at gmu.edu  Wed Feb 22 11:37:35 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 06:37:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602220146y2d4ac908mf3b6ea8023c2cd79@mail.gmail.co m>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060221184514.0236fa88@gmu.edu>
	<ee50357e0602220146y2d4ac908mf3b6ea8023c2cd79@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060222063339.0239b440@gmu.edu>

At 04:46 AM 2/22/2006, BillK wrote:
> > Every study has flaws one can point out.   The point is that people
> > are quick to use the flaws to dismiss studies whose conclusions 
> they don't like,
> > and they hardly notice the flaws of the studies whole conclusions 
> they do like.
> > That habit allows one to pretty much ignore the evidence in favor of
> > preconceived expectations.
>
>In this survey, ten years ago, 20000 old, overweight or obese women
>changed their diet slightly in a rather unspecific fashion, but didn't
>exercise or reduce their alcohol consumption, and they found no effect
>on their heart disease or cancer levels.
>Well that's a surprise!

It was a surprise to many.  The diet was changed enough to have an effect,
based on prior studies, and the effect was expected to work for overweight old
women.    You sound like you feel sure you know that reducing alcohol would
be good, but most studies say the opposite.

>"The survey didn't reflect current advice for good heart health, such as salt
>reduction, increasing intake of good fats such as those in oily fish,
>and increasing exercise."

If we did a study based on current advice, the complaint would be that the
study didn't last long enough to see long term effects.  If we did a long term
study based on current advice, by the time the study was done the advice
would not be current.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Wed Feb 22 13:31:03 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:31:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inadvertant insult
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060221180050.04b9d7d0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <20060221233437.B883A57FAF@finney.org>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20060221180050.04b9d7d0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602220531r463b7ef2jf4bda5d1aa1bb8b7@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/21/06, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:

> Maybe we should get T-shirts printed that say:
> "EVIDENCE-BASED LIVING--TRY IT!"


It is worth pointing out that a corallary of this is "Conscious Living" (or
in the case of the list "Conscious posting").  These are not new ideas.  I
can easily follow such ideas back to those of  Gurdjieff & Ouspensky (see
wikipedia).  They had an exercise called something like the "Stop exercise"
where they would tell their students to stop and notice precisely what they
were doing at an instant in time. Such a perspective may have common threads
in such philosophies as Zen and/or Buddhism.

Many list problems can be related to "engaging fingers before engaging
brain".

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060222/e14bf057/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Feb 22 13:59:18 2006
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:59:18 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060222063339.0239b440@gmu.edu>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060221184514.0236fa88@gmu.edu>
	<ee50357e0602220146y2d4ac908mf3b6ea8023c2cd79@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060222063339.0239b440@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0602220559h7b60a3edn385c30ab13814856@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/22/06, Robin Hanson wrote:
>
> It was a surprise to many.  The diet was changed enough to have an effect,
> based on prior studies, and the effect was expected to work for overweight old
> women.    You sound like you feel sure you know that reducing alcohol would
> be good, but most studies say the opposite.
>
> If we did a study based on current advice, the complaint would be that the
> study didn't last long enough to see long term effects.  If we did a long term
> study based on current advice, by the time the study was done the advice
> would not be current.
>

This study did not know about good fats and bad fats, or the need for exercise.
The study group was already old and overweight and had increased risk
of heart trouble and cancer anyway..
The control group was not sufficiently distinct as they only achieved
about 70% of their planned goal to differentiate fat intake.

The overall fat content reduced by only 8.2% over the six year study.

So this group of higher risk individuals sat around on their fat arses
and ate six burgers a week instead of seven burgers, plus a bit more
fruit and veg.
(Slight exaggeration for effect).  ;)

I place no weight on this study at all.

BillK



From rhanson at gmu.edu  Wed Feb 22 16:10:23 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:10:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602220146y2d4ac908mf3b6ea8023c2cd79@mail.gmail.co m>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060221184514.0236fa88@gmu.edu>
	<ee50357e0602220146y2d4ac908mf3b6ea8023c2cd79@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060222110548.0232f050@gmu.edu>

On 2/21/06, Robin Hanson wrote:
 > Every study has flaws one can point out.   The point is that people
 > are quick to use the flaws to dismiss studies whose conclusions 
they don't like,
 > and they hardly notice the flaws of the studies whole conclusions 
they do like.
 > That habit allows one to pretty much ignore the evidence in favor of
 > preconceived expectations.

On 2/22/2006, Billl K wrote:
>This study did not know about good fats and bad fats, or the need 
>for exercise.
>The study group was already old and overweight ...
>I place no weight on this study at all.

Let's test my claim.   Are you aware of any flaws in any studies that
show low fat diets to be healthy?



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Feb 22 16:17:06 2006
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:17:06 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Idea
In-Reply-To: <01a001c6376e$f728bc10$0200a8c0@Nano>
References: <200602211737.k1LHbXEj003457@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<01a001c6376e$f728bc10$0200a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060222101539.04524348@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 11:11 PM 2/21/2006, Gina wrote:

>Okay so my birthday is on Thursday, just a suggestion, you guys could hold 
>a secret meeting that I am not aware of : ) and all pitch in to get me an 
>AFM - just an idea. By the way I have a present for you: 
><http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/avatars.htm>http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/avatars.htm


Okay Gina - here is your Birthday Gift. But my birthday is today and I'd 
like a ski trip to Aspen or Telluride. :-)

http://www.spmlab.science.ru.nl/jang/afm.jpg
Emacs!



NVM




<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist - Designer
Future Studies, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
Honorary Vice-Chair, <http://transhumanism.org/>World Transhumanist 
Association
Senior Associate, <http://foresight.org/>Foresight Institute
Advisor, <http://alcor.org/>Alcor Life Extension Foundation

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective.
Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060222/a1edb4c0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 584295d.jpg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 7934 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060222/a1edb4c0/attachment.obj>

From hal at finney.org  Wed Feb 22 19:14:17 2006
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:14:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
Message-ID: <20060222191417.3530457FAF@finney.org>

> Keith Henson writes:
> At 06:47 PM 2/21/2006 -0500, Robin Hanson wrote:
> > Every study has flaws one can point out.   The point is that people are
> > quick to use the flaws to dismiss studies whose conclusions they don't
> > like, and they hardly notice the flaws of the studies whole conclusions
> > they do like.  That habit allows one to pretty much ignore the evidence
> > in favor of preconceived expectations.
>
> Just like:
>
> "None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly 
> engaged," Westen said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the 
> cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then 
> they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative 
> emotional states and activation of positive ones."
>
> "Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral 
> prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning."

That was a good study that Keith is quoting, from here:
http://www.rxpgnews.com/specialtopics/article_3287.shtml
The actual study is not public yet, but should be available from here
eventually:
http://www.psychsystems.net/lab/type4.cfm?id=400&section=4&source=200&source2=1

It reminds me of research I read about last year.  In that study,
subjects were given examples of data reports that either confirmed or
contradicted their ideological/political beliefs.  Researchers were trying
to learn about the mechanisms by which ideologies defend themselves.
A hypothesis was that people would ignore contradictory information and
focus on confirmatory data.  However, the results were the opposite.

Instead, people tended to take in the confirmatory data reports
uncritically, with a "yes, of course" attitude.  However, the data that
contradicted their beliefs was subject to intense scrutiny.  Every detail
was examined to look for loopholes, caveats, exceptions and other flaws.
Since every study is imperfect, subjects were able to find and focus on
these problems, and discredit the report in their own minds, allowing
them to cling to their pre-existing beliefs.  The result was that they
spent much more attention and mental energy on the contradictory reports
than the confirmatory ones.  (And indeed, in debates here and elsewhere,
note how much more time people spend attacking the other person's position
than explaining the validity of their own.)

The report Keith is citing was a little simpler, in that people
were apparently exposed to relatively short data sets which showed
contradictory or hypocritical behavior on the part of politicians
they favored or opposed.  This would probably give them less to go on
in terms of looking for explanations or excuses when their favorite
candidate was shown in a bad light.  Otherwise I would have predicted
that there would be intense rational thought going on in examining those
reports, as people searched for flaws.  Without enough data to resolve the
contradiction, I would hypothesize that people would mostly feel intense
frustration, convinced that there must be some reason that would explain
it away, and unhappy that the researchers are withholding exculpatory
data and instead intentionally showing their favorite candidate in
an unjustifiably bad way.  This could explain some of the emotional
reactions the researchers discovered.

These MRI studies are a great new window into how people think.  I'm sure
we will see much more research along these lines, as the machines are
becoming widely available.  Taking that earlier study I mentioned and
repeating it under an MRI machine would be an interesting test.

Keith goes on:
> Now to raise this to a meta level, why do people get stuck on preconceived 
> expectations?

That's a much harder problem.  Just to take illustrate the difficulty,
I think the first thing you need to decide in looking for an explanation
is whether this behavior is a good idea or not.  The class of explanations
you will explore will depend fundamentally on whether you see this as a
reasonable heuristic for a rational observer with potentially stringent
bounds on his available computational capacity; or whether you see it
as irrational behavior in terms of getting at the truth, but justified
in terms of other benefits, such as social advantages.

I couldn't even answer this basic question, whether this behavior makes
sense in terms of getting at the truth of things.  I can see arguments
either way on that one.  So I won't even stick a toe in the water of
possible explanations.

Hal


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Feb 22 22:37:40 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:37:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode [was Failure of low-fat
	diet]
In-Reply-To: <20060222191417.3530457FAF@finney.org>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060222161941.02165320@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 11:14 AM 2/22/2006 -0800, Hal wrote:

snip--good stuff

>These MRI studies are a great new window into how people think.  I'm sure
>we will see much more research along these lines, as the machines are
>becoming widely available.  Taking that earlier study I mentioned and
>repeating it under an MRI machine would be an interesting test.
>
>Keith goes on:
> > Now to raise this to a meta level, why do people get stuck on preconceived
> > expectations?
>
>That's a much harder problem.  Just to take illustrate the difficulty,
>I think the first thing you need to decide in looking for an explanation
>is whether this behavior is a good idea or not.  The class of explanations
>you will explore will depend fundamentally on whether you see this as a
>reasonable heuristic for a rational observer with potentially stringent
>bounds on his available computational capacity; or whether you see it
>as irrational behavior in terms of getting at the truth, but justified
>in terms of other benefits, such as social advantages.
>
>I couldn't even answer this basic question, whether this behavior makes
>sense in terms of getting at the truth of things.  I can see arguments
>either way on that one.  So I won't even stick a toe in the water of
>possible explanations.

In the last year or two I have been subjected to a dawning horror that 
genes have not only built mechanisms into humans to allow them to think 
rationally, but mechanisms to shut off rational thinking when doing so is 
in the interest of the gene.

I have gone into some detail about that in both recent postings and that 
paper of mine that is still looking to be published.

On reconsideration though I should not have been surprised when you 
consider how common irrational behavior is.

I about half way suspect that non-rational behaviors may all have roots in 
the same evolved brain mechanism.  By way of analogy, humans have a 
capture-bonding mechanisms because of heavy selection.  (If you didn't bond 
when captured, you usually died--while those who did bond to captors often 
became ancestors, *our* ancestors.)

Once you understand humans have the capture-bonding mechanism lurking in 
their bag of psychological traits (and that it is isn't *that* hard to 
activate) all kinds of things can be understood.  For example, basic 
training, "a mildly traumatic experience intended to produce a bond," 
hazing, battered wife syndrome, and the "reward mechanisms" that lie behind 
kinky sex practices such as S&M and B&D and probably others.

I think I can account for non-rational thinking/behavior for humans in "war 
mode."  You must use invoke Hamilton's inclusive fitness to understand that 
at times the "interest" of a person's genes diverge from *his* 
interest.  I.e., genes should build mechanisms into brains where a person 
will sacrifice themselves if doing so will save more gene copies than are 
lost by the person making the sacrifice.

(More long winded version, genes to take insane risks to save groups of 
relatives will become more common over time than ones to save one's own 
skin in an environment where such choices as above happened "frequently".)

I think a darn good case can be made that humans who go into "war mode" are 
in a non-rational state.

Now, like capture-bonding, "war mode" may be easy to trigger at a 
"sub-clinical" level, particularly for politics (war by other means) and 
religions (seed xenophobic memes--useful to take a tribe into full blown 
war against the next tribe over when hard times are a-coming).

How this feeds into defense mechanisms for beliefs (such as in low fat 
diets) may take fMRI.

And I willingly state that the underlying psychological mechanisms could be 
unrelated.

Comments would be appreciated.

Keith Henson



From rhanson at gmu.edu  Wed Feb 22 22:51:06 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:51:06 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
References: <ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060222063940.023a1bc8@gmu.edu>

At 11:11 PM 2/21/2006, Keith Henson wrote:
> >quick to use the flaws to dismiss studies whose conclusions they 
> don't like,
> >and they hardly notice the flaws of the studies whole conclusions 
> they do like.
>
>... Now to raise this to a meta level, why do people get stuck on 
>preconceived
>expectations?
>
>Ground rules are: your explanation for this psychological trait has to have
>its origin in the stone age among hunter gather tribes *and* it has to have
>contributed to our ancestor's "reproductive success."    You may need to
>invoke Hamilton's inclusive fitness in your model to account for this trait.
>
>I don't have more than a foggy idea of how to account for why people get
>stuck on preconceived expectations, but this is the formula for attacking
>the question.
>
>Any ideas?

Well I suggest starting with http://hanson.gmu.edu/belieflikeclothes.html
If we understand why people get attached to clothing or music styles, we
can understand why they get attached to abstract beliefs.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Wed Feb 22 23:24:42 2006
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:24:42 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Idea
References: <200602211737.k1LHbXEj003457@andromeda.ziaspace.com><01a001c6376e$f728bc10$0200a8c0@Nano>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20060222101539.04524348@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <005c01c63807$2b901ff0$0200a8c0@Nano>

Natasha, I posted a special response to you but because it had images attached I received a notification that it may or may not be approved to the list due to size, so just in case it does not get approved I put it up here for you: 
http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2006/02/happy-birthday-natasha.html

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html
Other blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/
Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/
Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm
Microscope Jewelry
http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Natasha Vita-More 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:17 AM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Idea


  At 11:11 PM 2/21/2006, Gina wrote:


    Okay so my birthday is on Thursday, just a suggestion, you guys could hold a secret meeting that I am not aware of : ) and all pitch in to get me an AFM - just an idea. By the way I have a present for you: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/avatars.htm


  Okay Gina - here is your Birthday Gift. But my birthday is today and I'd like a ski trip to Aspen or Telluride. :-)

  http://www.spmlab.science.ru.nl/jang/afm.jpg
   


  NVM





    Natasha Vita-More 
    Cultural Strategist - Designer 
    Future Studies, University of Houston 
    President, Extropy Institute 
    Member, Association of Professional Futurists 
    Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture 
    Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association 
    Senior Associate, Foresight Institute 
    Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation


    If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. 
    Buckminster Fuller





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


  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060222/207eea28/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 584295d.jpg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 7934 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060222/207eea28/attachment.obj>

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Wed Feb 22 23:47:06 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:47:06 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060221184514.0236fa88@gmu.edu>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602221547pf59ad21m641e5798fbfeb41c@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/22/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> I don't have more than a foggy idea of how to account for why people get
> stuck on preconceived expectations, but this is the formula for attacking
> the question.
>

It is indeed.

Consider that in the environment in which we evolved (and to a lesser extent
today), belief has both material and social functions.

If you believe the red mushrooms are good to eat and the blue ones are
poisonous, that had better correspond to a state of affairs in the physical
world or you'll end up poisoned or malnourished.

On the other hand, if tribe A believes in the tree god and tribe B believes
in the rain god, it _doesn't matter_ that neither of those gods exists in
the physical world. What matters is that you'd better believe in the one
your tribe believes in, or your impiety might trigger a "not one of us"
recognizer circuit in the brains of your mates, who might then stick spears
into you.

So we should expect to observe that people have the ability and inclination
to hold elaborate belief systems in their heads while keeping them insulated
from material facts, as long as they (rightly or wrongly) perceive those
belief systems as having social/political significance, as identifying them
as a member of a group.

Never mind low fat diets, millions of people believe in psychic powers,
crystal healing, feng shui and so forth. Why? It certainly isn't ignorance
or stupidity, however much we may reach for those words in exasperation; our
civilization is awash with explanations of why this stuff is bunk, phrased
in terms any 10 year old with a near-normal IQ can easily understand.

Part of it's for obvious reasons like wishful thinking, but a great deal of
it is, in my opinion, because people perceive the cold/rational/scientific
social group and the warm/fuzzy/spiritual one, and given that they're not
interested in being scientists, they choose the second group; and they
perceive that the membership badge is belief in the usual catalog of bunk.

Here's the test: When people get pneumonia or appendicitis or whatever, do
they rely on their healing crystals? No, they go to a doctor. Oh, they use
crystals _as well as_ real medicine, and vocally credit the former with
curing them - but they don't _physically behave_ as though they believed
that. They keep their social and material beliefs separate.

Sure, like any complex evolved mechanism, the separation sometimes fails.
You read about the dozen Darwin awards earned for getting confused and
treating healing crystals as physical rather than social reality. But you
don't read about the dozen million people who took penicillin and were
quietly saved to talk to their friends about how their crystals cured them -
and this is exactly what we should expect.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060222/038a290f/attachment.html>

From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Thu Feb 23 00:09:56 2006
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:09:56 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Idea
Message-ID: <380-2200624230956218@M2W110.mail2web.com>

haha!  What fun!

Thanks --

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Gina Miller nanogirl at halcyon.com
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:24:42 -0800
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Idea


Natasha, I posted a special response to you but because it had images
attached I received a notification that it may or may not be approved to
the list due to size, so just in case it does not get approved I put it up
here for you: 
http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2006/02/happy-birthday-natasha.html

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html
Other blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/
Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/
Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm
Microscope Jewelry
http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Natasha Vita-More 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:17 AM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Idea


  At 11:11 PM 2/21/2006, Gina wrote:


    Okay so my birthday is on Thursday, just a suggestion, you guys could
hold a secret meeting that I am not aware of : ) and all pitch in to get me
an AFM - just an idea. By the way I have a present for you:
http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/avatars.htm


  Okay Gina - here is your Birthday Gift. But my birthday is today and I'd
like a ski trip to Aspen or Telluride. :-)

  http://www.spmlab.science.ru.nl/jang/afm.jpg
   


  NVM





    Natasha Vita-More 
    Cultural Strategist - Designer 
    Future Studies, University of Houston 
    President, Extropy Institute 
    Member, Association of Professional Futurists 
    Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture 
    Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association 
    Senior Associate, Foresight Institute 
    Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation


    If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the
circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is
inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open
system perspective. 
    Buckminster Fuller





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


  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


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





From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Thu Feb 23 00:23:32 2006
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:23:32 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Idea
References: <380-2200624230956218@M2W110.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <00cb01c6380f$d6a28d80$0200a8c0@Nano>

It truly was my pleasure : ) Going to play with my AFM now.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com 
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 4:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Idea


  haha!  What fun!

  Thanks --

  Original Message:
  -----------------
  From: Gina Miller nanogirl at halcyon.com
  Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:24:42 -0800
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Idea


  Natasha, I posted a special response to you but because it had images
  attached I received a notification that it may or may not be approved to
  the list due to size, so just in case it does not get approved I put it up
  here for you: 
  http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2006/02/happy-birthday-natasha.html

  Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
  Nanotechnology Industries
  http://www.nanoindustries.com
  Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html
  Other blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/
  Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/
  Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org
  Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
  3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm
  Microscope Jewelry
  http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm
  Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
  "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Natasha Vita-More 
    To: ExI chat list 
    Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:17 AM
    Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Idea


    At 11:11 PM 2/21/2006, Gina wrote:


      Okay so my birthday is on Thursday, just a suggestion, you guys could
  hold a secret meeting that I am not aware of : ) and all pitch in to get me
  an AFM - just an idea. By the way I have a present for you:
  http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/avatars.htm


    Okay Gina - here is your Birthday Gift. But my birthday is today and I'd
  like a ski trip to Aspen or Telluride. :-)

    http://www.spmlab.science.ru.nl/jang/afm.jpg
     


    NVM





      Natasha Vita-More 
      Cultural Strategist - Designer 
      Future Studies, University of Houston 
      President, Extropy Institute 
      Member, Association of Professional Futurists 
      Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture 
      Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association 
      Senior Associate, Foresight Institute 
      Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation


      If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the
  circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is
  inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open
  system perspective. 
      Buckminster Fuller





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


    _______________________________________________
    extropy-chat mailing list
    extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
    http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


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



  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060222/b19cdd40/attachment.html>

From rhanson at gmu.edu  Thu Feb 23 00:40:17 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:40:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602221547pf59ad21m641e5798fbfeb41c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060221184514.0236fa88@gmu.edu>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<8d71341e0602221547pf59ad21m641e5798fbfeb41c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>

At 06:47 PM 2/22/2006, Russell Wallace wrote:
>Consider that in the environment in which we evolved (and to a 
>lesser extent today), belief has both material and social functions.
>If you believe the red mushrooms are good to eat and the blue ones 
>are poisonous, that had better correspond to a state of affairs in 
>the physical world or you'll end up poisoned or malnourished.
>On the other hand, if tribe A believes in the tree god and tribe B 
>believes in the rain god, it _doesn't matter_ that neither of those 
>gods exists in the physical world. What matters is that you'd better 
>believe in the one your tribe believes in, or your impiety might 
>trigger a "not one of us" recognizer circuit in the brains of your 
>mates, who might then stick spears into you. ...
>Here's the test: When people get pneumonia or appendicitis or 
>whatever, do they rely on their healing crystals? No, they go to a 
>doctor. Oh, they use crystals _as well as_ real medicine, and 
>vocally credit the former with curing them - but they don't 
>_physically behave_ as though they believed that. They keep their 
>social and material beliefs separate.
>Sure, like any complex evolved mechanism, the separation sometimes 
>fails. You read about the dozen Darwin awards earned for getting 
>confused and treating healing crystals as physical rather than 
>social reality. But you don't read about the dozen million people 
>who took penicillin and were quietly saved to talk to their friends 
>about how their crystals cured them - and this is exactly what we 
>should expect.

I agree with your general concept, but your specific example actually 
turns out to be a bit off.   As a matter of fact, medicine is one of 
those topics on which people are pretty far from 
rational.   Apparently, the social functions of medical beliefs 
dominated the material functions among our ancestors.   See: 
http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf




Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Feb 23 03:31:35 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:31:35 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060221184514.0236fa88@gmu.edu>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<8d71341e0602221547pf59ad21m641e5798fbfeb41c@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602221931w3c45ae5bp64c1632ddfc999a7@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/23/06, Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
>
> I agree with your general concept, but your specific example actually
> turns out to be a bit off.   As a matter of fact, medicine is one of
> those topics on which people are pretty far from
> rational.   Apparently, the social functions of medical beliefs
> dominated the material functions among our ancestors.   See:
> http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf
>

Good article! Much of it sounds right, particularly the parts about underuse
of hard data and the uselessness of marginal increases in medical care.

The blanket conclusion about the uselessness of all medical care, including
things like closed sewers, pest eradication, disinfectants, vaccines and
antibiotics... I'm afraid my reaction to that is the same as it would be if
the article claimed that the improvement in lifespan was due to psychic
waves from Zeta Reticuli: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Pestilence is one of the Four Horsemen for good reason: infectious disease
used to be the main cause of death. We stopped it, with the above methods.
Lifespan shot up as a result. There's no mystery there.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060223/732dd51a/attachment.html>

From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Thu Feb 23 04:31:18 2006
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:31:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 'a process of non-thinking called faith'
Message-ID: <20060223043118.58392.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Pilot Pirx wrote: 
> Singularitarian goals also require faith, IMO. It's two sides of the 
> same coin - the human coin. 

  >>Eliezer S. Yudkowsky replied:
  >>That's the great thing about a free society; everyone is entitled to 
>>their own opinion, no matter how wrong. 
   
  Well then:
  Eliezer I believe you can give me a scientific explanation of faith?
If you're saying Pilot Pirx is wrong then don't you need proof or a relevant
  answer?
  Just curious
  Anna
  
PS. Spike is that ok to ask?
   
   
   
  
 
   

		
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060222/2e39daf7/attachment.html>

From rhanson at gmu.edu  Thu Feb 23 15:36:11 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:36:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602221931w3c45ae5bp64c1632ddfc999a7@mail.gmail.co m>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060221184514.0236fa88@gmu.edu>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<8d71341e0602221547pf59ad21m641e5798fbfeb41c@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602221931w3c45ae5bp64c1632ddfc999a7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>

At 10:31 PM 2/22/2006, Russell Wallace wrote:
>As a matter of fact, medicine is one of those topics on which people are
>pretty far from rational.   Apparently, the social functions of 
>medical beliefs
>dominated the material functions among our ancestors.   See:
><http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf>http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf
>
>Good article! Much of it sounds right, particularly the parts about 
>underuse of hard data and the uselessness of marginal increases in 
>medical care.
>The blanket conclusion about the uselessness of all medical care, 
>including things like closed sewers, pest eradication, 
>disinfectants, vaccines and antibiotics... I'm afraid my reaction to 
>that is the same as it would be if the article claimed that the 
>improvement in lifespan was due to psychic waves from Zeta Reticuli: 
>extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Pestilence is one 
>of the Four Horsemen for good reason: infectious disease used to be 
>the main cause of death. We stopped it, with the above methods. 
>Lifespan shot up as a result. There's no mystery there.

