From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jan 1 03:05:06 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:05:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <20051231203605.20788.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051231203605.20788.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <23F15BD5-F498-4C62-970B-D78CCF6EE6A5@mac.com> Alan, So far I have been pretty dead on. And that was a private message, dude. I rest my case. - s On Dec 31, 2005, at 12:36 PM, Al Brooks wrote: > Samantha, your dislike of me is to be taken as a compliment; the > way you ranted on concerning Iraq!-- and how disappointed you'll be > if things work out there. > Here's proof Confederate sympathizers have visited extropy bbs: > http://bbs.extropy.org/index.php? > board=16;action=display;threadid=53751 > > > > If I hadn't already written you off as a twit this would do it. > > - samantha > > Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Sun Jan 1 04:28:32 2006 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 22:28:32 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] A little Christmas Cheer- Apollo-Publishing-Corp. Message-ID: <43B75A70.3050106@sasktel.net> Was reading CFO magazine-Nov-Pg26 and this hilarious SEC offerring was mentioned. You have to see it to appreciate it. This was actually filed and is in the SEC archives. Proves anything can make it into the SEC. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1337897/000133789705000003/0001337897-05-000003.txt From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 1 07:19:24 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 23:19:24 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <23F15BD5-F498-4C62-970B-D78CCF6EE6A5@mac.com> Message-ID: <200601010721.k017LMe31602@tick.javien.com> Al, if someone insults you offlist, that is fair game, but it isn't fair game for you to post their private messages to the whole world. Do desist, thanks. spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:05 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary Alan, So far I have been pretty dead on. And that was a private message, dude. I rest my case. - s On Dec 31, 2005, at 12:36 PM, Al Brooks wrote: Samantha, your dislike of me is to be taken as a compliment; the way you ranted on concerning Iraq!-- and how disappointed you'll be if things work out there. Here's proof Confederate sympathizers have visited extropy bbs: http://bbs.extropy.org/index.php?board=16;action=display;threadid=53751 If I hadn't already written you off as a twit this would do it. - samantha _____ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 11:39:44 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 11:39:44 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <200601010721.k017LMe31602@tick.javien.com> References: <23F15BD5-F498-4C62-970B-D78CCF6EE6A5@mac.com> <200601010721.k017LMe31602@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 1/1/06, spike wrote: > > Al, if someone insults you offlist, that is fair game, but it isn't fair > game for you to post their private messages to the whole world. Do desist, > Hmmm. Really??? Netiquette agrees that posting private messages to the list is wrong and an apology should be sent to the list and to the author. But making a distinction between private flames and on-list flames is worth a few moments thought. The extropy-chat guidelines do not make a distinction between private insults and public insults. This is probably because they were drafted to oppose the public flame wars that had appeared on the list. The problem is with the aggressive individuals who like to escalate the emotional content in discussions and walk the borderline of 'almost' personal attacks. These people are also quite likely to send ferocious private emails with a view to intimidating their opponents into stopping them posting contrary opinions to the list. Some lists mention this problem in their guidelines and suggest that if you receive a private flame message then you should forward the private flame to the moderators for their consideration. This seems reasonable to me. If someone disagrees with an opinion that you posted onlist, you should not have to put up with receiving private insults from them. I can well see how this would drive some people away from the list. BillK From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 1 16:17:51 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 08:17:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200601011619.k01GJre17034@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary > > On 1/1/06, spike wrote: > > > > Al, if someone insults you offlist, that is fair game, but it isn't fair > > game for you to post their private messages to the whole world. Do > desist, > > > > Hmmm. Really??? > > But making a distinction between private flames and on-list flames is > worth a few moments thought... BillK Thanks BillK. I did assume everyone here readily capable of verbal self defense. If someone wishes to engage in verbal sparring including personal attacks, I personally have no problem with their doing it in private. Any other thoughts? spike From iph1954 at msn.com Sun Jan 1 17:28:24 2006 From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 12:28:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Responsible Nanotechnology Newsletter Message-ID: C-R-Newsletter #36: December 31, 2005 To read this on the Web, with nice formatting and hyperlinks, go to http://www.crnano.org/archive05.htm#36 NOTE: In the items below, links are indicated with [brackets], and shown at the end of each section. Editor?s Note We wrap up our third year, appropriately, with monthly newsletter #36. Here?s wishing all our readers a prosperous and joyous 2006! CONTENTS - CRN Goes to Yale - New President at Foresight - CRN Task Force Progress - Bragging About Blogging - A Global Surge Protector? - Inside CRN, Parts 1-5 - Milestones & Moving Forward - Feature Essay: Simple Nanofactories vs. Floods of Products Every month this newsletter gets you up to date on recent events, but to follow the latest happenings on a daily basis, be sure to check our Responsible Nanotechnology weblog at http://CRNano.typepad.com/ ========== CRN Goes to Yale On Wednesday, December 7, CRN Executive Director Mike Treder gave a talk on "Transforming Society: Ethical Issues in the Nanotech Revolution," at Yale University's Institute for Social and Policy Studies. The presentation was addressed to Yale's [Technology and Ethics Working Research Group], an interdisciplinary affiliation of faculty, students, and community members. A unique feature of this opportunity was its length. The format allows for about 90 minutes of lecture and discussion, followed by a brief break for dinner (delivered to the meeting), and then more informal discussion. With almost three hours to approach a topic, the presenter and group are able to explore it in some depth. Still, at the end several people commented that we had barely scratched the surface of the many serious issues surrounding advanced nanotechnology. http://www.yale.edu/bioethics/tech.html New President at Foresight The Foresight Nanotech Institute has a [new president]. On December 9, Scott Mize stepped down after one year in the position, and Marc Lurie was appointed to replace him. Prior to joining Foresight, Lurie founded and as CEO helmed @hand, a software and services company delivering mission-critical mobile solutions to large enterprises. http://www.foresight.org/cms/press_center/159 CRN Task Force Progress Work is proceeding smoothly for the CRN Global Task Force on Implications and Policy, a [diverse group] of world-class experts brought together to develop comprehensive recommendations for the safe and responsible use of molecular manufacturing. Currently, we are completing first drafts on a series of essays that each identifies a specific concern of a task force member about advanced nanotechnology. Almost 20 essays have been written so far. When these are published in anthology form early next year, we will ask for feedback on our ideas, as well as public input on additional concerns. http://www.crnano.org/CTF.htm Bragging About Blogging [Technorati] is the equivalent of Google for the blogosphere. Currently tracking 23.4 million sites and 1.8 billion links, Technorati ranks weblogs by what they call ?authority?, based on the number of confirmed links from other blog sites. According to them, [CRN?s Responsible Nanotechnology blog] has more authority than 99.9% of all the others out there. Of course, there are a lot of blogs, and many of them are highly esoteric. But it's nice to know that so many other bloggers have seen the value of referring their readers to our work. http://www.technorati.com/ http://crnano.typepad.com/ A Global Surge Protector? Concentration of power is the topic of Mike Treder?s most recent Future Brief essay... Molecular manufacturing represents power: political power, military power, and economic power. When this power becomes available, will a "global surge protector" be needed? If so, how might that be devised and implemented? Who controls that power and how widely -- how democratically -- it is distributed will make all the difference when nanotechnology is fully developed. Decisions we make before that time will determine whether our world becomes safer or more dangerous; more just or less just; more free or more oppressive. Chances are you have a surge protector in your home to shield electronic devices from unexpected power surges. Someday soon, we may need protection from unprecedented surges in global political power. Read the full essay [here]. http://www.futurebrief.com/miketrederpower006.asp Inside CRN, Parts 1-5 In December, we published a [five-part series] on our blog that gave a look "inside" CRN. The series of short articles reviewed the process CRN follows in choosing how and what to describe as the likely results of our research into molecular manufacturing. Commenting on the series, Jamais Cascio of [WorldChanging.com] said: CRN looks primarily at the implications of what they term "middle period" nanotech, such as nanofactories -- much more sophisticated than nanomaterials, but not the fantastic nanoassemblers of science fiction. I strongly encourage our readers to check out the recently-concluded "Inside CRN" series at the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology blog. The five posts cover CRN's mission and goals, and explain how their focus differs from other nanotech resources. It's a great introduction to an extremely valuable organization. http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/12/inside_crn_part.html http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003837.html Milestones & Moving Forward As we commemorate our 3rd anniversary this month, we are proud of what we?ve accomplished so far, but mindful that greater challenges await us in 2006. This is important work that few others are doing. To keep moving forward, we will need to grow fast. A [new page] on our website lists some of the significant milestones from CRN?s first three years. That page also outlines our current priorities?including research, outreach, and development?and suggests several ways in which you can help advance this work. http://www.crnano.org/milestones.htm Feature Essay: Simple Nanofactories vs. Floods of Products Chris Phoenix, Director of Research, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology In [last month's essay], I explained why even the earliest meter-scale nanofactories will necessarily have a high throughput, manufacturing their own mass in just a few hours. I also explained how a nanofactory can fasten together tiny functional blocks ? nanoblocks ? to make a meter-scale product. The next question is what range of products an early nanofactory would be able to build. http://www.crnano.org/essays05.htm#10,November For several reasons, it is important to know the range and functionality of the products that the nanofactory will produce, and how quickly new products can be developed. Knowing these factors will help to estimate the economic value of the nanofactory, as well as its impacts and implications. The larger the projected value, the more likely it is to be built sooner; the more powerful an early nanofactory is and the faster new products appear, the more disruptive it can be. Because a large nanofactory can be built only by another nanofactory, even the earliest nanofactories will be able to build other nanofactories. This means that the working parts of the nanofactory will be available as components for other product designs. From this reasoning, we can begin to map the lower bound of nanofactory product capabilities. This essay is a demonstration of how CRN's thinking and research continue to evolve. In 2003, I published a peer-reviewed paper called [?Design of a Primitive Nanofactory?] in which I described the simplest nanofactory I could think of. That nanofactory had to do several basic functions, such as transporting components of various sizes, that implied the need for motors and mechanical components also in a variety of sizes, as well as several other functions. However, not long after that paper was published, an even simpler approach was proposed by John Burch and Eric Drexler. [Their approach] can build large products without ever having to handle large components; small blocks are attached rapidly, directly to the product. http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/09/see_this_nanote.html The planar assembly approach to building products is more flexible than the convergent assembly approach, and can use a much more compact nanofactory. Instead of having to transport and join blocks of various sizes within the nanofactory, it only needs to transport tiny blocks from their point of fabrication to the area of the product under construction. (The Burch/Drexler nanofactory does somewhat more than this, but their version could be simplified.) This means that the existence of a nanofactory does not, as I formerly thought, imply the existence of centimeter-scale machinery. A planar nanofactory can probably be scaled to many square centimeters without containing any moving parts larger than a micron. Large moving parts need to slide and rotate, but small moving parts can be built to flex instead. It is theoretically possible that the simplest nanofactory may not need much in the way of bearings. Large bearings could be simulated by suspending the moving surface with numerous small load-bearing rollers or ?walkers? that could provide both low-friction motion and power. This might actually be better than a full-contact surface in some ways; failure of one load-bearing element would not compromise the bearing's operation. Another important question is what kind of computers the nanofactory will be able to build. Unlike my ?primitive nanofactory,? a simple planar-assembly nanofactory may not actually need embedded general-purpose computers (CPU's). It might have few enough different components that the instructions for building all the components could be fed in several times over during construction, so that information storage and processing within the nanofactory might be minimal. But even a planar-assembly nanofactory, as currently conceived, would probably have to incorporate large amounts of digital logic (computer-like circuitry) to process the blueprint file and direct the operations of the nanofactory fabricators. This implies that the nanofactory's products could contain large numbers of computers. However, the designs for the computers will not necessarily exist before they are needed for the products. Any nanofactory will have to perform mechanical motions, and will need a power source for those motions. However, that power source may not be suitable for all products. For example, an early nanofactory might use chemicals for power. It seems more likely to me that it would use electricity, because electric motors are simpler than most chemical processing systems, since chemical systems need to deliver chemicals and remove waste products, while electrical systems only need wires. In that case, products could be electrically powered; it should not be difficult to gang together many nanoscale motors to produce power even for large products. The ability to fasten nanoscale blocks to selected locations on a growing product implies the ability to build programmable structures at a variety of scales. At the current level of analysis, the existence of a large nanofactory implies the ability to build other large structures. Because the nanofactory would not have to be extremely strong, the products might also not be extremely strong. Further analysis must wait for more information about the design of the nanofactory. Sensing is an important part of the functionality of many products. An early nanofactory might not need many different kinds of sensing, because its operations would all be planned and commands delivered from outside. One of the benefits of [mechanosynthesis] of highly cross-linked covalent solids is that any correctly built structure will have a very precise and predictable shape, as well as other properties. Sensing would be needed only for the detection of errors in error-prone operations. It might be as simple as contact switches that cause operations to be retried if something is not in the right place. Other types of sensors might have to be invented for the products they will be used in. http://www.crnano.org/essays05.htm#2,Feb Nanofactories will not need any special appearance, but many products will need to have useful user interfaces or attractive appearances. This would require additional R&D beyond what is necessary for the nanofactory. The planar assembly approach is a major simplification relative to all previous nanofactory approaches. It may even be possible to build wet-chemistry nanofactory-like systems, as described in my [NIAC report] that was completed in spring 2005, and bootstrap incrementally from them to high-performance nanofactories. Because of this, it seems less certain that the first large nanofactory will be followed immediately by a flood of products. http://www.crnano.org/archive05.htm#33NASA A flood of products still could occur if the additional product functionality were pre-designed. Although pre-designed systems will inevitably have bugs that will have to be fixed, rapid prototyping will help to reduce turnaround time for troubleshooting, and using combinations of well-characterized small units should reduce the need for major redesign. For example, given a well-characterized digital logic, it should not be more difficult to build a CPU than to write a software program of equivalent complexity ? except that, traditionally, CPU's have required months to build each version of the hardware in the semiconductor fab. An incremental approach to developing molecular manufacturing might start with a wet-chemical self-assembly system, then perhaps build several versions of mechanosynthetic systems for increasingly higher performance, then start to develop products. Such an incremental approach could require many years before the first general-purpose product design system was available. On the other hand, a targeted development program probably would aim at a dry mechanosynthetic system right from the start, perhaps bypassing some of the wet stages. It would also pre-design product capabilities that were not needed for the basic nanofactory. By planning from the start to take advantage of the capabilities of advanced nanofactories, a targeted approach could develop a general-purpose product design capability relatively early, which then would lead to a potentially disruptive flood of products. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FUNDRAISING ALERT! Recent developments in efforts to [roadmap the technical steps] toward molecular manufacturing make the work of CRN more important than ever. http://www.foresight.org/roadmaps/index.html It is critical that we examine the global implications of this rapidly emerging technology, and begin creating wise and effective solutions. That?s why we have formed the CRN Task Force. But it won?t be easy. We need to grow, and rapidly, to meet the expanding challenge. Your donation to CRN will help us to achieve that growth. We rely largely on individual donations and small grants for our survival. To make a contribution on-line click this link > https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=5594 This is important work and we welcome your participation. Thank you! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Fine Print: The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology(TM) is an affiliate of World Care(R), an international, non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization. All donations to CRN are handled through World Care. The opinions expressed by CRN do not necessarily reflect those of World Care. From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Jan 1 17:38:01 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 09:38:01 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Einstein ... and All the Rest? Message-ID: <019c01c60efa$1d5d3b60$6600a8c0@brainiac> "One reason may be that science as a whole has lost its moral sheen. We are more aware than ever of the downside of scientific advances, whether nuclear power or genetic recombination; moreover, as science has become increasingly institutionalized, it has come to be perceived as just another guild pursuing its own selfish interests alongside truth and the common good. But the other reason is that Einstein possessed a moral quality - described by Robert Oppenheimer, the dark angel of nuclear physics, as "a wonderful purity at once childlike and profoundly stubborn" - that set him apart even in his own time." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/books/review/01horgan.html' From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Jan 1 18:14:13 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 10:14:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Einstein ... and All the Rest? In-Reply-To: <019c01c60efa$1d5d3b60$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <019c01c60efa$1d5d3b60$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <22360fa10601011014y190cbc5elcddd8ad99dddef06@mail.gmail.com> On 1/1/06, Olga Bourlin wrote: > "One reason may be that science as a whole has lost its moral sheen. We are > more aware than ever of the downside of scientific advances, whether nuclear > power or genetic recombination; moreover, as science has become increasingly > institutionalized, it has come to be perceived as just another guild > pursuing its own selfish interests alongside truth and the common good. But > the other reason is that Einstein possessed a moral quality - described by > Robert Oppenheimer, the dark angel of nuclear physics, as "a wonderful > purity at once childlike and profoundly stubborn" - that set him apart even > in his own time." > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/books/review/01horgan.html' Thanks Olga for sharing this quote. Einstein truly was a big-picture thinker, thus much of his thinking "possessed a moral quality" as he approached the question of what works in the ultimate god's-eye view of a rational universe. We continue to actively expand the range of our instrumental knowledge of our world, and it is commonly (but not universally) acknowledged that this knowledge is morally neutral until applied in the service of some set of values. What is less commonly understood is how some values work better than others, and we have yet to pursue this aspect in an equally scientific way. Best wishes for a New Year of growth, - Jef From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 18:36:09 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 18:36:09 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: References: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230154804.01ccfaa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4d21ddf772ab6a5cfa0967499984a0c5@HarveyNewstrom.com> <37419abbed015a31ba1f6e1c1b34b76f@HarveyNewstrom.com> <8d71341e0512302258j2f1440b9ndcda65e48fba9e32@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601011036r1a9fdbc7q24f48182c41121b2@mail.gmail.com> On 12/31/05, gts wrote: > > The distributions do not deviate in any significant way from normal, but > the *fine structures* of multiple histograms seem correlated in time. For > example a bell-curve with a slightly "m-ish" shape (two subtle peaks) will > tend to appear again in the next test. That "m-ish" propensity then falls > off with time. How is that different from considering that batch of tests to be a single test, adding all their samples together, and saying the aggregate has an "m-ish" shape? (I might be overlooking something obvious here; there's *mumblety* years of rust on my knowledge of statistics.) - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 1 19:09:16 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 14:09:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0601011036r1a9fdbc7q24f48182c41121b2@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230154804.01ccfaa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4d21ddf772ab6a5cfa0967499984a0c5@HarveyNewstrom.com> <37419abbed015a31ba1f6e1c1b34b76f@HarveyNewstrom.com> <8d71341e0512302258j2f1440b9ndcda65e48fba9e32@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0601011036r1a9fdbc7q24f48182c41121b2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 13:36:09 -0500, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 12/31/05, gts wrote: >> >> The distributions do not deviate in any significant way from normal, but >> the *fine structures* of multiple histograms seem correlated in time. >> For example a bell-curve with a slightly "m-ish" shape (two subtle >> peaks) will tend to appear again in the next test. That "m-ish" >> propensity then falls off with time. > > > How is that different from considering that batch of tests to be a single > test, adding all their samples together, and saying the aggregate has an > "m-ish" shape? Assuming the effect is real, it pertains only to comparisons of two or more histograms. If radioactive decay happens randomly then one would not expect to see similarities in the fine structures of the histograms of two successive samples. It is possible (maybe) that the effect is real but that the fine structures of these histograms, though correlated through time, nevertheless change rapidly enough that larger samples would not reveal a deviation from normal. You can think of the effect in terms of the graphic visualization mode in computer media players, like Windows Media Player or iTunes. You can "see" music as it plays. The pattern changes constantly. However, because music has structure, similarities exist in the pattern from one moment to the next. The similarities fall off as a function of time. If the noise were completely random then you would see no such similarities. If the Shnoll effect is real then it is truly "The Music of the Spheres." > (I might be overlooking something obvious here; there's > *mumblety* years of rust on my knowledge of statistics.) Same here. :) For what it's worth, I found a website published by Jack Sarfatti on which he states his opinion that John Walker refuted the Shnoll effect to his satisfaction. Not sure Shnoll agrees. According to the article posted by Damien, Shnoll is planning to publish another paper on the subject. