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,