The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" heuristic is 
reasonable when "extraordinary claims" are taken to be those with a 
mountain of evidence supporting them.   If, however, any claim that 
goes contrary to your expectations counts as an "extraordinary 
claim", this becomes a recipe for just always preserving your expectations.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Feb 23 15:48:46 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:48:46 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060221184514.0236fa88@gmu.edu>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<8d71341e0602221547pf59ad21m641e5798fbfeb41c@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602221931w3c45ae5bp64c1632ddfc999a7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/23/06, Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
>
> The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" heuristic is
> reasonable when "extraordinary claims" are taken to be those with a
> mountain of evidence supporting them.   If, however, any claim that
> goes contrary to your expectations counts as an "extraordinary
> claim", this becomes a recipe for just always preserving your
> expectations.
>

Oh, absolutely. In this case there is mountains of evidence supporting the
idea that disease - specifically, infectious diseases of the sort that have
now been mostly eradicated in the developed world - used to be the primary
cause of death; the requirement for extraordinary proof is for a claim that
is inconsistent with this evidence, not merely for one that goes contrary to
my expectations.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060223/f716c2a2/attachment.html>

From rhanson at gmu.edu  Thu Feb 23 16:04:30 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:04:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.co m>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060221184514.0236fa88@gmu.edu>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<8d71341e0602221547pf59ad21m641e5798fbfeb41c@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602221931w3c45ae5bp64c1632ddfc999a7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu>

At 10:48 AM 2/23/2006, you wrote:
>On 2/23/06, Robin Hanson <<mailto:rhanson at gmu.edu>rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
>The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" heuristic is
>reasonable when "extraordinary claims" are taken to be those with a
>mountain of evidence supporting them.   If, however, any claim that
>goes contrary to your expectations counts as an "extraordinary
>claim", this becomes a recipe for just always preserving your expectations.
>
>Oh, absolutely. In this case there is mountains of evidence 
>supporting the idea that disease - specifically, infectious diseases 
>of the sort that have now been mostly eradicated in the developed 
>world - used to be the primary cause of death; the requirement for 
>extraordinary proof is for a claim that is inconsistent with this 
>evidence, not merely for one that goes contrary to my expectations.

Oh, sure, it is very clear we live longer, and that the proximate 
cause is that diseases that used to kill us no longer do.   But ask 
yourself where the mountain of evidence is that this fact is best 
explained by the facts that we now have better drugs, doctors, 
sewers, and water supplies.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Feb 23 16:19:02 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:19:02 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060221184514.0236fa88@gmu.edu>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<8d71341e0602221547pf59ad21m641e5798fbfeb41c@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602221931w3c45ae5bp64c1632ddfc999a7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/23/06, Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
>
> Oh, sure, it is very clear we live longer, and that the proximate
> cause is that diseases that used to kill us no longer do.   But ask
> yourself where the mountain of evidence is that this fact is best
> explained by the facts that we now have better drugs, doctors,
> sewers, and water supplies.
>

Let's take the most obvious case: diseases like smallpox, polio, measles and
whooping cough that were largely or entirely eradicated by the use of
vaccines. Are you seriously suggesting that it might have been just a
coincidence, that some mysterious alternative force made the diseases go
away just when the vaccines would have eradicated them?

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060223/9c9dd6b8/attachment.html>

From rhanson at gmu.edu  Thu Feb 23 16:53:57 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:53:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.co m>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060221184514.0236fa88@gmu.edu>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<8d71341e0602221547pf59ad21m641e5798fbfeb41c@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602221931w3c45ae5bp64c1632ddfc999a7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu>

At 11:19 AM 2/23/2006, Russell Wallace wrote:
>On 2/23/06, Robin Hanson <<mailto:rhanson at gmu.edu>rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
>Oh, sure, it is very clear we live longer, and that the proximate
>cause is that diseases that used to kill us no longer do.   But ask
>yourself where the mountain of evidence is that this fact is best
>explained by the facts that we now have better drugs, doctors,
>sewers, and water supplies.
>
>Let's take the most obvious case: diseases like smallpox, polio, 
>measles and whooping cough that were largely or entirely eradicated 
>by the use of vaccines. Are you seriously suggesting that it might 
>have been just a coincidence, that some mysterious alternative force 
>made the diseases go away just when the vaccines would have eradicated them?

"The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of 
Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century", by John and 
Sonja McKinlay, Milbank Quarterly, 55:405-428, 1977.

It shows graphs of the mortality rates as a function of time.  There 
isn't much apparent effect at the time when famous vaccines were introduced.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Feb 23 17:01:57 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:01:57 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<8d71341e0602221547pf59ad21m641e5798fbfeb41c@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602221931w3c45ae5bp64c1632ddfc999a7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602230901v565e48d3race5ba207b0ce3c8@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/23/06, Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
>
> It shows graphs of the mortality rates as a function of time.  There
> isn't much apparent effect at the time when famous vaccines were
> introduced.
>

Like nearly every other kind of graph of large trends over time, I would
expect individual events to be blurred out so the graph as a whole looks
fairly smooth.

But you didn't answer my question. What do you think stopped people dying of
those diseases, if it wasn't the vaccines?

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060223/2d2c77c1/attachment.html>

From rhanson at gmu.edu  Thu Feb 23 17:14:33 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:14:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602230901v565e48d3race5ba207b0ce3c8@mail.gmail.co m>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<8d71341e0602221547pf59ad21m641e5798fbfeb41c@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602221931w3c45ae5bp64c1632ddfc999a7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230901v565e48d3race5ba207b0ce3c8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060223121151.024851f0@gmu.edu>

At 12:01 PM 2/23/2006, you wrote:
>It shows graphs of the mortality rates as a function of time.  There
>isn't much apparent effect at the time when famous vaccines were introduced.
>
>But you didn't answer my question. What do you think stopped people 
>dying of those diseases, if it wasn't the vaccines?

There are lots of logical possibilities, and my state of belief is 
that I am very uncertain about which one it might be.   You said 
before that you couldn't believe the evidence I pointed you to, 
because you had a mountain of contrary evidence, but at this point it 
looks like you just have a presumption and lack of imagination.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Feb 23 17:31:28 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:31:28 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060223121151.024851f0@gmu.edu>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602221931w3c45ae5bp64c1632ddfc999a7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230901v565e48d3race5ba207b0ce3c8@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223121151.024851f0@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602230931w420b88cbh36cf8ff18108c0da@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/23/06, Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
>
> At 12:01 PM 2/23/2006, you wrote:
> >It shows graphs of the mortality rates as a function of time.  There
> >isn't much apparent effect at the time when famous vaccines were
> introduced.
> >
> >But you didn't answer my question. What do you think stopped people
> >dying of those diseases, if it wasn't the vaccines?
>
> There are lots of logical possibilities, and my state of belief is
> that I am very uncertain about which one it might be.   You said
> before that you couldn't believe the evidence I pointed you to,
> because you had a mountain of contrary evidence, but at this point it
> looks like you just have a presumption and lack of imagination.
>

The paper you pointed me to showed some weak evidence that the last third of
health care spending is useless. Not strong enough to be taken seriously, in
fact, except that health care spending is a strongly 90/10 affair (the cost
of medicine is usually in strong _inverse_ proportion to its effectiveness),
so the claim is a priori plausible.

For the claim that the entire enterprise of health, hygiene and sanitation
for the last couple of centuries has been useless, it provided not even weak
evidence, merely some vague handwaving. Handwaving for a claim whose truth
would require existential conspiracy well beyond "the moon landings were a
hoax" and approaching "God created the world in 4004 BC complete with fake
fossils" territory.

No, I can't mathematically prove the last 200 years of history aren't a
fake, or that longer lifespans aren't really the result of psychic
emanations from Zeta Reticuli carefully timed to correspond to distribution
of vaccines, antibiotics etc (presumably all the labs that demonstrated
these things working in controlled experiments would have to be particularly
carefully controlled, or else all in on the conspiracy). Yes, like all
skeptics I'm unsurprised to be accused of presumption and lack of
imagination - though most people who do that at least have a proposal of
their own to put forward, even one that involves a word salad of "energy"
and "vibrations". But at the end of the day rationality requires having a
mind that is open... but not so open that everything falls out.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060223/0b8ebe6f/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Thu Feb 23 17:41:28 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:41:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Learn more by not eating...
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602230941s58ada237m8c7775d3390fd1d0@mail.gmail.com>

As reported by Eurekalert [1] from the Feb. 19 2006 issue of Nature
Neuroscience, one may learn better on an empty stomach.  This is because in
that state the stomach produces more ghrelin which then enters the
hippocampus and may contribute to learning and memory.  This makes sense if
one thinks about it from an evolutionary standpoint.  If you are hungry you
had better pay attention to what you are doing so you can remember how you
solved that "problem" so you can do it again in the future.  Doesn't make as
much sense to remember activities when you are sitting around with a full
stomach doing relatively "nothing" from a survival enhancement perspective.

Robert

1. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/yu-lam022206.php
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060223/d0d1d65e/attachment.html>

From rhanson at gmu.edu  Thu Feb 23 17:58:56 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:58:56 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602230931w420b88cbh36cf8ff18108c0da@mail.gmail.co m>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602221931w3c45ae5bp64c1632ddfc999a7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230901v565e48d3race5ba207b0ce3c8@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223121151.024851f0@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230931w420b88cbh36cf8ff18108c0da@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060223125305.023de218@gmu.edu>

At 12:31 PM 2/23/2006, Russell Wallace wrote:
> >>It shows graphs of the mortality rates as a function of time.  There
> >>isn't much apparent effect at the time when famous vaccines were 
> introduced.
> >But you didn't answer my question. What do you think stopped people
> >dying of those diseases, if it wasn't the vaccines?
>
>There are lots of logical possibilities, and my state of belief is
>that I am very uncertain about which one it might be.   You said
>before that you couldn't believe the evidence I pointed you to,
>because you had a mountain of contrary evidence, but at this point it
>looks like you just have a presumption and lack of imagination.
>
>The paper you pointed me to showed some weak evidence that the last 
>third of health care spending is useless. Not strong enough to be 
>taken seriously, in fact, except that health care spending is a 
>strongly 90/10 affair (the cost of medicine is usually in strong 
>_inverse_ proportion to its effectiveness), so the claim is a priori plausible.
>For the claim that the entire enterprise of health, hygiene and 
>sanitation for the last couple of centuries has been useless, it 
>provided not even weak evidence, merely some vague handwaving. 
>Handwaving for a claim whose truth would require existential 
>conspiracy well beyond "the moon landings were a hoax" and 
>approaching "God created the world in 4004 BC complete with fake 
>fossils" territory.
>No, I can't mathematically prove the last 200 years of history 
>aren't a fake, or that longer lifespans aren't really the result of 
>psychic emanations from Zeta Reticuli carefully timed to correspond 
>to distribution of vaccines, antibiotics etc ...

My paper cited a bunch of papers, not just one.   I have taught 
health economics for seven years now, and my course syllabus (on the 
web) gives more cites.   And I have studied even more papers over the 
years. Since you say there is a mountain of evidence on the other 
side, how about you cite something you consider to be strong evidence?




Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Feb 23 19:10:26 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:10:26 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] 'a process of non-thinking called faith'
In-Reply-To: <20060223043118.58392.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060223140856.021501c0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 11:31 PM 2/22/2006 -0500, Anna wrote:

snip

>Well then:
>Eliezer I believe you can give me a scientific explanation of faith?

If Eliezer does not respond in a few days, ask me.

Keith 



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Feb 23 19:30:58 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:30:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu>
References: <8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.co m>
	<20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<ee50357e0602210247q7870db66gf13258b7ba75eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060221184514.0236fa88@gmu.edu>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<8d71341e0602221547pf59ad21m641e5798fbfeb41c@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602221931w3c45ae5bp64c1632ddfc999a7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060223141549.02e99e78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 11:53 AM 2/23/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>At 11:19 AM 2/23/2006, Russell Wallace wrote:

snip

> >Are you seriously suggesting that it might
> >have been just a coincidence, that some mysterious alternative force
> >made the diseases go away just when the vaccines would have eradicated them?
>
>"The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of
>Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century", by John and
>Sonja McKinlay, Milbank Quarterly, 55:405-428, 1977.
>
>It shows graphs of the mortality rates as a function of time.  There
>isn't much apparent effect at the time when famous vaccines were introduced.

It is fairly easy to see why such effects would be hard to see.  When 
introduced the population consisted of mostly those who had been infected 
with the diseases the vaccines protected against and were mostly immune as 
a result.

The effect of vaccination would be most apparent in the children who slowly 
take their place in the population.

Introducing a vaccine for a disease which outright killed 5% of those under 
(say) 5 (1%/year) would show an impressive drop in the absolute numbers who 
died from this cause, but it would hardly show up in statistics for the 
whole population.   If the under 5 population is 10% the whole population 
would show only a tenth of a percent mortality drop from a 100% effective 
vaccine.

I am not addressing the meat of this subject, only the math.

Keith



From rhanson at gmu.edu  Thu Feb 23 23:16:30 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:16:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060223181440.02315048@gmu.edu>

(This article is about my latest physics paper.)

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8766.html


Is our universe about to be mangled?

17:43 23 February 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Maggie McKee

Our universe may one day be obliterated or 
assimilated by a larger universe, according to a 
controversial new analysis. The work suggests the 
parallel universes proposed by some quantum 
theorists may not actually be parallel but could 
interact ? and with disastrous consequences. ...



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Feb 24 00:16:08 2006
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:16:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Inadvertant insult
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060221213029.02cf6ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <20060224001608.34018.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> Another list had the same problem about a year ago, as a
> matter of
> fact 
> with one of the same people. The list administrator generated a
> completely 
> automated system that kept the clutter out of mailboxes. It
> lets
> people 
> rate postings on a connected web site. Those who got some magic
> number of 
> low ratings on their postings were snipped out of the mailings
> (though they 
> were webbed).

...sounds quite like a suggestion I made, a few hours before you
posted this.  ;)

BTW, the snipped poster should be automatically told that their
posting was snipped.  Otherwise, the poster may think the post
is being ignored by the other members when it is merely unread,
or one might generate false belief that the list is not
functioning.

> The problem (now that I consider it as an engineering problem)
> is
> lack of 
> feedback.  If list readers could be induced to click a link
> that a
> post was 
> below minimum or well above average,

Agreed.  Thus the second part of my suggestion: monthly or
quarterly reminder emails to the list members, reminding them of
this feature.  People might be motivated to give feedback by a
surge of bad or good (but more likely on the bad) posts - but if
they've no idea of how to give that feedback, without posting to
the list (and thus generating even more noise, from a certain
point of view), the motivation is squandered.


From hal at finney.org  Fri Feb 24 02:33:05 2006
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:33:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
Message-ID: <20060224023305.D52A157FAF@finney.org>

Robin writes:
> (This article is about my latest physics paper.)
> http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8766.html
>
> Is our universe about to be mangled?
> 17:43 23 February 2006
> NewScientist.com news service
> Maggie McKee

Congratulations on getting this publicity!  It is great to see.  I like
the way they describe you, "an economist who also studies physics."
It's amusing to see how they react to someone who does not fit into the
boundaries so well.

The mangled worlds idea is interesting but it's also kind of scary.
As I understand it, we get all of these worlds in the many-worlds
interpretation, but most of them have measure (ie amplitude) of
essentially zero.  We only experience the ones that have relatively high
measure, and this fact doesn't really have a good explanation in the MWI
(nor in conventional QM interpretations, but they don't aim so high).

The mangled worlds papers point out that when worlds split, it is not
completely clean.  There is still a tiny interference term.  Normally
that is so small that it is ignored.  But Robin observed that when we
are looking at worlds with very low amplitudes, the interference term
is actually relatively large, compared to those worlds.  This implies
that the physics of those low-amplitude worlds would be bizarre.
There could be macroscopic effects from other worlds.  Maybe quantum
phenomena would be visible at the macroscopic level.  Objects might
be in two places at once.  The laws of physics might appear to fail.
(These are my guesses about what could go wrong.)

Robin calls these "mangled worlds".  The assumption is that they are
uninhabitable due to this bizarre physics.  It follows then from the
anthropic principle that we can only experience non-mangled worlds, which
are (roughly) the ones where QM probabilities work out correctly, hence
we have an explanation for why we don't experience low-measure worlds.

The scary part is the possibility that the mangled worlds actually allow
a moment of existence before everyone in them is killed.  These mangled
worlds are forking off from the "main" branches at every instant.  By some
arguments, they are enormously more numerous than the main-branch worlds.
If so, it's very likely that our next instant of experience will be death
in a mangled world.  One would hope that these deaths are instantaneous.
But it's also possible that they are not, that there is a brief moment
of terror and pain as the universe shatters into insanity and people
are killed as the laws of physics themselves seem to go crazy.

Meanwhile the main branches carry on, oblivious.  The mangled worlds
would be like sparks thrown off from the main branches, brief but
far more numerous than the main branch worlds themselves.  The most
common experience for each individual, no matter how long he has lived,
would be sudden, violent death, repeated at every instant of his life,
an almost infinite number of times.

As I consider this possibility, I can almost see it, the universe breaking
into chaos around me.  Perhaps each time, the chaos emerges from a single
point where the quantum rules failed, bubbling out in some kind of violent
energy that I see sweeping towards me and then killing me.  It's possible
that this is real!  That this is the reality of the universe, a tiny
stream of normal physics surrounded by chaos and destruction.  If so then
my experiences, and those of everyone else, might be very much as I have
described.  A moment of shock and horror and then death, over and over.
It's a very frightening possibility.  God would have much to answer for
if he set up the universe like this on purpose.

Actually, I gather that it is not possible at this point to say much about
what life is like in the mangled worlds.  Is consciousness possible for
a period of time?  And what about locality?  How could a failed quantum
measurement elsewhere in the universe cause death to everyone else?
Perhaps with more study we will eventually be able to answer these
questions.

Hopefully it will turn out that the horror I have described is not real.
But it's also possible that things will turn out to work this way.  If so,
it might almost be worse to know about it, to constantly be living under
the knowledge that the most likely next instant of consciousness will be
the observation of a failure of physics that means death is at hand.
Instead of a moment of confusion, we would experience the terror
of knowing that the death we have feared our whole lives has finally
arrived.  And this will be the overwhelmingly most common experience of
our existence.

Hal


From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Fri Feb 24 02:22:45 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:22:45 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] New find re-writes the history of mammals
References: <20060224001608.34018.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <044f01c638e9$3318b330$640fa8c0@kevin>

Jurassic "Beaver" Found; Rewrites History of Mammals
Nicholas Bakalar
for National Geographic News

February 23, 2006
It looks a lot like a beaver-hairy body, flat tail, limbs and webbed feet
adapted for swimming-but it lived 164 million years ago.

A well-preserved fossil mammal discovered in northeastern China (map) has
pushed the history of aquatic mammals back a hundred million years, a new
study says.


It is the oldest swimming mammal ever found and the oldest known animal
preserved with fur, the researchers say in their report, which will be
published in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.
"The origin of fur predates the origin of modern mammals," said study
co-author Zhe-Xi Luo, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie
Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0223_060223_beaver.html

Of course, now we have to wait for the next movie "Jurassic Park 4: Jurassic
Beaver"




From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Feb 24 10:57:05 2006
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:57:05 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060223121151.024851f0@gmu.edu>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<8d71341e0602221547pf59ad21m641e5798fbfeb41c@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602221931w3c45ae5bp64c1632ddfc999a7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230901v565e48d3race5ba207b0ce3c8@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223121151.024851f0@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <CB110AC5-ECAE-4D67-B692-14BDC14A634A@mac.com>


On Feb 23, 2006, at 9:14 AM, Robin Hanson wrote:

> At 12:01 PM 2/23/2006, you wrote:
>> It shows graphs of the mortality rates as a function of time.  There
>> isn't much apparent effect at the time when famous vaccines were  
>> introduced.
>>
>> But you didn't answer my question. What do you think stopped people
>> dying of those diseases, if it wasn't the vaccines?
>
> There are lots of logical possibilities, and my state of belief is
> that I am very uncertain about which one it might be.

Which is most consistent with the sum of our scientific knowledge  
about the the causes of various diseases?  That should be a useful  
criteria for sorting among hypotheses.  It is standard practice to  
choose those hypothesis most consistent with things we already have  
pretty good certainty on.  Would you proceed using some other  
metric?  If not then please show why alternative explanations are  
preferable starting from what or incorporating and perhaps more  
fruitfully explaining the phenomenon in question.

> You said
> before that you couldn't believe the evidence I pointed you to,
> because you had a mountain of contrary evidence, but at this point it
> looks like you just have a presumption and lack of imagination.

But imagination without reference to the sum of what we know would  
get us nowhere.

- samantha


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri Feb 24 12:33:25 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 07:33:25 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <20060224023305.D52A157FAF@finney.org>
References: <20060224023305.D52A157FAF@finney.org>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060224072050.02315048@gmu.edu>

At 09:33 PM 2/23/2006, Hal Finney wrote:
> > http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8766.html
>... The scary part is the possibility that the mangled worlds actually allow
>a moment of existence before everyone in them is killed.  These mangled
>worlds are forking off from the "main" branches at every instant.  By some
>arguments, they are enormously more numerous than the main-branch worlds.
>If so, it's very likely that our next instant of experience will be death
>in a mangled world.  One would hope that these deaths are instantaneous.
>But it's also possible that they are not, ...
>Meanwhile the main branches carry on, oblivious.  The mangled worlds
>would be like sparks thrown off from the main branches, brief but
>far more numerous than the main branch worlds themselves.  The most
>common experience for each individual, no matter how long he has lived,
>would be sudden, violent death, repeated at every instant of his life,
>an almost infinite number of times.

I'm not sure you have the details right, though I don't think you 
will find the right details
much more comforting.   Mangled worlds are not small because they are mangled,
they become mangled as they become too small.   At each split, some 
children are
larger than others, but the only thing that makes a world mangled is 
falling below
a certain crucial size threshold.   Most worlds are near that border, 
so most children
cross that border.   But yes, the moment of mangling may be the most common
human experience, though fortunately an experience almost never remembered.


Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri Feb 24 12:37:13 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 07:37:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <CB110AC5-ECAE-4D67-B692-14BDC14A634A@mac.com>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<8d71341e0602221547pf59ad21m641e5798fbfeb41c@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602221931w3c45ae5bp64c1632ddfc999a7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230901v565e48d3race5ba207b0ce3c8@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223121151.024851f0@gmu.edu>
	<CB110AC5-ECAE-4D67-B692-14BDC14A634A@mac.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060224073329.023de218@gmu.edu>

At 05:57 AM 2/24/2006, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >> But you didn't answer my question. What do you think stopped people
> >> dying of those diseases, if it wasn't the vaccines?
> >
> > There are lots of logical possibilities, and my state of belief is
> > that I am very uncertain about which one it might be.
>
>Which is most consistent with the sum of our scientific knowledge
>about the the causes of various diseases?  That should be a useful
>criteria for sorting among hypotheses.  It is standard practice to
>choose those hypothesis most consistent with things we already have
>pretty good certainty on.  Would you proceed using some other
>metric?  If not then please show why alternative explanations are
>preferable starting from what or incorporating and perhaps more
>fruitfully explaining the phenomenon in question.

Here is one explanation that has a plausible mechanism and isn't clearly
contradicted by the data.   Mammals invoke the stress response in situations
they consider stressful, which helps the devote energy to their muscles
at the expense of other systems such as the immune system.   This reduces
long term health.   As humans become richer they interpret fewer events as
being stressful and invoke the stress response less often, and so are 
healthier.
There is a multiplier effect for contagious diseases, so that healthier people
living near each other benefit each other.   So a theory is that our increasing
health is caused by our feeling less stress as we have gotten richer.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Fri Feb 24 14:05:45 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:05:45 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060224072050.02315048@gmu.edu>
References: <20060224023305.D52A157FAF@finney.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224072050.02315048@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602240605s6207bd5fqbb5aa18fe8e00c46@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/24/06, Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
>
> At 09:33 PM 2/23/2006, Hal Finney wrote:
> > > http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8766.html
> >... The scary part is the possibility that the mangled worlds actually
> allow
> >a moment of existence before everyone in them is killed.  These mangled
> >worlds are forking off from the "main" branches at every instant.  By
> some
> >arguments, they are enormously more numerous than the main-branch worlds.
> >If so, it's very likely that our next instant of experience will be death
> >in a mangled world.  One would hope that these deaths are instantaneous.
> >But it's also possible that they are not, ...
> >Meanwhile the main branches carry on, oblivious.  The mangled worlds
> >would be like sparks thrown off from the main branches, brief but
> >far more numerous than the main branch worlds themselves.  The most
> >common experience for each individual, no matter how long he has lived,
> >would be sudden, violent death, repeated at every instant of his life,
> >an almost infinite number of times.
>
> I'm not sure you have the details right, though I don't think you
> will find the right details
> much more comforting.   Mangled worlds are not small because they are
> mangled,
> they become mangled as they become too small.   At each



That rather suggests that there is a 'graininess' to the multiverse and that
it cannot be subdivided infinitely. What evidence for that exists? It also
implies some kind of non-linearity in QM. Experimentally nothing has been
discovered to within (IIRC) about 1 in 10^26

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060224/86763c28/attachment.html>

From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Feb 24 15:41:38 2006
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 07:41:38 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060224072050.02315048@gmu.edu>
References: <20060224023305.D52A157FAF@finney.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224072050.02315048@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <43FF2932.2070808@pobox.com>

Robin Hanson wrote:
> At 09:33 PM 2/23/2006, Hal Finney wrote:
> 
>>> http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8766.html
>> 
>> ... The scary part is the possibility that the mangled worlds
>> actually allow a moment of existence before everyone in them is
>> killed.  These mangled worlds are forking off from the "main"
>> branches at every instant.  By some arguments, they are enormously
>> more numerous than the main-branch worlds. If so, it's very likely
>> that our next instant of experience will be death in a mangled
>> world.  One would hope that these deaths are instantaneous. But
>> it's also possible that they are not, ... Meanwhile the main
>> branches carry on, oblivious.  The mangled worlds would be like
>> sparks thrown off from the main branches, brief but far more
>> numerous than the main branch worlds themselves.  The most common
>> experience for each individual, no matter how long he has lived, 
>> would be sudden, violent death, repeated at every instant of his
>> life, an almost infinite number of times.
> 
> I'm not sure you have the details right, though I don't think you 
> will find the right details much more comforting.   Mangled worlds
> are not small because they are mangled, they become mangled as they
> become too small.   At each split, some children are larger than
> others, but the only thing that makes a world mangled is falling
> below a certain crucial size threshold.   Most worlds are near that
> border, so most children cross that border.   But yes, the moment of
> mangling may be the most common human experience, though fortunately
> an experience almost never remembered.