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 1 21:10:51 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 16:10:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: References: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230154804.01ccfaa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4d21ddf772ab6a5cfa0967499984a0c5@HarveyNewstrom.com> <37419abbed015a31ba1f6e1c1b34b76f@HarveyNewstrom.com> <8d71341e0512302258j2f1440b9ndcda65e48fba9e32@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0601011036r1a9fdbc7q24f48182c41121b2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I wrote: > Assuming the effect is real, it pertains only to comparisons of two or > more histograms. I should qualify this a bit. The supposed non-monitonical ("toothy") shape of single histograms is part of the alleged effect, but I find that much less interesting than the claim that these patterns persist and recur periodically at 1, 27 and 365 days. However the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that Sarfatti is right to think Walker refuted it. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 1 21:10:55 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 16:10:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: References: <20051230191958.7301.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20051230154804.01ccfaa8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4d21ddf772ab6a5cfa0967499984a0c5@HarveyNewstrom.com> <37419abbed015a31ba1f6e1c1b34b76f@HarveyNewstrom.com> <8d71341e0512302258j2f1440b9ndcda65e48fba9e32@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0601011036r1a9fdbc7q24f48182c41121b2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I wrote: > Assuming the effect is real, it pertains only to comparisons of two or > more histograms. I should qualify this a bit. The supposed non-monitonical ("toothy") shape of single histograms is part of the alleged effect, but I find that much less interesting than the claim that these patterns persist and recur periodically at 1, 27 and 365 days. However the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that Sarfatti is right to think Walker refuted it. -gts From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 1 23:42:14 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 15:42:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars rovers RIP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060101234214.82619.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> A year and a half ago I posted this: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2004-June/006736.html Wherein I said: I suggest a "Rover expiration pool", where we all make our predictions re the date of the rovers' demise. I will guess five years from this date for the problem-free rover, and two years for the rover with the heater-always-on problem. That's June 9th, 2009, and June 9th, 2006, respectively. And to make it interesting I will place ten bucks US on each guess. **************************** No one showed any interest at the time. With the appearance of this article: Rovers Still Circle Mars http://wired.com/news/wireservice/0,69949-0.html?tw=wn_tophead_5 Wherein we read: "These rovers are living on borrowed time. We're so past warranty on them,"... I once again invite you all to participate in the "Rover expiration pool". If we could get enough people to join in, the pot could grow sufficiently to make things veeeeery interesting. I've already made my predictions, I'm just six months away from one of those. Also it occurs to me that a clear definition of "expiration" is needed. Would it be loss of mobility? Loss of some specified degree of functionality? Total loss of signal? Also, perhaps obviously, since it's likely (unless we get thousands of participants) that no one will get the expiration date exactly, the winner would be the person who's prediction is closest to the actual "expiration" date. And finally, if any of you diligent space science enthusiasts and rocket science professionals have an inside track on the equipment specs -- you know like batteries and solar panels -- and thereby a better data set for making your predictions, would you consider sharing those specs with the rest of us,...say after waiting briefly for all your lesser-informed brethren to commit themselves to their predictions. May the new year bring you love or good luck,...or more love. Best, Jeff Davis "And I think to myself, what a wonderful world!" Louie Armstrong __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Mon Jan 2 03:18:41 2006 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 22:18:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <200601011619.k01GJre17034@tick.javien.com> References: <200601011619.k01GJre17034@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4df7d638d8cc005c5381a19b572ce9ca@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Jan 1, 2006, at 11:17 AM, spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary >> >> On 1/1/06, spike wrote: >>> >>> Al, if someone insults you offlist, that is fair game, but it isn't >>> fair >>> game for you to post their private messages to the whole world. Do >> desist, >>> >> >> Hmmm. Really??? >> >> But making a distinction between private flames and on-list flames is >> worth a few moments thought... BillK > > Thanks BillK. I did assume everyone here readily capable > of verbal self defense. If someone wishes to engage in > verbal sparring including personal attacks, I personally > have no problem with their doing it in private. > > Any other thoughts? spike It is unacceptable for any member of our list to be personally attacked, period. I don't care if it is done in public where we can see it, or whether they are attacked privately in e-mail. Such attacks are undesired behavior. Nobody wants to attract personal attacks via this list, any more than they want to attract spam or stalkers. What are you doing, Spike? First you allow off-topic politics. Then you encourage arguments as a valid form of communications. Now this. There seems to be an obvious pattern, but I can't discern a useful purpose. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 03:50:38 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 22:50:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <4df7d638d8cc005c5381a19b572ce9ca@HarveyNewstrom.com> References: <200601011619.k01GJre17034@tick.javien.com> <4df7d638d8cc005c5381a19b572ce9ca@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: spike is right. It's not his job to moderate private emails. Should he moderate our phone calls too? -gts From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 04:07:01 2006 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 23:07:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0512302255k341f521keb92e4c7380c1d56@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051227164022.23975.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0512301009v410428f0r31ab250f9d4befc6@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512301838n4595beb0g63753f063177cba0@mail.gmail.com> <5844e22f0512301916x2f67e847mbe0b11e1ada98ef0@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512301933i1388a93bw97f8756d47157a3c@mail.gmail.com> <5844e22f0512302023qd62d9dfg5844c30ef3897630@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512302101j9aec6f7l4422a832a8c789e0@mail.gmail.com> <5844e22f0512302236p731edaf4m15a75e4444e82463@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512302255k341f521keb92e4c7380c1d56@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f0601012007qa4ef7e8r248c5ed1f5008f7@mail.gmail.com> On 12/31/05, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 12/31/05, Jeff Medina wrote: > > And less than 99^ 10 and more than 99^10 are much better targets than > > 99^10. And >n and > greater than 2 (or where n is any integer at all, if you take ">n and > > > value). Your argument would apply equally no matter what the > > dimensions of the universe were, however you want to measure it > > (computational capacity, power requiring to run the sim, bits of > > information involved, number of particles observed or inferred, etc.). > > That makes it a non-argument. > > It would apply equally to any N, provided N were large, but that doesn't > make it a non-argument, because we have N being generated independently in > two different ways (amount of computing power just barely adequate for a > ground level simulation of the visible universe, amount just barely > available to the simulator), which makes it unlikely that the two values > would match so nearly exactly. You have absolutely no idea whether the computing power "just barely available" to the simulator is anywhere near (as opposed to notably greater than) the amount "just barely adequate for a ground level simulation of the visible universe". Why are you making such a strange assumption? Aside from that, it's also not necessarily unlikely that those values would be near one another. If I were trying to create an interesting simulation-world, I just might use all of the computing power available to me. Then Russell-in-the-world-I-made would say, "It sure is unlikely that my visible universe's required computing power matches the computing power available to the simulator." And Sim-Russell would be wrong. -- 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 sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jan 2 04:34:10 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 20:34:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <4df7d638d8cc005c5381a19b572ce9ca@HarveyNewstrom.com> References: <200601011619.k01GJre17034@tick.javien.com> <4df7d638d8cc005c5381a19b572ce9ca@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: If I think someone is being a twit (or whatever) then I reserve the right to privately say so if I consider it worth my while. Frankly, suggesting that moderators should prevent people from privately speaking their mind in ways you don't approve of seems pretty silly and foolish. The word in question is defined below. You don't qualify in my experience of you as generally silly or foolish. So you have nothing to worry about. :-) twit noun informal a silly or foolish person. - samantha On Jan 1, 2006, at 7:18 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > On Jan 1, 2006, at 11:17 AM, spike wrote: > >>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK >>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary >>> >>> On 1/1/06, spike wrote: >>>> >>>> Al, if someone insults you offlist, that is fair game, but it >>>> isn't fair >>>> game for you to post their private messages to the whole world. Do >>> desist, >>>> >>> >>> Hmmm. Really??? >>> >>> But making a distinction between private flames and on-list >>> flames is >>> worth a few moments thought... BillK >> >> Thanks BillK. I did assume everyone here readily capable >> of verbal self defense. If someone wishes to engage in >> verbal sparring including personal attacks, I personally >> have no problem with their doing it in private. >> >> Any other thoughts? spike > > It is unacceptable for any member of our list to be personally > attacked, period. I don't care if it is done in public where we > can see it, or whether they are attacked privately in e-mail. Such > attacks are undesired behavior. Nobody wants to attract personal > attacks via this list, any more than they want to attract spam or > stalkers. > > What are you doing, Spike? First you allow off-topic politics. > Then you encourage arguments as a valid form of communications. > Now this. There seems to be an obvious pattern, but I can't > discern a useful purpose. > > -- > Harvey Newstrom > CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Mon Jan 2 04:39:15 2006 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 23:39:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars rovers RIP? References: <20060101234214.82619.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003e01c60f56$7d3a1380$16893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:42 PM Jeff Davis jrd1415 at yahoo.com wrote: > No one showed any interest at the time. With the > appearance of this article: > > Rovers Still Circle Mars > http://wired.com/news/wireservice/0,69949-0.html?tw=wn_tophead_5 > > Wherein we read: > > "These rovers are living on borrowed time. > We're so past warranty on them,"... > > I once again invite you all to participate in the > "Rover expiration pool". If we could get enough > people to join in, the pot could grow sufficiently to > make things veeeeery interesting. I've already made > my predictions, I'm just six months away from one of > those. > > Also it occurs to me that a clear definition of > "expiration" is needed. Would it be loss of mobility? > Loss of some specified degree of functionality? > Total loss of signal? > > Also, perhaps obviously, since it's likely (unless we > get thousands of participants) that no one will get > the expiration date exactly, the winner would be the > person who's prediction is closest to the actual > "expiration" date. > > And finally, if any of you diligent space science > enthusiasts and rocket science professionals have an > inside track on the equipment specs -- you know like > batteries and solar panels -- and thereby a better > data set for making your predictions, would you > consider sharing those specs with the rest of > us,...say after waiting briefly for all your > lesser-informed brethren to commit themselves to their > predictions. Geez, I would've predicted Spirit to have already been under by now. So, I'd have lost. What I wonder is whether anyone on the MER team has suggested an all out endurance run of either rover. I.e., keep it going for a long distance, to get as far from the landing site, until it fails. > May the new year bring you love or good luck,...or > more love. Thanks and the same for everyone else! Dan From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 04:54:37 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 04:54:37 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0601012007qa4ef7e8r248c5ed1f5008f7@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051227164022.23975.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0512301838n4595beb0g63753f063177cba0@mail.gmail.com> <5844e22f0512301916x2f67e847mbe0b11e1ada98ef0@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512301933i1388a93bw97f8756d47157a3c@mail.gmail.com> <5844e22f0512302023qd62d9dfg5844c30ef3897630@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512302101j9aec6f7l4422a832a8c789e0@mail.gmail.com> <5844e22f0512302236p731edaf4m15a75e4444e82463@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0512302255k341f521keb92e4c7380c1d56@mail.gmail.com> <5844e22f0601012007qa4ef7e8r248c5ed1f5008f7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601012054k68fa487eqc0c1c06b3fc16222@mail.gmail.com> On 1/2/06, Jeff Medina wrote: > > You have absolutely no idea whether the computing power "just barely > available" to the simulator is anywhere near (as opposed to notably > greater than) the amount "just barely adequate for a ground level > simulation of the visible universe". Why are you making such a strange > assumption? Of course it's a strange assumption, which is why I not only don't make it but have been arguing against it the whole time. Remember that the original argument was that a certain experiment may have detected a slight anisotropy of space or something similar (this seems unlikely in light of further discussion, but it can be taken as a premise) and that this implied one's estimate of the likelihood of the simulation hypothesis should be adjusted upward. Why would it be adjusted upward? Everyone understands the implied logic: a simulation is short of computing power and might skimp just enough to let the imperfection through. I'm arguing that we should _not_ a priori expect the available computing power to be anywhere near (in either direction), and therefore the original argument is _not_ valid; the originally described results do not give us any reason to adjust the estimated probably of the simulation hypothesis either up or down. Aside from that, it's also not necessarily unlikely that those values > would be near one another. If I were trying to create an interesting > simulation-world, I just might use all of the computing power > available to me. Then Russell-in-the-world-I-made would say, "It sure > is unlikely that my visible universe's required computing power > matches the computing power available to the simulator." And > Sim-Russell would be wrong. > Not really, because there'd be a zillion googol Sim-Russells simulated more efficiently, so the statement would be correct to the tune of a zillion googol to one. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jan 2 04:53:30 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 20:53:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars rovers RIP? In-Reply-To: <003e01c60f56$7d3a1380$16893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <200601020455.k024tde07666@tick.javien.com> > > On Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:42 PM Jeff Davis jrd1415 at yahoo.com wrote: > > No one showed any interest at the time. With the > > appearance of this article: > > > > Rovers Still Circle Mars > > http://wired.com/news/wireservice/0,69949-0.html?tw=wn_tophead_5 > > > > Wherein we read: > > > > "These rovers are living on borrowed time. > > We're so past warranty on them,"... ... Technotranscendence wrote: > > Geez, I would've predicted Spirit to have already been under by now. > So, I'd have lost. Oh ye of little faith. These rovers are a Lockheeed Martin product. {8-] When these birds last this long, the programs end up with an embarrassing problem. They need to come up with funding to keep someone interpreting the new unexpected data. The slave labor (graduate students) move on, but there is still valuable data coming down every day. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jan 2 05:30:17 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 21:30:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <4df7d638d8cc005c5381a19b572ce9ca@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <200601020532.k025WKe11042@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom ... > > > > Thanks BillK. I did assume everyone here readily capable > > of verbal self defense. If someone wishes to engage in > > verbal sparring including personal attacks, I personally > > have no problem with their doing it in private. > > > > Any other thoughts? spike > > It is unacceptable for any member of our list to be personally > attacked, period. I don't care if it is done in public where we can > see it, or whether they are attacked privately in e-mail. Such attacks > are undesired behavior. Nobody wants to attract personal attacks via > this list, any more than they want to attract spam or stalkers. > > What are you doing, Spike? First you allow off-topic politics. Then > you encourage arguments as a valid form of communications. Now this. > There seems to be an obvious pattern, but I can't discern a useful > purpose. > > -- > Harvey Newstrom > CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP Harvey your concern is noted. I was hoping to avoid having ExI members complain to the moderators about another ExI member harassing them offlist. I agree that any attack is undesirable behavior, but I see that issue as one of the risks of posting your thoughts in public. Any public figure must accept this. We recognize that extropy sometimes attracts eccentric characters, but what the hey, we like eccentric characters. There is little we can do about that. Spam of course we can and do take action against. I can show you a pile of junk the ExI spam filters catch. The reason I know about this is it sends me a damn message every time it catches a spam. (gee thanks, spam filter, I really want to know all about every viagra and watch ad.) {8^D Regarding stalkers, this is an issue for the local constabulary or (if you live in Florida and they come on your property) Mister Twelve Gage. Nowthen, concerning your other points. > What are you doing, Spike? First you allow off-topic politics... I made a controversial judgment call on this one. We had some ExI posters who appeared to be boiling over to discuss the Second Iraq war, which turned out to be really about the U.S. constitution vs. international law. I can see how that directly impacts the extropian vision of the future in many ways. I suggested a week to discuss it, they did, many learned much. Now I would consider those kinds of topics fair game. The posters have been good about avoiding the boring and useless republicans this, democrats that, yakkity yak and bla bla. As long as the posters maintain some semblance of order and some level of relevance to extropy, I still think it is fair game. I am hoping to avoid an SL4-style list sniper task. I fully understand and agree with SL4 for doing that, but ExI is more a general topic list. >...Then you encourage arguments as a valid form of communications... Ja, it is a valid form of communications. Are you objecting to the term "arguments"? Arguments need not be heated, nor do they need to be insulting. Arguments can be educational. > ...Now this... Ja, now this. > There seems to be an obvious pattern, but I can't discern a useful > purpose. Nor can I. Open to suggestion. I will not referee every rassling match that breaks out; I have not the time for that. spike From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 05:35:55 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 00:35:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Aubrey de Grey on 60 Minutes Sunday, January 1st In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here's the transcript: http://cbs11tv.com/health/health_story_001195918.html Also, some commentary from the MPrize: http://mprize.org/index.php?ctype=news&pagename=blogdetaildisplay&BID=2006012-01075742&detaildisplay=Y On 12/30/05, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > > >From Longevity Meme: > http://www.longevitymeme.org/news/view_news_item.cfm?news_id=2141 > > 60 Minutes On Radical Life Extension > > Biomedical gerontologist Aubrey de Grey - advocate for the Strategies > for Engineered Negligible Senescence, a path towards and justification > for real anti-aging medicine - Jay Olshansky and other scientists will > be appearing on 60 Minutes on Sunday, January 1st in a segment on > radical life extension: "60 Minutes is planning three stories about > beginning anew this New Year's Day. ... We'll also take a look at new > medical research that may lead to people living much longer lives than > we ever thought possible, maybe even 400 or 500 years. Some doctors > believe with medical breakthroughs on the horizon, humans can live much > longer lives." > > "Up Next" at 60 Minutes: > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/08/60minutes/main13502.shtml > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jan 2 05:35:43 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 21:35:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <200601020532.k025WKe11042@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200601020537.k025bre11884@tick.javien.com> > ... I will not referee every > rassling match that breaks out; I have not the time for > that. spike Especially six months from now. I am going to be a father. {8-] spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 05:45:56 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 21:45:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060102054556.82018.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- gts wrote: > I should qualify this a bit. The supposed > non-monitonical ("toothy") shape > of single histograms is part of the alleged effect, > but I find that much > less interesting I agree with you that the non-monotonic nature of the histograms is less interesting than their alleged periodicity. In fact the expectation of monotonicity in presumably random distributions is, I think, a mistake similar to the fallacious law of averages. For example if I start to flip a coin and tally the results, it is true that as I flip the coin the ratio of heads to flips will start approaching 1/2. The fallacy however is the unfounded belief that this number approaches 1/2 monotonically the way a mathematical limit might approach 1/2 with each result bringing me closer to 1/2. Instead this is not the case at all. After 10 flips for example, the ratio could very well be exactly 1/2. Then I might flip it 10 more times and get heads everytime. This would take the ratio away from 1/2 to 3/4 and lead to non-monotonicty. Thus the fallacy is that more trials ALWAYS brings one closer to the expected average. In fact if you think about the more trials you have the more likely you will get larger devaitions from the mean. For example it is far more likely that you will have at some point had a run of 50 heads after 10,000 tosses than after 100. > than the claim that these patterns > persist and recur > periodically at 1, 27 and 365 days. > > However the more I think about it, the more > convinced I am that Sarfatti > is right to think Walker refuted it. I have read and thought about Walker's claim to refute Schnoll's work. While his explanation for the increase of similar histograms at +/- 0 hours is plausible (i.e. sampling bias of counting of 2 hrs worth of histograms as 1 hrs worth due to a systematic error) I don't buy Walker's explanation of "routine computer housekeeping" for the increase of similar histograms that Walker himself sees in his own data at +/- 24 hours. First of all, if it was such a thing, you would think that Walker could easily turn off the tape-backup, virus scan, or whatever else he presumes is causing his computer to oversample similar histograms in those regular time intervals. Second, this explanation could not possibly hold true for the spikes seen at 27 days and 365 days as these are not at precise intervals of 24 hours. ie. There were decimals that I don't recall after these numbers thus, the idea of some computer process that occurs with a regularity of 24 hours could be discounted. Third, Schnoll first noted and started observing this phenomenon 40 years ago, before Unix and any bias introduced by periodic Unix processes could have been introduced into the data. Therefore, I do not believe Walker has refuted Scnoll's data, although he might have pointed out a source of error for the immediate time measurements, he does in no way refute the periodicity of Schnoll's data which is the truly interesting part of it anyway. I understand that there is an urge to ignore anything that does not fit into ones tidy little paradigm, but all true progress of the paradigm depends on analyzing the anomalies and not ignoring them. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Mon Jan 2 06:46:13 2006 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (deimtee) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:46:13 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Future Spikelet In-Reply-To: <200601020537.k025bre11884@tick.javien.com> References: <200601020537.k025bre11884@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <43B8CC35.8020809@optusnet.com.au> spike wrote >Especially six months from now. I am going to be a father. > >{8-] > >spike > > > > Congratulations !!!! From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 06:49:37 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 22:49:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars rovers RIP? In-Reply-To: <003e01c60f56$7d3a1380$16893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <20060102064937.74446.qmail@web60018.mail.yahoo.com> --- Technotranscendence wrote: > Geez, I would've predicted Spirit to have already > been under by now. So, I'd have lost. But you didn't, so you didn't, so you get a second chance. Ain't life grand? If you can't handle the twenty bucks, no one will discourse on what a cheap-ass piker you are (Whoops! Did I say that out loud? ;-}), make a prediction anyway. Best, Jeff D __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 07:05:28 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 23:05:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars rovers RIP? In-Reply-To: <200601020455.k024tde07666@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20060102070528.78734.qmail@web60018.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Oh ye of little faith. These rovers are a Lockheeed > Martin product. {8-] Hey, that's terrific. I didn't know. So, Mr. Insider, Mr. LockMart Boaster boy, how about tracking down those specs for us so that everyone can enjoy a level playing field. Best, Jeff D __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 07:10:54 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 02:10:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <20060102054556.82018.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060102054556.82018.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 00:45:56 -0500, The Avantguardian wrote: > Therefore, I do not believe Walker has refuted > Scnoll's data, although he might have pointed out a > source of error for the immediate time measurements, > he does in no way refute the periodicity of Schnoll's > data which is the truly interesting part of it anyway. I'm not sure Walker believed it either. Sarfatti believed Walker's refutation, and unlike Walker, Sarfatti is a theoretical physicist. In one abstract by Walker he suggested the Shnoll effect might be real even despite his results, so perhaps Walker didn't agree with Sarfatti. I don't know. Emphasis here on the past tense. These discussions to which we are referring took place around '00-'01. The issue may be settled by now. > I understand that there is an urge to ignore anything > that does not fit into ones tidy little paradigm, but > all true progress of the paradigm depends on analyzing > the anomalies and not ignoring them. Yes. I once knew John Walker, though in a different capacity and one in which he would not remember me. I sent him an email several years ago about a subject related to this thread -- something about radioactive decay. He responded with an intelligent and thoughtful answer, never realizing that we were once business associates. :) Unfortunately I lost his email and he has since removed it from his website. Walker is the genius who founded Autodesk. Many years ago he left the company and moved to Switzerland. -gts From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Mon Jan 2 07:18:11 2006 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 02:18:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: References: <200601011619.k01GJre17034@tick.javien.com> <4df7d638d8cc005c5381a19b572ce9ca@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <2d090727fd2988129ee3837dee32f6d2@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Jan 1, 2006, at 11:34 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > If I think someone is being a twit (or whatever) then I reserve the > right to privately say so if I consider it worth my while.? Frankly, > suggesting that moderators should prevent people from privately > speaking their mind in ways you don't approve of seems? pretty silly > and foolish.? Yes, so I am thankful that I didn't do this. Read my posts more carefully. I was objecting to Spike's statements that seemed to encourage personal attacks in private e-mail (by saying he didn't personally see anything wrong with that). I was pointing out what was wrong with personal attacks, not saying that Spike should moderate private e-mail. > The word in question is defined below.? You don't qualify in my > experience of you as generally silly or foolish. ? So you have nothing > to worry about.? :-)? I don't worry about it, because you wouldn't just call me a twit and leave it at that. You would explain why my statements seem silly or foolish. Even when I disagree with you, we have a rational conversation. I can't imagine you stooping to sending insulting messages off-list that you wouldn't dare send on list. Even in your heated moments, you still seem to explain yourself and your reasons. I don't know why other people not only don't do this, but they don't even understand the concept of rational debate. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Mon Jan 2 07:20:15 2006 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 02:20:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: References: <200601011619.k01GJre17034@tick.javien.com> <4df7d638d8cc005c5381a19b572ce9ca@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <8e67406a95a7dc4e0cbaff0d5fb7e1b8@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Jan 1, 2006, at 10:50 PM, gts wrote: > spike is right. It's not his job to moderate private emails. Should he > moderate our phone calls too? I never said it was spike's job to moderate private e-mails. I said he shouldn't appear to encourage personal attacks in private e-mail, and I explained what was wrong with personal attacks. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jan 2 07:22:49 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 23:22:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars rovers RIP? In-Reply-To: <20060102070528.78734.qmail@web60018.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200601020724.k027Ope23587@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Mars rovers RIP? > > --- spike wrote: > > > Oh ye of little faith. These rovers are a Lockheeed > > Martin product. {8-] > > Hey, that's terrific. I didn't know. So, Mr. > Insider, Mr. LockMart Boaster boy, how about tracking > down those specs for us so that everyone can enjoy a > level playing field. > > Best, Jeff D The specs? Those specs called for a three month life with a probability of failure not greater than 5%. That wouldn't tell you the answer you asked. What we need is the reliability/life cycle model. I do not personally have access to that model, so I cannot offer a estimate of the life of those Mars rovers on that basis. That being said, there is some info that might be useful for this wager you propose Jeff. I don't know what type of batteries are in these rovers, but generally that is the subsystem that has a definable lifespan. If we can find out what type of batteries they use, I can offer a useful estimate of a time/probability distribution. I heard that the battery/solar charging system was not designed to survive the Martian winter. They did once, so perhaps they will survive again. spike From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Mon Jan 2 07:28:28 2006 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 02:28:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <200601020532.k025WKe11042@tick.javien.com> References: <200601020532.k025WKe11042@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <2d1f7df27cc71fbc4d883e90d762917b@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Jan 2, 2006, at 12:30 AM, spike wrote: > Harvey your concern is noted. I was hoping to avoid having > ExI members complain to the moderators about another ExI > member harassing them offlist. I agree that any attack is > undesirable behavior, but I see that issue as one of the risks > of posting your thoughts in public. Any public figure > must accept this. We recognize that extropy sometimes > attracts eccentric characters, but what the hey, we like > eccentric characters. There is little we can do about > that. This isn't what you said. You said you "personally have no problem with their doing it in private," appearing to open the door for list members to start sending personal attacks to list members in private e-mail with your blessing. >> What are you doing, Spike? First you allow off-topic politics... > > I made a controversial judgment call on this one. We had some ExI > posters who appeared to be boiling over to discuss the Second Iraq > war, which turned out to be really about the U.S. constitution > vs. international law. I can see how that directly impacts the > extropian vision of the future in many ways. This isn't what you said. You said, "If people have something to say that is not particularly extropian, say it this week" and "Then after that let us settle down and post extropian stuff again?" > As long as the posters maintain some semblance of order They didn't. You admonished Russell, saying that "all the skeptics who insisted we could not discuss political matters without fighting are surely nanner nannering us." > I am hoping to avoid an SL4-style list sniper task. It's called moderating. Why did you take the job of moderating if you don't want to do it? > I fully understand and agree with SL4 for doing that, but ExI is more > a general topic list. Oh, barf. I give up right now. I thought the whole point of trying to stay on extropian topics was to avoid being pulled down to the lowest common denominator of being a "general topic list"! But it seems that other people really want that. > I will not referee every rassling match that breaks out When the moderator says this, it appears to give a clear signal that "rassling matches" will be allowed by the moderators who will not intervene. Don't act surprised when they keep happening, because you are causing them. > I have not the time for that. Then I suggest you stop pretending to do the job that you have neither the time nor desire to do. Do what you say and say what you do. Either have a moderated list, or don't. I don't care. Just be honest about it. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3027 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jan 2 07:28:51 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 23:28:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <2d090727fd2988129ee3837dee32f6d2@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <200601020730.k027Ure24138@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom ... > > Yes, so I am thankful that I didn't do this. Read my posts more > carefully. I was objecting to Spike's statements that seemed to > encourage personal attacks in private e-mail (by saying he didn't > personally see anything wrong with that). I was pointing out what was > wrong with personal attacks, not saying that Spike should moderate > private e-mail... > Harvey Newstrom Ok, I did misunderstand your comment. Regarding my notion that it is fair game for people to flame each other offlist, I should specify that from a list moderator's point of view it isn't a violation of the rules. I do not encourage this behavior. For years I have been urging extropians to be kind to each other. spike From amara at amara.com Mon Jan 2 09:24:09 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 10:24:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mars rovers RIP? Message-ID: Spike: >Oh ye of little faith. These rovers are a Lockheeed Martin >product. {8-] The optics would degrade, however those are fixable with an occasional Martian dust storm ... :-) >When these birds last this long, the programs end up with >an embarrassing problem. They need to come up with funding >to keep someone interpreting the new unexpected data. The >slave labor (graduate students) move on, but there is still >valuable data coming down every day. Yes. Or the PIs continue working 16 hour days. (My best friend is married to a MER PI, I saw how insanely he works.) Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From amara at amara.com Mon Jan 2 11:38:47 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 12:38:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Some recent probability/multiverse/quantum discussions Message-ID: Some discussions on the blog: "cosmic variance" that might be of interest to the readers here: Probability, quantum mechanics, copies of selves, multiverses http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/30/thought-experiments/ and an earlier discussion of the meaning of quantum wavefunctions http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/26/no-reasonable-definition-of-reality-could-be-expected-to-permit-this/ Enjoy! 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/ ******************************************************************** "Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused. But on a higher level." -- Enrico Fermi From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Jan 2 14:39:11 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (M.B. Baumeister) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 09:39:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <200601020537.k025bre11884@tick.javien.com> References: <200601020532.k025WKe11042@tick.javien.com> <200601020537.k025bre11884@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <55632.72.236.103.220.1136212751.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > Especially six months from now. I am going to be a father. > > {8-] Congratulations, Spike! And to your wife. :) If this is your first, a whole new world awaits. Been there done that! Regards, MB From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 14:51:24 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 14:51:24 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <200601020730.k027Ure24138@tick.javien.com> References: <2d090727fd2988129ee3837dee32f6d2@HarveyNewstrom.com> <200601020730.k027Ure24138@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 1/2/06, spike wrote: > > Ok, I did misunderstand your comment. Regarding my notion > that it is fair game for people to flame each other offlist, > I should specify that from a list moderator's point of view > it isn't a violation of the rules. I do not encourage this > behavior. For years I have been urging extropians > to be kind to each other. > Agreed. All list moderators want to keep flame-fests away from their public list and almost all list rules say something along those lines. If flames and insults are kept out of sight then the list looks better and all the uninvolved list members do not have to suffer the barrage of insults. The Extropy-chat List Agreement says: "Personal Attacks: We do not allow personal attacks or libelous statements. Those violating this rule may be removed from the List without notice." But this is in the context of list behaviour, not private attacks. Some lists go further than just 'Keep it off the list!', because of the problem of private harassment of people with the intent to stop them posting disliked opinions to the list. Some aggressive people would be quite happy to drive their disliked opponents away from the list altogether. One example I found said something similar to the paragraph below. (I edited it slightly). I suggest that consideration be given to adding a similar paragraph to the extropy-chat List Agreement. "If you are ever the victim of a private ad hominem attack because of something that occurred on Extropy-chat, please forward a copy of the offending post to exi-list-admin at extropy.org. At the discretion of the Extropy Institute's list administrators, the perpetrator will be either warned or immediately temporarily suspended or permanently banned. Extropy Institute's list administrators will determine the duration of said ban". BillK From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 14:58:26 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 14:58:26 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <20051231012702.4524.qmail@web60014.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051231012702.4524.qmail@web60014.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/31/05, Jeff Davis wrote: > > --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > I agree with Dirk, that politics is somewhat > > different. In part because it > > is constantly shifting. So unlike a "hard" science > > it is difficult to > > establish who the authoritative sources are. > > If one cannot identify "authoritative sources", then > pursuit of a high-quality data set (to enable a > high-quality analysis) requires a different approach. > Get at foundational data and perform your own > analysis, and/or learn how to "crunch" sources so as > to be able to extract high-quality data from > mixed-quality data. > > The problem is, such data is called 'news' - and contains similar (though lesser) baises. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 15:20:12 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 15:20:12 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <20051230183453.96206.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051230115306.01d339f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20051230183453.96206.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 12/30/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > --- Damien Broderick wrote: > > > > http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/time.html > > > > It appears to show some surprising regularities > > within or atop various > > stochastic structures, correlating with, for > > example, sidereal rather than > > terrestrial/solar time. A possible connection > > between global and quantal > > scales? > > Very interesting, Damien. No endorsement is needed. > The paper gives no theories or explanations to refute. > Just observations and data from many many experiments. > To an empiricist, data speaks the truth. There is > something, not yet understood, underlying these > anomalies in randomness. Just because the scientist is > a Russian is no reason to assume he would falsify > hundreds of experiments to support no theory at all. > Perhaps this data ought to be viewed with respect to results from PEAR Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 2 15:40:43 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 09:40:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <200601020730.k027Ure24138@tick.javien.com> References: <2d090727fd2988129ee3837dee32f6d2@HarveyNewstrom.com> <200601020730.k027Ure24138@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060102093947.04d7e398@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 01:28 AM 1/2/2006, Spike wrote: >Ok, I did misunderstand your comment. Regarding my notion >that it is fair game for people to flame each other offlist, >I should specify that from a list moderator's point of view >it isn't a violation of the rules. I do not encourage this >behavior. Bravo to Spike! Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 2 15:42:15 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 09:42:15 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <200601020537.k025bre11884@tick.javien.com> References: <200601020532.k025WKe11042@tick.javien.com> <200601020537.k025bre11884@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060102094107.04eb8910@pop-server.austin.rr.com> >Especially six months from now. I am going to be a father. Because of your ability to deal with criticisms directly and calmly, I think you will be a marvelous father. I am so happy for you Spike. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 15:47:21 2006 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 07:47:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] More on Moore Message-ID: <20060102154721.53625.qmail@web32813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friends, Have a very happy start for 2006 and have more on Moore: http://www.itrs.net/Common/2005ITRS/ExecSum2005.pdf http://www.top500.org/lists/2005/11/p/Projected_Performance_Development Transhumanistically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 18:02:12 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 10:02:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060102180212.66908.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> I apologize, yet it was just a little good natured public chiding, like, 'it takes a twit to know one-- at least one of us two twits will own up to being one'. Just one more point concerning white supremacists or confederates or whatever label they are given. I don't mind if they come out and say, "We don't like the way mud people look; we don't want to live in their communities; be exposed to their criminal activities and don't want to send children to integrated schools. We think too many of the mud people are slothful; they claim victimhood too much and they get affirmative action". None of these sentiments are particularly unfair. But when you look at what Melissa Johnson wrote you can see right away she isn't being candid, when her cipher is cracked it says she doesn't care much for nonwhites in the first place, affirmative action is a lesser concern. She wouldn't mind quotas favoring whites. I would prefer to read an article by a neo-nazi because right away it can be seen what they want, it's clinically fascinating to read. However with a cryptic piece you have to decipher the writer's code. > Al, if someone insults you offlist, that is fair game, but it isn't fair > game for you to post their private messages to the whole world. Do desist, --------------------------------- Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jan 2 18:21:20 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 10:21:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <2d1f7df27cc71fbc4d883e90d762917b@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <200601021823.k02INMe19692@tick.javien.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom ... >This isn't what you said. You said you "personally have no problem with their doing it in private," appearing to open the door for list members to start sending personal attacks to list members in private e-mail with your blessing... Oh, ok. List members, do refrain from bullying each other, in public and in private. If our dreams of radical life extension work out, we may need to entertain each other for a long time. I probably should have said something like: If you find you must participate in a flame war, please take it offlist. Feel free to killfile any yahoo that bugs you. Play the board, not the man. ... >This isn't what you said. You said, "If people have something to say that is not particularly extropian, say it this week" and "Then after that let us settle down and post extropian stuff again?" They didn't. You admonished Russell, saying that "all the skeptics who insisted we could not discuss political matters without fighting are surely nanner nannering us."... Ja, that was a disappointment to me that we dropped the ball at the goal line. As I recall, the person who did the personal attack was one of those who said we could not go a week without personal attack. I'm not sure that counts. >It's called moderating. Why did you take the job of moderating if you don't want to do it?... I am willing to moderate, but hold the view that extropians should be only lightly moderated. I do understand why the more focused groups must be carefully moderated. We have alternatives, if one is strongly focused on libertarianism or singularity for instance. >Oh, barf. I give up right now. I thought the whole point of trying to stay on extropian topics was to avoid being pulled down to the lowest common denominator of being a "general topic list"! But it seems that other people really want that... Max's extropian principles have a broad appeal: http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm I recall finding this document in the early days of the internet, about 1994. It expressed so clearly what I and about five others were talking about in the early 80s in college. We need only request that posters read this document and decide if they find a deep resonance with those memes. If so, then ExI-chat is the right place to hang out. I propose that ExI-chat posters read over the principles at least once a year. It will only take about ten or fifteen minutes. This is the start of the new year, so do it today, then make it a New Years Day habit. I can imagine a huge range of topics that may have relevance to those principles, even if very indirectly. >Then I suggest you stop pretending to do the job that you have neither the time nor desire to do. Do what you say and say what you do. Either have a moderated list, or don't. I don't care. Just be honest about it... -- Harvey Newstrom Ok, here is my honest statement about list moderation: I will continue to moderate until requested to desist. I will moderate only lightly, as before. I consider it inappropriate for ExI moderators to referee private disputes, even if they started over ExI-chat posts. I will be quick to encourage decent behavior, but slow to spank.