Robin, I don't have time to respond to this in full, at least not today, 
but when you're talking about how mangled worlds look from a 
first-person perspective, you're invoking a transition about whose 
nature you are yourself confused.  It is very dangerous to try and 
manipulate concepts about which you are confused, especially the C-word. 
  Often you overlook the confusing part.

My current *guess* is this:

People are not blobs of quantum mist moving through time, constantly 
splitting and dividing, with most divided blobs being mangled and 
destroyed or assimilated.

People exist atop causal relations in timeless patterns of quantum mist. 
  When a blob of timeless quantum mist branches its determination of 
other sectors of quantum configuration space, this is experienced as a 
split, since multiple computations continue from the same original 
state.  When one of the branches overruns a barrier of mist already 
present in greater intensity as the shadow of other blobs, then that 
branch doesn't govern causal relations in that section of configuration 
space; since there is no causal relation, there is no computation, and 
hence no computation continuing from your current state to experience 
anything continued from your current state.

Don't identify people with blobs of quantum mist.  This is just a more 
refined version of the Substance Error that leads people to argue that 
someone is "just a copy".  Identify people with causal relations in 
patterns of mist.  No causality = no computation = no people.

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


From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Feb 24 15:43:07 2006
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 07:43:07 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060224073329.023de218@gmu.edu>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>	<8d71341e0602221547pf59ad21m641e5798fbfeb41c@mail.gmail.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>	<8d71341e0602221931w3c45ae5bp64c1632ddfc999a7@mail.gmail.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>	<8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu>	<8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu>	<8d71341e0602230901v565e48d3race5ba207b0ce3c8@mail.gmail.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223121151.024851f0@gmu.edu>	<CB110AC5-ECAE-4D67-B692-14BDC14A634A@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224073329.023de218@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <43FF298B.9080804@pobox.com>

Robin Hanson wrote:
> 
> Here is one explanation that has a plausible mechanism and isn't clearly
> contradicted by the data.   Mammals invoke the stress response in situations
> they consider stressful, which helps the devote energy to their muscles
> at the expense of other systems such as the immune system.   This reduces
> long term health.   As humans become richer they interpret fewer events as
> being stressful and invoke the stress response less often, and so are 
> healthier.
> There is a multiplier effect for contagious diseases, so that healthier people
> living near each other benefit each other.   So a theory is that our increasing
> health is caused by our feeling less stress as we have gotten richer.

But what about all the research showing that becoming richer doesn't 
decrease stress?

...you know, it's amazingly hard to help people, isn't it.

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


From scerir at libero.it  Fri Feb 24 16:19:15 2006
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir at libero.it)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:19:15 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
Message-ID: <IV79C3$4155D960E66F352B85F453F91E7AEC6E@libero.it>

Dirk writes:
That rather suggests that there is a 'graininess' to the   multiverse and that it cannot be subdivided infinitely. 

J. Hartle wrote papers about that, i.e.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9602023 ,
his interpretation is the 'consistent
histories' though.
Another approach would be the quantization
of ... probability.











From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Fri Feb 24 18:34:53 2006
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:34:53 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060223181440.02315048@gmu.edu>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060223181440.02315048@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0602241034v53c9f805w8484253f355def81@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting theory! I don't know enough quantum physics to say of my own
knowledge whether the mathematics works out, but I did happily swipe it for
a campaign I ran recently of a roleplaying game called 'Mage: The Ascension'
- those of you who've played this game will probably see its utility there.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060224/d7b99642/attachment.html>

From rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri Feb 24 19:47:40 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:47:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <43FF298B.9080804@pobox.com>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060221225351.02e11a10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<8d71341e0602221547pf59ad21m641e5798fbfeb41c@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060222193604.023b5448@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602221931w3c45ae5bp64c1632ddfc999a7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230901v565e48d3race5ba207b0ce3c8@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223121151.024851f0@gmu.edu>
	<CB110AC5-ECAE-4D67-B692-14BDC14A634A@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224073329.023de218@gmu.edu>
	<43FF298B.9080804@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060224144549.022f2d28@gmu.edu>

At 10:43 AM 2/24/2006, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky  wrote:
> >... Mammals invoke the stress response in situations
> > they consider stressful, which helps the devote energy to their muscles
> > at the expense of other systems such as the immune system.   This reduces
> > long term health.   As humans become richer they interpret fewer events as
> > being stressful and invoke the stress response less often, and so are
> > healthier.
>
>But what about all the research showing that becoming richer doesn't
>decrease stress?  ...you know, it's amazingly hard to help people, isn't it.

I had heard that richer humans tend to invoke the stress response less, as
measured by relevant hormones in the blood.






Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri Feb 24 19:50:14 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:50:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <c0a791b40602240605s6207bd5fqbb5aa18fe8e00c46@mail.gmail.co m>
References: <20060224023305.D52A157FAF@finney.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224072050.02315048@gmu.edu>
	<c0a791b40602240605s6207bd5fqbb5aa18fe8e00c46@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060224144823.0243f568@gmu.edu>

At 09:05 AM 2/24/2006, Dirk Bruere wrote:
>Mangled worlds are not small because they are mangled,
>they become mangled as they become too small.
>
>That rather suggests that there is a 'graininess' to the multiverse 
>and that it cannot be subdivided infinitely. What evidence for that 
>exists? It also implies some kind of non-linearity in QM. 
>Experimentally nothing has been discovered to within (IIRC) about 1 in 10^26

No, mine is a "theory" about the exact theoretical consequences of 
the standard linear quantum evolution rule.  Absolutely nothing is 
changed or added to that rule; the question is what exactly that rule implies.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Fri Feb 24 18:52:52 2006
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:52:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Faith and a collective idea
Message-ID: <20060224185252.82458.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

After months of studying science, extropy and sl4,  i've discovered 
  that my faith-belief system has been altered.
  If science is truth and the answers are merely equations not yet 
  solved, that would leave little space for unexplained phenomenon.
  With this little space of unexplained phenomenon, my question is 
  where do I put my faith?
  I don't believe in religion and cults for they dictate how and what 
  I should believe and i'm not fond of rules and regulations.
  The matrix theory is tempting for it is at least has the most 
  plausible scenarios. 
  Faith to me is being able to believe in something and tell the 
  average person on the street.
  I would love to see a place on the net that has the understanding 
  of the Foresight's challenges, the Extropy's principles, the 
  transhumanist's philosophies and the Sing's Friendly and AI theory.
  A place that the average human being can go and understand.
  The collective ideas of the founders of the organizations.
  I do believe in Pro-Acting, I work in the public all the time. 
  I'm just not really sure how to summarize the main goal.  
  If anyone has any ideas or suggestions, it would be greatly 
  appreciated.
  Anna


		
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060224/2e40a7d3/attachment.html>

From rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri Feb 24 19:55:42 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:55:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <43FF2932.2070808@pobox.com>
References: <20060224023305.D52A157FAF@finney.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224072050.02315048@gmu.edu>
	<43FF2932.2070808@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060224145110.024aa9f0@gmu.edu>

At 10:41 AM 2/24/2006, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky  wrote:
>Robin, I don't have time to respond to this in full, at least not today,
>but when you're talking about how mangled worlds look from a
>first-person perspective, you're invoking a transition about whose
>nature you are yourself confused.  It is very dangerous to try and
>manipulate concepts about which you are confused, especially the C-word.

Well I am certainly confused by this paragraph.  C-word = confused?

>People exist atop causal relations in timeless patterns of quantum mist.
>When a blob of timeless quantum mist branches its determination of
>other sectors of quantum configuration space, this is experienced as a
>split, since multiple computations continue from the same original
>state.  When one of the branches overruns a barrier of mist already
>present in greater intensity as the shadow of other blobs, then that
>branch doesn't govern causal relations in that section of configuration
>space; since there is no causal relation, there is no computation, and
>hence no computation continuing from your current state to experience
>anything continued from your current state.

Couldn't I say something similar if I smashed your head in with a hammer?
As I smash your brain I disrupt the causal relations, preventing the relevant
computations, and making you cease to exist.   Still might hurt like hell as
you died though.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Feb 24 20:13:46 2006
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:13:46 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060224145110.024aa9f0@gmu.edu>
References: <20060224023305.D52A157FAF@finney.org>	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224072050.02315048@gmu.edu>	<43FF2932.2070808@pobox.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224145110.024aa9f0@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <43FF68FA.5050206@pobox.com>

Robin Hanson wrote:
> At 10:41 AM 2/24/2006, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky  wrote:
> 
>>Robin, I don't have time to respond to this in full, at least not today,
>>but when you're talking about how mangled worlds look from a
>>first-person perspective, you're invoking a transition about whose
>>nature you are yourself confused.  It is very dangerous to try and
>>manipulate concepts about which you are confused, especially the C-word.
> 
> Well I am certainly confused by this paragraph.  C-word = confused?

(whispers) "Consciousness"

>>People exist atop causal relations in timeless patterns of quantum mist.
>>When a blob of timeless quantum mist branches its determination of
>>other sectors of quantum configuration space, this is experienced as a
>>split, since multiple computations continue from the same original
>>state.  When one of the branches overruns a barrier of mist already
>>present in greater intensity as the shadow of other blobs, then that
>>branch doesn't govern causal relations in that section of configuration
>>space; since there is no causal relation, there is no computation, and
>>hence no computation continuing from your current state to experience
>>anything continued from your current state.
> 
> Couldn't I say something similar if I smashed your head in with a hammer?
> As I smash your brain I disrupt the causal relations, preventing the relevant
> computations, and making you cease to exist.   Still might hurt like hell as
> you died though.

Bearing in mind that I myself am not wholly unconfused...

As you smash my brain, I die in *all* the branches.  The pain and 
suffering occurs while my brain is still processing.  My brain 
experiences a continuous reduction of processing which trails into 
death.  It's not that the computation stops but that my death is what is 
computed.

There are separate questions for (a) whether quantum immortality works, 
that is, the subjective outcome when nearly all computations continue 
with your death but a few continue with you alive; and (b) what happens 
if the underlying computation itself only continues in certain 
directions, all of them containing you.  I don't see any "aborted 
destiny" about the branches that halt at a barrier of mist shadowed from 
other sources; the computation just never goes there to begin with. 
Follow the computation, not the mist; this is a more sophisticated 
version of the mental error of following material substances to 
determine personal identity.

I really have a hard time visualizing any way in which quantum mangling 
would correspond to experienced "mangling".  I think there may be a 
runaway metaphor here.

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


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri Feb 24 20:29:37 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:29:37 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <43FF68FA.5050206@pobox.com>
References: <20060224023305.D52A157FAF@finney.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224072050.02315048@gmu.edu>
	<43FF2932.2070808@pobox.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224145110.024aa9f0@gmu.edu>
	<43FF68FA.5050206@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060224152702.02327a80@gmu.edu>

At 03:13 PM 2/24/2006, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> > Couldn't I say something similar if I smashed your head in with a hammer?
> > As I smash your brain I disrupt the causal relations, preventing 
> the relevant
> > computations, and making you cease to exist.   Still might hurt 
> like hell as
> > you died though.
>
>Bearing in mind that I myself am not wholly unconfused...
>
>As you smash my brain, I die in *all* the branches.  The pain and
>suffering occurs while my brain is still processing.  My brain
>experiences a continuous reduction of processing which trails into
>death.  It's not that the computation stops but that my death is what is
>computed.
>
>There are separate questions for (a) whether quantum immortality works,
>that is, the subjective outcome when nearly all computations continue
>with your death but a few continue with you alive; and (b) what happens
>if the underlying computation itself only continues in certain
>directions, all of them containing you.  I don't see any "aborted
>destiny" about the branches that halt at a barrier of mist shadowed from
>other sources; the computation just never goes there to begin with.
>Follow the computation, not the mist; this is a more sophisticated
>version of the mental error of following material substances to
>determine personal identity.
>
>I really have a hard time visualizing any way in which quantum mangling
>would correspond to experienced "mangling".  I think there may be a
>runaway metaphor here.

The question is the speed of the mangling process.  If it were as slow as the
time it takes a hammer to kill your brain, then your brain would similarly
compute your death.   If it only took a nanosecond, you wouldn't notice it.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Feb 24 21:00:19 2006
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:00:19 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060224152702.02327a80@gmu.edu>
References: <20060224023305.D52A157FAF@finney.org>	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224072050.02315048@gmu.edu>	<43FF2932.2070808@pobox.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224145110.024aa9f0@gmu.edu>	<43FF68FA.5050206@pobox.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224152702.02327a80@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <43FF73E3.10308@pobox.com>

Robin Hanson wrote:
>>
>>I really have a hard time visualizing any way in which quantum mangling
>>would correspond to experienced "mangling".  I think there may be a
>>runaway metaphor here.
> 
> The question is the speed of the mangling process.  If it were as slow as the
> time it takes a hammer to kill your brain, then your brain would similarly
> compute your death.   If it only took a nanosecond, you wouldn't notice it.

I don't understand.  What exactly happens slowly?

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


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri Feb 24 21:22:44 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:22:44 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <43FF73E3.10308@pobox.com>
References: <20060224023305.D52A157FAF@finney.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224072050.02315048@gmu.edu>
	<43FF2932.2070808@pobox.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224145110.024aa9f0@gmu.edu>
	<43FF68FA.5050206@pobox.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224152702.02327a80@gmu.edu> <43FF73E3.10308@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060224161916.024163b8@gmu.edu>

At 04:00 PM 2/24/2006, you wrote:
> >>I really have a hard time visualizing any way in which quantum mangling
> >>would correspond to experienced "mangling".  I think there may be a
> >>runaway metaphor here.
> >
> > The question is the speed of the mangling process.  If it were as 
> slow as the
> > time it takes a hammer to kill your brain, then your brain would similarly
> > compute your death.   If it only took a nanosecond, you wouldn't notice it.
>
>I don't understand.  What exactly happens slowly?

Worlds in essence follow a random walk in relative size while the drift in a
configuration space.  When two worlds get close enough in configuration
space the smaller world suffers a perturbation that depends on the relative
sizes of the worlds.  The question is how fast worlds drift in the 
configuration
space and how quickly the interaction falls off with "distance" in the
configuration space.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From dirk.bruere at gmail.com  Wed Feb 22 10:06:08 2006
From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:06:08 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <20060221224351.4397.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <03cc01c63734$d02c9e90$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<20060221224351.4397.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c0a791b40602220206g14fa0324rf3aec8e346d5d70@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/21/06, Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
> How about this?  Anyone who wants to help moderate the list, can
> register for that Web board with the same email address as used
> to subscribe to this list.  Then, whenever they see something
> that in their opinion requires moderation, they log on to the
> board and give karma, Slashdot-style (although, not tracked
> long-term), with negative and positive karma cancelling out.
> Any poster who reaches a certain threshold of positive karma
> over a certain time period (say, a day) will be automatically
> sent an email saying so.  Any poster who reaches a certain
> threshold of negative karma over a certain time period will be
> temporarily banned from posting to the email list - and, again,
> get an email explaining this (including which emails were
> objected to and by how much, in case people are objecting to a
> certain thread and anyone participating in it).  Any poster who
> accumulates a certain number of karma-temp-bans in a certain
> space of time will be temp-banned for a longer period - say, 3
> bans in a week means a month-long temp-ban - plus the list
> admins will be notified.  Using the example timeframes, the
> admins then have a month to decide if the temp-ban should be
> made permanent.


Superficially it sounds good.
However a side effect is going to be the ostracisation of dissenting voices
by a kind of mob rule.
Now, that may be all well and good since it would ensure a relatively
homogeneous group in terms of overall worldview and limiting of extremes of
opinion (or truth - people can equally dissent over the posting of accurate
but unpleasant data). If that's where you want to go, then fine.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060222/fac739f9/attachment.html>

From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Sat Feb 25 03:01:05 2006
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:01:05 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Article: WORLD magazine worries about nanotech and
	transhumanism
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0602241901l79aa143csfaa2932467db8cf1@mail.gmail.com>

Here's another article which is worth reading to get a better idea of the
sorts of reasons people have for worrying about nanotechnology and
transhumanism. This particular article from a Christian magazine:

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11580

Relevant quote:

In 2001, the National Science Foundation and other government agencies
convened a meeting of nano-prophets to divine the ways nanotechnology could
improve the human body and mind in the next 10 to 20 years. The meeting
headlined representatives from the government, private sector, and academia,
including Mihail Roco, a senior government adviser on nanotechnology, and
Phillip Bond, undersecretary of commerce for technology.

After the meeting, the NSF published a 467-page document, "Converging
Technologies for Improving Human Performance." It has been called both the
scariest and the silliest government report ever printed.

Its authors predicted that in the next 10 to 20 years, nanotechnology would
allow a broadband connection between the human brain and machines. It would
enable new sports, art forms, and means of communication; allow the human
body to resist stress, sleep deprivation, disease, and aging; and find ways
to exploit the resources of the moon, Mars, or approaching asteroids. In
short, nanotechnology will solve all the world's problems.

"The 21st century could end in world peace, universal prosperity, and
evolution to a higher level of compassion and accomplishment," Mr. Roco and
another science adviser claimed in the report's introduction. "It may be
that humanity would become like a single, distributed and interconnected
'brain.'"

The European Commission and the German Parliament criticized the U.S. report
(called among nano-techies the Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno, or NBIC report) for
being overly futuristic without considering societal and moral issues. In
its own report, the German Parliament noted its bias toward a
pseudo-scientific movement called transhumanism. Transhumanists believe
science, including nanotechnology, will help humans transcend their mental
and physical limitations, including pain and death.

"These ideas have bled into mainstream science technical thinking," says
Nigel Cameron, director of the Center on Nanotechnology at the Chicago-Kent
College of Law. Mr. Cameron works to bring together transhumanism's critics
to voice their concerns. He cites the work of Kevin Warwick as one reason to
take transhumanism seriously.

Mr. Warwick, a professor at the University of Reading in England, claims to
have connected his central nervous system to a computer during a 2002
experiment. Doctors implanted a tiny electrical sensing device in a nerve in
Mr. Warwick's left arm. The sensor sent and received signals between his
central nervous system and a computer. According to Mr. Warwick's university
website, the implant allowed him to control a mechanical hand with his own
thoughts and movements. He also sent neural signals to a simpler implant in
his wife, who felt sensation in her arm as a result.

Mr. Warwick explained his worldview in a 2000 column in Wired: "I was born
human. But this was an accident of fate?a condition merely of time and
place. I believe it's something we have the power to change."

Mr. Cameron points to Mr. Warwick's experiment as evidence the
human-computer connection envisioned in the NBIC report could happen. But
will it?

...

David Guston, director of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at
Arizona State University, wants to help nanotechnology avoid a mess like the
stem-cell debacle. At the AAAS meeting, he explained the center's plans to
scour scientific journals and interview researchers about current and
upcoming developments in nanotechnology. Center staff members would share
the information with citizen groups and give their feedback to the
scientists.

That could be an important time for those concerned with the ethical and
real-life implications of nanotechnology to step forward. "There is so
little interest in having this conversation in the churches. Basically
people are pro-life, but they think, 'technology is wonderful and what's for
dinner?'" said Mr. Cameron.

The "Real-Time Technology Assessment" project aims to help scientists
incorporate the public's values in their decisions. At the least, it will
help the public see what is coming before, as Mr. Guston put it, "out from
the lab pops a technology that's relatively cleanly black-boxed and, oh,
society has to deal with it."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060224/7d24fe23/attachment.html>

From james.hughes at trincoll.edu  Sat Feb 25 03:16:37 2006
From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:16:37 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Article: WORLD magazine worries about nanotech
	andtranshumanism
Message-ID: <B55E044559115F4B8C9EE62323C322B414762206@hickory.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu>

By the way, the biocon nano-critic Nigel Cameron in this piece is also
the person who wrote in this week's Christianity Today that
transhumanism needs to be opposed because:
 
"when Jesus returns-Jesus the incarnate Son of God, the first-century
Palestinian Jew, his flesh and blood glorified but still his own-when he
returns in power and glory to call us to account, what will he find?
Will he find faith upon the earth? Will he even find men and women? Or
will he say, as he searches for fellow members of homo sapiens, the
species he made in his image and took to be his own, and meets
self-invented, designer beings, quite literally, 'I never knew you"?'"

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/108/32.0.html

--------------------------------------------
James Hughes Ph.D.
Executive Director
World Transhumanist Assoc.   Inst. for Ethics & Emerging Tech.
http://transhumanism.org     http://ieet.org
director at transhumanism.org   director at ieet.org
Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology
http://jetpress.org

Mailing Address: Box 128, Willington CT 06279 USA 
(office) 860-297-2376



From hal at finney.org  Sat Feb 25 03:48:15 2006
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:48:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
Message-ID: <20060225034815.5010357FAE@finney.org>

Another example of the failure of modern medicine to improve is discussed
in today's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/business/22leonhardt.html
also reprinted at the bottom of:
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10004953.shtml

> With all the tools available to modern medicine - the blood tests and
> M.R.I.'s and endoscopes - you might think that misdiagnosis has become
> a rare thing. But you would be wrong. Studies of autopsies have shown
> that doctors seriously misdiagnose fatal illnesses about 20 percent of
> the time. So millions of patients are being treated for the wrong disease.
>
> As shocking as that is, the more astonishing fact may be that the rate
> has not really changed since the 1930's. "No improvement!" was how an
> article in the normally exclamation-free Journal of the American Medical
> Association summarized the situation.

The reason, according to the article, is how incentives are arranged:

> Under the current medical system, doctors, nurses, lab technicians and
> hospital executives are not actually paid to come up with the right
> diagnosis. They are paid to perform tests and to do surgery and to
> dispense drugs.
>
> There is no bonus for curing someone and no penalty for failing, except
> when the mistakes rise to the level of malpractice. So even though doctors
> can have the best intentions, they have little economic incentive to
> spend time double-checking their instincts, and hospitals have little
> incentive to give them the tools to do so.
...
> Joseph Britto, a former intensive-care doctor, likes to compare
> medicine's attitude toward mistakes with the airline industry's. At the
> insistence of pilots, who have the ultimate incentive not to mess up,
> airlines have studied their errors and nearly eliminated crashes.
>
> "Unlike pilots," Dr. Britto said, "doctors don't go down with their
> planes."

Britto has a company that sells software which provides lists of
alternative diagnoses when doctors type in symptoms.  The article
describes a case of a misdiagnosis which was corrected through the use
of the software, but implies that its $750/yr/doctor cost is too high
for widespread use.

I've been enjoying the TV show "House", which is all about medical
misdiagnosis.  Dr. Gregory House is an expert diagnostician, and he and
his team of three good-looking junior doctors struggle every week with
a difficult case.  The shows always have the same structure, namely
that the team comes up with one wrong diagnosis after another, while
the patient gets sicker and sicker, usually because they are treating
him for the wrong thing and basically killing him.  Finally at the end
they guess right and the patient gets better.

It's not a very realistic show, but still entertaining.  Now whenever
friends or family are having a problem getting a reasonable medical
diagnosis, we say, we need House to come figure things out.  I've been
dealing with some screwy test results myself lately, and I finally
found a good doctor, who takes a scientific approach to the problem.
He's treating me for what he thinks might be wrong, not because he thinks
it is necessarily the best treatment for me, but just to test his theory
and confirm the diagnosis.  It's a great feeling to have a "Dr. House"
on my case.

Back to incentives: when not shoring up the foundations of quantum
mechanics or lending transparency to the murk of Middle Eastern politics,
Robin dabbles in health care economics, and one of his first papers on
that subject has a solution for this problem.  "Buy Health, Not Health
Care," <http://hanson.gmu.edu/buyhealth.html>, talks about getting life
insurance companies to pay for health care.  Since they have an economic
incentive to keep you alive, their incentives are aligned with yours.
And they would develop the expertise to know what works and what doesn't.
To use the analogy above, they do "go down with the plane", in the sense
that they pay out a huge amount every time a patient dies.

Something along these lines might go a long way towards fixing this
stubborn problem of 20% fatal misdiagnoses.  I'd be curious to know what
further ideas Robin has on this since his 1994 paper.

Hal


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Feb 25 03:50:45 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:50:45 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060224145110.024aa9f0@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <200602250424.k1P4O9gc022468@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


I skimmed thru the list upon my return this evening after
several days on the road to pick out my favorite posters, 
and found this:

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robin Hanson
...
> Couldn't I say something similar if I smashed your head in with a hammer?
> As I smash your brain I disrupt the causal relations, preventing the
> relevant computations, and making you cease to exist.   Still might hurt
>like hell as you died though.
> 
> Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
> Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University

Robin, you are a high-reputation poster, not just for being
a professor and for consistently interesting poster, but also
for inventing Ideas Futures, which has to be about the coolest 
idea I have seen for years.

http://www.ideosphere.com/

That being said, I urge all to be careful about wording any
post in such a way that it could be misinterpreted as threatening
or menacing.  Fortunately Eli did not take it wrong, but had the 
comment been made by a less regarded person or an unknown, I woulda
had to hurl that poster into the penalty box forthwith.  In this
case, no harm done.

As I ran out the door on my way to a business trip Tuesday
morning, I dashed off a quick note regarding jonano's post.  In 
the rush, I accidentally said Mehran.  My apologies Mehran.  I did not
blame the one for the actions of the other, merely switched the
names as I ran for the plane.  If anyone posted me some time
this week to point out that error, I already caught it, and
vow henceforth to not post in haste.  {8-]  If I do that again,
I shall hafta hurl myself into the penalty box. 

Thanks!

spike







From hal at finney.org  Sat Feb 25 04:43:22 2006
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:43:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
Message-ID: <20060225044322.C113257FAE@finney.org>

On 2/21/06, Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> How about this?  Anyone who wants to help moderate the list, can
> register for that Web board with the same email address as used
> to subscribe to this list.  Then, whenever they see something
> that in their opinion requires moderation, they log on to the
> board and give karma, Slashdot-style (although, not tracked
> long-term), with negative and positive karma cancelling out.

We had that "karma" concept on the message board a couple of years
ago.  It didn't seem to work too well.  Here is a posting I made back
on March 11, 2003, talking about the web board:

: As you read
: the messages you see not only a picture that the poster has chosen to
: associate with himself (a very big one for Lee Crocker!), but also the
: poster's "karma" score.  Anyone can vote positively or negatively for
: another person when reading their posts.  The postive and negative
: values are apparently totalled separately.
:
: The karma scores seem somewhat counter-intuitive.  It's not surprising
: to see Anders Sandburg at +235/-1 or Eliezer Yudkowski at +123/-1.
: Amara Graps seems to be the champion at +273/-4.  And apparently Harvey
: Newstrom hasn't gotten anybody mad at him, at +157/-0.
:
: But Spike at +4/-213?  That seems a little harsh.  Lee Corbin at +4/-305,
: Lee Crocker at +1/-52, John Clark at +5/-224?  These are some of the
: people I find most informative and stimulating.  Rafal Smigrodzki at
: +1/-296, Robert Bradbury at +17/-187?  I don't really get it.
:
: My own score is a mediocre +8/-46.  Pretty discouraging.  Lately I
: mostly use the web interface so these numbers are being rubbed in my
: face constantly.
:
: Hopefully the database is keeping track of who is voting for whom.
: It would be interesting to use the data in more sophisticated ways,
: such as looking for clustering effects.  Maybe all those negative karma
: points were applied by a relatively self-contained group.  It would be
: interesting to see more about how the scores have evolved.

Although I did not say it at the time, it looked to me like many of
these scores were applied based on political orientation.  People who
expressed conservative or libertarian views had strong negative scores,
while those with more left-leaning positions had a positive boost.
And the numbers were so disproportionately large, it seemed likely that`
it was a script which had hit the board repeatedly and somehow managed to
"stuff the ballot box" with multiple votes reflecting the perpetrators's
leftist political views.

Since then the karma scores have been cleared, so the evidence of what
happened is presumably lost.  But clearly any scheme for automated
"karma" scoring needs to protect against multiple voting.

Hal


From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Sat Feb 25 04:54:59 2006
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:54:59 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dinosaur Comics on the Singularity
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0602242054p77897c2ag6f20851f3779739f@mail.gmail.com>

Dinosaur Comics, a fairly popular web-comic, has a weirdly amusing strip
discussing the Singularity:

http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=719
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060224/d6dff6e0/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Feb 25 05:24:21 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:24:21 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future
In-Reply-To: <20060225044322.C113257FAE@finney.org>
Message-ID: <200602250535.k1P5Z3Eh002356@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney"
...
> 
> Since then the karma scores have been cleared, so the evidence of what
> happened is presumably lost.  But clearly any scheme for automated
> "karma" scoring needs to protect against multiple voting.
> 
> Hal


Hal the reason that system failed is that it didn't track who was doing the
smiting/applauding.  At the time you may recall I suggested multiplying each
appraisal by the karma of the person doing the smiting/applauding.  But this
scheme wouldn't work either; anyone could still manipulate the system by
posting a lot of garbage, generating for themselves a large negative karma,
then applauding the ones they wish to smite for example.  You could also
have teams working together to applaud up each other's karma, then using
that to smite down another group's karma.  Ideally karma should be a
conserved quantity, i.e. zero sum, but I haven't figured out a good way to
make it so.

The uniformity of the karma scores led me to believe that it was one person
(or script) doing nearly all the smiting and applauding.  It could have even
been a person who never posted anything, so we would never have heard of him
or her.  

In your mind's eye, think of the ExI-chat poster most utterly devoid of
socially redeeming qualities, the ExI LVP.  If that person smites thee, does
it count?  As what?

What I am doing now with the moderation is a version of this: if I get
complaints about a poster, I estimate the karma of the complainer and the
defendant and take action or otherwise.  Karma is generated by posting smart
stuff and being the signal.  Other things, such as inventing and
implementing cool ideas, fighting cults, and writing good books are huge
karma generators too.  Flaming others is a big negative karma generator.  I
do not know how to automate this.  Suggestions welcome.

spike







From lcorbin at tsoft.com  Sat Feb 25 04:59:10 2006
From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:59:10 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: List Quality
Message-ID: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEKEBLFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>

I've been away from the list for two and a half years, and within
the last month have heard some complaints about list quality. But
as I peruse February's posts, I'm quite impressed. The threads 
compare favorably with anything I've seen anywhere, and several
focus on subjects I think especially important.

I'm sorry to see that it's been necessary to install an Intimidator/Terminator 
instead of just a moderator  ;-)  but it's a changing world, and so is always
getting worse in some ways as it gets better in others.  Viva Extropianus.

Lee Corbin



From lcorbin at tsoft.com  Sat Feb 25 05:12:16 2006
From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:12:16 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <43FF68FA.5050206@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEEEBMFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>

Eliezer wrote

> Follow the computation, not the mist; this is a more sophisticated 
> version of the mental error of following material substances to 
> determine personal identity.

A valuable insight.  For me, it's almost tantamount to a semantic
point: we probably do not want to refer to any processes lacking
causality as "people" or as conscious entities of any kind.

Probably central is "the speed of the mangling process" as Robin 
later called it. In Hal's graphic description, one may find oneself
in a semi-chaotic universe wherein one has a few seconds (or, if 
one is thinking about the Middle East, a few years) of horrible
realization before everything disintegrates.

But I infer that Robin's "small relative-sized" universes in 
configuration space get wasted by their big neighbors awfully
fast. I'm just guessing, but phenomena with salient quantum
(non-classical) aspects I would expect to transpire quickly.

Also, wouldn't the chaos afflicting the victim universe have as
one of its first priorities the disruption of complicated systems
like our brains?   So: doesn't this then devolve into the usual
mild worry over the small measure hell-branches of the MWI?

Lee



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Feb 25 07:08:28 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:08:28 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: List Quality
In-Reply-To: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEKEBLFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>
Message-ID: <200602250708.k1P78fbF005428@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 8:59 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [extropy-chat] META: List Quality
> 
...
> I'm sorry to see that it's been necessary to install an
> Intimidator/Terminator
> instead of just a moderator  ;-)  but it's a changing world, and so is
> always
> getting worse in some ways as it gets better in others.  Viva Extropianus.
> 
> Lee Corbin

Hi Lee!  Welcome back bud!

Ja we deplored having to institute that onerous policy; most distasteful,
even if only temporary.  Now we demonstrate the two extremes: for a long
time we had almost no moderation, now we have what I would define as
intentionally overzealous moderation.  My notion is that by exercising these
extremes, the next volunteer Temporary Benevolent Dictator will have mapped
before them the dreaded Scilla and Charybdis, betwixt which they must
skillfully and diplomatically navigate.

Our problems are minor indeed.  Consider those unfortunate blighters who
currently earn their sustenance in the news business.  In the past few weeks
we have seen editorial decisions result in furious riots all over the globe,
in hundreds of deaths, destruction of property, cartoonists fleeing into
hiding for fear of their lives with no clear end to their exile, the de
facto loss of rights we hold dear, freedoms hard won by the blood of
patriots.  Do we so willingly surrender these rights in exchange for a
fragile temporary peace?  On the other hand, are we willing in any way to
contribute to what may turn into a horrifying and unquenchable civil war
which may spread to many nations, resulting in tragedy so profound as to
defy description?  Is there a right answer here?  Do suggest.

Deriving an ExI-chat moderation policy is trivial in comparison to the
maddening dilemma currently before those in the news business.
 
spike










From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sat Feb 25 14:25:08 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:25:08 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <20060225034815.5010357FAE@finney.org>
References: <20060225034815.5010357FAE@finney.org>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060225091015.02315048@gmu.edu>

At 10:48 PM 2/24/2006, Hal Finney wrote:
>Back to incentives: when not shoring up the foundations of quantum
>mechanics or lending transparency to the murk of Middle Eastern politics,
>Robin dabbles in health care economics, and one of his first papers on
>that subject has a solution for this problem.  "Buy Health, Not Health
>Care," <http://hanson.gmu.edu/buyhealth.html>, talks about getting life
>insurance companies to pay for health care.  Since they have an economic
>incentive to keep you alive, their incentives are aligned with yours.
>And they would develop the expertise to know what works and what doesn't.
>To use the analogy above, they do "go down with the plane", in the sense
>that they pay out a huge amount every time a patient dies.
>Something along these lines might go a long way towards fixing this
>stubborn problem of 20% fatal misdiagnoses.  I'd be curious to know what
>further ideas Robin has on this since his 1994 paper.

Before you try to fix something, it is a good idea to have some idea 
how it works
and what its function is.   This is especially good advice for social 
institutions.
If you think that education is about learning things, you will find 
the existing
school institutions lacking and suggest fixes that should result in 
more learning.
If education is primarily about finding and molding people to work in boring
bureaucratic  jobs, you will be disappointed to find little interest 
in your suggestions.

I wrote that paper when I had the ordinary person's concept of medicine - that
medicine is like car repair, and everyone is mainly concerned about figuring
out the problem and fixing it.   That simple model however just doesn't hold up
well under closer examination.   Oh, I could argue that medicine *should* be
about fixing our broken health, but that theory just doesn't account very well
for the patterns of behavior we see surrounding medicine.

So I am at the point of trying to figure out what functions medicine 
does provide
for people.  Their lack of interest in my suggestion is just one data 
point among
the many I puzzle over.  One attempt of mine is: 
http://hanson.gmu.edu/showcare.pdf



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sat Feb 25 14:27:09 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:27:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEEEBMFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>
References: <43FF68FA.5050206@pobox.com>
	<POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEEEBMFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060225092524.024ddfe0@gmu.edu>

At 12:12 AM 2/25/2006, Lee Corbin wrote:
>Also, wouldn't the chaos afflicting the victim universe have as
>one of its first priorities the disruption of complicated systems
>like our brains?   So: doesn't this then devolve into the usual
>mild worry over the small measure hell-branches of the MWI?

This may be a usual worry in discussions you have had, but when I
tried to find discussion of such worries in the academic literature
I couldn't find much.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From hal at finney.org  Sat Feb 25 18:06:32 2006
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:06:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
Message-ID: <20060225180632.D920D57FAE@finney.org>

Nothing like a discussion of horrific suffering to pull Lee back onto
the list!  :-)  That's a smiley.  I too want to welcome him back.

> But I infer that Robin's "small relative-sized" universes in 
> configuration space get wasted by their big neighbors awfully
> fast. I'm just guessing, but phenomena with salient quantum
> (non-classical) aspects I would expect to transpire quickly.

That does make sense.  The time scale for quantum events tends to be
very fast, unless special precautions are taken.  It's just that in
this case the physics are still unknown, so we can't be sure.

> Also, wouldn't the chaos afflicting the victim universe have as
> one of its first priorities the disruption of complicated systems
> like our brains?

One would hope so.  Again, the worry for me is the possibility that
somehow brains continue to function even as these mangled worlds operate
under a sort of dual-world physics.  Somehow the large worlds impact on
what happens in the small ones, but it's not yet possible to say exactly
how that happens.  I came up with these fantastic speculations like
that we would have some kind of double-image, perceptually superimposed
realities.  We would see what would happen in the small world if it were
isolated, along with what is happening in the oblivious large world.
Probably this isn't anywhere close to correct, but this kind of bizarre
effect might be compatible with a degree of brain function, for a while.

> So: doesn't this then devolve into the usual
> mild worry over the small measure hell-branches of the MWI?

Well, the point of Robin's paper is to eliminate this mild worry by
showing that (sufficiently) small measure branches (hellish or not) get
"mangled" and hence (hopefully) are uninhabitable.  In that way he solves
the mystery of why we don't experience those small measure branches,
not by an ad hoc assumption that the Born rule governs our epistemic
experiences, but simply because life is impossible there.

The philosophical question I see is this.  Suppose these mangled
worlds are much more numerous than the "large", conventional worlds.
And suppose that it turns out that consciousness can survive in such
worlds, but only for a few moments before it is destroyed.  Then,
of the total number of conscious observer-moments in the multiverse,
the great majority are in mangled worlds.

If this turned out to be the case, would Robin's theory be philosophically
adequate to explain what we see?  On one hand, we might say no, because if
most observer-moments are in mangled worlds, then that is what we would
predict we would experience, yet it seems that we do not.  OTOH we could
say yes, because the mangled-world experiences all lead to death (possibly
painlessly) and by an extension of the anthropic principle, we can only
experience worlds where there is memory and continuity of consciousness.

Hal


From paul_illich at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 25 17:39:19 2006
From: paul_illich at yahoo.com (paul illich)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:39:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <mailman.785.1140836468.5119.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <20060225173919.44200.qmail@web52705.mail.yahoo.com>

Robin writes:
> (This article is about my latest physics paper.)
> http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8766.html
>
> Is our universe about to be mangled?
> 17:43 23 February 2006
> NewScientist.com news service

These ideas seem implicit in Andre Linde's work of over
the two decades back - ie, as far back as his 'bubble
universe' ideas of around '85 when he was still in
Moscow, said ideas leading in altered form to the point
at which he was able to enter the fray on the post-super
sring brane theories. Does anyone think that his post-
bubble universe ideas are compatible with these interacting 
universe ideas, or has he moved further away from them?

Paul
Boston>London

"One fundamental goal of any well-crafted indoctrination 
program is to direct attention elsewhere, away from 
effective power, its roots, and the disguises it assumes." 
Chomsky, 'Deterring Democracy', 1992

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From lcorbin at tsoft.com  Sat Feb 25 20:54:09 2006
From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:54:09 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Examining Risks (was RE:  META: List Quality)
In-Reply-To: <200602250709.k1P79Cr19491@mail0.rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEEECHFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>

Spike writes

> Hi Lee!  Welcome back bud!

Thanks!

> Ja we deplored having to institute that onerous policy; most distasteful,
> even if only temporary.  Now we demonstrate the two extremes: for a long
> time we had almost no moderation, now we have what I would define as
> intentionally overzealous moderation.

Well, I greatly respect all those who were forced
to this collective decision. Circumstances change
over time, as perhaps I should have understood
before.

> My notion is that by exercising these extremes, the
> next volunteer Temporary Benevolent Dictator will
> have mapped before them the dreaded Scilla and
> Charybdis, betwixt which they must skillfully
> and diplomatically navigate.

You'll be a hard act to follow. 

> Our problems are minor indeed.  Consider those unfortunate blighters who
> currently earn their sustenance in the news business.  In the past few weeks
> we have seen editorial decisions result in furious riots all over the globe,
> in hundreds of deaths, destruction of property, cartoonists fleeing into
> hiding for fear of their lives with no clear end to their exile, the de
> facto loss of rights we hold dear, freedoms hard won by the blood of
> patriots.  Do we so willingly surrender these rights in exchange for a
> fragile temporary peace?  On the other hand, are we willing in any way to
> contribute to what may turn into a horrifying and unquenchable civil war
> which may spread to many nations, resulting in tragedy so profound as to
> defy description?  Is there a right answer here?  Do suggest.

Well, your questions beautifully invite a reexamination,
as it were, from a great distance; an inspiration for
an even greater objective and dispassionate effort. But
I'll have to change the subject line to reply!

When I say "we" or "us", I presume to identify with "our"
Western values of open inquiry, personal liberty, a search
for verifiable knowledge, and striving for technological
and economic progress.

With only the greatest deliberation and hesitancy can we
enter into a war with a civilization which perhaps will not
or can not abide those values. But a "war"? Oh, your question
should make any civilized head hurt!  My book group (and I)
passed up the chance to read Huntington's "Clash of
Civilizations", which maybe was big mistake.

No, there can't be a "right" answer. Even centuries after the
fact it won't be clear that there was a right or wrong answer
to our current situation. We may have even reached the point
that our self-doubting is so powerful that whatever we do we
will later perceive as a mistake.

It's mainly a matter of risk perception, I think. The current
debate over the sale of the Port Authority to the UAE is a
near-perfect microcosm. We see how most of us have intuitively
jumped to certain conclusions, regardless of how little we 
happened to know ahead of time about the actual systems and
factors involved!  Yet, is that a *completely* bad thing to
do?

I must hasten to say that I'm not looking for an argument
about petty politics at all, but what *is* nearest to my
concern---what I am almost literally dying to discuss---is
the role of rationality vs. intuition in cases like this
as well as in cases not like this.  I want very very much
to understand the absolutely vital role that rationality
has to play in human decision making, and, if they exist,
its limitations.

Luckily for me, I have already seen unmistakable signs that
on this very list some extremely insightful people have
recently devoted thought to the question, or to questions 
much like it.

Lee



From lcorbin at tsoft.com  Sat Feb 25 21:20:54 2006
From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:20:54 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <20060225180632.D920D57FAE@finney.org>
Message-ID: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEOECHFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>

Hal writes

> Nothing like a discussion of horrific suffering to pull Lee back onto
> the list!  :-)  That's a smiley.  I too want to welcome him back.

Thank you very much, Hal!

> > So: doesn't this then devolve into the usual mild
> > worry over the small measure hell-branches of the MWI?
> 
> Well, the point of Robin's paper is to eliminate this mild worry by
> showing that (sufficiently) small measure branches (hellish or not) get
> "mangled" and hence (hopefully) are uninhabitable.

Oh.

> The philosophical question I see is this.  Suppose these mangled
> worlds are much more numerous than the "large", conventional worlds.
> And suppose that it turns out that consciousness can survive in such
> worlds, but only for a few moments before it is destroyed.  Then,
> of the total number of conscious observer-moments in the multiverse,
> the great majority are in mangled worlds.
> 
> If this turned out to be the case, would Robin's theory be philosophically
> adequate to explain what we see?

To me, it sounds like the answer must be "yes", in the sense that
Robin's theory is not contrary to what we believe we've seen.
Of course, this emphasizes a difference between what we actually
see at any moment and what we believe we've seen:

At any point in time, of course, we have only memories of what
we have seen and thought. But does this mean that we never
experienced things that we have no memories of?  Of course not!

At least on the pattern theory of identity, which is all that
I claim to be speaking about, at any instant one may have remote
copies, which, on this theory really are the same person. But
this makes a difference here only because of *anticipation*.

I believe that one must anticipate the experiences of future
duplicates whenever and wherever they occur in the universe
(future memory supersets, to be precise). This makes your
concern in my eyes a very real one!  Because one may have
to anticipate all sorts of experiences, without a *particular*
one who writes the histories being aware of the others.

> On one hand, we might say no, because if most observer-moments
> are in mangled worlds, then that is what we would predict we
> would experience, yet it seems that we do not.

It only *seems* so from the perspective of the history we remember.

> OTOH we could say yes, because the mangled-world experiences all
> lead to death (possibly painlessly) and by an extension of the
> anthropic principle, we can only experience worlds where there
> is memory and continuity of consciousness.

Yeah.  And I guess the anthropic principle is a part of my
urge to deny the existence of many real and non-trivial 
universes extending in time in which we begin to notice
a lot of chaotic behavior. But I admit to being confused.

Lee



From hal at finney.org  Sat Feb 25 21:29:33 2006
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:29:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Examining Risks (was RE:  META: List Quality)
Message-ID: <20060225212933.41AE757FAE@finney.org>

Lee writes:
> It's mainly a matter of risk perception, I think. The current
> debate over the sale of the Port Authority to the UAE is a
> near-perfect microcosm. We see how most of us have intuitively
> jumped to certain conclusions, regardless of how little we 
> happened to know ahead of time about the actual systems and
> factors involved!  Yet, is that a *completely* bad thing to
> do?
>
> I must hasten to say that I'm not looking for an argument
> about petty politics at all, but what *is* nearest to my
> concern---what I am almost literally dying to discuss---is
> the role of rationality vs. intuition in cases like this
> as well as in cases not like this.  I want very very much
> to understand the absolutely vital role that rationality
> has to play in human decision making, and, if they exist,
> its limitations.

My problem with this direction of questioning is as follows.  What
difference does my opinion make?  Why should I care about whether Dubai
runs some port?  Last time I checked, George Bush wasn't on the phone
asking for my help.  The nation is not collectively holding its breath
to find out what Hal Finney thinks about the matter.  So why should I
bother to become informed about this issue, or any of the other grand
political questions which our civilization must address?  Events will
take their course independent of my views.

Worse, it's not clear that studying available information and coming up
with an informed opinion would be significantly likely to move me closer
to the truth.  These are hard questions even for those who have lots
of information about them, as demonstrated by the diversity of opinion
among experts.  It looks to me like it's pretty random what position
I would come up with if I became equally as informed, since apparently
both strong support and strong opposition are consistent with intimate
acquaintance with the facts.

Of course, if people find studying and debating such issues to be an
enjoyable hobby, like building ships in bottles, that's fine with me.
If it gives you pleasure, go for it.  But don't pretend that the one
hobby is of any greater importance or significance than the other.

So here is the real problem: society does need some mechanism to make
decisions on grand questions, but it's not rational for the typical
member of society to become informed enough to have a meaningful opinion
on these matters.  So what do we do?  Well, one thing that happens is
in a democracy, politicians lose their jobs when things get worse, and
keep them when things get better.  This tends to happen whether it is
the politician's fault or not, which may seem unjust.  But it does give
them incentives to try to keep things getting better.  That's not such
a bad way to run a world.

Hal


From sentience at pobox.com  Sat Feb 25 21:32:24 2006
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:32:24 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Examining Risks (was RE:  META: List Quality)
In-Reply-To: <20060225212933.41AE757FAE@finney.org>
References: <20060225212933.41AE757FAE@finney.org>
Message-ID: <4400CCE8.4@pobox.com>

Hal Finney wrote:
> 
> My problem with this direction of questioning is as follows.  What
> difference does my opinion make?  Why should I care about whether Dubai
> runs some port?  Last time I checked, George Bush wasn't on the phone
> asking for my help.  The nation is not collectively holding its breath
> to find out what Hal Finney thinks about the matter.  So why should I
> bother to become informed about this issue, or any of the other grand
> political questions which our civilization must address?  Events will
> take their course independent of my views.

Hear, hear.  It's not like I consider myself as having no influence on 
the world, but I understand that I do not possess certain kinds of 
short-term influence.

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


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sat Feb 25 21:41:47 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:41:47 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <20060225180632.D920D57FAE@finney.org>
References: <20060225180632.D920D57FAE@finney.org>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060225133819.023bdbb8@gmu.edu>

At 01:06 PM 2/25/2006, Hal Finney wrote:
>The philosophical question I see is this.  Suppose these mangled
>worlds are much more numerous than the "large", conventional worlds.
>And suppose that it turns out that consciousness can survive in such
>worlds, but only for a few moments before it is destroyed.  Then,
>of the total number of conscious observer-moments in the multiverse,
>the great majority are in mangled worlds.
>
>If this turned out to be the case, would Robin's theory be philosophically
>adequate to explain what we see?  On one hand, we might say no, because if
>most observer-moments are in mangled worlds, then that is what we would
>predict we would experience, yet it seems that we do not.  OTOH we could
>say yes, because the mangled-world experiences all lead to death (possibly
>painlessly) and by an extension of the anthropic principle, we can only
>experience worlds where there is memory and continuity of consciousness.

Your picture seems to be of big worlds that spit off tiny worlds which then
immediately start to become mangled.  Instead picture grains of dust which
slowly float and grind each other into smaller pieces, until a big 
cloud of them
smash into an airless moon.   Under this picture most of the experience in
the small worlds is in the floating phase, and only a small part in the smash
phase.


Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From amara at amara.com  Sat Feb 25 20:58:45 2006
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:58:45 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Total Solar Eclipse March 29, 2006
Message-ID: <p06230900c026719c6e4f@[23.237.66.13]>

Natasha:
>Okay Gina - here is your Birthday Gift. But my birthday is today and I'd
>like a ski trip to Aspen or Telluride. :-)

Happy Birthday, Natasha!

This year I'm celebrating my birthday in Turkey. Nature gave me a
extra nice place and event with which to celebrate (and the cost is
low).

On Wednesday, 2006 March 29, a total eclipse of the Sun will be
visible from within a narrow corridor which traverses half the Earth.
The path of the Moon's umbral shadow begins in Brazil and extends
across the Atlantic, northern Africa, and central Asia where it ends
at sunset in western Mongolia. A partial eclipse will be seen within
the much broader path of the Moon's penumbral shadow, which includes
the northern two thirds of Africa, Europe, and central Asia.

Duration: ~~2.5-3.5 minutes, but the most glorious minutes you can imagine.