* Some have criticized ExI for under-moderating to the point of encouraging chaos, others say over-moderating to the point of censorship. With these two views I respectfully disagree. spike *Have you ever seen someone spanked slowly? I admit it just doesn't work very well. {8^D From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 18:27:15 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 13:27:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: References: <20060102054556.82018.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I constructed this animated gif of 25 histograms. http://www.geocities.com/gts_2000/shnoll.html Is the effect there? Let your eyes be the judge. These histograms are from another of Shnoll's papers: Fine structure of histograms of alpha-activity measurements depends on direction of alpha particles flow and the Earth rotation: experiments with collimators. http://www.cifa-icef.org/shnoll.pdf -gts From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jan 2 18:28:00 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 10:28:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <20060102180212.66908.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200601021830.k02IU1e20353@tick.javien.com> _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Al Brooks Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary >I apologize, yet it was just a little good natured public chiding, like, 'it takes a twit to know one-- at least one of us two twits will own up to being one'. OK, but I don't see what this has to do with the rest of your commentary. Feel free to hit send after the first sentence. >Just one more point concerning white supremacists or confederates or whatever label they are given... Al, this entire topic of racism must be handled with extreme care, if at all. When in doubt regarding relevance to ExI chat, please review the extropian principles. http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 18:39:55 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 18:39:55 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <200601021830.k02IU1e20353@tick.javien.com> References: <20060102180212.66908.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> <200601021830.k02IU1e20353@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 1/2/06, spike wrote: > > OK, but I don't see what this has to do with the rest of your commentary. > Feel free to > > hit send after the first sentence. > > Al, this entire topic of racism must be handled with extreme care, if at > all. When in > > doubt regarding relevance to ExI chat, please review the extropian > principles. > > > > http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm > I would expect that most here share my views on the subject. Namely, that each individual be judged on their own merits and not according to involuntary membership of a class. That the only discrimination be in favour of competence and ability. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 19:16:56 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 11:16:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <200601021830.k02IU1e20353@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20060102191656.72342.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Natasha said to consolidate the posts. So not only am I confused about what is and is not off topic, but also about how many posts to send. Look, are you sure you wouldn't want to start an extropy twit-chat list? There's one-- perhaps two-- who might join right away :-) OK, but I don?t see what this has to do with the rest of your commentary. Feel free to hit send after the first sentence. --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 19:08:37 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 11:08:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060102190837.87016.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> Here's a problem. We discriminate by physical appearance also. There's a report today that more guys are having cosmetic surgery done; previously cosmetic surgery was a gal thing. However it may just be that men are discovering they can obtain a higher income by looking better. Is this off-topic? A nonsequitor? I throw out things to see if others who know more will run with them. >That the only discrimination be in favour of competence and ability. >Dirk --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 2 19:38:56 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 13:38:56 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wil McCarthy's HACKING MATTER free download Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060102133711.01c36530@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/01/wil_mccarthys_wonder.html specifically: http://www.wilmccarthy.com/hm.htm (but it's getting overloaded to hell) Charlie Stross will mirror it soon, I understand. From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 19:59:57 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 19:59:57 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <20060102190837.87016.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060102190837.87016.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 1/2/06, Al Brooks wrote: > > Here's a problem. We discriminate by physical appearance also. There's a > report today that more guys are having cosmetic surgery done; previously > cosmetic surgery was a gal thing. However it may just be that men are > discovering they can obtain a higher income by looking better. > Is this off-topic? A nonsequitor? I throw out things to see if others who > know more will run with them. > That is not necessarily bad, to a limited extent. There is a correlation between intelligence, genetic fitness, symmetrical features, height etc. In my experience smarter people are generally better looking people. Additionally, in later life we often come to reflect the type of person we have made ourselves (or allowed ourselves to become). Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Mon Jan 2 21:34:08 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 13:34:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary References: <200601020532.k025WKe11042@tick.javien.com><200601020537.k025bre11884@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20060102094107.04eb8910@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <005e01c60fe4$aa1179f0$0300a8c0@Nano> Congratulations Spike! "G Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 7:42 AM Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary Especially six months from now. I am going to be a father. Because of your ability to deal with criticisms directly and calmly, I think you will be a marvelous father. I am so happy for you Spike. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 2 21:37:33 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:37:33 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: References: <20060102054556.82018.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060102153639.01e56b80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 02:10 AM 1/2/2006 -0500, gts wrote: >Sarfatti believed Walker's >refutation, and unlike Walker, Sarfatti is a theoretical physicist. Sarfatti is also a raving monster loony. From nanogirl at halcyon.com Mon Jan 2 21:55:17 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 13:55:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year! References: <20051231072225.9143.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <020901c60fe7$7b03b3a0$0300a8c0@Nano> What a lovely expression. Thank you! Gina ----- Original Message ----- From: The Avantguardian To: ExI chat list Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 11:22 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year! Very cool. Thanks, and Happy New Year to you too. As they used to say in Scottland, "May you be a thousand times better off this time next year." --- Gina Miller wrote: > An animated New Years Greeting from yours truly - go > to this url to download: > > http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/newyears.htm > > > Gina "Nanogirl" Miller > Nanotechnology Industries > http://www.nanoindustries.com> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jan 2 22:09:17 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 14:09:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <200601020537.k025bre11884@tick.javien.com> References: <200601020537.k025bre11884@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <8B38C2E2-99BF-44CF-983B-E9693E47833E@mac.com> Whoa! Congratulations! I am sure you will be a fantastic Dad. - samantha On Jan 1, 2006, at 9:35 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > > >> ... I will not referee every >> rassling match that breaks out; I have not the time for >> that. spike > > > > Especially six months from now. I am going to be a father. > > {8-] > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jan 2 22:21:46 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 14:21:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <20060102180212.66908.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060102180212.66908.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <17D679CD-4086-44B2-9D3C-E6AB71E0F239@mac.com> On Jan 2, 2006, at 10:02 AM, Al Brooks wrote: > I apologize, yet it was just a little good natured public chiding, > like, 'it takes a twit to know one-- at least one of us two twits > will own up to being one'. > Just one more point concerning white supremacists or confederates > or whatever label they are given. The Confederates were not white supremacists per se and freeing slaves was not primarily what the conflict was about. Lincoln did a lot of extremely nasty and unconstitutional things in this war that many would consider treasonable. To only slam one side of this horrific conflict as you did while also slamming all who disagreed with you in the same post is precisely why I sent my infamous offline comment. If you want to discuss a topic you don't start by attacking all who disagree with your position. Thus your original post was little more than rant and flame bait. I thought a small slap on the wrist might wake you up a bit. That was obviously incorrect. Sorry for using unskillful means and for taking up list time with this. - samantha From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 22:43:10 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:43:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060102153639.01e56b80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20060102054556.82018.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20060102153639.01e56b80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 16:37:33 -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > Sarfatti is also a raving monster loony. I don't know about Sarfatti but John Walker is brilliant. I think I understand why Walker may not have considered his results a clear refutation of Shnell. From reading Shnell's papers, it seems his team relies on visual analysis of the histograms. Walker used an automated statistical program to test for similarities, which may not be sensitive enough. This is from the discussion at http://noosphere.princeton.edu/shnoll2.html Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:43:59 +0200 From: Dick J Bierman To: John Walker , rdnelson Cc: nick herbert , Jack Sarfatti , Dean Radin , creon at isso.org Subject: Shnoll et al replications Hi to all, We just recieved a confirmation by W.I. Axford of the Max-Plank Aeronomy Institute, Lindau, Germany, that he has done an independent replication of the Schnoll effect. If I understand him correctly he just produced sets of histograms from two (random?) sources, removed all time information, randomized the order and then send them to Tatiana for human judgement. She then returned to them the pairs that were simlar and these turned out to be from simultaneous measurements. No stats were given but from his words it seems the result is robust. (He is a bit worried about the stretching operation but that can't explain the results; it is worrying from a physics perspective though). So this is a good reason (at least for me) to become more optimistic and to invest a bit more time in getting the human judgement replaced by computerized judgement. The results produced by John suggest to me that the chi-2 isn't the measure that corresponds very well to their human scored similarity. === -gts From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 2 23:20:28 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:20:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: References: <20060102054556.82018.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20060102153639.01e56b80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060102171859.01e44668@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 05:43 PM 1/2/2006 -0500, gts wrote: >No stats were given but from his words it seems the result is robust. >(He is a bit worried about the stretching operation but that can't >explain the results; it is worrying from a physics perspective though). I'm more worried about the optional chirality rotation, which seems bogus without a *lot* of justification. Damien Broderick From jay.dugger at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 23:58:53 2006 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 17:58:53 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wil McCarthy's HACKING MATTER free download In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060102133711.01c36530@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060102133711.01c36530@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0601021558k4a74bac2i4809164b2f2cab5c@mail.gmail.com> On 1/2/06, Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/01/wil_mccarthys_wonder.html > > specifically: > > http://www.wilmccarthy.com/hm.htm (but it's getting overloaded to hell) > > Charlie Stross will mirror it soon, I understand. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/download/HackingMatterMultimediaEdition.pdf -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 3 00:17:02 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 19:17:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year and resolution. Message-ID: <20060103001702.64101.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> One of my resolutions this year was to find out how to eat better and feel healthier. Is there a program or site that exists that can help me acknowledge what I eat and drink? Sorry for my ignorance, but I was just curious to find out if I could punch in what I eat and find out exactly what i'm putting in my body. (Like typing apple and knowing how many vitamins i'm putting in my body?)(Or by putting tuna and knowing how much iron i've absorbed. I would love to buy my Mother this device. If anybody has any fact, advice or opinion, I would love to know, Thank you Anna --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 3 01:42:33 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:42:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year and resolution. In-Reply-To: <20060103001702.64101.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060103001702.64101.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 19:17:02 -0500, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > One of my resolutions this year was to find out how to eat better and > feel healthier. > Is there a program or site that exists that can help me acknowledge > what I eat and drink? > Sorry for my ignorance, but I was just curious to find out if I could > punch in what I eat and find out exactly what i'm putting in > my body. (Like typing apple and knowing how many vitamins > i'm putting in my body?)(Or by putting tuna and knowing how much > iron i've absorbed. > I would love to buy my Mother this device. > If anybody has any fact, advice or opinion, I would love to know, > Thank you > Anna USDA National Nutrient Database http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ -gts From HerbM at learnquick.com Tue Jan 3 07:17:56 2006 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 01:17:56 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year and resolution. In-Reply-To: <20060103001702.64101.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Is there a program or site that exists that can help me acknowledge > what I eat and dri nk? My guesses would include the WeightWatchers site and TonyRobbins site -- Tony was on Larry King the other night saying he had a free program fro the new year and I believe WW has diet guides online. Both are (obviously) designed to get you to sign up and spend money with them, but providing free content is a legitimate way to try to sell a product. A google search should get you more; something like (untested): [ nuitrition | diet log | diary carbohydrates | protein | fat ] The vertical bar | is OR, but you can use the capitalized word OR if you prefer. You can play around with this or add other keywords that follow more closely what you hope to find. Notice that Google accepts quotes for phrases and * as a wildcard within a phrase: "diet guide" "food * guide" You can restrict searches to certin URL patterns with "SITE:", e.g, this will only find you key words at US registered universities, colleges, etc: [ diet guide site:edu ] Tilde ~word will find synonyms for a keyword: [ ~diet ~diary ] And if you find a lot of "wrong" sites, you can preface a word with minus to DISALLOW pages with that word: [ ~diet ~diary -weightwatchers ] Another variation: Inurl: can find pages with a word within a URL, eg.: [ ~diet ~diary inurl:planner ] And while probably not useful for this quest, you can also specify certain useful file types: [ "diet * guide" filetype:pdf | filetype:doc | filetype:xls ] I through the xls in as an afterthought since you may actually find a (free) spreadsheet that will help you maintain such a diary/log. Let me know if you need more or more direct help. -- Herb Martin Teach fishing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Tue Jan 3 13:49:44 2006 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 07:49:44 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] (U.S.) Government releases proposed space travel rules In-Reply-To: <43B47FF9.2000807@goldenfuture.net> References: <43B47FF9.2000807@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <5366105b0601030549g422aafddx2e86ee9f2b6da74c@mail.gmail.com> Tuesday, 3 January 2006 On 12/29/05, Joseph Bloch wrote: > The full text of the proposed regulations may be found at > http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=902051483587+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve This link fails; you might try the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) site. From there: New Era of Commercial Human Space Flight Dec. 30 ? FAA is proposing new rules specifically relating to crew and passengers on commercial space flights. Proposed rules focus on encouraging, facilitating, and promoting space tourism in a way that continuously improves safety. * Proposed Rules (PDF) http://ast.faa.gov/files/pdf/Human_Space_Flight_NPRM.pdf * Fact Sheet on Commercial Human Space Flight http://www.faa.gov/news/news_story.cfm?type=fact_sheet&year=2005&date=092605a Released on my natal anniversary; not a bad birthday present from Uncle Sam, and certainly the nicest thing the FAA did for me all year long. -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Jan 3 15:01:55 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 07:01:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060103150155.99535.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> I had no idea--this is good news. Come to think of it, if you took a very ugly woman and operated on her to make her into a drop-dead vixen, it would almost certainly change the way she thinks of herself and would surely change the way others think of her. Naturally, with men looks aren't as important. >There is a correlation between intelligence, genetic fitness, symmetrical features, >height etc. In my experience smarter people are generally better looking people. >Additionally, in later life we often come to reflect the type of person we have made >ourselves (or allowed ourselves to become). >Dirk --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Jan 3 15:34:02 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 09:34:02 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <20060103150155.99535.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060103150155.99535.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060103093018.04c303a8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 09:01 AM 1/3/2006, you wrote: >I had no idea--this is good news. >Come to think of it, if you took a very ugly woman and operated on her to >make her into a drop-dead vixen, it would almost certainly change the way >she thinks of herself and would surely change the way others think of her. >Naturally, with men looks aren't as important. I disagree with you. Men's looks are equally as confidence building as a woman's. But a woman cannot hide her face, while a man can put his penis in his pants. I also disagree with you that what you call "ulgy" is an external characteristic. Frankly, I find "ulgy" to be 90% emotional and 10% physical. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Jan 3 15:38:20 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:38:20 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics: worthwhile commentary In-Reply-To: <20060103150155.99535.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060103150155.99535.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 1/3/06, Al Brooks wrote: > > I had no idea--this is good news. > Come to think of it, if you took a very ugly woman and operated on her to > make her into a drop-dead vixen, it would almost certainly change the way > she thinks of herself and would surely change the way others think of her. > Naturally, with men looks aren't as important. > > That is definately not true. It's just that the audience is different, in that it is other men who react to the male image. At the crudest level, being big and muscular probably means you will never be mugged. OTOH, other men can find that intimidating in a social setting. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Jan 3 16:35:25 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:35:25 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: References: <7a5e56060512290020r601a235fy23781e70bcf651ea@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512292014t353e743bob2987d3d2cdedd1d@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512292129k59ecbab3k376345d726a64a2d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/30/05, gts wrote: > > > But remember that the Chalmers/Clark idea of extended mind removes that > paradox. Colors are both 'out there' in the world and 'in here' in our > minds. Our minds contain the objects of our perception. > > All that is required is new physics. Of course, that new physics would also likely encompass Psi phenomena. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 3 17:27:42 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 12:27:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year and resolution. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060103172742.13310.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks Herb, I thought that with technology so advanced that there may have been a program I haven't heard of yet that is simple and easy to use (My mother is quite old and I can't see her googling anything:). Something like a journal but that gives solid results at the end of the day. Such as how much cholesterol, proteins, carbohydrates and vitamins you absorb in one day. You punch in what you eat and you get actual results, I think it would be a great idea to promote proper health. People today really don't know what they are putting in there bodies. Anyhow thanks again, Anna Herb Martin wrote: > Is there a program or site that exists that can help me acknowledge > what I eat and dri nk? My guesses would include the WeightWatchers site and TonyRobbins site -- Tony was on Larry King the other night saying he had a free program fro the new year and I believe WW has diet guides online. Both are (obviously) designed to get you to sign up and spend money with them, but providing free content is a legitimate way to try to sell a product. A google search should get you more; something like (untested): [ nuitrition | diet log | diary carbohydrates | protein | fat ] The vertical bar | is OR, but you can use the capitalized word OR if you prefer. You can play around with this or add other keywords that follow more closely what you hope to find. Notice that Google accepts quotes for phrases and * as a wildcard within a phrase: "diet guide" "food * guide" You can restrict searches to certin URL patterns with "SITE:", e.g, this will only find you key words at US registered universities, colleges, etc: [ diet guide site:edu ] Tilde ~word will find synonyms for a keyword: [ ~diet ~diary ] And if you find a lot of "wrong" sites, you can preface a word with minus to DISALLOW pages with that word: [ ~diet ~diary -weightwatchers ] Another variation: Inurl: can find pages with a word within a URL, eg.: [ ~diet ~diary inurl:planner ] And while probably not useful for this quest, you can also specify certain useful file types: [ "diet * guide" filetype:pdf | filetype:doc | filetype:xls ] I through the xls in as an afterthought since you may actually find a (free) spreadsheet that will help you maintain such a diary/log. Let me know if you need more or more direct help. -- Herb Martin Teach fishing. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Jan 3 18:46:49 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 19:46:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wil McCarthy's HACKING MATTER free download In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060102133711.01c36530@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060102133711.01c36530@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520601031046q1d3a52aat8c30a35395157b44@mail.gmail.com> I loved McCarthy's Bloom, much less Murder in the solid state (but I think that was his first novel). The first bb review of Hacking Matter looks great and advices to read it together with the Wellstone. The Wellstone is actually the sequel of Collapsium so I just placed the three books in my amazon cart. The bb comment that won me over was "Rucker-grade speculation about a universe dominated by programmable matter and practical immortality, teleportation, and other post-classical physics technology." On 1/2/06, Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/01/wil_mccarthys_wonder.html > > specifically: > > http://www.wilmccarthy.com/hm.htm (but it's getting overloaded to hell) > > Charlie Stross will mirror it soon, I understand. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 3 19:02:04 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:02:04 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Wil McCarthy's HACKING MATTER free download In-Reply-To: <470a3c520601031046q1d3a52aat8c30a35395157b44@mail.gmail.co m> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060102133711.01c36530@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <470a3c520601031046q1d3a52aat8c30a35395157b44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060103125739.01cefe88@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 07:46 PM 1/3/2006 +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >I loved McCarthy's Bloom, much less Murder in the solid state (but I >think that was his first novel). The first bb review of Hacking Matter >looks great and advices to read it together with the Wellstone. Please note that HACKING MATTER is *not* fiction, but rather a popularized introduction to a potential technology (programmable matter) that Wil is currently developing in reality with his start-up. If he succeeds, he could become a Gates-scale billionaire -- and the world will be that much closer to a singularity. Damien Broderick From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Tue Jan 3 19:06:24 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 14:06:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year and resolution. In-Reply-To: <20060103172742.13310.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060103172742.13310.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43BACB30.308@goldenfuture.net> It is a great idea. I know that the Weight Watcher's website does what you're talking about, and so does the Zone Diet website, but not with actual nutrition values; only with how many "points" a given food is within their system. Perhaps there's a market for such a thing? Joseph Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Thanks Herb, > I thought that with technology so advanced that there may have been a > program I haven't heard of yet that is simple and easy to use (My mother > is quite old and I can't see her googling anything:). Something like a > journal but that gives solid results at the end of the day. Such as > how much cholesterol, proteins, carbohydrates and vitamins you absorb > in one day. You punch in what you eat and you get actual results, > I think it would be a great idea to promote proper health. > People today really don't know what they are putting in there bodies. > Anyhow thanks again, > Anna > > > */Herb Martin /* wrote: > > *> Is there a program or site that exists that can help me > acknowledge* > *> what I eat and dri nk?* > ** > *My guesses would include the WeightWatchers site and TonyRobbins * > *site -- Tony was on Larry King the other night saying he had a free* > *program fro the! new year and I believe WW has diet guides online.* > > *Both are (obviously) designed to get you to sign up and* > *spend money with them, but providing free content is a * > *legitimate way to try to sell a product.* > > *A google search should get you more; something like (untested):* > ** > [ nuitrition | diet log | diary carbohydrates | protein | fat ] > ** > *The vertical bar | is OR, but you can use the capitalized word OR* > *if you prefer.* > > *You can play around with this or add other keywords that follow* > *more closely what you hope to find.* > ** > *Notice that Google accepts quotes for phrases and * as a wildcard* > *within a phrase: "diet guide" "food * guide"* > ** > *You can restrict searches to certin URL patterns with "SITE:",* > *e.g, this will only find you key words at US registered universities, > colleges, etc:* > ** > *[ diet guide site:edu ]* > ** > *Tilde ~word will find synonyms for a keyword: [ ~diet ~diary ]* > > *And if you find a lot of "wrong" sites, you can preface a word > with minus* > *to DISALLOW p! ages with that word:* > > *[ ~diet ~diary -weightwatchers ]* > ** > *Another variation: Inurl: can find pages with a word within a > URL, eg.:* > ** > * [ ~diet ~diary inurl:planner ]* > ** > *And while probably not useful for this quest, you can also > specify certain* > *useful file types:* > > * [ "diet * guide" filetype:pdf | filetype:doc | filetype:xls ]* > ** > *I through the xls in as an afterthought since you may actually find* > *a (free) spreadsheet that will help you maintain such a diary/log.* > > *Let me know if you need more or more direct help.* > ** > *-- > Herb Martin* > *Teach fishing.* > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Find your next car at *Yahoo! Canada Autos* > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From HerbM at learnquick.com Tue Jan 3 19:08:40 2006 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 13:08:40 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year and resolution. In-Reply-To: <20060103172742.13310.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anne-Marie Taylor Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:28 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year and resolution. Thanks Herb, I thought that with technology so advanced that there may have been a program I haven't heard of yet that is simple and easy to use I am pretty sure there are such programs. When I am looking for programs I start with these sources: www.sourceforge.net (open source but smaller collection) www.nonags.com (practically all free as the name indicates) www.downloads.com (lot's of junk and overpriced stuff but reliable site) Downloads.com is really CNET now, but I still remember it under the old name. You can also search Google with these sites as restrictions (I believe this will work for NoNags but have not tried it.) (My mother is quite old and I can't see her googling anything:).&nb sp; Something like a journal but that gives solid results at the end of the day. Such as how much cholesterol, proteins, carbohydrates and vitamins you absorb in one day. You punch in what you eat and you get actual results, I think it would be a great idea to promote proper health. People today really don't know what they are putting in there bodies. Anyhow thanks again, Anna &nb sp; Herb Martin wrote: > Is there a program or site that exists that can help me acknowledge > what I eat and dri nk? My guesses would include the WeightWatchers site and TonyRobbins site -- Tony was on Larry King the other night saying he had a free program fro the! new year and I believe WW has diet guides online. Both are (obviously) designed to get you to sign up and spend money with them, but providing free content is a legitimate w ay to try to sell a product. A google search should get you more; somet hing like (untested): [ nuitrition | diet log | diary carbohydrates | protein | fat ] &nb sp; The vertical bar | is OR, but you can use the capitalized word OR if you prefer. You can play around with this or add other keywords that follow more closely what you hope to find. Notice that Google accepts quotes for phrases and * as a wildc ard within a phrase: "diet guide" "food * guide" You can restrict searches to certin URL patterns with "SITE:", e.g, this will only find you key words at US registered universities, colleges, etc: [ diet guide& nbsp; site:edu ] Tilde ~word will find synonyms for a keyword: [ ~diet ~diary ] And if you find a lot of "wrong" sites, you can preface a word with minus to DISALLOW p! ages with that word: [ ~diet ~diary -weightwatchers ] Another variation: Inurl: can find pages with a word within a URL, eg.: [ ~diet ~diary inurl:planner ] And while probably not useful for this quest, you can also specify certain useful file types: [ "diet * guide" filetype:pdf | filetype:doc | filetype:xls ] I through the xls in as an afterthought since you may actually find a (free) spreadsheet that will help you maintain such a diary/log. Let me know if you need more or more direct help. -- Herb Martin < STRONG>Teach fishing. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat _____ Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jan 3 19:39:23 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 19:39:23 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year and resolution. In-Reply-To: <20060103172742.13310.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060103172742.13310.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 1/3/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > I thought that with technology so advanced that there may have been a > program I haven't heard of yet that is simple and easy to use (My mother > is quite old and I can't see her googling anything:). Something like a > journal but that gives solid results at the end of the day. Such as > how much cholesterol, proteins, carbohydrates and vitamins you absorb > in one day. You punch in what you eat and you get actual results, > I think it would be a great idea to promote proper health. > People today really don't know what they are putting in there bodies. > Try MyPyramid Plan can help you choose the foods and amounts that are right for you. For a quick estimate of what and how much you need to eat, enter your age, sex, and activity level in the MyPyramid Plan box. You can get your own plan at: And don't forget you need exercise as well. If you are a couch potato you need a lot less food. But your body won't be healthy unless you have fairly vigorous exercise for at least 30 minutes a day. Don't panic! Fast walking two miles a day is enough. :) BillK From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Tue Jan 3 19:41:30 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 14:41:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] [Fwd: [Bioethics] Scholars debate whether to limit scientific research] Message-ID: <43BAD36A.3090202@goldenfuture.net> December 29, 2005 Scholars debate whether to limit scientific research ASU?s College of Law Center for the Study of Law, Science, & Technology will play host to a conference titled ?Forbidding Science? Balancing Freedom, Security, Innovation and Precaution? Jan. 12 ? 13 in the College of Law?s Great Hall, located at the corner of Orange Street and McAllister Avenue on the Tempe campus. The conference will explore whether scientific research should be restricted ? and, if so, how far ?too far? might be. The first day of the conference will provide an overview of the legal and policy questions, plus a discussion about the limitations of the ?right? to conduct scientific research. The second day?s events will focus on three case studies involving emerging research controversies in the areas of pathogens and toxins, nanotechnology and cognitive enhancement. ?We have reached a point in human history where some of the scientific research we could do, perhaps we should not do for safety, national security or ethical reasons,? says Gary Marchant, executive director of the center. ?We therefore must choose, for the first time, which science should be allowed, and which should not. How, and by whom, such decisions should be made will be the focus of this timely and path-breaking conference.? Among the distinguished conference scholars will be: ? ASU President Michael Crow. ? Leon Kass, Clark Harding Professor, Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago. ? Martin Redish, Louis & Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public Policy at Northwestern University School of Law. George Poste, director of ASU?s Biodesign Institute, will be the keynote speaker. Along with ASU, the conference co-sponsors include the Biodesign Institute; the Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes; the Center for Biology and Society; the Arizona Consortium for Medicine, Society and Values; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics; and the American Bar Association Section of Science and Technology Law. The conference, open to the public, welcomes all ASU faculty, staff and students. There is no conference fee except for attorneys seeking continuing legal education credits. Advance registration is requested. To register, go to the conference link at (www.law.asu.edu/forbiddingscience). From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 3 20:13:16 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:13:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: References: <7a5e56060512290020r601a235fy23781e70bcf651ea@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512292014t353e743bob2987d3d2cdedd1d@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512292129k59ecbab3k376345d726a64a2d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 11:35:25 -0500, Dirk Bruere wrote: > All that is required is new physics. Could be. I was thinking about something I wrote to Acy. He suggested that observation is an act. I replied something like, "Here I will disagree with you... perception seems passive. The objects of our awareness are the actors. They act or our senses." Traditional empiricists like Locke might agree with my thought, but lately I've been studying evolutionary epistemology and am struck by the idea that observation is fundamentally aggressive. If we trace sensory awareness back through the path of evolution, we find ourselves in a quagmire when we reach the level of simple microbes. As Stu and I agreed, they seem to be "aware," but it also true that they have no obvious sense organs. As I mentioned, one species of paramecia uses a plant (Chlorella) to 'see'. It literally eats the plant, but then holds it hostage in its cytoplasm, using the Chlorella's photosynthesis mechanism as an 'eye' for finding more light and more food. Is it correct to call this primitive process "vision"? Probably not. It's more a form of sightless *cognition*. So we can trace cognition back to the simplest organisms, but not sensation. And this cognition is an *active* process. The normal paramecium cognates when in searches blindly for food via trial and error locomotion. Our human eyes and other sense organs are analogous to radar towers, constantly searching the environment and reporting information back to 'headquarters'. This information ultimately saves us physical steps. It is no coincidence that we see only a very narrow band of electromagnetic radiation. It so happens that things that reflect visual light are generally impenetrable. Unlike the blind paramecium we don't have to bounce into walls to know they exist. Also our use of visual light is ultimately related to light as food. It may be no coincidence that our eyes use the pigment retinal, and that we obtain the necessary nutrition through plants. Plants and animals may share a common ancestor that used beta carotene, a precursor to both animal retinal and plant chlorophyll. In our branch of evolution, we lost the ability to eat light but retained the ability to detect it. -gts From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Jan 3 20:38:54 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 20:38:54 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] [Fwd: [Bioethics] Scholars debate whether to limit scientific research] In-Reply-To: <43BAD36A.3090202@goldenfuture.net> References: <43BAD36A.3090202@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On 1/3/06, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > December 29, 2005 > > > Scholars debate whether to limit scientific research > > ASU's College of Law Center for the Study of Law, Science, & Technology > will play host to a conference titled "Forbidding Science? Balancing > Freedom, Security, Innovation and Precaution" Jan. 12 ? 13 in the > College of Law's Great Hall, located at the corner of Orange Street and > McAllister Avenue on the Tempe campus. > > LOL! Any Chinese delegates? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From live2scan at charter.net Wed Jan 4 00:08:38 2006 From: live2scan at charter.net (Dennis Roberts) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 19:08:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] awsome xmas video Message-ID: <4k176m$2didj8@mxip08a.cluster1.charter.net> I know its trivial and really not pertinent to this list, but does anybody know who does the piece of music in this video? http://media.putfile.com/WizardsofWinter-SM Dennis Roberts -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Jan 4 00:28:43 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:28:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] awsome xmas video In-Reply-To: <4k176m$2didj8@mxip08a.cluster1.charter.net> References: <4k176m$2didj8@mxip08a.cluster1.charter.net> Message-ID: <22360fa10601031628m6ee9c4c6j67bac17fd4b276c5@mail.gmail.com> On 1/3/06, Dennis Roberts wrote: > I know its trivial and really not pertinent to this list, but does anybody > know who does the piece of music in this video? > http://media.putfile.com/WizardsofWinter-SM I don't know, but 15 seconds with Google sugested that it's "Wizards of Winter" by Trans-Siberian Orchestra. - Jef From transcend at extropica.com Wed Jan 4 00:56:09 2006 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 18:56:09 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] awsome xmas video In-Reply-To: <4k176m$2didj8@mxip08a.cluster1.charter.net> Message-ID: <200601040056.k040u8e27642@tick.javien.com> That's the quite famous "Trans-Siberian Orchestra" who also play as "Savatage" in the old hair metal scene: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savatage http://www.bnrmetal.com/groups/sava.htm Brandon _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Roberts Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 6:09 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] awsome xmas video I know its trivial and really not pertinent to this list, but does anybody know who does the piece of music in this video? http://media.putfile.com/WizardsofWinter-SM Dennis Roberts -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Jan 4 01:15:48 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 17:15:48 -0800 Subject: WARNING Re: [extropy-chat] awsome xmas video In-Reply-To: <4k176m$2didj8@mxip08a.cluster1.charter.net> References: <4k176m$2didj8@mxip08a.cluster1.charter.net> Message-ID: Dennis, I don't believe I have ever seen you here before so I would advise everyone not to access this link if you are running Windows. It may be perfectly safe but there are viruses now that infect IE on just visiting a site. Also putfile.com is a site that anyone can load whatever they want to. The content of this particularly link is only available to Windows players. DANGER. If you are legit I would strongly suggest something more pertinent and meaty for a [AFAIK] first post. - samantha On Jan 3, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Dennis Roberts wrote: > I know its trivial and really not pertinent to this list, but does > anybody know who does the piece of music in this video? http:// > media.putfile.com/WizardsofWinter-SM > > > > Dennis Roberts > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Wed Jan 4 05:45:45 2006 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:45:45 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] [Bioethics] Scholars debate whether to limit scientific research ??? In-Reply-To: <43BAD36A.3090202@goldenfuture.net> References: <43BAD36A.3090202@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <43BB6109.2000708@sasktel.net> This reminds me of an old superman comic from the 60's where Superman goes back to ancient Krypton to a time when "Science was Forbidden". There are many slants to this theme some sinister, some conspiracy theory oriented some ludditic, some just plain idiotic in a savant sort of way, but all are extremely dangerous and worse than any terrorist threat. Perhaps we globalists should ask all the world's people including muslims and chinese and others somewhat marginalized by the speakers referred to here just what is the best future for humankind. I see this theme played out in Star trek recently in the theme relating to Dr Sung, creator to be of Data and L'or and former proponent of transhuman genetic developed enhanced humans. It really is time for a coalition of the Gates, Allan, Dell , Kurzweil sort with help from Soros and perhaps Buffet to use the type of hype fronted by De Grey to start "War Against Aging" with all the intensity of a Manhatten project. With the anti-science people getting noisy, it's none too soon to hype the grass roots baby boomers to match the effort out of pension funds and health care expenditures to make the industry click. Bioethics my ass, its just a bunch of brainless dogs in the manger, pathetic but worse than any lunatic terrorist. Any group advocating the unnecesary death of 6 Billion sure as hell beats hand down the Nazis who only killed 6 Million. Call'em out for the "brown shirts " they are. Pardon my flame, but its time to put the fire out before it gets a chance to do significant damage. Joseph Bloch wrote: > December 29, 2005 > > > Scholars debate whether to limit scientific research > > ASU?s College of Law Center for the Study of Law, Science, & > Technology will play host to a conference titled ?Forbidding Science? > Balancing Freedom, Security, Innovation and Precaution? Jan. 12 ? 13 > in the College of Law?s Great Hall, located at the corner of Orange > Street and McAllister Avenue on the Tempe campus. > > The conference will explore whether scientific research should be > restricted ? and, if so, how far ?too far? might be. > > The first day of the conference will provide an overview of the legal > and policy questions, plus a discussion about the limitations of the > ?right? to conduct scientific research. The second day?s events will > focus on three case studies involving emerging research controversies > in the areas of pathogens and toxins, nanotechnology and > cognitive enhancement. > > ?We have reached a point in human history where some of the scientific > research we could do, perhaps we should not do for safety, national > security or ethical reasons,? says Gary Marchant, executive director > of the center. ?We therefore must choose, for the first time, which > science should be allowed, and which should not. How, and by whom, > such decisions should be made will be the focus of this timely and > path-breaking conference.? > > Among the distinguished conference scholars will be: > > ? ASU President Michael Crow. > > ? Leon Kass, Clark Harding Professor, Committee on Social Thought at > the University of Chicago. > > ? Martin Redish, Louis & Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public > Policy at Northwestern University School of Law. > > George Poste, director of ASU?s Biodesign Institute, will be the > keynote speaker. > > Along with ASU, the conference co-sponsors include the Biodesign > Institute; the Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes; the Center > for Biology and Society; the Arizona Consortium for Medicine, Society > and Values; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; > the Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics; and the American Bar > Association Section of Science and Technology Law. > > The conference, open to the public, welcomes all ASU faculty, staff > and students. There is no conference fee except for attorneys seeking > continuing legal education credits. Advance registration is requested. > > To register, go to the conference link at > (www.law.asu.edu/forbiddingscience). > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From megao at sasktel.net Wed Jan 4 06:01:24 2006 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:01:24 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] [Bioethics] Scholars debate whether to limit scientific research ??? In-Reply-To: <43BB6109.2000708@sasktel.net> References: <43BAD36A.3090202@goldenfuture.net> <43BB6109.2000708@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <43BB64B4.7020100@sasktel.net> Looked at the adjenda and see Nick Bostrom is a presenter. Hopefully some intelligence on the various groups and alliances and allegences and overt and coveret themes and strategies can be gathered. Even the restriction of science in the name of security endangers the singularity date. On the other hand a massive covert effort to develop super human soldiers might also be an adgenda for some. However, it will mean that only a choice few will benefit and the mass of this generation will be allowed to die natural deaths while the technology remains forbidden to expose to the world. From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 07:00:38 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 23:00:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year and resolution. In-Reply-To: <20060103001702.64101.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060103001702.64101.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 1/2/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > One of my resolutions this year was to find out how to eat better and > feel healthier. > > Is there a program or site that exists that can help me acknowledge > what I eat and drink? > Sorry for my ignorance, but I was just curious to find out if I could > punch in what I eat and find out exactly what i'm putting in > my body. (Like typing apple and knowing how many vitamins > i'm putting in my body?)