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEmono/TSE2006/TSE2006.html

Maps:
http://www.solareclipsesturkey.com/nasa.php


I'll be somewhere between Urgup and Konya:
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEmono/TSE2006/TSE2006fig/TSE2006-fig13a.GIF

Others are preparing a webcast:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/atmosphere/solar_eclipse_2006.html

and doing science:
http://www.hrcglobal.net/astro/solar-eclipse2006-prog.asp


Turkey-specific solar eclipse information:
http://newton.physics.metu.edu.tr/~aat/TSE2006/TSE2006.html


Questions about taking a trip to Turkey:
http://www.turkeytravelplanner.com/index.html


Places to stay in the totality region are pretty booked, so if one
is thinking to go, decide soon.


Views of the Area
-------------------

Pre-eclipse, entering Turkey, to whet the appetite
(Istanbul is one of my favorite cities)

http://www.turkeytravelplanner.com/photo_galleries/index.html
http://www.amara.com/athousand/Onethousandandone.html


Konya
The Sufi poet Rumi was born here, and there is a dervish tradition
based here because of that fact.
http://www.pbase.com/dosseman/konya_turkey


Cappadocia:
http://www.turkeytravelplanner.com/photo_galleries/cappadocia/index.html


-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"We came whirling out of Nothingness scattering stars like dust."
       --Rumi


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sat Feb 25 22:38:03 2006
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:38:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Total Solar Eclipse March 29, 2006
In-Reply-To: <p06230900c026719c6e4f@[23.237.66.13]>
References: <p06230900c026719c6e4f@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <53628.72.236.103.122.1140907083.squirrel@main.nc.us>


> This year I'm celebrating my birthday in Turkey. Nature gave me a
> extra nice place and event with which to celebrate (and the cost is
> low).
>
> On Wednesday, 2006 March 29, a total eclipse of the Sun [...]


Happy Early Birthday then, Amara! That sounds like a wonderful experience
to come.

Best regards,
MB



From riel at surriel.com  Sun Feb 26 05:10:57 2006
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:10:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060225133819.023bdbb8@gmu.edu>
References: <20060225180632.D920D57FAE@finney.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060225133819.023bdbb8@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0602260008310.26916@imladris.surriel.com>

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Robin Hanson wrote:

> Your picture seems to be of big worlds that spit off tiny worlds which 
> then immediately start to become mangled.

This makes me wonder whether the opposite can happen.

A world splits into two over one detail.

Both worlds split again, but one of them becomes very
similar to a child of one of the others.

Could it be possible that the very similar "3rd generation"
worlds join back together and increase the amplitude of that
world ?

This would be a very unlikely thing to happen if all changes
that happen to worlds are equally likely to happen, but what
if some changes are more likely to happen than others?

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Feb 26 05:48:38 2006
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:48:38 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] List quality
Message-ID: <22360fa10602252148g60b10134t4c05891ec52245e8@mail.gmail.com>

Lee Corbin wrote:

> I've been away from the list for two and a half years, and within
> the last month have heard some complaints about list quality. But
> as I peruse February's posts, I'm quite impressed. The threads
> compare favorably with anything I've seen anywhere, and several
> focus on subjects I think especially important.
>
> I'm sorry to see that it's been necessary to install an Intimidator/Terminator
> instead of just a moderator  ;-)  but it's a changing world, and so is always
> getting worse in some ways as it gets better in others.  Viva Extropianus.

What a difference a couple of weeks can make!  Just a few days of the
new moderation policy and a perusal of the archives shows a new (or
much like the old) list, with Robert Bradbury, Robin Hanson, Spike
Jones, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Hal Finney, and Lee Corbin posting with
intelligence and style.

Welcome back, Lee.

- Jef



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Sun Feb 26 05:09:01 2006
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 23:09:01 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Examining Risks (was RE:  META: List Quality)
References: <20060225212933.41AE757FAE@finney.org>
Message-ID: <002501c63a92$c23afdc0$640fa8c0@kevin>

Hal,
Once again I am stunned by your powerful insight. You just made the case
that people don't have to know what they are voting about to vote correctly.
It is completely about the quality of life and the feeling that things are
either better or worse. There is something very appealing about this. Would
you mind going a bit further in depth? A few hundred years from know someone
may do an analysis of  democratic governments and find that this is exactly
how they worked and individuals with their issues didn;t make one bit of
difference. It would be interestiung to plot this out as a computer model if
only we could determine how to assign values to years that were "good" and
those that were not.

The nation may not be collectively holding its breath to know what you have
to say, but at the moment, I am.

> So here is the real problem: society does need some mechanism to make
> decisions on grand questions, but it's not rational for the typical
> member of society to become informed enough to have a meaningful opinion
> on these matters.  So what do we do?  Well, one thing that happens is
> in a democracy, politicians lose their jobs when things get worse, and
> keep them when things get better.  This tends to happen whether it is
> the politician's fault or not, which may seem unjust.  But it does give
> them incentives to try to keep things getting better.  That's not such
> a bad way to run a world.
>
> Hal
> _______________________________________________



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Feb 26 06:18:15 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:18:15 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] sci-fi review
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060225065541.02315048@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <200602260618.k1Q6IRJ3010320@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

A couple of our own lads, Charlie Stross and Damien Broderick, have made
Greg Johnson's Best of 2005 list:

http://www.sfsite.com/lists/greg2005.htm

Check it out.  Damien's Godplayers requires more concentration than an AC
Clarke novel (Clarke does all thinking for you), but sci-fi fans won't be
put off by that.  I think of it as the kind of story D'engle would have
written if she hadn't drifted into children's stories after A Wrinkle In
Time won the Newbery.

Comments by the author most welcome here.  This will not be considered
inappropriate commercial content, for Godplayers has a lot of transhumanist
undertones, which is of general interest on ExI-chat.

spike


  






From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Feb 26 06:27:02 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:27:02 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Examining Risks (was RE:  META: List Quality)
In-Reply-To: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEEECHFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>
Message-ID: <200602260632.k1Q6WKqO014103@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
...
> 
> I must hasten to say that I'm not looking for an argument
> about petty politics at all, but what *is* nearest to my
> concern---what I am almost literally dying to discuss---is
> the role of rationality vs. intuition in cases like this
> as well as in cases not like this.  I want very very much
> to understand the absolutely vital role that rationality
> has to play in human decision making, and, if they exist,
> its limitations.
> 
> Luckily for me, I have already seen unmistakable signs that
> on this very list some extremely insightful people have
> recently devoted thought to the question, or to questions
> much like it.
> 
> Lee

Very well, let us do it thus: go ahead with the discussion.  If we come up
with interesting stuff with a transhumanist angle, and doesn't devolve into
mundane politics and pointless arguments, the list Temporary Benevolent
Dictator will allow it; yea, encourage such an exchange he will.  Otherwise,
the thread will be summarily dumped into the bit bucket, and further
exchange on that topic will be discouraged.  Do treat this topic with the
care it requires.

spike 







From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Feb 26 06:29:00 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:29:00 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Examining Risks (was RE:  META: List Quality)
In-Reply-To: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEEECHFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>
Message-ID: <200602260705.k1Q75YbK017573@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
...
> With only the greatest deliberation and hesitancy can we
> enter into a war with a civilization which perhaps will not
> or can not abide those values. But a "war"? Oh, your question
> should make any civilized head hurt!  My book group (and I)
> passed up the chance to read Huntington's "Clash of
> Civilizations", which maybe was big mistake... Lee

Has anyone here read Huntington's Clash of Civilizations?  How about Jared
Diamond's Collapse?

spike






From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Feb 26 07:21:01 2006
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 23:21:01 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Examining Risks (was RE: META: List Quality)
In-Reply-To: <002501c63a92$c23afdc0$640fa8c0@kevin>
References: <20060225212933.41AE757FAE@finney.org>
	<002501c63a92$c23afdc0$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <22360fa10602252321na7e93a0n57b1798680f55599@mail.gmail.com>

As Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government
except for all those others that have been tried."  From a systems
theoretic point of view, successful government (growth in terms of the
values of the people) is dependent on making well-informed and timely
decisions, and in this regard present forms of democracy are far from
optimum but better than other systems historically.

Just as the executives of public companies are measured in terms of
their approval of their shareholders, political leaders are measured
in terms of the approval of their constituencies, but the actual
success or failure of the enterprise depends on the knowledge and
skill (effectiveness) of these leaders within their particular
environment.

This pressure of general approval/disapproval contributes motivation
to be effective, but it contributes very little in practical terms of
(1) awareness of the relative vectors of specific values to be
promoted, or (2) awareness of effective methods for promotion of those
values.  So in the final evaluation, the decisions taken are dominated
by the existing power structure and the limited awareness of those in
power.

Such a system, expressing at least a scale of approval/dissapproval is
better than a system of central control where information flow is even
more restricted, but it is far from optimal.

Looking forward, I envision a system of social decision-making where
individuals are able to register their fine-grained subjective values
in a public database, and where policy is generated based on
principles of effective interaction that (increasingly) objectively
maximize the promotion of those values over increasing scope (of time,
of actors, and of type of interaction.)  Public service would become
the practice of improving the effectiveness of this framework for
broader positive-sum interaction, rather than fighting over narrowly
coveted slices of a perceived zero-sum pie.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net
Increasing awareness for increasing morality

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

On 2/25/06, kevinfreels.com <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
> Hal,
> Once again I am stunned by your powerful insight. You just made the case
> that people don't have to know what they are voting about to vote correctly.
> It is completely about the quality of life and the feeling that things are
> either better or worse. There is something very appealing about this. Would
> you mind going a bit further in depth? A few hundred years from know someone
> may do an analysis of  democratic governments and find that this is exactly
> how they worked and individuals with their issues didn;t make one bit of
> difference. It would be interestiung to plot this out as a computer model if
> only we could determine how to assign values to years that were "good" and
> those that were not.
>
> The nation may not be collectively holding its breath to know what you have
> to say, but at the moment, I am.
>
> > So here is the real problem: society does need some mechanism to make
> > decisions on grand questions, but it's not rational for the typical
> > member of society to become informed enough to have a meaningful opinion
> > on these matters.  So what do we do?  Well, one thing that happens is
> > in a democracy, politicians lose their jobs when things get worse, and
> > keep them when things get better.  This tends to happen whether it is
> > the politician's fault or not, which may seem unjust.  But it does give
> > them incentives to try to keep things getting better.  That's not such
> > a bad way to run a world.



From lcorbin at tsoft.com  Sun Feb 26 08:33:33 2006
From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:33:33 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Collapse, by Jared Diamond
In-Reply-To: <200602260629.k1Q6Tgr66487@mail0.rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEOECOFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>

Spike asked about Diamond's book "Collapse". I read it and it's
quite wonderful, especially if you're into history and human
ecology. Diamond is a writer of vast skill, and reading him is
simply effortless.

He presents arguments pro and con with a good deal of objectivity,
well---at least as much as he is able to muster given that he has
a definite message in mind.

I found three things, however, to criticize.  One is that most
the failed societies he analyses didn't have free markets. You
can easily see how the existence of a free market economy would
have ameliorated much of their distress.

Second, he fails to point out that each of the collapsed societies
existed in a period of technological stasis. Of course, for us on
this list, that's a very big deal.  But it really does help wreck
his claims of the utter applicability to our civilization of those
catastrophes.  Now thirty-five years ago I could see that Toynbee
came a cropper on just this same issue; historians and sociologists
simply must try harder to incorporate technological change into
their thinking.

Lastly, he finally---but only belatedly and weakly---gets around
to mentioning the discount factor. (Goods today are worth more
than tomorrow.) I can even imagine that taking this into
consideration, many of those societies (e.g. Easter Island) may
have pursued optimal strategies, at least in terms of the greatest
number of people enjoying the greatest prosperity over the longest
period of time.  And it might be argued that in some cases even
today, humanity is simply better off grabbing the resources and
thus destroying some otherwise completely useless land: after all,
chance are that not too long from now it can be very cheaply
repaired.

Lee



From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sun Feb 26 13:28:47 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:28:47 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0602260008310.26916@imladris.surriel.com>
References: <20060225180632.D920D57FAE@finney.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060225133819.023bdbb8@gmu.edu>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61L.0602260008310.26916@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060226082807.022eeeb8@gmu.edu>

At 12:10 AM 2/26/2006, Rik van Riel wrote:
>Could it be possible that the very similar "3rd generation"
>worlds join back together and increase the amplitude of that
>world ?

Possible, but thermodynamically unlikely I think.


Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sun Feb 26 13:41:01 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:41:01 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Examining Risks (was RE:  META: List  Quality)
In-Reply-To: <002501c63a92$c23afdc0$640fa8c0@kevin>
References: <20060225212933.41AE757FAE@finney.org>
	<002501c63a92$c23afdc0$640fa8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060226083451.023e1138@gmu.edu>

This is called "retrospective voting" in the political science 
literature.  Yes, it
has long been known that if voters would just vote to dump or keep an incumbent
based on if their life seems to be going better or worse than expected, this
would provide good incentives for a single central democratic power.

Unfortunately, power is divided, so that voters have to decide who to 
credit with
what changes.  And people do not just vote on their life - they 
consider how they
think other peoples lives are going, and they make judgements about the
particular policies pursued.  While an electorate who knew how little they know
might effectively discipline a central government, an overconfident electorate
can do a lot worse.

At 12:09 AM 2/26/2006, Kevin Freels wrote:
>Once again I am stunned by your powerful insight. You just made the case
>that people don't have to know what they are voting about to vote correctly.
>It is completely about the quality of life and the feeling that things are
>either better or worse. There is something very appealing about this. Would
>you mind going a bit further in depth? A few hundred years from know someone
>may do an analysis of  democratic governments and find that this is exactly
>how they worked and individuals with their issues didn;t make one bit of
>difference. ...
>
> > ... Well, one thing that happens is
> > in a democracy, politicians lose their jobs when things get worse, and
> > keep them when things get better.  This tends to happen whether it is
> > the politician's fault or not, which may seem unjust.  But it does give
> > them incentives to try to keep things getting better.  That's not such
> > a bad way to run a world.


Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Sun Feb 26 14:19:54 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:19:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] When will the equity risk premium flip?
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602260619q729ea3b3w9fab2a6edd26c89e@mail.gmail.com>

A combination of an article about the "equity risk premium" in the NY Times
today [1] combined with recent comments by Hal, Jef & others on voters
betting on past performance has caused me to consider governments, finance,
the singularity, etc. in a general way that raises some interesting
questions.

The "equity risk premium" is the effective yield difference between stocks
and bonds due to the risk associated with the different investment type.
For example, because corporations can have a bad year (declining sales
and/or profits during a recession or depression) or worse yet go bankrupt
(think Enron) stocks have to have a higher effective yield than bonds (where
you are "guaranteed" to get back your original investment).  This concept
gets extended across the entire financial market into everything from P-to-E
ratios in stocks (companies with rapidly growing sales and earnings have
high P-E ratios) to bond yields (from say U.S. Government T-bills to
corporate junk bonds).  People unfamiliar with these concepts may wish to
glance at [2 or 3].

The perception of government security explains why government bonds are
yielding ~4.5% while corporate bonds are in the 5+% range.  This gets
extended into equities but is more complex depending on whether the
companies are good credit risks or bad credit risks balanced with perceived
corporate earnings growth rates.

So let us setup a scenario.  One day we have robust nanotechnology.  People
spend $5.00 and buy their 10 kg of nanorobots and start them building their
Sapphire Mansion.  Since they don't have to work they aren't paying any
income taxes.  Government income tax revenue rapidly falls.  So there is
some quick reengineering of the tax code and all the governments shift to
VATs.  But there isn't much worth buying because the raw materials for food,
the mansion, etc. are as free as "air", "dirt", and "seawater".

The point being that governments in general have little that can be used as
a revenue source other than perhaps a real estate tax or a head tax.  People
avoid those by constructing and moving to their own personal yacht in
international waters.  Eventually these might band together forming larger
structures/organizations (Extropy Island, United City States of Extropy,
etc.).
Really no more need for governments because presumably everyone in my city
state is a close personal friend of (or clone of) myself.  One can carry on
this scenario in various ways... banding together to defend oneself against
FAIs, migrating away from Earth or the solar system if various nations,
individuals, collectives try to imprison and/or otherwise impose their will
upon the individuals, etc.

One of the primary consequences during this transition is that government
backed bonds become essentially worthless.  Current housing becomes
relatively worthless as well other than perhaps the intrinsic value of the
solar, wind, or geothermal energy the land provides.  The only thing which
might have some value is the rapidly growing companies producing cool
nanotech designs to keep the nanorobots occupied or perhaps very creative
media/entertainment conglomerates who can sell products to humans unable to
otherwise entertain themselves.  So people holding "bonds" will watch their
value evaporate while people will investing in rapid growth companies on the
leading edge may have some ROI for at least a few years.    As people have
more and more free time the entertainment providers have a market but this
is probably brief.  Eventually the supply so significantly exceeds the
demand that one will have to pay people to watch, read, etc. whatever one
produces.  (You can start to see signs of now with things like game consoles
priced below production costs, people enticing others to come read their
blog, etc.)  This suggests a brief period when bonds must become
increasingly shorter term and must provide increasingly higher yields while
equities are perceived as increasingly less risky investments.  Eventually
it is questionable whether bonds or equities will even survive.  There will
only be finance markets oriented towards the small communities that simply
must have the latest bling bling which requires financing a large quantity
of nanorobots on loan for a brief peiod.

Questions that arise are?
1) When will the equity risk premium "flip" (i.e. equities trade at
discounts to bonds because they are safer)?
2) Are there "idea futures" on when this will happen?
3) When will politicians begin selling themselves based on these concepts?
[I think this takes one form which is to mortgage the country to the hilt
(perhaps as the U.S. is doing) because it will never be able to pay back
things like 30 year bonds *or* another form where one becomes "corporate"
America which sells equity in the companies which have the greatest near
term growth prospects instead of bonds.]  Note that this a significant shift
away from selling on the basis of past performance towards a selling on the
ability to eliminate death and taxes.
4) How will perceptions of this transition impact the rate at which the
singularity happens?  [Current bond holders may wish to postpone it as long
as possible.]

Robert

Some background:

1. D. Altman, "Why Do Stocks Pay So Much More Than Bonds?", NY Times (26 Feb
2006).
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/business/yourmoney/26view.html?pagewanted=print
2. http://www.fool.com/school/basics/basics05.htm
3. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/110503.asp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060226/ead898b5/attachment.html>

From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sun Feb 26 14:59:01 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:59:01 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] When will the equity risk premium flip?
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0602260619q729ea3b3w9fab2a6edd26c89e@mail.gmail.co m>
References: <deaa866a0602260619q729ea3b3w9fab2a6edd26c89e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060226095217.023d25f8@gmu.edu>

At 09:19 AM 2/26/2006, Robert Bradbury wrote:
>The perception of government security explains why government bonds 
>are yielding ~4.5% while corporate bonds are in the 5+% range. ...
>So let us setup a scenario.  One day we have robust 
>nanotechnology.  People spend $5.00 and buy their 10 kg of 
>nanorobots and start them building their Sapphire Mansion.  Since 
>they don't have to work they aren't paying any income 
>taxes.  Government income tax revenue rapidly falls.  So there is 
>some quick reengineering of the tax code and all the governments 
>shift to VATs.  But there isn't much worth buying because the raw 
>materials for food, the mansion, etc. are as free as "air", "dirt", 
>and "seawater".
>The point being that governments in general have little that can be 
>used as a revenue source other than perhaps a real estate tax or a 
>head tax.  People avoid those by constructing and moving to their 
>own personal yacht in international waters.  ... government backed 
>bonds become essentially worthless.  ...
>1) When will the equity risk premium "flip" ...
>2) Are there "idea futures" on when this will happen?
>3) When will politicians begin selling themselves based on these concepts? ...

I expect that, like me, most investors place a very low probability 
on this scenario, and so this scenario has very little influence on 
current financial market prices.   So if in fact this scenario came 
to occur, the main question would be when does information came out 
revealing this to be a probable scenario.


Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Feb 26 17:25:57 2006
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:25:57 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] When will the equity risk premium flip?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060226095217.023d25f8@gmu.edu>
References: <deaa866a0602260619q729ea3b3w9fab2a6edd26c89e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060226095217.023d25f8@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <22360fa10602260925w69cc4ef7je9ab6419382e53dd@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/26/06, Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
> At 09:19 AM 2/26/2006, Robert Bradbury wrote:
> >The perception of government security explains why government bonds
> >are yielding ~4.5% while corporate bonds are in the 5+% range. ...
> >So let us setup a scenario.  One day we have robust
> >nanotechnology.  People spend $5.00 and buy their 10 kg of
> >nanorobots and start them building their Sapphire Mansion.  Since
> >they don't have to work they aren't paying any income
> >taxes.  Government income tax revenue rapidly falls.  So there is
> >some quick reengineering of the tax code and all the governments
> >shift to VATs.  But there isn't much worth buying because the raw
> >materials for food, the mansion, etc. are as free as "air", "dirt",
> >and "seawater".
> >The point being that governments in general have little that can be
> >used as a revenue source other than perhaps a real estate tax or a
> >head tax.  People avoid those by constructing and moving to their
> >own personal yacht in international waters.  ... government backed
> >bonds become essentially worthless.  ...
> >1) When will the equity risk premium "flip" ...
> >2) Are there "idea futures" on when this will happen?
> >3) When will politicians begin selling themselves based on these concepts? ...
>
> I expect that, like me, most investors place a very low probability
> on this scenario, and so this scenario has very little influence on
> current financial market prices.   So if in fact this scenario came
> to occur, the main question would be when does information came out
> revealing this to be a probable scenario.
>

I would agree with Robin's response but extend it by suggesting that
developments in information technology will continue to outpace other
areas of development, leading to qualitatively new awareness of who we
are, what we value, and how we're doing--at all scales from individual
to global.

Such increased awareness will not inhere in the individuals so much as
in the behavior of the system, driven by human hunger for
entertainment that matches our individual preferences, information
that serves our individual needs, and coordination/planning that
facilitates our individual goals.  Such a rich information environment
will tend to promote transparency of activities, including government,
even if not by what it is made explicit, but by what is missing from
the picture.

In such an environment, politics will be reshaped from zero-sum
conflict over issues of scarcity (material resources, information,
attention) toward positive-sum interaction maximizing development and
utilization of those same material resources, information and
attention.  Politicians, as gate-keepers, power-brokers, and
controllers of information flow, will become increasingly irrelevant,
and be subsumed by a new type of change-leader, entrepreneurial,
discovering new gateways and applications of power and exploiting
broader information flow.

Idealistic?  Yes, to a large extent.  Naive?  No, I don't think so,
given the "unreasonable effectiveness" of simple self-organizing
principles that tend to ratchet forward into the future those features
of complex systems which work.  I think we can already see the
information infrastructure growing, and becoming more personalized
while it becomes more encompassing.

So to more directly respond to Robert's question about "when will
politicians begin selling themselves" based on nanotechnology flipping
much of the current social-political-economic order, I don't think it
will happen at all, because by the time we have such powerful
nanotechnology, the game will already have changed.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net
Increasing awareness for increasing morality



From lcorbin at tsoft.com  Sun Feb 26 18:00:34 2006
From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:00:34 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060225133819.023bdbb8@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEIEDFFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>

Robin wrote in reply to Hal

> Your picture seems to be of big worlds that spit off tiny worlds which then
> immediately start to become mangled.

But we are trying to reconcile your results with previous notions of a
"fraying" multiverse. That is, in David Deutsch's view (and MWI in general)
at any point in a universe we are inhabiting, there is a small amplitude
for almost anything to occur. Hence the "spitting off" of tiny worlds.
To what degree do you reject this standard MWI way of looking at it?

> Instead picture grains of dust which slowly float and grind each other
> into smaller pieces, until a big cloud of them smash into an airless moon.
> Under this picture most of the experience in the small worlds is in the
> floating phase, and only a small part in the smash phase.

But then, I take it, most of one's experience then should be in the major
measure "airless moons" of vast mass and high probability. If so, then
this too tends to diminish expectations of getting mangled.

Besides, if I recall correctly, you or someone objected to a certain
popularization of your idea, namely that there is a reasonable chance
that after a few more years of placid existence, the world we
inhabit may get snuffed. Is that really a consequence of your theory?

Lee



From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sun Feb 26 18:04:24 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:04:24 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEIEDFFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060225133819.023bdbb8@gmu.edu>
	<POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEIEDFFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060226130058.023d43a0@gmu.edu>

At 01:00 PM 2/26/2006, Lee Corbin wrote:
> > Your picture seems to be of big worlds that spit off tiny worlds which then
> > immediately start to become mangled.
>
>But we are trying to reconcile your results with previous notions of a
>"fraying" multiverse. That is, in David Deutsch's view (and MWI in general)
>at any point in a universe we are inhabiting, there is a small amplitude
>for almost anything to occur. Hence the "spitting off" of tiny worlds.
>To what degree do you reject this standard MWI way of looking at it?

You are talking about small relative magnitude in a specific split.  I agree
that such things exist, but I am trying to focus attention on the overall
absolute magnitude of a world, regardless of its last split.

> > Instead picture grains of dust which slowly float and grind each other
> > into smaller pieces, until a big cloud of them smash into an airless moon.
> > Under this picture most of the experience in the small worlds is in the
> > floating phase, and only a small part in the smash phase.
>
>But then, I take it, most of one's experience then should be in the major
>measure "airless moons" of vast mass and high probability. If so, then
>this too tends to diminish expectations of getting mangled.

They challenge is to show *why* most experience follow from the few large
worlds.

>Besides, if I recall correctly, you or someone objected to a certain
>popularization of your idea, namely that there is a reasonable chance
>that after a few more years of placid existence, the world we
>inhabit may get snuffed. Is that really a consequence of your theory?

Yes.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From lcorbin at tsoft.com  Sun Feb 26 18:12:39 2006
From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:12:39 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Subject Line Mechanics
Message-ID: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEGEDGFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>

Can someone tell me what happens when subject lines are changed?
In particular, suppose that one politely alters a subject line
by use of the "(was: XXXX)" construction---and then later removes
the parenthetical expression altogether, thus completing the
change.

I have always supposed that we did that for two reasons: one, to
alert posters following a certain thread that relevant discussion
is continuing under another name, and two, so that the archival
machinery follows the change.  Is that wrong?

Moreover, does anyone have a strong suggestion about what our
convention here should be?

As always, change outdated subject lines, please.

Lee



From ml at gondwanaland.com  Sun Feb 26 19:14:53 2006
From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:14:53 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Examining Risks (was RE:  META: List  Quality)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060226083451.023e1138@gmu.edu>
References: <20060225212933.41AE757FAE@finney.org>
	<002501c63a92$c23afdc0$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060226083451.023e1138@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <20060226191453.GA31053@or.pair.com>

On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 08:41:01AM -0500, Robin Hanson wrote:
> This is called "retrospective voting" in the political science 
> literature.  Yes, it
> has long been known that if voters would just vote to dump or keep an incumbent
> based on if their life seems to be going better or worse than expected, this
> would provide good incentives for a single central democratic power.
> 
> Unfortunately, power is divided, so that voters have to decide who to 
> credit with
> what changes.  And people do not just vote on their life - they 
> consider how they
> think other peoples lives are going, and they make judgements about the
> particular policies pursued.  While an electorate who knew how little they know
> might effectively discipline a central government, an overconfident electorate
> can do a lot worse.

I've idly wondered about the impact of policy outcomes on the
electoral success of policy makers (I assumed very little).  This
thread motivates me to de-idle for a second.  The first relevant
article I found (abstract only) is "Macroeconomic conditions and
committee re-election rates" at
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11127-005-3471-y

	Using Presidential Party return rates from 10 House committees
	over the time period 1916-1996, I find the impact of economic
	conditions at the polls varies by committee. Generally,
	committees that manage money or provide a public good are
	the most sensitive to economic fluctuations. Contrastingly,
	members of the Public Works committee and the Rules committee
	are more insulated from electoral culpability due to economic
	fluctuations.

I'll have to read the article to discern the level of impact, which
I still assume to be very low.  There must be decades to centuries
worth of both macroeconomic and electoral outcome data across many
jurisdictions.  Has anyone done a comprehensive survey?

The reason I've been idly wondering is that I find Robin's Futarchy
idea increasingly compelling but probably too unfamiliar for people
to consider it a realistic proposal anytime soon.  The world needs
much more experience with prediction markets for one thing.

So how to make policy (beliefs) more productive of desired outcomes
(values) without the market mechanism?  One possibility to to fire
all or (randomly) most politicians if certain benchmarks are not
met, e.g., current members of the relevant legislative body are put
out of office (and not eligible for re-election) if real per capita
income growth falls under 1%.  There could be gradations, encouraging
politicians to aim for higher growth rather than a safe level that
won't get them fired, e.g., 100/income growth percent are put out
of office (all go if growth is zero or less).

As with Futarchy benchmarks could be more complex and as today they
would be subject to manipulation.  To reduce potential for maniuplation
terms could be very long, even indefinite, militating against short
term policies designed to make incumbents look good during an
election cycle without regard to long term harm.

The goal is to automatically punish politicians for producing bad
outcomes since voters cannot be counted on to do so.  Rewards (e.g.,
bonuses for surpassing certain benchmarks) could be incorporated
as well.  I don't know of any representative democratic system that
incorporates rewards for the production of good outcomes other than
safe incumbency, higher office, and accumulation of power, all of
which I assume to be very weakly linked to the production of good
outcomes.

Potential slogan, utilizing envy food good: "If we're out of work,
so are you!" (Assuming [un]employment rate is a benchmark, "you"
are politicians.)

I'm sure that similar proposals have been made many times and tried
on a small scale.  The nearest I can think of off the top of my
head in a political (but not policy-setting) context is school
reconstitution.  In the private sector an automatic wholesale
management or board firing would be much more similar.  Do such
arrangements exist?  They are probably far less necessary in private
organizations as they are already fundamentally disciplined in ways
organizations with the power to tax are not.

-- 
  Mike Linksvayer
  http://gondwanaland.com/ml/


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sun Feb 26 21:00:50 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:00:50 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Voter over-confidence (was: Examining Risks)
In-Reply-To: <20060226191453.GA31053@or.pair.com>
References: <20060225212933.41AE757FAE@finney.org>
	<002501c63a92$c23afdc0$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060226083451.023e1138@gmu.edu>
	<20060226191453.GA31053@or.pair.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060226155450.023fbc18@gmu.edu>

At 02:14 PM 2/26/2006, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 08:41:01AM -0500, Robin Hanson wrote:
> > ... While an electorate who knew how little they know
> > might effectively discipline a central government, an overconfident
> > electorate can do a lot worse.
>
>I've idly wondered about the impact of policy outcomes on the
>electoral success of policy makers (I assumed very little).  ...
>The reason I've been idly wondering is that I find Robin's Futarchy
>idea increasingly compelling but probably too unfamiliar for people
>to consider it a realistic proposal anytime soon.  ...
>One possibility to to fire
>all or (randomly) most politicians if certain benchmarks are not
>met, e.g., current members of the relevant legislative body are put
>out of office (and not eligible for re-election) if real per capita
>income growth falls under 1%.  ...
>The goal is to automatically punish politicians for producing bad
>outcomes since voters cannot be counted on to do so.

The key problem with these proposals is not so much voter familiarity
but voter self-confidence.   Over-confident voters are not likely to
approve proposals whose major rationale is to mitigate voter
over-confidence.  Voters do not believe they are over-confident.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Feb 26 21:12:43 2006
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:12:43 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Subject Line Mechanics
In-Reply-To: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEGEDGFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>
References: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEGEDGFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060226150254.04272cb0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 12:12 PM 2/26/2006, Lee wrote:

>Can someone tell me what happens when subject lines are changed?
>In particular, suppose that one politely alters a subject line
>by use of the "(was: XXXX)" construction---and then later removes
>the parenthetical expression altogether, thus completing the
>change.
>
>I have always supposed that we did that for two reasons: one, to
>alert posters following a certain thread that relevant discussion
>is continuing under another name, and two, so that the archival
>machinery follows the change.  Is that wrong?

And three, and three, which is a subset of one, a respectful alert to 
original thread author that the thread's intent is being changed.

>Moreover, does anyone have a strong suggestion about what our
>convention here should be?

To stick to the intention of the thread and if going in a new direction to 
change the thread subject line and use (was:...) after the new 
subject.  When the new subject takes off, the (was:...) is dropped.  There 
is no specific number of posts or time frame for posts.

Posts about the list, or its rules, should have the pre-fix "META:" We 
encourage the use of other prefixes indicating the content of a post. 
Examples include, PHIL:, MATH:, SCI:, CHAT:, ARTS:, etc.

Since the topic of discussion on the list can change constantly within a 
single thread, we ask that the subject lines change accordingly. If you 
feel that a thread is going off the original topic, that's perfectly fine, 
but please change the subject line to let all list readers know what the 
topic has become.


>As always, change outdated subject lines, please.

Yes.  Thanks for the reminder.

Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist - Designer
Future Studies, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060226/4f8489e6/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Feb 26 21:27:09 2006
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:27:09 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Subject Line Mechanics
In-Reply-To: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEGEDGFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>
References: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEGEDGFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060226152648.041eedb8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 12:12 PM 2/26/2006, Lee wrote:

>Can someone tell me what happens when subject lines are changed?
>In particular, suppose that one politely alters a subject line
>by use of the "(was: XXXX)" construction---and then later removes
>the parenthetical expression altogether, thus completing the
>change.
>
>I have always supposed that we did that for two reasons: one, to
>alert posters following a certain thread that relevant discussion
>is continuing under another name, and two, so that the archival
>machinery follows the change.  Is that wrong?

And three, and three, which is a subset of one, a respectful alert to 
original thread author that the thread's intent is being changed.

>Moreover, does anyone have a strong suggestion about what our
>convention here should be?

To stick to the intention of the thread and if going in a new direction to 
change the thread subject line and use (was:...) after the new 
subject.  When the new subject takes off, the (was:...) is dropped.  There 
is no specific number of posts or time frame for posts.

Posts about the list, or its rules, should have the pre-fix "META:" We 
encourage the use of other prefixes indicating the content of a post. 
Examples include, PHIL:, MATH:, SCI:, CHAT:, ARTS:, etc.

Since the topic of discussion on the list can change constantly within a 
single thread, we ask that the subject lines change accordingly. If you 
feel that a thread is going off the original topic, that's perfectly fine, 
but please change the subject line to let all list readers know what the 
topic has become.


>As always, change outdated subject lines, please.

Yes.  Thanks for the reminder.

Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha<http://www.natasha.cc/> 
<http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist - Designer
Future Studies, University of Houston
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060226/453aef5d/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Feb 26 22:05:47 2006
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:05:47 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] When will the equity risk premium flip?
In-Reply-To: <22360fa10602260925w69cc4ef7je9ab6419382e53dd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0602260619q729ea3b3w9fab2a6edd26c89e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060226095217.023d25f8@gmu.edu>
	<22360fa10602260925w69cc4ef7je9ab6419382e53dd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0602261405l36a77a6bw465f503c3cdebf22@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/26/06, Jef Allbright wrote:
> Such increased awareness will not inhere in the individuals so much as
> in the behavior of the system, driven by human hunger for
> entertainment that matches our individual preferences, information
> that serves our individual needs, and coordination/planning that
> facilitates our individual goals.  Such a rich information environment
> will tend to promote transparency of activities, including government,
> even if not by what it is made explicit, but by what is missing from
> the picture.
>
> In such an environment, politics will be reshaped from zero-sum
> conflict over issues of scarcity (material resources, information,
> attention) toward positive-sum interaction maximizing development and
> utilization of those same material resources, information and
> attention.  Politicians, as gate-keepers, power-brokers, and
> controllers of information flow, will become increasingly irrelevant,
> and be subsumed by a new type of change-leader, entrepreneurial,
> discovering new gateways and applications of power and exploiting
> broader information flow.
>
> Idealistic?  Yes, to a large extent.
<snip>

I think it is extremely idealistic to think that 'government' will
give up its powers easily. Just as there is a 'War on Drugs' and a
'War on Terrorism' which reduces our freedoms and increases government
powers, there will be a 'War on Nano' to ensure that government keeps
control of it.

Do you want terrorists to get a nanofactory?
Do you want drug dealers splicing cocaine genes into every common plant?
Do you want diamonds made in every garage? The government certainly doesn't.
That's why the government has to keep control of it. It's for your own
good you know. Protest if you like, but once the nanofab raids join
the crack shop raids, private researchers will either be in prison or
find something else to do.

Freedom? Don't be silly. You're a criminal.

BillK



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Feb 26 21:54:16 2006
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:54:16 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Subject Line Mechanics
In-Reply-To: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEGEDGFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>
Message-ID: <200602262206.k1QM6c4T017338@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 10:13 AM
> To: Exi-Chat
> Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Subject Line Mechanics
> 
> Can someone tell me what happens when subject lines are changed?
> In particular, suppose that one politely alters a subject line
> by use of the "(was: XXXX)" construction---and then later removes
> the parenthetical expression altogether, thus completing the
> change... As always, change outdated subject lines, please... Lee


Thanks Lee, ja we have never had any hard and fast rules on this, altho
Robert and others have asked for subject line discipline.  The "was: XXXX)"
feature helps an archive user bridge back to the original topic.  We have
seen how discussions morph in a most delightful way on ExI-chat.  Use your
judgment on making subject lines agree with the text.  Otherwise when an
emergent AI goes thru the archives reading everything we wrote, it may
become puzzled and decide to destroy humanity just to simplify its theory of
carbon-based intelligence.

spike







From mfj.eav at gmail.com  Sun Feb 26 23:22:48 2006
From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:22:48 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI-chat slogan contest
In-Reply-To: <61c8738e0602211804l3686cf35i12475c98fa313e9b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <380-22006232211728846@M2W103.mail2web.com>
	<61c8738e0602211802n6b4a26c7k79ef41e3a8de23e2@mail.gmail.com>
	<61c8738e0602211804l3686cf35i12475c98fa313e9b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <61c8738e0602261522k1e96eaa9s2de81e18502cc278@mail.gmail.com>

Extropian Smoke Signals Waft softly but Carry a big  Schtick.

I think I'll add that one to my own tagline.......MFJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060226/cff95ad7/attachment.html>

From ml at gondwanaland.com  Sun Feb 26 23:46:53 2006
From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:46:53 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Voter over-confidence (was: Examining Risks)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060226155450.023fbc18@gmu.edu>
References: <20060225212933.41AE757FAE@finney.org>
	<002501c63a92$c23afdc0$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060226083451.023e1138@gmu.edu>
	<20060226191453.GA31053@or.pair.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060226155450.023fbc18@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <20060226234653.GA38816@or.pair.com>

On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 04:00:50PM -0500, Robin Hanson wrote:
> The key problem with these proposals is not so much voter familiarity
> but voter self-confidence.   Over-confident voters are not likely to
> approve proposals whose major rationale is to mitigate voter
> over-confidence.  Voters do not believe they are over-confident.

This doesn't seem to fit support (not overwhelming, but enough to
win sometimes) for term limits or campaign finance limits or the
lack of a movement to explicitly remove constitutional restraints
on democracy (perhaps calls to eliminate the electoral college in
the US count, barely, but they are forgotten seconds after the
losing side stops fantasizing) or the complete lack of a movement
for direct democracy (though maybe use of propositions count).

I imagine that voters lack imagination for anything other than the
status quo and that people are wildly overconfident in
politically-determined outcomes (democratic or otherwise) and
underconfident in voluntary outcomes though I'm not sure how any
of these apart from the first map to voter opposition to proposals
to correct overconfidence.

(Voter confidence and similar are heavily overloaded terms.  I can't
find anything relevant.)

In any case I wouldn't imagine selling such a reform as a restraint
on voters but as a means to ensure politicians, with whom voters
have a love-hate relationship, actually produce outcomes voters
demand.

But assuming voter overconfidence is insuperable, are there useful
reforms that flatter voters?  Reigning in executive power may be
one.

-- 
  Mike Linksvayer
  http://gondwanaland.com/ml/


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Mon Feb 27 01:32:51 2006
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:02:51 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] How many exi postors does it take to change a
	lightbulb?
Message-ID: <710b78fc0602261732s6d1b2d7fh@mail.gmail.com>

I came across this online, laughed my butt off, and thought you all
might notice some, ah, relevance to this forum...

(Apologies in advance if you've seen this before)
---

How many exi postors does it takes to change a light bulb?

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed
14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light
bulb could have been changed differently
7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs
1 to move it to the Lighting section
2 to argue then move it to the Electricals section
7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs
5 to flame the spell checkers
3 to correct spelling/grammar flames
6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6 to
condemn those 6 as stupid
2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"
15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb"
is perfectly correct
19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this
discussion to a lightbulb forum
11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs
and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum
36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy
the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique
and what brands are faulty
7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs
4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected
URL's
3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this
group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group
13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all
headers and signatures, and add "Me too"
5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot
handle the light bulb controversy
4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"
13 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about
light bulbs"
1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start
it all over again.

--

Actually, the only problem I can see with this is that on the exi
list, the lightbulb may very well not actually be changed.

--
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com



From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Mon Feb 27 01:56:21 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:56:21 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] How many exi postors does it take to change a
	lightbulb?
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0602261732s6d1b2d7fh@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0602261732s6d1b2d7fh@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602261756k2c21e815q23e68cfcb1185695@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/26/06, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote: ... [snip]

A few items that might be considered missing...

- 3 people to point out that Wikipedia has a complete discussion under:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/ExI_Posters_Changing_Lightbulbs
- 2 to mention that in some subsets of the multiverse the lightbulb is
changed, in others unchanged and a few where its state is unclear unchanged
until one goes through the stargate into them and checks.
- and 1 to point out that continued (poor) use of the resources of the
simulations to to discuss changing lightbulbs is likely to result in the
Intelligent Designer pulling the plug on them all.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060226/a6c67bc3/attachment.html>

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Mon Feb 27 02:26:40 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:26:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] When will the equity risk premium flip?
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0602261405l36a77a6bw465f503c3cdebf22@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0602260619q729ea3b3w9fab2a6edd26c89e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060226095217.023d25f8@gmu.edu>
	<22360fa10602260925w69cc4ef7je9ab6419382e53dd@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0602261405l36a77a6bw465f503c3cdebf22@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602261826x5867dfe6oa5343f4f99fef259@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/26/06, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> Do you want terrorists to get a nanofactory? [snip]


You seem to be operating under the assumption that building these will be
difficult...  I will freely admit that mining tons of uranium or building
and operating hundreds or thousands of high speed centrifuges is somewhat
difficult.

However, nanofactories are a different story...

For example:
"POSaM: a fast, flexible, open-source, inkjet oligonucleotide synthesizer
and microarrayer", Genome Biology 2004 5:R58
http://genomebiology.com/2004/5/8/R58

I've got an inkjet printer sitting on the desk next to me as I type this.
It might take a few years to turn it into something like a POSaM but this
isn't beyond anyone with a reasonable amount of technical skill.  See the
pictures for example:
http://genomebiology.com/2004/5/8/r58/figure/F1

Governments are going to have a very difficult time preventing anyone who
really wants to produce designer nanorobots (a.k.a. bacteria) from doing so
once they can synthesize the DNA source code.  Those designs are ultimately
going to be limited largely by the creativity of the people doing the work
*not* by big brother.

Ask yourself this... What components can one extract from a typical home
computer to use for the construction of a 3-axis AFM?  And if the procedures
for doing this "conversion" become "open source" -- what government in the
world is going to be able to stop teenagers from building them in their
basements?

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060226/af58e2a0/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at tsoft.com  Mon Feb 27 07:53:26 2006
From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:53:26 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans--non-rational mode
Message-ID: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEMEECFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>

Keith writes

> [Hal wrote]
>
> > reasonable heuristic for a rational observer with potentially stringent
> > bounds on his available computational capacity; or whether you see it
> > as irrational behavior in terms of getting at the truth, but justified
> > in terms of other benefits, such as social advantages.
> 
> In the last year or two I have been subjected to a dawning horror that 
> genes have not only built mechanisms into humans to allow them to think 
> rationally, but mechanisms to shut off rational thinking when doing so is 
> in the interest of the gene.

Of course, what you write here is by no means an attack on
rationality, because, as you say, our interests and our genes'
interest at times diverge, and naturally we want what's best for us.

> I about half way suspect that non-rational behaviors may
> all have roots in the same evolved brain mechanism.  [E.g.]
> humans have capture-bonding mechanisms because of heavy selection.

Well, I have quite a number of questions, but they boil down to
wondering about all the assaults on rationality. The emphasis
here is different from yours; I take the default hypothesis to
be that evolution knew what it was doing (at least in the EEA),
and that "irrationality" is not ipso-facto a bad thing each time
it's identified.

The assaults on rationality that come to mind:

1. (the first one I ever heard of) Schelling's examples of how
   it is sometimes very rational to be irrational (the words
   here are very problematic, obviously)

2. general emotional behavior: anger, love, envy, and so forth
   surely have evolutionary explanations, and moreover, one
   easily sees that the *propensity* to become angry, for
   example, in many situations pays dividends

3. the famous Damasio card experiment in which (as I understand 
   it) one cannot rationally keep track of so much data, and so
   feelings of disfavor towards situations are necessary for
   optimal human performance. (I dare say that such brain
   processing can literally create a bad taste in one's mouth.)

4. Gladwell's book "Blink" which I have not read and do not
   recommend, but joins the parade of claims that many situations
   are best *not* dealt with rationally (e.g. the legend of "The
   Marines vs. the Wall-Street brokers)

and there was, I think, at least one paper at the Society for
Personality and Social Psychology conference held recently that
made the news. It was about the same thing, but I can't find it
right now.

How much should these change our perspective?
 
Lee



From amara at amara.com  Mon Feb 27 07:22:09 2006
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:22:09 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
Message-ID: <p06230900c0285614bf83@[23.237.66.13]>



>Instead picture grains of dust which slowly float and grind each other
>into smaller pieces, until a big cloud of them smash into an airless
>moon.   Under this picture most of the experience in the small worlds
>is in the floating phase, and only a small part in the smash phase.

Hey.. I like dust analogies! Not very realistic in this universe
though. No magnetic fields or plasmas. I guess your grain size
distribution from the collisions would be about -3, and your dust
cloud would have asymmetries...

Title:
	Impact-generated dust clouds surrounding the Galilean moons
Authors:
	Krueger, Harald; Krivov, Alexander V.; Sremcevic, Miodrag; Gruen,
	Eberhard
Affiliation:
	AA(Max-Planck-Institut fuer Kernphysik, Postfach 103980, 69029,
	Heidelberg, Germany), AB(Nonlinear Dynamics Group, Institute of
	Physics, University of Potsdam, P.O. Box 601553, 14415, Potsdam,
	Germany), AC(Nonlinear Dynamics Group, Institute of Physics,
	University of Potsdam, P.O. Box 601553, 14415, Potsdam, Germany),
	AD(Max-Planck-Institut fuer Kernphysik, Postfach 103980, 69029,
	Heidelberg, Germany)
Journal:
	Icarus, Volume 164, Issue 1, p. 170-187. (Icarus Homepage)
Publication Date:
	07/2003
Origin:
	ELSEVIER
Abstract Copyright:
	(c) 2003 Elsevier (USA)
DOI:
	10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00127-1
Bibliographic Code:
	2003Icar..164..170K
Abstract
Tenuous dust clouds of Jupiter's Galilean moons Io, Europa, Ganymede
and Callisto have been detected with the in-situ dust detector on
board the Galileo spacecraft. The majority of the dust particles have
been sensed at altitudes below five radii of these lunar-sized
satellites. We identify the particles in the dust clouds surrounding
the moons by their impact direction, impact velocity, and mass
distribution. Average particle sizes are between 0.5 and 1 m, just
above the detector threshold, indicating a size distribution with
decreasing numbers towards bigger particles. Our results imply that
the particles have been kicked up by hypervelocity impacts of
micrometeoroids onto the satellites' surfaces. The measured radial
dust density profiles are consistent with predictions by dynamical
modeling for satellite ejecta produced by interplanetary impactors
(Krivov et al., 2003, Planet. Space Sci. 51, 251-269), assuming yield,
mass and velocity distributions of the ejecta from laboratory
measurements. A comparison of all four Galilean moons (data for
Ganymede published earlier; Krueger et al., 2000, Planet. Space Sci.
48, 1457-1471) shows that the dust clouds of the three outer Galilean
moons have very similar properties and are in good agreement with the
model predictions for solid ice-silicate surfaces. The dust density in
the vicinity of Io, however, is more than an order of magnitude lower
than expected from theory. This may be due to a softer, fluffier
surface of Io (volcanic deposits) as compared to the other moons. The
log-log slope of the dust number density in the clouds vs. distance
from the satellite center ranges between /-1.6 and /-2.8.
Appreciable variations of number densities obtained from individual
flybys with varying geometry, especially at Callisto, are found. These
might be indicative of leading-trailing asymmetries of the clouds due
to the motion of the moons with respect to the field of impactors.

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

Title:
	Impact-generated dust clouds around planetary satellites: model
	versus Galileo data
Authors:
	Sremcevic, Miodrag; Krivov, Alexander V.; Krueger, Harald; Spahn,
	Frank
Affiliation:
	AA(AG Nichtlineare Dynamik, Institut fuer Physik, Universitaet
	Potsdam, Am Neuen Palais 10, Bldg. 19, Postfach 601553, D-14415
	Potsdam, Germany), AB(AG Nichtlineare Dynamik, Institut fuer
	Physik, Universitaet Potsdam, Am Neuen Palais 10, Bldg. 19,
	Postfach 601553, D-14415 Potsdam, Germany; On leave from:
	Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg University, Russia.),
	AC(Max-Planck-Institut fuer Kernphysik, Postfach 103980, 69029
	Heidelberg, Germany), AD(AG Nichtlineare Dynamik, Institut fuer
	Physik, Universitaet Potsdam, Am Neuen Palais 10, Bldg. 19,
	Postfach 601553, D-14415 Potsdam, Germany)
Journal:
	Planetary and Space Science, Volume 53, Issue 6, p. 625-641. (P&SS
	Homepage)
Publication Date:
	05/2005
Origin:
	ELSEVIER
DOI:
	10.1016/j.pss.2004.10.001
Bibliographic Code:
	2005P&SS...53..625S
Abstract
This paper focuses on tenuous dust clouds of Jupiter's Galilean moons
Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. In a companion paper (Sremcevic et al.,
Planet. Space Sci. 51 (2003) 455 471) an analytical model of
impact-generated ejecta dust clouds surrounding planetary satellites
has been developed. The main aim of the model is to predict the
asymmetries in the dust clouds which may arise from the orbital motion
of the parent body through a field of impactors. The Galileo dust
detector data from flybys at Europa, Ganymede and Callisto are
compatible with the model, assuming projectiles to be interplanetary
micrometeoroids. The analysis of the data suggests that two
interplanetary impactor populations are most likely the source of the
measured dust clouds: impactors with isotropically distributed
velocities and micrometeoroids in retrograde orbits. Other impactor
populations, namely those originating in the Jovian system, or
interplanetary projectiles with low orbital eccentricities and
inclinations, or interstellar stream particles, can be ruled out by
the statistical analysis of the data. The data analysis also suggests
that the mean ejecta velocity angle to the normal at the satellite
surface is around 30deg, which is in agreement with laboratory studies
of the hypervelocity impacts.