(Or by putting tuna and knowing how much > iron i've absorbed. > I would love to buy my Mother this device. > If anybody has any fact, advice or opinion, I would love to know, > One trick I've learned for finding useful sites is to do a search for popular del.icio.us tags on the subject. For example: http://del.icio.us/popular/nutrition http://del.icio.us/popular/diet http://del.icio.us/popular/health I haven't tried them out myself, but the following look like they could be useful: http://www.sparkpeople.com/ ("Stick with your free diet plan with the help of our daily food tracker, meal plans, shopping lists, progress reports, and more.") http://www.nutritiondata.com/ ("NutritionData (ND) provides nutrition facts, Calorie counts, and nutrient data for all foods and recipes.") http://www.caloriescount.org/cgi-bin/calorie_calculator.cgi http://www.bellybytes.com/articles/29foods.shtml ("The following is a "healthy food hot list" consisting of the 29 foods that will give you the biggest nutritional bang for you caloric buck, as well as decrease your risk for deadly illnesses like cancer, diabetes and heart disease.") http://www.fitday.com/ (" Sign-up for your free web accountand join the growing number of FitDay members who are tracking their foods, exercises, weight loss, and goals online.") http://hin.nhlbi.nih.gov/menuplanner/menu.cgi ("Interactive Menu Planner") -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 07:07:02 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 08:07:02 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Transhumanist Works" land in Second Life In-Reply-To: <587852.1136357819323.JavaMail.root@bla4.blogger.com> References: <587852.1136357819323.JavaMail.root@bla4.blogger.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520601032307u31ac4110vcf38dca832cbc6b9@mail.gmail.com> I have purchased a bigger land parcel in Second Lifeat: Mocis 30, 4, 29 - this is the best spot I have found. The parcel, named "Transhumanist Works", is 1736 sq.m. and contains two buildings. Some pictures here . I hope this land will become a meeting space for transhumanists in SL. Everyone is welcome and thanks to those who already came visit. We will hold meetings on the organization of metaverse ventures there. Many adjacent parcels are for sale, if someone wants to buy land we could pool virtual estate and create a big transhumanist enclave. G. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 08:25:03 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 03:25:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson Message-ID: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> Will is a guy worth reading: http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/02/the-strange-myth-of-finite-status/ Just think about it. It is not wrong at all to engage in positional games. Pissing contests are not the reviled zero-sum games that e.g. Nick Bostrom would like to ban. Let thousands of unequal flowers bloom, each higher than all others, in one of the world's infinite dimensions. Burn the atavistic neurons of envy out of your brains, fellow transhumanists. Become better persons by being better, not equal. Let the New Revolution begin: Liberte-Inegalite-Atomisation! Rafal From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 08:49:51 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 09:49:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520601040049v4f17ef0y46f9e462ccf38d53@mail.gmail.com> In high school we had farting contests like all kids. We also did a lot of sport, and of course the best football player won status. Why not? I liked it and later I have always enjoyed competition in sport, work and other things. I think Wilkinson's piece is good, and nobody wants to ban games where you can win status. But I think our civilization can now outgrow the primitive need to link ability to survive to status. I would say, first make sure that everyone can eat and feed his family, then "encourage a decentralized entrepreneurial culture where status domains without number may bloom". Football is much more enjoyable if you do not fear starving if your team loses the game. G. On 1/4/06, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Will is a guy worth reading: > > http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/02/the-strange-myth-of-finite-status/ > > Just think about it. It is not wrong at all to engage in positional > games. Pissing contests are not the reviled zero-sum games that e.g. > Nick Bostrom would like to ban. > > Let thousands of unequal flowers bloom, each higher than all others, > in one of the world's infinite dimensions. Burn the atavistic neurons > of envy out of your brains, fellow transhumanists. Become better > persons by being better, not equal. > > Let the New Revolution begin: > > Liberte-Inegalite-Atomisation! > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 13:16:32 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 13:16:32 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: <470a3c520601040049v4f17ef0y46f9e462ccf38d53@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520601040049v4f17ef0y46f9e462ccf38d53@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/4/06, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > In high school we had farting contests like all kids. We also did a > lot of sport, and of course the best football player won status. Why > not? I liked it and later I have always enjoyed competition in sport, > work and other things. > I think Wilkinson's piece is good, and nobody wants to ban games where > you can win status. But I think our civilization can now outgrow the > primitive need to link ability to survive to status. I would say, > first make sure that everyone can eat and feed his family, then > "encourage a decentralized entrepreneurial culture where status > domains without number may bloom". Football is much more enjoyable if > you do not fear starving if your team loses the game. > G. > That just moves the competition up a notch, and back into the arena of survival. It's just that some survive better than others. In general, I try to avoid competing because I am extremely competitive, and it's a pain to be driven to win all the time. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 13:26:50 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 13:26:50 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] [Bioethics] Scholars debate whether to limit scientific research ??? In-Reply-To: <43BB64B4.7020100@sasktel.net> References: <43BAD36A.3090202@goldenfuture.net> <43BB6109.2000708@sasktel.net> <43BB64B4.7020100@sasktel.net> Message-ID: On 1/4/06, Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO wrote: > > Looked at the adjenda and see Nick Bostrom is a presenter. > Hopefully some intelligence on the various groups and alliances and > allegences and overt and coveret themes and strategies > can be gathered. > > Even the restriction of science in the name of security endangers the > singularity date. > > On the other hand a massive covert effort to develop super human > soldiers might also be an adgenda for some. > However, it will mean that only a choice few will benefit and the mass > of this generation will be allowed to die > natural deaths while the technology remains forbidden to expose to the > world. > > In another post I rhetorically asked whether there would be any Chinese delegates. Of course there won't be. This kind of guilt ridden introspection is a largely US (and to a lesser extent European) phenomenon. I have friend who has just spent some time in China on business. He was telling me about visiting a metal plating factory where there were open pits of hot acid. No safety equipment at all, not even guard rails to stop someone falling in. No pollution controls. Everything was focussed on creating the product for the least money no matter who or what suffered. Add to that a fanatical drive to become what they already believe they are, the number one civilisation, coupled with a nationalistic racism not seen since WW2 in Europe and you can guess what their response to Western 'ethical concerns' will be. The finger. Let's not hand them the future by default. They should at least have to earn it the hard way. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Wed Jan 4 14:28:54 2006 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 22:28:54 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year and resolution. References: <200601041327.k04DR8e25046@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <001801c6113b$339c9400$04800d0a@JPAcer> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year and resolution. > To: ExI chat list > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 1/3/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: >> I thought that with technology so advanced that there may have been a >> program I haven't heard of yet that is simple and easy to use (My mother >> is quite old and I can't see her googling anything:). Something like a >> journal but that gives solid results at the end of the day. Such as >> how much cholesterol, proteins, carbohydrates and vitamins you absorb >> in one day. You punch in what you eat and you get actual results, >> I think it would be a great idea to promote proper health. >> People today really don't know what they are putting in there bodies. The Hackers Diet is a net favorite - simple - and it works too! I used it to drop 20 kilos over a 10 month period about 4 years ago The book, plus spreadsheets etc, are free in a variety of formats from here: http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/#offline Jack Parkinson From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 14:40:37 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 14:40:37 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy New Year and resolution. In-Reply-To: <20060103172742.13310.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060103172742.13310.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 1/3/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > Thanks Herb, > I thought that with technology so advanced that there may have been a > program I haven't heard of yet that is simple and easy to use (My mother > is quite old and I can't see her googling anything:). Something like a > journal but that gives solid results at the end of the day. Such as > how much cholesterol, proteins, carbohydrates and vitamins you absorb > in one day. You punch in what you eat and you get actual results, > I think it would be a great idea to promote proper health. > People today really don't know what they are putting in there bodies. > Anyhow thanks again, > Anna > Three factors (ignoring genetics) - diet, exercise, stress. All you need to do is get 2 of 3 correct. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Jan 4 14:47:13 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 06:47:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10601040647i18721e0fi35ab753086cc756e@mail.gmail.com> On 1/4/06, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Will is a guy worth reading: > > http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/02/the-strange-myth-of-finite-status/ > > Just think about it. It is not wrong at all to engage in positional > games. Pissing contests are not the reviled zero-sum games that e.g. > Nick Bostrom would like to ban. This is analogous to popular conceptions of absolute happiness. Striving to attain status or striving to attain happiness -- each drive the system to ratchet up a notch in terms of satisfying current values. A side effect of this process is more general growth. > > Let thousands of unequal flowers bloom, each higher than all others, > in one of the world's infinite dimensions. Burn the atavistic neurons > of envy out of your brains, fellow transhumanists. Become better > persons by being better, not equal. > > Let the New Revolution begin: > > Liberte-Inegalite-Atomisation! Atomisation?? Rafal, I think I understand that this is a reflection of your strongly held Libertarian beliefs, but isn't "atomisation" clearly anti-extropic? I can imagine you shudder with revulsion as you read this, but would you consider that cooperation is a much stronger principle leading to growth, with the understanding that effective cooperation at a given level of organization benefits from diversity and competition at a lower level? - Jef From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Wed Jan 4 14:52:58 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 09:52:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Scholars debate whether to limitscientific research ??? Message-ID: > Bioethics my ass, its just a bunch of brainless dogs in the > manger, pathetic but worse than any lunatic terrorist. I hope you will distinguish between bioconservatives like Kass, who are actually a minority among bioethicists, and the secular bioethics majority who are increasingly tilting our way. An example is Arthur Caplan, considered the dean of American bioethics, who coined the term "yuck factor" in order to deride it, and who is now an open champion of the right to use enhancements. For instance, in Kathy Schulz' recent article on neuro-enhancement in the Nation she says: "Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics, is a champion of neuroenhancement..." http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060109/schulz You can also see him take apart the biocon Carl Elliot and defend enhancement here: http://www.betterhumans.com/Columns/Column/tabid/79/Column/361/Default.a spx We have also attracted about 40 bioethicists to our upcoming conference on "Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights" with most papers leaning toward a right to enhancement: http://ieet.org/HEHR/ Bioethicists do have concerns about safety, efficacy and equity, as should we. But most are on the side of consumer rights to choose. ------------------------ James Hughes Ph.D. Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies http://ieet.org Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology http://jetpress.org Williams 229B, Trinity College 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 (office) 860-297-2376 director at ieet.org From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 14:54:55 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 14:54:55 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: <22360fa10601040647i18721e0fi35ab753086cc756e@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040647i18721e0fi35ab753086cc756e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/4/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > I can imagine you shudder with revulsion as you read this, but would > you consider that cooperation is a much stronger principle leading to > growth, with the understanding that effective cooperation at a given > level of organization benefits from diversity and competition at a > lower level? > > Cooperation within groups, competition between groups. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Jan 4 15:03:02 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 07:03:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040647i18721e0fi35ab753086cc756e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10601040703l18bcf21bje9124e3e6441379@mail.gmail.com> On 1/4/06, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 1/4/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > I can imagine you shudder with revulsion as you read this, but would > > you consider that cooperation is a much stronger principle leading to > > growth, with the understanding that effective cooperation at a given > > level of organization benefits from diversity and competition at a > > lower level? > > > > > > Cooperation within groups, competition between groups. > Dirk - Yes, these exist, but what are your thoughts on their role within levels of organization? - Jef From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 15:25:31 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 15:25:31 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: <22360fa10601040703l18bcf21bje9124e3e6441379@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040647i18721e0fi35ab753086cc756e@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040703l18bcf21bje9124e3e6441379@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/4/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > On 1/4/06, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > > On 1/4/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > > I can imagine you shudder with revulsion as you read this, but would > > > you consider that cooperation is a much stronger principle leading to > > > growth, with the understanding that effective cooperation at a given > > > level of organization benefits from diversity and competition at a > > > lower level? > > > > > > > > > > Cooperation within groups, competition between groups. > > > > Dirk - > > Yes, these exist, but what are your thoughts on their role within > levels of organization? > > Well, within an overall (smallish) organisation there should not be competing groups. It indicates redundancy at best and at worst empire building. When it comes to much larger groups eg nations, then that redundancy is a necessity. It also comes down to degrees of loyalty to, and feelings of inclusiveness of, tribal groupings at different scales. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 4 15:42:13 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:42:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040647i18721e0fi35ab753086cc756e@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040703l18bcf21bje9124e3e6441379@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/4/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > I can imagine you shudder with revulsion as you read this, but would > you consider that cooperation is a much stronger principle leading to > growth, with the understanding that effective cooperation at a given > level of organization benefits from diversity and competition at a > lower level? An example might help, Jef. I'm thinking you're correct, an example being competition between salespeople at a lower level and cooperation between the sales department and other departments at a higher level. -gts From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 15:49:26 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 15:49:26 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040647i18721e0fi35ab753086cc756e@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040703l18bcf21bje9124e3e6441379@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/4/06, gts wrote: > > On 1/4/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > > I can imagine you shudder with revulsion as you read this, but would > > you consider that cooperation is a much stronger principle leading to > > growth, with the understanding that effective cooperation at a given > > level of organization benefits from diversity and competition at a > > lower level? > > An example might help, Jef. I'm thinking you're correct, an example being > competition between salespeople at a lower level and cooperation between > the sales department and other departments at a higher level. > Is that really so, or a justification of existing practice and prejudice? Would cooperation between salespeople be a better strategy overall? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Wed Jan 4 16:11:03 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:11:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43BBF397.6030303@pobox.com> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Will is a guy worth reading: > > http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/02/the-strange-myth-of-finite-status/ > > Just think about it. It is not wrong at all to engage in positional > games. Pissing contests are not the reviled zero-sum games that e.g. > Nick Bostrom would like to ban. For every winner in Go, there must be a loser. Let us abolish the game at once. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 16:20:36 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 17:20:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: <43BBF397.6030303@pobox.com> References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> <43BBF397.6030303@pobox.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520601040820w1f0e65c6ic83f485431759a3b@mail.gmail.com> No, let's continue playing Go because it is an interesting and fun game, and let's continue being as competitive as we like when we play go, because competition is part of the game. I just don't want my or anybody's survival to depend on Go scores, because survival is more serious than a game. G. On 1/4/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > Will is a guy worth reading: > > > > http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/01/02/the-strange-myth-of-finite-status/ > > > > Just think about it. It is not wrong at all to engage in positional > > games. Pissing contests are not the reviled zero-sum games that e.g. > > Nick Bostrom would like to ban. > > For every winner in Go, there must be a loser. Let us abolish the game > at once. > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 16:47:34 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 16:47:34 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: <470a3c520601040820w1f0e65c6ic83f485431759a3b@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> <43BBF397.6030303@pobox.com> <470a3c520601040820w1f0e65c6ic83f485431759a3b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/4/06, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > No, let's continue playing Go because it is an interesting and fun > game, and let's continue being as competitive as we like when we play > go, because competition is part of the game. > I just don't want my or anybody's survival to depend on Go scores, > because survival is more serious than a game. > G. > > How about the game where you have to learn some specific subject and then get tested on it? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Wed Jan 4 17:10:21 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 09:10:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: <470a3c520601040820w1f0e65c6ic83f485431759a3b@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> <43BBF397.6030303@pobox.com> <470a3c520601040820w1f0e65c6ic83f485431759a3b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43BC017D.3070103@pobox.com> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > No, let's continue playing Go because it is an interesting and fun > game, and let's continue being as competitive as we like when we play > go, because competition is part of the game. > I just don't want my or anybody's survival to depend on Go scores, > because survival is more serious than a game. > G. Let me clarify: Playing Go has a positive side effect, you get better at Go and learn generalizable skills. Playing Go is fun. An arms race for tallness of genetically engineered babies (yeah, right) may end up with negative side effects, such as poor health. Nothing in the imprecise real world is *exactly* zero-sum, and if it were, an altruist wouldn't care about it one way or the other. Some zero-sum games are actually negative-sum games because of wasted effort, wasted time, wasted money, infliction of fear and emotional distress. Other zero-sum games are positive-sum because people have fun playing them and learn something. It's the "zero-sum" games that are actually negative which Bostrom, and myself, would revile. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 4 18:46:56 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 13:46:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040647i18721e0fi35ab753086cc756e@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040703l18bcf21bje9124e3e6441379@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:49:26 -0500, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Is that really so, or a justification of existing practice and prejudice? > Would cooperation between salespeople be a better strategy overall? Commissioned salespeople cooperate when it's in their mutual best interests, but in general I think they enjoy and perform best in competition. -gts From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 18:51:49 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 18:51:49 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040647i18721e0fi35ab753086cc756e@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040703l18bcf21bje9124e3e6441379@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/4/06, gts wrote: > > On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:49:26 -0500, Dirk Bruere > wrote: > > > Is that really so, or a justification of existing practice and > prejudice? > > Would cooperation between salespeople be a better strategy overall? > > Commissioned salespeople cooperate when it's in their mutual best > interests, but in general I think they enjoy and perform best in > competition. > Probably, but that may be a positive feedback effect in that the type of people attracted are the ones who enjoy such a role, and the 'co-operators' are discouraged. OTOH, in companies in which I have worked the biggest motivator for sales staff was not getting fired. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 18:53:11 2006 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 13:53:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Playing Go & demandingness in ethics Message-ID: <5844e22f0601041053r71a67c53mca4d56507cdbe135@mail.gmail.com> On 1/4/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Let me clarify: Playing Go has a positive side effect, you get better > at Go and learn generalizable skills. Playing Go is fun. Playing Go has the negative side effect of its opportunity cost. For example, if someone smart enough to play Go well is spending time playing Go, they aren't making contributions they otherwise could to the solution of technical problems that would contribute to the well-being of {a subset of the current and future morally significant population} greater than playing Go contributes to the subset of the population that enjoys playing Go or benefits from the generalizable skills Go has imparted on its players. This is not to pick on Go. It just gave me an opportunity to seed a discussion on demandingness in ethics, which has re-emerged in the past few days to steal some of my CPU cycles. Demandingness is a common criticism of consequentialist ethics -- e.g., don't ever eat a fancy pasta dish, as you can nearly always replace it with oatmeal or some other nutritious, less expensive food, be just as healthy, and donate the difference in cost to charitable causes (this sort of replacement argument applies to a bewildering proportion of most of our daily activities and decisions). Though it isn't argued as often, it applies to deontological systems and a number of virtue ethical systems. Now given that many people interested in transhumanism express an interest in the ethical arguments for various technological developments, the permissibility of enhancement, the right to morphological freedom (whether others consider what you're doing 'enhancement' or not)... why are the demands of our alleged beliefs nigh universally ignored? It is just a fact of human psychology that we can't motivate ourselves to moral behavior if it's not right in our face, or if it doesn't present immediate & painful consequences to ignore it? It is an illusory problem because none of us really care about ethics at all, and are only engaged in a social reciprocity game? Or is there some other explanation? And should and can we do something to change, acting more in accord with the demands of our ethics? 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 gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 4 20:29:33 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:29:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040647i18721e0fi35ab753086cc756e@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040703l18bcf21bje9124e3e6441379@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 13:51:49 -0500, Dirk Bruere wrote: > OTOH, in companies in which I have worked the biggest > motivator for sales staff was not getting fired. The carrot and the stick. :) -gts From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Jan 4 21:07:32 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 13:07:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040647i18721e0fi35ab753086cc756e@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040703l18bcf21bje9124e3e6441379@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2006, at 7:49 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 1/4/06, gts wrote: > On 1/4/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > > I can imagine you shudder with revulsion as you read this, but would > > you consider that cooperation is a much stronger principle > leading to > > growth, with the understanding that effective cooperation at a given > > level of organization benefits from diversity and competition at a > > lower level? > > An example might help, Jef. I'm thinking you're correct, an example > being > competition between salespeople at a lower level and cooperation > between > the sales department and other departments at a higher level. > > Is that really so, or a justification of existing practice and > prejudice? > Would cooperation between salespeople be a better strategy overall? > I have seen this work when the sales folks pitch each others strengths to likely prospects in order to pull together larger joint deals or additional deals that bring more net sales to the company. Using and sharing common pools of tools, contacts and knowledge increases the effectiveness of everyone in the group. I have seen some of this work even across different companies. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Jan 4 21:25:03 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 13:25:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Playing Go & demandingness in ethics In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0601041053r71a67c53mca4d56507cdbe135@mail.gmail.com> References: <5844e22f0601041053r71a67c53mca4d56507cdbe135@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1B812FF1-D79C-4ECB-80B3-6D9872220C3F@mac.com> On Jan 4, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Jeff Medina wrote: > On 1/4/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >> Let me clarify: Playing Go has a positive side effect, you get >> better >> at Go and learn generalizable skills. Playing Go is fun. > > Playing Go has the negative side effect of its opportunity cost. For > example, if someone smart enough to play Go well is spending time > playing Go, they aren't making contributions they otherwise could to > the solution of technical problems that would contribute to the > well-being of {a subset of the current and future morally significant > population} greater than playing Go contributes to the subset of the > population that enjoys playing Go or benefits from the generalizable > skills Go has imparted on its players. Does your life belong to you or to those faceless others? If it belongs to you then the net benefit for others is not relevant except in the context of the value you personally place on being of benefit to others. > > This is not to pick on Go. It just gave me an opportunity to seed a > discussion on demandingness in ethics, which has re-emerged in the > past few days to steal some of my CPU cycles. > > Demandingness is a common criticism of consequentialist ethics -- > e.g., don't ever eat a fancy pasta dish, as you can nearly always > replace it with oatmeal or some other nutritious, less expensive food, > be just as healthy, and donate the difference in cost to charitable > causes (this sort of replacement argument applies to a bewildering > proportion of most of our daily activities and decisions). Though it > isn't argued as often, it applies to deontological systems and a > number of virtue ethical systems. > Generally tell those making demands what to do with their demands in no uncertain terms. Life is about more than mere utility. > Now given that many people interested in transhumanism express an > interest in the ethical arguments for various technological > developments, the permissibility of enhancement, the right to > morphological freedom (whether others consider what you're doing > 'enhancement' or not)... why are the demands of our alleged beliefs > nigh universally ignored? I do not make such arguments generally. I would rather argue from the right to your own life and pursuit of happiness. I don't require or seek permission to maximize my own life. > It is just a fact of human psychology that > we can't motivate ourselves to moral behavior if it's not right in our > face, or if it doesn't present immediate & painful consequences to > ignore it? We have some not useless propensity to distrust moral pronouncements and decisions. Since so much so-called morality is quite groundless and inimical to our well-being that is a useful defense. However, it is in our interest to develop increased ability to act according to our best understanding including in ethical matters regardless of our conditioning and evolutionary psychology. > It is an illusory problem because none of us really care > about ethics at all, and are only engaged in a social reciprocity > game? Or is there some other explanation? And should and can we do > something to change, acting more in accord with the demands of our > ethics? Please clarify exactly what you are asking. I don't believe it is in anyone's interest to justify everything they do in the manner you spoke of above. - samantha From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 4 21:28:50 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 13:28:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] the structure of randomness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060104212851.98738.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- gts wrote: > > The results produced by John suggest to me that the > chi-2 isn't the > measure that corresponds very well to their human > scored similarity. Well that's because it's not. Chi^2 is more for comparing ratios than histograms. If I remember my stats correctly, the K-S (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) statistic is more appropriate and will give a P-value that two histograms represent the same underlying distribution. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Jan 4 21:29:25 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 13:29:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040647i18721e0fi35ab753086cc756e@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040703l18bcf21bje9124e3e6441379@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2006, at 10:51 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 1/4/06, gts wrote: > On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:49:26 -0500, Dirk Bruere > > wrote: > > > Is that really so, or a justification of existing practice and > prejudice? > > Would cooperation between salespeople be a better strategy overall? > > Commissioned salespeople cooperate when it's in their mutual best > interests, but in general I think they enjoy and perform best in > competition. > > Probably, but that may be a positive feedback effect in that the > type of people attracted are the ones who enjoy such a role, and > the 'co-operators' are discouraged. OTOH, in companies in which I > have worked the biggest motivator for sales staff was not getting > fired. > Sales is one place where you have more control over your income directly proportional to your results. Anyone motivated primarily by not getting fired does not belong in sales. I wouldn't want anyone working for me in any capacity to have that as a primary motivation. But especially not those in sales. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 4 21:35:24 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 13:35:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] fMRI lie detector Message-ID: <20060104213524.7102.qmail@web60015.mail.yahoo.com> Don't Even Think About Lying http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.01/lying_pr.html __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From discwuzit at yahoo.com Wed Jan 4 21:36:43 2006 From: discwuzit at yahoo.com (John B) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 13:36:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Opportunity costs In-Reply-To: <200601041900.k04J0De30750@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20060104213643.98628.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com> Quoting Jeff Medina - "Playing Go has the negative side effect of its opportunity cost." Well, sure! EVERYTHING you do has opportunity costs, and I can't think of something you can do that doesn't have negative side effects! There's a reason economics is called "the Dismal Science" after all! Quoting Jeff's post again - "Demandingness is a common criticism of consequentialist ethics -- e.g., don't ever eat a fancy pasta dish, as you can nearly always replace it with oatmeal or some other nutritious, less expensive food, be just as healthy, and donate the difference in cost to charitable causes" While true, this ignores some other features of that fancy pasta dish. Specifically, you gain pleasure you may or may not gain from oatmeal. You gain status/cachet in the eyes of some of those observing (not always a good thing, IMO, but there you are.) You are able to gain different nutritional requirements than just plain oatmeal - which isn't a nutritionally complete food source. (That last may be a bit of a straw man - Jeff did say "or some other nutritious, less expensive food", but then again fancy pasta dishes may be pretty inexpensive - pasta e fagioli for instance.) -snip- "Now given that many people interested in transhumanism express an interest in the ethical arguments for various technological developments, the permissibility of enhancement, the right to morphological freedom (whether others consider what you're doing 'enhancement' or not)... why are the demands of our alleged beliefs nigh universally ignored? It is just a fact of human psychology that we can't motivate ourselves to moral behavior if it's not right in our face, or if it doesn't present immediate & painful consequences to ignore it? It is an illusory problem because none of us really care about ethics at all, and are only engaged in a social reciprocity game? Or is there some other explanation? And should and can we do something to change, acting more in accord with the demands of our ethics?" Personally, while not perfect, I do strive to act in accord with my ethics. However, I do not personally agree that enhancement and morphological freedom trump other concerns - public safety issues among them. "Why do you want combat augments, Sir/Ma'am?" is a VERY valid, ethically driven question, as is "You want to do WHAT to your child?" Anathema here, I understand, but that's my personal take. YMMV, 'course. -John B __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From nanogirl at halcyon.com Wed Jan 4 22:31:20 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 14:31:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] New High lit film References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com><22360fa10601040647i18721e0fi35ab753086cc756e@mail.gmail.com><22360fa10601040703l18bcf21bje9124e3e6441379@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00c101c6117e$b0960110$0300a8c0@Nano> I made a new movie for you all - it's a brainy one! http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2006/01/fireside-reading.html Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 22:33:39 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 22:33:39 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040647i18721e0fi35ab753086cc756e@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601040703l18bcf21bje9124e3e6441379@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/4/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > On Jan 4, 2006, at 10:51 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > On 1/4/06, gts wrote: > > > > On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:49:26 -0500, Dirk Bruere > > wrote: > > > > > Is that really so, or a justification of existing practice and > > prejudice? > > > Would cooperation between salespeople be a better strategy overall? > > > > Commissioned salespeople cooperate when it's in their mutual best > > interests, but in general I think they enjoy and perform best in > > competition. > > > > Probably, but that may be a positive feedback effect in that the type of > people attracted are the ones who enjoy such a role, and the 'co-operators' > are discouraged. OTOH, in companies in which I have worked the biggest > motivator for sales staff was not getting fired. > > > Sales is one place where you have more control over your income directly > proportional to your results. Anyone motivated primarily by not getting > fired does not belong in sales. I wouldn't want anyone working for me in > any capacity to have that as a primary motivation. But especially not those > in sales. > > The companies typically would set sales targets, and those who failed to meet them would be history. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 23:14:12 2006 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 18:14:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Playing Go & demandingness in ethics In-Reply-To: <1B812FF1-D79C-4ECB-80B3-6D9872220C3F@mac.com> References: <5844e22f0601041053r71a67c53mca4d56507cdbe135@mail.gmail.com> <1B812FF1-D79C-4ECB-80B3-6D9872220C3F@mac.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f0601041514s30b9040aje58418693eede4c7@mail.gmail.com> On 1/4/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > [Jeff said:] Now given that many people interested in transhumanism express an > > interest in the ethical arguments for various technological > > developments, the permissibility of enhancement, the right to > > morphological freedom (whether others consider what you're doing > > 'enhancement' or not)... why are the demands of our alleged beliefs > > nigh universally ignored? > > I do not make such arguments generally. This statement, as well as the other comments you gave, indicate pretty clearly that you are not one of the people referred to by the statement "many people interested in transhumanism express an interest in [certain related ethical issues]". So none of the questions apply to you; you're arguing against the given, not addressing the question (which assumes it). Now there's nothing wrong with spawning a new thread of conversation and disagreeing with the claim that people have to care about anyone else -- disagreeing that there are any moral obligations at all, in effect. But that's distinct from what I'm curious about, so we would be talking past one another. Or, to put it in a way that coheres with your view, I'm interested in the questions I posed *answered from the point of view of those who personally place value on being of benefit to [a.k.a. helping] others. 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 Wed Jan 4 23:29:45 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 23:29:45 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Playing Go & demandingness in ethics In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0601041053r71a67c53mca4d56507cdbe135@mail.gmail.com> References: <5844e22f0601041053r71a67c53mca4d56507cdbe135@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601041529u576cacf6n26644e1eb081a71d@mail.gmail.com> On 1/4/06, Jeff Medina wrote: > > Now given that many people interested in transhumanism express an > interest in the ethical arguments for various technological > developments, the permissibility of enhancement, the right to > morphological freedom (whether others consider what you're doing > 'enhancement' or not)... why are the demands of our alleged beliefs > nigh universally ignored? It is just a fact of human psychology that > we can't motivate ourselves to moral behavior if it's not right in our > face, or if it doesn't present immediate & painful consequences to > ignore it? It is an illusory problem because none of us really care > about ethics at all, and are only engaged in a social reciprocity > game? Or is there some other explanation? And should and can we do > something to change, acting more in accord with the demands of our > ethics? That's a good question. For myself, I don't subscribe to strict utilitarianism, or the idea that strangers automatically have a right to claim my time or other resources; nonetheless I do hold it as my self-assigned duty to try to do that which will be of most benefit to humanity; so the question still applies. As it happens, I justify resources spent on apparently frivolous things like playing games or watching anime on the grounds that such activities are necessary for maintaining productivity; and I think the justification is valid; but to some extent this dodges the question, because I can easily imagine situations where it would not be valid; and it is not obvious to me that in that case I would immediately donate all my remaining resources to the Singularity Institute or suchlike. Thinking about it, I really don't know whether I would or not; I suspect that in any situation where I regarded continued survival as of positive utility to myself, I would also find a way of looking at it that meant I had a significantly nonzero chance of making my own contribution with at least some of the available resources. So I suppose I don't really have an answer to the original question, but I agree it is a good one. (The other question I don't have an answer to is how to discuss this sort of stuff autobiographically without sounding as frightfully pompous as I do in this post, alas :)) - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From live2scan at charter.net Wed Jan 4 23:18:04 2006 From: live2scan at charter.net (Dennis Roberts) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 18:18:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] bad choice Message-ID: <4lnroc$7ph3mf@mxip21a.cluster1.charter.net> I regret sending that xmas video post to this list, trivial post, should have just Googled until I found the answer myself, and putting a link to that site in the post was like an invitation to play in traffic. The video itself was ( probably} OK, the site itself was probably a minefield of viruses and spyware. Sorry about that. Dennis Roberts -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Jan 5 00:17:41 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:17:41 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ian Plimer: Global warming a damp squib Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060104181653.01e08fd0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> 05jan06 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,17729019,00.html HEAT, bushfires. Just another Australian summer, some hotter, some wetter, some cooler, some drier. As per usual, the northern hemisphere freezes and the blame game is in overdrive. At the 2005 UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal, Greenpeace's Steven Guilbeault stated: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that's what we're dealing with." It is that simple! If it's hot, it's global warming; if it's cold, it's global warming. Demonstrators in frigid temperatures in Montreal chanted: "It's hot in here! There's too much carbon in the atmosphere!" The same apocalyptic Guilbeault says: "Time is running out to deal with climate change. Ten years ago, we thought we had a lot of time, five years ago we thought we had a lot of time, but now science is telling us that we don't have a lot of time." Really. In 1992, Greenpeace's Henry Kendall gave us the Chicken Little quote, "Time is running out"; in 1994, The Irish Times tried to frighten the leprechauns with "Time running out for action on global warming, Greenpeace claims"; and in 1997 Chris Rose of Greenpeace maintained the religious mantra with "Time is running out for the climate". We've heard such failed catastrophist predictions before. The Club of Rome on resources, Paul Erlich on population, Y2K, and now Greenpeace on global warming. During the past 30 years, the US economy grew by 50 per cent, car numbers grew by 143 per cent, energy consumption grew by 45 per cent and air pollutants declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent. Most European signatories to the Kyoto Protocol had greenhouse gas emissions increase since 2001, whereas in the US emissions fell by nearly 1per cent. Furthermore, carbon credits rewarded Russia, (east) Germany and Britain, which had technically and economically backward energy production in 1990. By the end of this century, the demographically doomed French, Italians and Spaniards may have too few environmentalists to fund Greenpeace's business. So what really does Greenpeace want? A habitable environment with no humans left to inhabit it? Destruction of the major economies for .07C change? Does it matter if sea level rises a few metres or global temperatures rise a few degrees? No. Sea level changes by up to 400m, atmospheric temperatures by about 20C, carbon dioxide can vary from 20 per cent to 0.03 per cent, and our dynamic planet just keeps evolving. Greenpeace, contrary to scientific data, implies a static planet. Even if the sea level rises by metres, it is probably cheaper to address this change than reconstruct the world's economies. For about 80 per cent of the time since its formation, Earth has been a warm, wet, greenhouse planet with no icecaps. When Earth had icecaps, the climate was far more variable, disease depopulated human settlements and extinction rates of other complex organisms were higher. Thriving of life and economic strength occurs during warm times. Could Greenpeace please explain why there was a pre-Industrial Revolution global warming from AD900 to 1300? Why was the sea level higher 6000 years ago than it is at present? Which part of the 120m sea-level rise over the past 15,000 years is human-induced? To attribute a multicomponent, variable natural process such as climate change to human-induced carbon emissions is pseudo-science. There is no debate about climate change, only dogma and misinformation. For example, is there a link between hurricanes Katrina and Rita and global warming? Two hurricanes hit the US Gulf Coast six weeks apart in 1915, mimicking Katrina and Rita. If global warming caused recent storms, there should have been more hurricanes in the Pacific and Indian oceans since 1995. Instead, there has been a slight decrease at a time when China and India have increased greenhouse gas emissions. The impact of hurricanes might seem more severe because of the blanket instantaneous news coverage and because more people now live in hurricane-prone areas, hence there is more property damage and loss of life. Only a strong economy can produce the well fed who have the luxury of espousing with religious fervour their uncosted, impractical, impoverishing policies. By such policies, Greenpeace continues to exacerbate grinding poverty in the Third World. The planet's best friend is human resourcefulness with a supportive, strong economy and reduced release of toxins. The greenhouse gases - nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide and methane - have been recycled for billions of years without the intervention of human politics. Ian Plimer is a professor of geology at the University of Adelaide and former head of the school of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne. From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 5 01:51:57 2006 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 17:51:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Ian Plimer: Global warming a damp squib In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060104181653.01e08fd0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060105015157.46432.qmail@web35713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It's plausible the icecaps could be partially melted and the upshot might be a cooling trend, perhaps even an eventual ice age. 05jan06 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,17729019,00.html HEAT, bushfires. Just another Australian summer, some hotter, some wetter, some cooler, some drier. As per usual, the