From iamgoddard at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 27 08:20:26 2006
From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:20:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Resveratrol Bioavailability Analysis
Message-ID: <20060227082026.8866.qmail@web52615.mail.yahoo.com>

Regarding Resveratrol :
http://www.sirtuins.com/life-extension.html

The question of the bioavailability of resveratrol may
not have come up on extropy-chat, but since it is an
important question for many life extensionists, I'm
posting my analysis below in hopes that it may advance
the life-extending efforts of members. ~Ian


____________________________________________________

FACT: Almost zero free resveratrol is found in the
bloodstream after oral dosing due to the conjugation
of resveratrol with sulfur and glucuronic acid in the
liver. [1,2]

HYPOTHESIS: The evidenced effects of non-oral
resveratrol dosing (for example, in vitro or in vivo
by injection) are not available by oral resveratrol
dosing.

	Hypothesis Test:

	Non-oral Resveratrol Effects
	  * Blood thinning [3]
	  * Ischemia protection [4]
	  * Life extension [5]

	Oral Resveratrol Effects
	  * Blood thinning [6] 
	  * Ischemia protection [7]
	  * Life extension [8]

ERGO: The hypothesis is falsified since there exists
at least three evidenced effects of non-oral
resveratrol that appear to be available by oral
resveratrol. We are thus compelled to adopt the
contrary hypothesis: at least some (if not all)
evidenced effects of non-oral resveratrol are
available by oral resveratrol. There are means by
which resveratrol may deliver effect despite hepatic
conjugation, but mechanisms are beyond the scope of
this logical empirical-results analysis.

(This analysis is expressed in formal logic following
its empirical referents.)
_____________________________________________________

[1] http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=15779070
[2] http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=12554065

Non-oral Resveratrol Effects:

[3] British Journal of Pharmacology (1999):
"trans-Resveratrol inhibits human platelet aggregation
both in vitro and in vivo." 
http://www.nature.com/bjp/journal/v128/n1/full/0702749a.html

[4] Brain Research (2003): "Resveratrol was injected
i.p. (30 mg/kg body weight) [...] This study
demonstrated for the first time that resveratrol, a
polyphenolic antioxidant, can cross the blood-brain
barrier and exert protective effects against cerebral
ischemic injury."
http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=12470882

[5] Nature (2003): "In yeast, resveratrol mimics
calorie restriction by stimulating Sir2, increasing
DNA stability and extending lifespan by 70%." NOTE:
This is an instance of non-oral dosing because yeast
are ahepatic.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6954/abs/nature01960.html

Oral Resveratrol Effects:

[6] Clinica Chimica Acta (1996): "studies were
performed on 24 healthy males aged 26-45 years [...]
commercial juice lowered the IC50 for thrombin (P <
0.001) whereas the resveratrol-enriched juice caused a
dramatic increase (P < 0.001). [...] We conclude that
trans-resveratrol can be absorbed from grape juice in
biologically active quantities and in amounts that are
likely to cause reduction in the risk of
atherosclerosis."
http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=8814965

[7] Life Sciences (2005): "Male Balb/C mice were
treated with resveratrol for 7 days (50 mg/kg,
gavage). [...] elevated levels of MMP-9 were
significantly attenuated in the resveratrol-treated
mice as compared to the vehicle MCAo mice. The study
suggests that resveratrol has protective effects
against acute ischemic stroke." NOTE: Feeding by
"gavage" is tube-to-stomach feeding, which does not
bypass the liver.
http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=16321402

[8] Current Biology (2006): "120 mg/g [ resveratrol /
food ] caused an increase of median and maximum
lifespan of 33% and 27%, respectively (p < 0.001, log
rank test), and 600 mg/g food induced 56% and 59%
increase in median and maximum lifespan, respectively
(p < 0.001, log rank test). 600 mg/g food was
significantly more effective than 120 mg/g food in
prolonging lifespan (p = 0.01, log rank test)."
http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=16461283

Progress of resveratrol life-extension research:
http://www.longevinex.com/images/resveratrol_experiments_full.jpg

_____________________________________________________

Translating the hypothesis into formal logic for
evaluation where

N = non-oral resveratrol dosing
O = oral resveratrol dosing

HYPOTHESIS: The evidenced effects of N are not
available by O.

HYPOTHESIS-TEST STATEMENT: 
If X is an effect of N, then X is not an effect of O.

Fleshing out that statement for clarity of
translation:

For any effect X and any studies x and y, if x uses N
and x finds X, then it is NOT the case that if y uses
O, y finds X.

Now translating it into second-order predicate logic:

(X)(x)(y)[ (Nx & Xx) -> ~(Oy -> Xy) ]

Now instantiating it step-by-step into the first
empirical case where

B = found blood-thinning
a = study [3]
b = study [6]

1. (X)(x)(y)[ (Nx & Xx) -> ~(Oy -> Xy) ]
2. (x)(y)[ (Nx & Bx) -> ~(Oy -> By) ]
3. (y)[ (Na & Ba) -> ~(Oy -> By) ]
4. (Na & Ba) -> ~(Ob -> Bb)

And then applying two replacement rules to step 4:

4. (Na & Ba) -> ~(Ob -> Bb)
5. (Na & Ba) -> ~(~Ob v Bb)  -  conditional exchange
6. (Na & Ba) -> (Ob & ~Bb)  -  de Morgan's

Now by the semantics of predicate logic we can see
that the hypothesis-test statement is false by
observing that its antecedent (Na & Ba) is true (study
[3] has the properties N and B), yet its consequent is
false because in fact b (study [6]) has the properties
O and B. However, according to the hypothesis-test
statement, b must have the property ~B. So it turns
out that ~Bb is false since Bb is true, and thus the
consequent (Ob & ~Bb) is false since one of its
conjuncts is false. Therefore, with a true antecedent
and false consequent, the whole statement (Ba & Na) ->
(Ob & ~Bb) is false, and thus the hypothesis is
falsified by this single case alone. Instantiating the
hypothesis-test statement into the other two cases
cited above follows same steps to the same result.

Because the hypothesis is falsified we must by logical
consequence adopt the contrary: at least some (if not
all) evidenced effects of non-oral resveratrol are
available by oral resveratrol.


http://www.IanGoddard.net

"Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy
and indistinct; its task is to make them clear and to
give them sharp boundaries." Ludwig Wittgenstein 




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Mon Feb 27 15:57:45 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:57:45 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mangled Worlds
In-Reply-To: <p06230900c0285614bf83@[23.237.66.13]>
References: <p06230900c0285614bf83@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060227105633.024f0d30@gmu.edu>

At 02:22 AM 2/27/2006, Amara Graps wrote:
> >Instead picture grains of dust which slowly float and grind each other
> >into smaller pieces, until a big cloud of them smash into an airless
> >moon.   Under this picture most of the experience in the small worlds
> >is in the floating phase, and only a small part in the smash phase.
>
>Hey.. I like dust analogies! Not very realistic in this universe
>though. No magnetic fields or plasmas. I guess your grain size
>distribution from the collisions would be about -3, and your dust
>cloud would have asymmetries...

Well that's the problem with trying to make analogies with supposedly
simpler situations - few things are as simple as they seem.  :)



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From hal at finney.org  Mon Feb 27 17:09:50 2006
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:09:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Collapse, by Jared Diamond
Message-ID: <20060227170950.DB03F57FAE@finney.org>

Lee writes:
> Spike asked about Diamond's book "Collapse". I read it and it's
> quite wonderful, especially if you're into history and human
> ecology. Diamond is a writer of vast skill, and reading him is
> simply effortless.
>
> He presents arguments pro and con with a good deal of objectivity,
> well---at least as much as he is able to muster given that he has
> a definite message in mind.

I haven't read this book, but I was recently pointed to an online critique
which claims that Diamond has seriously misstated the scholarship on the
collapse of Easter Island:

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/EE%2016-34_Peiser.pdf

"From Genocide to Ecocide: The Rape of Rapa Nui", by Benny Peiser.
Peiser argues that Diamond has distorted the history of Rapa Nui (Easter
Island) in order to fit his own eco-doomer preconceptions.  Diamond is
somewhat notorious for his claim that agriculture was "the worst mistake
in the history of the human race" and apparently has believed for some
time that human culture tends to lead to environmental disaster.

I'm not sure how convincing Peiser's thesis is here; I've read that he has
an ideological opposition to Diamond's view.  I thought the paper above
was repetitive and rambling.  Nevertheless Peiser makes a good case that
the truth is that we really don't know, and may never know, what happened
on Easter Island.

Peiser argues that the island's culture was successful and still building
statues right up until the natives were attacked and stolen away by
European slave traders.  (Half the statues on the island are still in
the quarries, in the middle of construction.)  I don't know about that,
but it seems clear that by the time Easter Island came to the attention
of anything like the modern anthropoligical community, it had suffered
from the depradations of the Europeans for generations.  Without any
kind of written cultural history, oral accounts from the few remaining
natives were fragmentary and inconsistent.  Worse, descriptions of the
island from early European visitors are equally contradictory, some
describing barrren landscapes while others marvelling at the fertility
and mentioning forests.

Peiser argues that Diamond has picked and chosen among these many
accounts, selecting only those that buttress his thesis of "ecocide".
Peiser sees Diamond's work as falling into a larger class of analyses
which close their eyes to the obvious and well-documented European
genocide of the Easter Islanders, preferring to focus on this supposed
self-destruction.

As I said, I don't know if Peiser really makes a strong case for a
thriving Easter Island culture right up until the 18th and 19 centuries,
but it does seem clear that there are so many lines of evidence pointing
in different ways, that at this point it is impossible to say what
really happened.

Hal


From hal at finney.org  Mon Feb 27 17:21:57 2006
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:21:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Collapse, by Jared Diamond
Message-ID: <20060227172157.16E3557FAE@finney.org>

Lee makes another point I thought was interesting, about Diamond's
book:
> Lastly, he finally---but only belatedly and weakly---gets around
> to mentioning the discount factor. (Goods today are worth more
> than tomorrow.) I can even imagine that taking this into
> consideration, many of those societies (e.g. Easter Island) may
> have pursued optimal strategies, at least in terms of the greatest
> number of people enjoying the greatest prosperity over the longest
> period of time.  And it might be argued that in some cases even
> today, humanity is simply better off grabbing the resources and
> thus destroying some otherwise completely useless land: after all,
> chance are that not too long from now it can be very cheaply
> repaired.

I have been reading books on the economics of resource exhaustion
in order to get a better understanding of the Peak Oil situation.
It turns out that there is quite a mature theory on this topic which
goes back to the seminal work in the 1930s by Hotelling.  He came up
with a formula predicting how society should optimally extract value
from a fixed and exhaustible resource.  (Of course, trees on Easter
Island are actually a potentially renewable resource, so Hotelling's
model would not strictly apply, unless we were sure that treating them
as exhaustiable were optimal.)

Hotelling's formula is simple and is based on very general principles, and
the core of it can be described in a sentence.  Resource owners should
extract the resource at a rate such that the price climbs steadily,
with the price increasing at the general interest rate.  Doing this
maximizes the profits of resource owners and also maximizes the total
value of the resource to society, taking into consideration as Lee notes
the discount rate (which is modeled by the interest rate).

The idea behind this formula can be put into words (although this is
my own invention and none of the books I read described it like this,
so I might be missing something).  Suppose producers think the price
curve is steeper than this, so the resource price will climb faster
than the interest rate.  The resource will be worth more in the future
than today, so they will hold off on today's production and produce more
in the future.  This will increase today's price and reduce the future
price, putting the price trend back on the curve.  Likewise if they think
the curve will be flatter than this, future oil won't be worth as much
(discounted to today) as today's oil, hence they will produce more today
while it is valuable, thereby lowering today's prices and once again
getting back to the curve.

Hotelling's model is quite robust and applies to a variety of situations.
It is rather strange, then, that historically prices of exhaustible
resources like minerals generally do not follow a Hotelling price curve.
In constant dollars, most resource prices were roughly flat over the
20th century, with some ups and downs but no general trend.  It is as
though resource owners thought of these resources as renewable, perhaps
due to improved technology making more resources available as fast as
they were being used up.

In the last 5 years or so, almost all mineral prices have begun a
relatively fast climb.  I'm not sure how it compares to the interest rate,
so I don't know if it can be said that the Hotelling model is beginning
to apply.  But if we do start to approach physical limits in some of our
natural resources, this model is what would be predicted for how prices
will rise in the future, assuming that producers want to maximize their
expected discounted profits.

Hal


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Mon Feb 27 17:16:49 2006
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:16:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] How many exi postors does it take to change a
	lightbulb?
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0602261732s6d1b2d7fh@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0602261732s6d1b2d7fh@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AB42DAA3-053D-49CE-9762-AAC835E46E9C@bonfireproductions.com>


a contribution:

3 to discuss the coming "Lightbulbarity" - the time when there will  
be enough lightbulbs switched on that they will be brighter than man.




On Feb 26, 2006, at 8:32 PM, Emlyn wrote:

> I came across this online, laughed my butt off, and thought you all
> might notice some, ah, relevance to this forum...
>
> (Apologies in advance if you've seen this before)
> ---
>
> How many exi postors does it takes to change a light bulb?
>
> 1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been  
> changed
> 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the  
> light
> bulb could have been changed differently
> 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs
> 1 to move it to the Lighting section
> 2 to argue then move it to the Electricals section
> 7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing  
> light bulbs
> 5 to flame the spell checkers
> 3 to correct spelling/grammar flames
> 6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ...  
> another 6 to
> condemn those 6 as stupid
> 2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term  
> is "lamp"
> 15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that  
> "light bulb"
> is perfectly correct
> 19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please  
> take this
> discussion to a lightbulb forum
> 11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light  
> bulbs
> and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum
> 36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior,  
> where to buy
> the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this  
> technique
> and what brands are faulty
> 7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs
> 4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the  
> corrected
> URL's
> 3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant  
> to this
> group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group
> 13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety  
> including all
> headers and signatures, and add "Me too"
> 5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they  
> cannot
> handle the light bulb controversy
> 4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"
> 13 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting  
> questions about
> light bulbs"
> 1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now  
> and start
> it all over again.
>
> --
>
> Actually, the only problem I can see with this is that on the exi
> list, the lightbulb may very well not actually be changed.
>
> --
> Emlyn
>
> http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
> Our show at the Fringe: http://SpiritAtTheFringe.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 27 18:59:35 2006
From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:59:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pope declares embryos have absolute rights
Message-ID: <20060227185935.98710.qmail@web37501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Sacredness? This from the same Pope who demands commercial copyright on Vatican material. 
  Perhaps this guy is in fact the Antichrist?
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060227/hl_nm/pope_embryos_dc 

		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060227/71ac9ce8/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Mon Feb 27 22:10:47 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:10:47 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Collapse, by Jared Diamond
In-Reply-To: <20060227170950.DB03F57FAE@finney.org>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060227144228.02f62098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 09:09 AM 2/27/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>Lee writes:
> > Spike asked about Diamond's book "Collapse". I read it and it's
> > quite wonderful, especially if you're into history and human
> > ecology. Diamond is a writer of vast skill, and reading him is
> > simply effortless.
> >
> > He presents arguments pro and con with a good deal of objectivity,
> > well---at least as much as he is able to muster given that he has
> > a definite message in mind.
>
>I haven't read this book, but I was recently pointed to an online critique
>which claims that Diamond has seriously misstated the scholarship on the
>collapse of Easter Island:
>
>http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/EE%2016-34_Peiser.pdf
>
>"From Genocide to Ecocide: The Rape of Rapa Nui", by Benny Peiser.
>Peiser argues that Diamond has distorted the history of Rapa Nui (Easter
>Island) in order to fit his own eco-doomer preconceptions.  Diamond is
>somewhat notorious for his claim that agriculture was "the worst mistake
>in the history of the human race" and apparently has believed for some
>time that human culture tends to lead to environmental disaster.
>
>I'm not sure how convincing Peiser's thesis is here; I've read that he has
>an ideological opposition to Diamond's view.

That is to put it mildly.

>I thought the paper above
>was repetitive and rambling.  Nevertheless Peiser makes a good case that
>the truth is that we really don't know, and may never know, what happened
>on Easter Island.
>
>Peiser argues that the island's culture was successful and still building
>statues right up until the natives were attacked and stolen away by
>European slave traders.  (Half the statues on the island are still in
>the quarries, in the middle of construction.)  I don't know about that,
>but it seems clear that by the time Easter Island came to the attention
>of anything like the modern anthropoligical community, it had suffered
>from the depradations of the Europeans for generations.  Without any
>kind of written cultural history, oral accounts from the few remaining
>natives were fragmentary and inconsistent.  Worse, descriptions of the
>island from early European visitors are equally contradictory, some
>describing barrren landscapes while others marvelling at the fertility
>and mentioning forests.
>
>Peiser argues that Diamond has picked and chosen among these many
>accounts, selecting only those that buttress his thesis of "ecocide".
>Peiser sees Diamond's work as falling into a larger class of analyses
>which close their eyes to the obvious and well-documented European
>genocide of the Easter Islanders, preferring to focus on this supposed
>self-destruction.
>
>As I said, I don't know if Peiser really makes a strong case for a
>thriving Easter Island culture right up until the 18th and 19 centuries,
>but it does seem clear that there are so many lines of evidence pointing
>in different ways, that at this point it is impossible to say what
>really happened.

I have been a studying Easter Island for a number of years.  I have read 
most of the papers Diamond cites and a number of others.  My take on the 
Easter Island history is that there is about as much controversy as plate 
tectonics.  I.e., Diamond's view of what happened there is mainstream and 
deeply supported by consistent evidence.

Something like 20 people were the founding population.  At the peak there 
were about 20,000.  At the bottom of the crash, about 1000.  By the time 
Europeans first visited, the population had recovered to perhaps 2.5 times 
the low point.

There is no question that subsequent European contact was extremely 
destructive, but that happened well beyond the low point.

What happened at Easter Island was not unique except for the isolation.

I don't think I have an ax to grind on this subject, though I have used it 
as an example in my articles about the cause of wars.

Wish I could submit a fMRI scan per Drew Westen to show what parts of my 
brain are engaged when thinking about the Easter Island history.  :-)

Keith Henson



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon Feb 27 23:29:54 2006
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:29:54 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060224073329.023de218@gmu.edu>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230901v565e48d3race5ba207b0ce3c8@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223121151.024851f0@gmu.edu>
	<CB110AC5-ECAE-4D67-B692-14BDC14A634A@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224073329.023de218@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60602271529w53777d7tb750f64a38d6a0a9@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/24/06, Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
> At 05:57 AM 2/24/2006, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > >> But you didn't answer my question. What do you think stopped people
> > >> dying of those diseases, if it wasn't the vaccines?
> > >
> > > There are lots of logical possibilities, and my state of belief is
> > > that I am very uncertain about which one it might be.
> >
> >Which is most consistent with the sum of our scientific knowledge
> >about the the causes of various diseases?  That should be a useful
> >criteria for sorting among hypotheses.  It is standard practice to
> >choose those hypothesis most consistent with things we already have
> >pretty good certainty on.  Would you proceed using some other
> >metric?  If not then please show why alternative explanations are
> >preferable starting from what or incorporating and perhaps more
> >fruitfully explaining the phenomenon in question.
>
> Here is one explanation that has a plausible mechanism and isn't clearly
> contradicted by the data.   Mammals invoke the stress response in situations
> they consider stressful, which helps the devote energy to their muscles
> at the expense of other systems such as the immune system.   This reduces
> long term health.   As humans become richer they interpret fewer events as
> being stressful and invoke the stress response less often, and so are
> healthier.
> There is a multiplier effect for contagious diseases, so that healthier people
> living near each other benefit each other.   So a theory is that our increasing
> health is caused by our feeling less stress as we have gotten richer.

### Are you saying that exposing rich people to infectious agents they
have not been vaccinated against will not result in significant
morbidity?

This would be a very interesting claim...

Rafal



From rhanson at gmu.edu  Mon Feb 27 23:33:52 2006
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:33:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Failure of low-fat diet
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60602271529w53777d7tb750f64a38d6a0a9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230901v565e48d3race5ba207b0ce3c8@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223121151.024851f0@gmu.edu>
	<CB110AC5-ECAE-4D67-B692-14BDC14A634A@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224073329.023de218@gmu.edu>
	<7641ddc60602271529w53777d7tb750f64a38d6a0a9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060227183158.02488f60@gmu.edu>

At 06:29 PM 2/27/2006, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> > > >> But you didn't answer my question. What do you think stopped people
> > > >> dying of those diseases, if it wasn't the vaccines?
> > > >
> > > > There are lots of logical possibilities, and my state of belief is
> > > > that I am very uncertain about which one it might be.
> > >
> > >Which is most consistent with the sum of our scientific knowledge
> > >about the the causes of various diseases? ...
> >
> > Here is one explanation that has a plausible mechanism and isn't clearly
> > contradicted by the data.   Mammals invoke the stress response in 
> situations
> > they consider stressful, which helps the devote energy to their muscles
> > at the expense of other systems such as the immune system.   This reduces
> > long term health.   As humans become richer they interpret fewer events as
> > being stressful and invoke the stress response less often, and so are
> > healthier.
> > There is a multiplier effect for contagious diseases, so that 
> healthier people
> > living near each other benefit each other.   So a theory is that 
> our increasing
> > health is caused by our feeling less stress as we have gotten richer.
>
>### Are you saying that exposing rich people to infectious agents they
>have not been vaccinated against will not result in significant
>morbidity?
>This would be a very interesting claim...

I would not make that claim; all this story needs is a reduced 
susceptibility for
rich people, all else equal.


Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323 



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon Feb 27 23:58:17 2006
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:58:17 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Examining Risks (was RE: META: List Quality)
In-Reply-To: <22360fa10602252321na7e93a0n57b1798680f55599@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20060225212933.41AE757FAE@finney.org>
	<002501c63a92$c23afdc0$640fa8c0@kevin>
	<22360fa10602252321na7e93a0n57b1798680f55599@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60602271558ieae9cd2g8f42046c7fa51919@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/26/06, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:

> Looking forward, I envision a system of social decision-making where
> individuals are able to register their fine-grained subjective values
> in a public database, and where policy is generated based on
> principles of effective interaction that (increasingly) objectively
> maximize the promotion of those values over increasing scope (of time,
> of actors, and of type of interaction.)  Public service would become
> the practice of improving the effectiveness of this framework for
> broader positive-sum interaction, rather than fighting over narrowly
> coveted slices of a perceived zero-sum pie.

### At the risk of sounding anarcho-capitalistically predictable, let
me point out that the social decision-making system you mention
already exists, and it's database is called the stock market (and a
bunch of other markets). Almost every time you buy and sell, you
perform a positive-sum interaction, leading to the maximization of
subjective values.

Market rulez!

Rafal



From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 28 00:34:19 2006
From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:34:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Examining Risks (was RE: META: List Quality)
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60602271558ieae9cd2g8f42046c7fa51919@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060228003419.32646.qmail@web37509.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Agreed, market rulez. But why is it so many freemarket enthusiasts want the government to help if not their immediate families then their relatives, and also their friends? Such is not inconsistent however it is a discrepancy to be addressed unless some might wish it to appear they are more serious concerning science than they are economics.
  Naturally this does not have to addressed nonetheless more accurate discourse can be facilitated by addressing discrepancy directly rather than evading it.


>### At the risk of sounding anarcho-capitalistically predictable, let
>me point out that the social decision-making system you mention
>already exists, and it's database is called the stock market (and a
>bunch of other markets). Almost every time you buy and sell, you
>perform a positive-sum interaction, leading to the maximization of
>subjective values.

>Market rulez!

>Rafal

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060227/0d4b424e/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at tsoft.com  Tue Feb 28 03:50:54 2006
From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:50:54 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stress (was RE: Failure of low-fat diet)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060227183158.02488f60@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEGEFDFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>

Question for Rafal, and Robin who actually wrote

> Here is one explanation that has a plausible mechanism and
> isn't clearly contradicted by the data.   Mammals invoke
> the stress response in situations they consider stressful,
> which helps the devote energy to their muscles at the expense
> of other systems such as the immune system.   This reduces
> long term health.

I wondered "what is stress?" and found

    Stress can be any unspecific demand to adapt to a critical
    situation within a very short time. This has been described
    as "fight-or-flight" reaction (Walter Cannon). Our body
    reacts in a way that has been developed in primeval times,
    very well suited to run away, react very fast or hunt a
    wild animal.
    These physiological adjustment reactions have been described by the
    Canadian stress researcher Selye. Their purpose is to stimulate the
    bodily functions for a short time (30 minutes) in case of
    emergency. So the body reacts to any kind of loads, stress or
    adaptability requirements in a very similar way:
        * Acceleration of the heart rate, better perfusion
        * Increase of the blood pressure
        * Increase of the ventilation (hyperventilation)
        * Better perfusion of muscles
        * Change of blood-clotting
        * The skin becomes tense 

Gee! That sounds a lot like the effect of exercise, or stimulating discussion,
or even studying (say with the help of caffeine).

So to what extent is there a tradeoff :-(   between vigorously enjoying life
and long life?

Lee

P.S. As always, replies from anyone are invited, not just the two posters mentioned.



From lcorbin at tsoft.com  Tue Feb 28 04:00:01 2006
From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:00:01 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] No Hypocrisy in Due Process (was Re: Examining Risks)
In-Reply-To: <20060228003419.32646.qmail@web37509.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEAEFEFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>

Ned writes

> Agreed, market rulez. But why is it so many free market enthusiasts 
> want the government to help if not their immediate families then 
> their relatives, and also their friends?

Well, say we have voted for a very wealth-destroying idea---
for example, giving every man, woman, and child ten thousand
dollars from the public treasury. As much as I would vociferously
denounce the idea, surely you don't expect me to forego my share
on principle?  The net effect of such misguided "principled"
behavior is that the perceptive (and principled) would be 
singled out for punishment!

In other words, though we are opposed to government handouts,
if those handouts were authorized by due process then we, our
friends, and our families are just as entitled to them as anyone.

Lee



From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Tue Feb 28 05:40:06 2006
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:40:06 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~
Message-ID: <014701c63c29$d5888ee0$0200a8c0@Nano>

Nanogirl News
February 27, 2006

Methodist Neurosurgeon Makes Quantum Leap on Nano-Level. A neurosurgeon at the Methodist Neurological Institute (NI) is the first to use an enzyme-driven technique to label nanotubes with quantum dots, giving scientists a better way to see single-walled carbon nanotubes...Dr. David Baskin, neurosurgeon at the Methodist NI, and his colleagues published these research findings in the March 2006 issue of BioTechniques. (Physorg 2.22.06) http://www.physorg.com/news11092.html

Molecules get More Classical at High Pressures. A new study of molecules being squeezed in a diamond anvil cell shows that as the pressure goes up, the force between atoms in a two-atom molecule behaves more and more like the classic Hooke's law, according to which the force between two objects connected by an elastic spring is proportional to the contraction or extension of the spring. 
(Physics news update 2.21.06) http://www.aip.org/pnu/2006/split/766-3.html

Nanostructures in 3D. Max Planck researchers from D?sseldorf unveil the first three-dimensional electron microscope for examining nanomaterials structure. It is the world's first electron microscope for simultaneously and automatically investigating in three-dimensions the phase content, crystallographic texture, and crystal interfaces of materials - co-designed and put into service at the Department of Microstructure Physics and Metal Forming at the Max Planck Institute for Iron Research in D?sseldorf, Germany. The device contains a high-resolution scanning electron microscope and an -ion-beam microscope. (Max Planck 2.22.06)
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2006/pressRelease200602221/index.html 

Nanotechnology Leaders to Converge in Washington, D.C., This Week for NanoBusiness Alliance Public Policy Tour; Two-Day Tour Includes Press Conferences, Meetings With Members of the House and Senate. The NanoBusiness Alliance, the world's leading nanotechnology trade association, today announced that it is gathering over forty nanotechnology luminaries in Washington, D.C., this week for two days of meetings with dozens of top government officials. Delegates include CEOs, scientists, chief technologists, financial professionals and consultants from the foremost companies leading the nanotechnology revolution. (Business Wire 2.15.06) 
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060215005914&newsLang=en

Nano World: Gold nano vs. Alzheimer's. Gold particles only nanometers or billionths of a meter wide together with extremely weak microwaves can dissolve the abnormal protein clumps linked with Alzheimer's disease and potentially those linked with other degenerative illnesses as well, experts told UPI's Nano World. (Physorg 1.20.06) http://www.physorg.com/news10099.html

Cell-Based Nano Machine Breaks Nano-Record. Researchers have known for some time that a long, fibrous coil grown by a single-cell protozoan is, gram for gram, more powerful than a car engine. Now, researchers at Whitehead Institute-together with colleagues at MIT, Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, MA, and University of Illinois, Chicago-have found that this coil is far stronger than previously thought. In addition, the researchers have discovered clues into the mechanism behind this microscopic powerhouse. (newswise 12.5.05) http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/516578/?sc=rssn

Navy, UH team up to detect biological agents, land mines. NSF grant establishes nanomagnetics research program in collaboration with Naval Research Labs. Detecting biological agents, developing land mine discovery techniques and improving computer memory durability are among the projects in which some University of Houston engineering students will be involved through the National Science Foundation-Navy Civilian Service Fellowship Program. (Eurekalert 2.14.06)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/uoh-nut021406.php

Atom Hauler: Molecular rig snags multi-atom loads. A molecule with a knack for picking up and delivering atoms may prove a useful tool for atomic-scale construction. Scientists in France and Germany who created and tested the molecule say that it and similar custom-made structures might aid tasks such as building molecular-scale circuitry, depositing arrays of atom clusters with special optical or magnetic properties, and cleaning up debris on nanoconstruction sites. 
(Science News 11.26.05) http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20051126/fob2.asp

Brookhaven Scientists Study Liquid "Nanodrops". Scientists from the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory have discovered that drops of liquid with thicknesses of just a few billionths of a meter, or nanometers, are shaped differently than macroscopic liquid drops. Their results, published in the February 9, 2006, online edition of Physical Review Letters, help elucidate the behavior of nanoscale amounts of liquid and, as a result, may help advance several developing nanotechnologies. (Brookhaven 2.17.06) http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=06-16 

Cornell scientists build 'nano-keys' to bind cell receptors and trigger allergic reactions. Cornell University researchers have fabricated a set of "nano-keys" on the same scale as molecules to interact with receptors on cell membranes and trigger larger-scale responses within cells, such as the release of histamines in an allergic response. How cell membranes control cellular function has long been studied but with few results. However, nanotechnology now gives researchers new tools to better understand the role of cell membranes in activating responses within cells. (Cornell 2.16.06) http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Feb06/AAAS.Baird.nanokeys.kr.html

Water Wire. It flows in rivulets, puddles in depressions, falls from the sky; you can even buy it at Costco--three-dimensional, "bulk" water is everywhere. Now, in the 28 October PRL, researchers report a new configuration of a nearly one-dimensional column of water. Although similar forms of water are common in biology, they are rarely seen in the lab, so this liquid "nanowire" may soon reveal important properties of water at the molecular scale. (Physical Review Focus 11.11.05) http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st15

Nanotechnology used to combat freezing feet. Attention Canadians. If you just trudged in from a blizzard, you may want to take a look at ToastyFeet. The company sells shoe insoles that can keep feet warm despite snow and ice. You can stand on a block of dry ice, chilling at minus 106 Fahrenheit, and your feet will still be 72 degrees. (CNET 2.15.06) http://news.com.com/2061-11128_3-6040195.html

Add Some Atoms, Squeeze Some Buckyballs, Flip a Switch. The First Direct Observation of the Jahn-Teller Distortion in Single Molecules. "Degeneracy" is one of those words that mean something quite different when used by a preacher, a chess player, an astrophysicist, or a mathematician.* To chemists and physicists, degeneracy describes a state in which an electron could potentially occupy either of two orbital paths around a molecule, both of which have the same energy level. (Berkeley Lab 11.29.05) 
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2005/November/02-buckyballs.html

DNA-Wrapped Carbon Nanotubes Could Target Specific DNA Sequences. Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who recently reported that DNA-wrapped carbon nanotubes could serve as sensors in living cells now say the tiny tubes can be used to target specific DNA sequences. Potential applications for the new sensors range from rapid detection of hazardous biological agents to simpler and more efficient forensic identification. (azonano 2.23.06) http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=1881

Could Nanoparticles be Designed to Become Potent Antioxidants? Research at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and Columbia University now shows that nanoparticles composed of cerium oxide or yttrium oxide protect nerve cells from oxidative stress and that the neuroprotection is independent of particle size. As one of the researchers, Professor Dave R. Schubert, head of the Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at Salk, told Nanowerk: "While there has been a great deal of interest in using nanoparticles as drug delivery vehicles, there has been much less interest in exploring the alternative that they can be engineered to have direct beneficial biological effects." 
(Newswire 2.27.06) http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/3882/

Nano World: New aimed nanoparticles. A new method to develop collections of nanoparticles that each seek out different cell types could help scientists to better spot tumors before they grow or to deliver medicines to precise targets, experts told UPI's Nano World. Interventional radiologist Ralph Weissleder at Harvard Medical School and his colleagues are developing nanoparticles that can emit either magnetic or optical signals. The hope is to coat these nanoparticles with compounds that help guide their way toward specific cells. Such coated nanoparticles could then single out tumor cells to help physicians detect where they are in the body, even if they are few in number and otherwise unnoticeable. (UPI 12.6.05) http://www.upi.com/Hi-Tech/view.php?StoryID=20051130-032202-4485r

Gold Nanoparticle-Virus Networks Work as Intracellular Sensors and Targeting Agents. Researchers at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center report that they have created a way for viral and gold particles to "directly assemble" and potentially seek out and treat disease where it resides in the body. Their study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, demonstrates how to use biologically compatible materials to fabricate a "nanoshuttle" that can be harnessed to viral particles to precisely home to disease wherever it hides. (nanotechwire 2.12.06) http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=2912

Emmy Nominee Reggie Wells Endorses Eternalis Anti-Aging Advanced Skin Care System by Beyond Skin Science; Reggie Wells, Nominated for Outstanding Achievement in Makeup on the Oprah Winfrey Show...These treatments utilize the latest scientific breakthrough, Nanotechnology, which allows for the delivery of active ingredients that nourish and heal the skin in smaller components, move faster and penetrate deeper into the skin. This results in the ingredients working at a higher level of potency, effectively balancing and re-hydrating the skin, increasing collagen production, and leaving the skin younger looking, healthier and more radiant. 
(Business Wire 2.27.06)
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060227005342&newsLang=en

Nano-Armor: Protecting the Soldiers of Tomorrow. An Israeli company has recently tested one of the most shock-resistant materials known to man. Five times stronger than steel and at least twice as strong as any impact-resistant material currently in use as protective gear, the new nano-based material is on its way to becoming the armor of the future. (Physorg 12.10.05) http://www.physorg.com/news8947.html

Computer Simulation Shows Buckyballs Deform DNA. Soccer-ball-shaped "buckyballs" are the most famous players on the nanoscale field, presenting tantalizing prospects of revolutionizing medicine and the computer industry. Since their discovery in 1985, engineers and scientists have been exploring the properties of these molecules for a wide range of applications and innovations. But could these microscopic spheres represent a potential environmental hazard? A new study published in December 2005 in Biophysical Journal raises a red flag regarding the safety of buckyballs when dissolved in water. It reports the results of a detailed computer simulation that finds buckyballs bind to the spirals in DNA molecules in an aqueous environment, causing the DNA to deform, potentially interfering with its biological functions and possibly causing long-term negative side effects in people and other living organisms. (Medical News Today 12.8.05) http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=34665

Kids learn nanotechnology at Nanoworld. Elementary school children across the United States have been learning about incomprehensibly tiny things in an exhibition created by Cornell University. The children make the discoveries while walking through and playing with very large and colorful things in the traveling science museum exhibition created by the Cornell Nanobiotechnology Center. (Upi 2.20.06)
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060220-061417-4185r

Military Nanotech Spending Proves Difficult to Tap. Abstract: U.S. Department of Defense has funded $195 million in small business nanotech grants since 2002, but only 6% made it past a first phase. -  With threats to the U.S. increasingly coming from terrorist organizations, rogue nations, and insurgencies, the military is driving a major effort to improve its capabilities - making it one of the best prospective buyers for applications of nanotechnology. But companies large and small that supply these nanotech solutions are failing to exploit the military market effectively because of mismatched development strategies, according to a new report from Lux Research entitled "Setting Supplier Strategies for Military Nanotech Applications." (Nanotechnology Now 2.27.06)
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=13969


Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html
Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/
Everything else blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/
Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm
Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060227/3f788bb3/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Tue Feb 28 06:48:07 2006
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:48:07 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Goring a local ox--Meta example
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060227183158.02488f60@gmu.edu>
References: <7641ddc60602271529w53777d7tb750f64a38d6a0a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060221073833.9AC2C57FAF@finney.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223103044.02396868@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230748i447db027wcba03d82f759d0ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223110258.0249b088@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230819o6d9d4f39m64c79f1224321c6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223115159.0248a9a0@gmu.edu>
	<8d71341e0602230901v565e48d3race5ba207b0ce3c8@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060223121151.024851f0@gmu.edu>
	<CB110AC5-ECAE-4D67-B692-14BDC14A634A@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060224073329.023de218@gmu.edu>
	<7641ddc60602271529w53777d7tb750f64a38d6a0a9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060228014249.02f84a00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

A while back I said if nobody objected, I would gore one of the local 
oxen.  Before I do, let me make it clear that I am a lower case 
libertarian.  I never appreciated the difference between lower and upper 
case Libertarians until the news releases came out about the work Drew 
Westen did with partisans, in this case Democrats and Republicans, trying 
to deal with input that indicated their particular candidate was less than 
a saint.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/ There are two or three hundred places 
this story can be found with Google.  If you don't understand Westen's work 
in detail, go read it first.

(Parenthetically, I think the same mechanism is responsible for the 
non-rational thinking that goes on in the decisions about starting and 
fighting wars--making the point that politics is war by other means.)

However . . . . Westen's work explained an old mystery.

Virtually every reader of this list understands memetics.  Off hand you 
might think memetics would be a fairly neutral topic and for most people it is.

Going on 20 years ago, I wrote two articles on memetics.  The first, 
"Memetics and the Modular Mind" was published in _Analog_ and reprinted 
(with considerable editing) in _Co-Evolution Quarterly_ as "MEMETICS The 
Science of Information Viruses."

Both versions can be found on the net.

http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.mindcontrol/msg/103e03bce6100cac?hl=en&
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=67342

The second, "Memes, MetaMemes and Politics" was written for the Libertarian 
magazine  _Reason_.

http://www.alamut.com/subj/evolution/misc/hensonMemes.html

It covered much the same material with what I thought was a L(l)ibertarian 
slant.  I talked to the editor Robert Poole before I wrote the 
article.  (My wife and I had written "Star Laws" about the Moon Treaty for 
_Reason_ a few years before.)

"MetaMemes" came right back rejected.  So I called Robert.  He said to send 
it back again directly to him.  So I did, and it came right back again.  I 
either talked to Robert or someone who said Robert was no longer making 
editorial decisions.  Ok, big deal, the Skeptics rejected an article on 
memetics I wrote for them too.  It isn't like writing pays minimum wage for me.

This was pre-web, 1986-1987.  Not wanting to waste an article I posted it 
in a few places on Usenet and mailing lists where it circulated widely (for 
pre/early web days).

Andre Marrou (the Libertarian vice presidential candidate in 1988 and 
presidential candidate in 1992) read it somewhere and liked it enough to 
call me up and ask that I send it to _Liberty_.  He would ask them to 
publish it.  (_Liberty_ is *the* hard core Libertarian magazine for those 
not up on such things).  I am not sure, but I think he called me during the 
1988 campaign because I remember he was the VP candidate.  (I got this 
wrong on the memetics list in 2002, confusing him with Browne.)

So with a slight degree of trepidation (but hey what do you do when a 
*candidate* calls you up?) I sent them a paper copy.  Two weeks later I 
called _Liberty_ up to see if they had received the article and got his 
incredibly hostile blast from the editor.  I have a vague memory that he 
blasted the candidate as well--who then cooled off to the entire subject.

In neither case was there any reason given for the hostility to the article.

Years later this hostility toward the article was cited as why _Reason_ 
gave a bad review to Aaron Lynch's book _Thought Contegion_

In 2002 these events were discussed on the memetics list to the general 
puzzlement.

http://cfpm.org/~majordom/memetics/2000/9948.html

 >I believe it was someone at Reason who told me that they still
 >remembered your rejected article 10 years later!
 >
 >--Aaron Lynch

Now I'm not citing this episode to promote memetics--it isn't needed 
here.  (And much of that old article has been superseded with more recent 
evolutionary psychology based understanding.)

The Libertarians, at least the ones who reacted so strongly to the memetics 
article, are being used as examples of non-rational partisans running on 
the emotional parts of their brains--as Drew Westen showed in his fMRI work 
with Democrats and Republicans.

I am using this example to caution everyone that--without an fMRI scan of 
your brain while you are thinking about your pet memes--it is very easy to 
go into non-rational mode over your set of memes and never have any idea 
you did it.

Present company *not* excluded.  :-)

Keith Henson
(Who probably is a partisan about EP--thinking it allows him to understand 
human weirdness even if he can't figure out how to do a damn thing about it.)



From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Tue Feb 28 17:34:08 2006
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:34:08 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: news for a day..
Message-ID: <deaa866a0602280934j7b66d20dl80ddd4f155054205@mail.gmail.com>

SpaceX sets new launch date for the Falcon 1 to between March 20-25.
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/SpaceX_Sets_New_Launch_Date_For_Falcon.html

XCOR is teaming up to use Metacomp Tech's software to run fluid dynamics
simulations
on SGI Altix 3000 (supercomputer) for its Xerus space vehicle.
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/XCOR_Aerospace_Enlists_Hi_Tech_Partners_In_Space_Vehicle_Design.html

Zoe, the "I don't need no friggin humans", rover warms up in Atacama as a
prelude for Mars.
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Mars_Rovers_Robotics_Planetary_Exploration_Atacama_Xenobiology.html

Yet another spacecraft, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, is 10 days away
from orbital insertion around Mars...
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/mission/tl_moi.html
Rumor has it that it is commented about the crowded environment, having to
make sure it doesn't run into the Mars Global Surveyor or Mars Express
spacecraft...
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/index.html

MRO doesn't get all the limelight however as MGS recently returned a picture
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/gallery/PIA03253.html
of Spirit, one of the "We don't need no friggin breaks yet" rovers plodding
along on the surface.
Having entered their 2nd Mars year and facing yet another winter...
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Mars_Rover_Update_Preparing_For_Another_Winter.html
the rovers pointed out that if the engineers at NASA and the APL had gotten
their act together to equip Messenger (http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/) with a
moderately large mirror and had launched it a few years earlier they might
not have to spend the next 6 months shivering in the dark.

Meanwhile, Cassini, the "You orbit me right around baby" voyager, having
just yesterday finished its 11th Titan flyby (out of a currently planned
total of 44)
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/projects/cassini/Titan_flybys.html
is believed to be muttering to itself, "After dropping off Huygens, 'I don't
get no respect'".

And rumor has it early signals coming back from NASA's "New Horizons"
satellite seem to be a continuous loop of, "Lonely days, lonely nights, it
looks like a long long time without a woman."  Engineers are attempting to
determine whether this will interfere with the long term mission goals.

Creates memories of "Days of Future Past" (at least for me).
Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060228/96f9aa7a/attachment.html>

From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Feb 28 18:10:11 2006
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:10:11 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist day in Madrid, March 9 2006
Message-ID: <470a3c520602281010s7434ddc3ybe72991b36062067@mail.gmail.com>

The "Segundas Jornadas sobre Convergencia
Ciencia-Tecnolog?a<http://fundacion.vodafone.es/VodafoneFundacion/FundacionVodafonePopupFicha/0,,26100,00.html>"
will take place in the University of Alcal? (near Madrid) from 6 to 10 March
2006. On March 9 there will be a panel on "TRANSHUMANISMO: UNA VISI?N ?TICA
DE LA TECNOLOG?A PARA LA EXTENSI?N DE LA VIDA" (Transhumanism: an ethical
vision of life extension technology) with many transhumanist speakers:

PDF program<http://fundacion.vodafone.es/VSharedClient/FundacionVodafone/PDF/IIalcalapro.pdf>

JUEVES, 9 DE MARZO. 16:00-20:00 H (Esta jornada dispondr? de traducci?n
simult?nea)

TRANSHUMANISMO: UNA VISI?N ?TICA DE LA TECNOLOG?A PARA LA EXTENSI?N DE LA
VIDA

Moderador - Vicente Ortega Castro, Catedr?tico Universidad Polit?cnica de
Madrid

Introductor - Giulio Prisco, Director, FutureTAG Ltd

Overview - James Hughes, Professor of Health Policy at Trinity College in
Hartford Connecticut, Executive Director of the Institute for Ethics and
Emerging Technologies

Life extension - Aubrey de Grey, Department of Genetics, University of
Cambridge. Chairman and Chief Science Officer, Methuselah Foundation

Nanotechnology - Mike Treder, Executive Director, Center for Responsible
Nanotechnology

Virtual reality - Philippe van Nedervelde, Director, E-spaces

Neurotechnology - Eugen Leitl, Mind Uploading Research Group

Transhumanist visions - Anders Sandberg, Research Associate, Future of
Humanity Institute, James Martin 21st Century School at the University of
Oxford, Faculty of Philosophy

La tecnolog?a al servicio del hombre: visiones CTS - Javier del Arco,
Bi?logo y Fil?sofo, Fundaci?n Vodafone Espa?a
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060228/b1c1ab18/attachment.html>

From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Tue Feb 28 20:58:42 2006
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:58:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanist day in Madrid, March 9 2006
Message-ID: <380-220062228205842338@M2W076.mail2web.com>

From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 

>The "Segundas Jornadas sobre Convergencia
>Ciencia->Tecnolog?a<http://fundacion.vodafone.es/VodafoneFundacion/Fundacio
nVodafonePopupFicha/0,>,26100,00.html>"
>will take place in the University of Alcal? (near Madrid) from 6 to 10
March
>2006. On March 9 there will be a panel on "TRANSHUMANISMO: UNA VISI?N ?TICA
>DE LA TECNOLOG?A PARA LA EXTENSI?N DE LA VIDA" (Transhumanism: an ethical
>vision of life extension technology) with many transhumanist speakers:

>PDF
program<http://fundacion.vodafone.es/VSharedClient/FundacionVodafone/PDF/IIa
lcalapro.pdf>

We will be cheering you all on from the U.S.!

?Las felicitaciones y la suerte mucho m?s buena para una conferencia
exitosa! 

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More




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





From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 28 21:05:45 2006
From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:05:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] No Hypocrisy in Due Process (was Re: Examining
	Risks)
In-Reply-To: <POEOKMIMHFDKGFHAMEPEAEFEFGAA.lcorbin@tsoft.com>
Message-ID: <20060228210545.79657.qmail@web37512.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Agreed. No real problem. 
  It merely appears intriguing why so many libertarians would go to so much trouble printing up books and fliers; going to meeting & conventions; running for offices for such remote causes. Hard to verbalize, but say a guy is opposed to drug legalization and he spends 30 hours a week in anti-drug activity, yet at home he lights up joints and pops speed. The moral issue doesn't bother me much at all, it is why on earth apportion so much to something you are in actuality not quite in genuine synchronization with. I'm a low energy person, so knocking oneself out in pursuit of a goal one is not absolutely Whole-heartedly dedicated to doesn't make any sense-- at all. Now this is being one-dimensional however it does involve motivation; will power; dedication, perhaps even a spiritual devotion, and those are extremely precious; not to be squandered in any way if at all possible. I personally being an older guy would never even think of holding double standards in causes. 
  Otherwise a revered cause can turn out to be a fad not a trend.


>Well, say we have voted for a very wealth-destroying idea---
>for example, giving every man, woman, and child ten thousand
>dollars from the public treasury. As much as I would vociferously
>denounce the idea, surely you don't expect me to forego my share
>on principle? The net effect of such misguided "principled"
>behavior is that the perceptive (and principled) would be 
>singled out for punishment!

>In other words, though we are opposed to government handouts,
>if those handouts were authorized by due process then we, our
>friends, and our families are just as entitled to them as anyone.

>Lee


			
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060228/78cad087/attachment.html>

From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Tue Feb 28 22:29:16 2006
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:29:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] CONF:   "Living trhe Future 6:  Wow-Where Next?
Message-ID: <380-220062228222916375@M2W110.mail2web.com>


April 5-8, 2006 
The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Co-sponsored by:


Association of Research Libraries, Office of Leadership and Management
Services
Association of College and Research Libraries 

 http://www.library.arizona.edu/conferences/ltf/2006/index.html

Living the Future 6: WOW?Where Next? is a conference for collaborative
thinking about the future. ?Rapid Change? doesn?t begin to describe the
current world in which we live. Academic and other libraries face daily
announcements of new, competitive services from the corporate world.
Intellectual freedom, privacy and fair use are challenged from all sides.
Potential collaborative efforts are being discussed widely in a variety of
associations and consortia, locally and globally.  

 Participants will hear from those directly involved in planning,
challenging, and living the future?nationally known experts and creative
thinkers as well as working library staff who are experimenting and
innovating. The conference combines excellent weather, a celebratory, low
cost venue, and a group of lively participants as the container for
imaginative thinking. Join the conversations! Let us hear your voice!


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





From iamgoddard at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 28 22:57:54 2006
From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:57:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Reverse Evolution ?
Message-ID: <20060228225754.84163.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com>

Last week a news report proposed that because several
members of a family walk on all fours and use very
limited language that we have a cause of "backward
evolution" toward our primate ancestors. [1] Say
what?! The claim was published in the International
Journal of Neuroscience.

While I'm no expert I'd think there's no such thing as
backward or forward evolution per se; rather, a random
trait emerges that happens to provide an advantage
under given conditions. Whether that trait resembles
previously successful traits or is unlike previously
successful traits is irrelevant. In short, there'd be
no special connection to ape genetics in these people
simply due to their "ape-like gait and primitive
language." 

Who would, for example, suggest that people born with
some mental impairment preventing them from using
language beyond some parallel level in apes are
examples of a genetic throwback to apes?! The claim
would strike me committing some error. If my brother
had hair on his back unlike me, I don't think that
would make him a closer relative to apes than me and
any suggestion to that effect would surely be absurd.

Maybe I'm reading more into what they're saying than
they are, but something about this story rubs me the
wrong way. It seems others are skeptical too. [2] ~Ian

______________________________________________________

[1] "Backward evolution" spawns ape-like people :
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060221_unertanfrm.htm

[2] "Claim of reversed human evolution provokes
skepticism, interest" :
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060225_syndromefrm.htm

 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From amara at amara.com  Tue Feb 28 23:18:05 2006
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 00:18:05 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Quantum Interrogation
Message-ID: <p06230901c02a8a36eeed@[23.237.66.13]>


"Quantum Interrogation" by Sean Carroll:

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/27/quantum-interrogation/

is a work of masterful teaching. He explains effortlessly to the
layman (and scientist!) collapsing wavefunctions, non-destructive
quantum measurement, and the quantum Zeno effect using a puppy, and
a steak and a salad. One of the finest pieces of popular science
writing I have ever read.

Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"But as usual, everything becomes perfectly obvious once you draw
a Penrose diagram." ---John Baez