northern hemisphere freezes and the blame game is in overdrive. At the 2005 UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal, Greenpeace's Steven Guilbeault stated: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that's what we're dealing with." It is that simple! If it's hot, it's global warming; if it's cold, it's global warming. Demonstrators in frigid temperatures in Montreal chanted: "It's hot in here! There's too much carbon in the atmosphere!" The same apocalyptic Guilbeault says: "Time is running out to deal with climate change. Ten years ago, we thought we had a lot of time, five years ago we thought we had a lot of time, but now science is telling us that we don't have a lot of time." Really. In 1992, Greenpeace's Henry Kendall gave us the Chicken Little quote, "Time is running out"; in 1994, The Irish Times tried to frighten the leprechauns with "Time running out for action on global warming, Greenpeace claims"; and in 1997 Chris Rose of Greenpeace maintained the religious mantra with "Time is running out for the climate". We've heard such failed catastrophist predictions before. The Club of Rome on resources, Paul Erlich on population, Y2K, and now Greenpeace on global warming. During the past 30 years, the US economy grew by 50 per cent, car numbers grew by 143 per cent, energy consumption grew by 45 per cent and air pollutants declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent. Most European signatories to the Kyoto Protocol had greenhouse gas emissions increase since 2001, whereas in the US emissions fell by nearly 1per cent. Furthermore, carbon credits rewarded Russia, (east) Germany and Britain, which had technically and economically backward energy production in 1990. By the end of this century, the demographically doomed French, Italians and Spaniards may have too few environmentalists to fund Greenpeace's business. So what really does Greenpeace want? A habitable environment with no humans left to inhabit it? Destruction of the major economies for .07C change? Does it matter if sea level rises a few metres or global temperatures rise a few degrees? No. Sea level changes by up to 400m, atmospheric temperatures by about 20C, carbon dioxide can vary from 20 per cent to 0.03 per cent, and our dynamic planet just keeps evolving. Greenpeace, contrary to scientific data, implies a static planet. Even if the sea level rises by metres, it is probably cheaper to address this change than reconstruct the world's economies. For about 80 per cent of the time since its formation, Earth has been a warm, wet, greenhouse planet with no icecaps. When Earth had icecaps, the climate was far more variable, disease depopulated human settlements and extinction rates of other complex organisms were higher. Thriving of life and economic strength occurs during warm times. Could Greenpeace please explain why there was a pre-Industrial Revolution global warming from AD900 to 1300? Why was the sea level higher 6000 years ago than it is at present? Which part of the 120m sea-level rise over the past 15,000 years is human-induced? To attribute a multicomponent, variable natural process such as climate change to human-induced carbon emissions is pseudo-science. There is no debate about climate change, only dogma and misinformation. For example, is there a link between hurricanes Katrina and Rita and global warming? Two hurricanes hit the US Gulf Coast six weeks apart in 1915, mimicking Katrina and Rita. If global warming caused recent storms, there should have been more hurricanes in the Pacific and Indian oceans since 1995. Instead, there has been a slight decrease at a time when China and India have increased greenhouse gas emissions. The impact of hurricanes might seem more severe because of the blanket instantaneous news coverage and because more people now live in hurricane-prone areas, hence there is more property damage and loss of life. Only a strong economy can produce the well fed who have the luxury of espousing with religious fervour their uncosted, impractical, impoverishing policies. By such policies, Greenpeace continues to exacerbate grinding poverty in the Third World. The planet's best friend is human resourcefulness with a supportive, strong economy and reduced release of toxins. The greenhouse gases - nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide and methane - have been recycled for billions of years without the intervention of human politics. Ian Plimer is a professor of geology at the University of Adelaide and former head of the school of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 --------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Jan 5 01:55:04 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 20:55:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] New High lit film Message-ID: <380-220061451554187@M2W142.mail2web.com> From: Gina >I made a new movie for you all - it's a brainy one! >http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2006/01/fireside-reading.html :-)! ++ Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 02:33:02 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 02:33:02 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] VR headset Message-ID: Finally... *http://tinyurl.com/9a9lz $999 Dirk * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 03:43:41 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 19:43:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] XM Passport: miniature satellite radio tuner Message-ID: I thought this was an interesting bit of technology, and quite a leap over systems from just a few years ago. I wonder what sorts of new systems this might enable. Perhaps an XM USB key or an XM SD device? http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18655 "The XM Passport measures only 1.3 inches wide, 1.65 inches long, 0.44inches thick, yet this miniature cartridge contains the entire XM radio tuner needed to deliver XM Satellite Radio to a wide array of XM Ready products, including home stereo and home theater systems, DVD players, mini/micro-shelf systems, car radios, clock radios, boomboxes, and the new Samsung NEXUS XMP3 digital audio player. The XM Passport is inserted into a docking station connected to the product, or it is inserted directly into a port offered by the manufacturer, and it will deliver XM Satellite Radio to the product. The XM Passport is approximately 40 times smaller than the original trunk mount XM radio tuners introduced just four years ago. "Consumers can purchase an XM Passport for $29.99 (MSRP) and home and car docking stations ($29.99 each) at retailers beginning in spring 2006. The XM Passport will come bundled with the upcoming Samsung NEXUS XM/MP3 digital audio players and connect to the home docking station (supplied) and car dock (optional). The user can carry the one XM Passport between home and car docks for live reception of XM's signal in both environments." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 03:46:38 2006 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 16:46:38 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: References: <7a5e56060512290020r601a235fy23781e70bcf651ea@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512292014t353e743bob2987d3d2cdedd1d@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512292129k59ecbab3k376345d726a64a2d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060601041946i4089d9a8l79740c3f56db2557@mail.gmail.com> On 12/30/05, gts wrote: > > > > So tomatoes in the dark are grey, just as common-sense was informing us > all along. There are animals with more than three cones in their visual system (for instance some birds have four cones). These animals would see the tomato as a different shading from us. Who is seeing the *correct* color? Both kinds of visual system are evolutionary accidents. There appears to be no way to pick one particular perception as 'right' and the other as a 'mis-perception'. Speaking of mis-perceptions: what about the cases of hullucination? I know you did try to deal with this, but not successfully in my view. Imagine a room-full of mad-men and they're all hullucinating different colors O.K ;) So, where do all these different color perceptions exist? Since they can't be seeing the right color, the color perceptions must be in their heads. But in that case, why bother with all this talk of 'extended minds' and 'primary color properties'? How is the case of hullucinations of colors really any different from the case of non-hullucinations - in terms of *subjective experience* at least, there is no difference. I just pointed out that animals with four cones in their visual system see a different shade of color for the tomato. Is the animal's perception a hullucination? If so, why is our perception of color not a hullucination as well? Hopefully you can see that the talk of 'extended minds' and 'primary color properties' is entirely superfluous. > > For your theory to seem consistent, I think you should say that colors are > properties of colored objects in the same way that platonic circularity is > a property of circular objects. > > -gts Circular objects have the property known as a 'circular trope'. This is a *particular* concrete instance of circularity which is not in fact the same as the platonic universal 'circularity'. Further, the property of a 'green qualia trope' IS indeed possessed by objects in my theory - this property is in the brain of the observer, not the externally observed objects. -- "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" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transcend at extropica.com Thu Jan 5 05:03:19 2006 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 23:03:19 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060601041946i4089d9a8l79740c3f56db2557@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200601050503.k0553Fe30395@tick.javien.com> Does adding an additional cone provide a wider range of color, or merely a different range of color? Would transhuman artists potentially pursue eye modification that added more cones to their eyes (plus appropriate brain mods to process the extra "out of band" data)? Brandon _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Marc Geddes Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:47 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet On 12/30/05, gts wrote: So tomatoes in the dark are grey, just as common-sense was informing us all along. There are animals with more than three cones in their visual system (for instance some birds have four cones). These animals would see the tomato as a different shading from us. Who is seeing the *correct* color? Both kinds of visual system are evolutionary accidents. There appears to be no way to pick one particular perception as 'right' and the other as a 'mis-perception'. Speaking of mis-perceptions: what about the cases of hullucination? I know you did try to deal with this, but not successfully in my view. Imagine a room-full of mad-men and they're all hullucinating different colors O.K ;) So, where do all these different color perceptions exist? Since they can't be seeing the right color, the color perceptions must be in their heads. But in that case, why bother with all this talk of 'extended minds' and 'primary color properties'? How is the case of hullucinations of colors really any different from the case of non-hullucinations - in terms of *subjective experience* at least, there is no difference. I just pointed out that animals with four cones in their visual system see a different shade of color for the tomato. Is the animal's perception a hullucination? If so, why is our perception of color not a hullucination as well? Hopefully you can see that the talk of 'extended minds' and 'primary color properties' is entirely superfluous. For your theory to seem consistent, I think you should say that colors are properties of colored objects in the same way that platonic circularity is a property of circular objects. -gts Circular objects have the property known as a 'circular trope'. This is a *particular* concrete instance of circularity which is not in fact the same as the platonic universal 'circularity'. Further, the property of a 'green qualia trope' IS indeed possessed by objects in my theory - this property is in the brain of the observer, not the externally observed objects. -- "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" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 5 05:13:22 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:13:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060601041946i4089d9a8l79740c3f56db2557@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060512290020r601a235fy23781e70bcf651ea@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512292014t353e743bob2987d3d2cdedd1d@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060512292129k59ecbab3k376345d726a64a2d@mail.gmail.com> <7a5e56060601041946i4089d9a8l79740c3f56db2557@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:46:38 -0500, Marc Geddes wrote: > There are animals with more than three cones in their visual system (for > instance some birds have four cones). These animals would see the > tomato as a different shading from us. Who is seeing the *correct* > color? It it is my job here to defend the idea of extended mind then I think the definition of "correct color", (i.e, objective color), is yours. It is you who implies colors are objective like platonic numbers. > Imagine a room-full of mad-men and they're all hallucinating > different colors O.K ;) So, where do all these different color > perceptions exist? In their brains, of course. The brain would be among the physical objects that the mind comprehends. You see a real object in your field of vision, not much different from the way the madman sees an object in his imagination. > Since they can't be seeing the right color, the color perceptions > must be in their heads. But in that case, why bother with all this talk > of 'extended minds' and 'primary color properties'? Because it might resolve the question of how qualia are perceived without the "from mind" or "from matter" paradox. > I just pointed out that animals with four cones in their > visual system see a different shade of color for the tomato. Is the > animal's perception a hullucination? No, I would say. > Hopefully you can see that the talk of > 'extended minds' and '' is entirely superfluous. I don't think so. It may be true that objects have many primary color qualities, and that the qualities perceived are dependent on the animal that perceives them. Or it may be true that the idea of primary color properties is altogether mistaken. -gts From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 05:19:05 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 00:19:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: <43BC017D.3070103@pobox.com> References: <7641ddc60601040025n34b9aa96na0bc9eff1ef6bfea@mail.gmail.com> <43BBF397.6030303@pobox.com> <470a3c520601040820w1f0e65c6ic83f485431759a3b@mail.gmail.com> <43BC017D.3070103@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60601042119x5135aa0q19314acbdd943413@mail.gmail.com> On 1/4/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > An arms race for tallness of genetically engineered babies (yeah, right) > may end up with negative side effects, such as poor health. > > Nothing in the imprecise real world is *exactly* zero-sum, and if it > were, an altruist wouldn't care about it one way or the other. Some > zero-sum games are actually negative-sum games because of wasted effort, > wasted time, wasted money, infliction of fear and emotional distress. > Other zero-sum games are positive-sum because people have fun playing > them and learn something. It's the "zero-sum" games that are actually > negative which Bostrom, and myself, would revile. ### No contest here, although in the imprecise popular usage a "zero-sum game" stands for something to be reviled. The usefulness of Will's article (and a few other posts you can find on his blog) is in pointing out that some of the canonical examples of "zero-sum games", such as status seeking, are actually positive-sum games. Nick, as far as I remember, believes that status seeking is a negative-sum game, and AFAIK was quite seriously asking to enact limitations in e.g. genetic engineering of height that you mentioned. Rafal From marc.geddes at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 05:56:57 2006 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 18:56:57 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet In-Reply-To: <200601050503.k0553Fe30395@tick.javien.com> References: <7a5e56060601041946i4089d9a8l79740c3f56db2557@mail.gmail.com> <200601050503.k0553Fe30395@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <7a5e56060601042156h714b564fgce6c1b502eb199a6@mail.gmail.com> On 1/5/06, Brandon Reinhart wrote: > > Does adding an additional cone provide a wider range of color, or merely > a different range of color? Would transhuman artists potentially pursue eye > modification that added more cones to their eyes (plus appropriate brain > mods to process the extra "out of band" data)? > > > > Brandon > > > ------------------------------ > > According to Koch (see the footnotes on page 52-53 of 'The Quest for > Consciousness') there are already a few extraordinary woman naturally born > with 4 cones instead of the normal three. It's not that clear that the > visual cortex can handle the additional information property but it appears > that these tetrachromat woman can experience subtler color hues. > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Jan 5 12:04:32 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 04:04:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Playing Go & demandingness in ethics In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0601041514s30b9040aje58418693eede4c7@mail.gmail.com> References: <5844e22f0601041053r71a67c53mca4d56507cdbe135@mail.gmail.com> <1B812FF1-D79C-4ECB-80B3-6D9872220C3F@mac.com> <5844e22f0601041514s30b9040aje58418693eede4c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2006, at 3:14 PM, Jeff Medina wrote: > Now there's nothing wrong with spawning a new thread of conversation > and disagreeing with the claim that people have to care about anyone > else -- disagreeing that there are any moral obligations at all, in > effect. That is not in the least what I said. Please backup and check your assumptions and interpretations much more carefully. I care about people a great deal without falling prey to your apparent assumptions about what follows from that. - samantha From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 13:25:11 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 08:25:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Playing Go & demandingness in ethics In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0601041529u576cacf6n26644e1eb081a71d@mail.gmail.com> References: <5844e22f0601041053r71a67c53mca4d56507cdbe135@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0601041529u576cacf6n26644e1eb081a71d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60601050525y3f795423o7f96d3170db426c4@mail.gmail.com> On 1/4/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > That's a good question. For myself, I don't subscribe to strict > utilitarianism, or the idea that strangers automatically have a right to > claim my time or other resources; ### I do subscribe to a form of strict consequentialism, *and* I do not think that strangers have any a priori right to my time or resources. The apparent contradiction is solved when you weigh your own utility in the assessment of consequences: If I feel disinclined to give to others, the disutility of taking from me outweighs any claims on my property (outside of Kaldor-Hicks criteria) that could stem from the inclinations of others. I cannot demand much of others, therefore, not much may be demanded of me (although I can be generous if asked nicely). Rafal From amara at amara.com Thu Jan 5 14:52:21 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 15:52:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Deaf hacker rewrites implant-firmware to enjoy music again Message-ID: A fantastic story via Cory Doctorow and Boing Boing ( http://www.boingboing.net) : Deaf hacker rewrites implant-firmware so he can enjoy music again http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.11/bolero_pr.html Cory Doctorow: A deaf hacker diligently tinkered with the firmware on his cochlear implant, trying to get it to faithfully render out Ravel's symphony, Bol?ro, eventually meeting with success. Michael Chorost was born with partial hearing, and at 15, he discovered that Bol?ro was audible to him, and it became a touchstone for him, a piece of music that he developed a deep emotional attachment to. In 2001, Chorost experienced the sudden, total loss of the remains of his hearing, and Bol?ro was lost to him, seemingly forever. In this Wired feature, Chorost chronicles the amazing journey he embarked upon, learning the science of acoustics, of music, and of signal processing, reprogramming the firmware in his implanted prosthetic with the help of experts around the world with various theories about the psycho-acoustic basis for music. The story is gripping, fascinating and informative -- a template for a tale that I believe will become more and more prevalent in times to come: a person who relies on computerized prosthetics not being satisfied with the features that were included with it out of the box, taking it upon herself to improve it, to extend it, using her own body and perceptions as a laboratory for experiments on human perception and performance. --------- "I spent two and a half days hooked up to the computer, listening to endless sequences of tones - none of it music - in a windowless cubicle. Which of two tones sounded lower? Which of two versions of "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" was more recognizable? Did this string of notes sound like a march or a waltz? It was exacting, high-concentration work - like taking an eye exam that lasted for two days. My responses produced reams of data that they would spend hours analyzing. Forty minutes before my cab back to the airport was due, we finished the last test and the postdoc fired up the programs he needed to play Bol?ro. Some of the lower pitches I'd heard in the previous two days had sounded rich and mellow, and I began thinking wistfully about those bassoons and oboes. I felt a rising sense of anticipation and hope. I waited while the postdoc tinkered with the computer. And waited. Then I noticed the frustrated look of a man trying to get Windows to behave. "I do this all the time," he said, half to himself. Windows Media Player wouldn't play the file. I suggested rebooting and sampling Bol?ro through a microphone. But the postdoc told me he couldn't do that in time for my plane. A later flight wasn't an option; I had to be back in the Bay Area. I was crushed. I walked out of the building with my shoulders slumped. Scientifically, the visit was a great success. But for me, it was a failure. On the flight home, I plugged myself into my laptop and listened sadly to Bol?ro with Hi-Res. It was like eating cardboard." --------- -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "After silence that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." --Aldous Huxley From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 5 14:54:28 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 06:54:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Playing Go & demandingness in ethics In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0601041053r71a67c53mca4d56507cdbe135@mail.gmail.com> References: <5844e22f0601041053r71a67c53mca4d56507cdbe135@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10601050654s7e81bdcfm9343f8fd5ee5fbfd@mail.gmail.com> On 1/4/06, Jeff Medina wrote: > Now given that many people interested in transhumanism express an > interest in the ethical arguments for various technological > developments, the permissibility of enhancement, the right to > morphological freedom (whether others consider what you're doing > 'enhancement' or not)... why are the demands of our alleged beliefs > nigh universally ignored? It is just a fact of human psychology that > we can't motivate ourselves to moral behavior if it's not right in our > face, or if it doesn't present immediate & painful consequences to > ignore it? It is an illusory problem because none of us really care > about ethics at all, and are only engaged in a social reciprocity > game? Or is there some other explanation? And should and can we do > something to change, acting more in accord with the demands of our > ethics? This question appears to be the same as what I asked myself when I was about eight years old, had just finished reading the Bible and was trying to reconcile the Christian words and teachings (in which I was immersed) with easily apparent Christian hypocrisy. And I eventually came to understand that people have only limited awareness of themselves and their relationship to others, and to compound the matter, they have only limited motivation to increase their awareness, or their awareness of their awareness, and so on. It became clear to me that while a completely objective, big-picture view of any particular domain will facilitate rational decision-making (and thus behavior) within that domain, in the real world there is always a larger possible domain within which, even under the best conditions, we must operate under conditions of incomplete information. Consistency is the ultimate measure of morality, but we can only approach and never reach that level of objectivity (and gladly so, because then our subjective values would be nil.) Later it became clear to me that even the Self, which is assumed to be evaluating and making these rational decisions, doesn't exist in the discrete and independent sense that is assumed by most people raised within western culture. So, objective terms, as systems operating within the physical universe, our behavior certainly is consistent, but in terms of subjective agents, operating with only an approximate internal model of reality, our behavior is quite naturally inconsistent. I hope the foregoing provides a useful response to your question about why people do not meet the demands of their professed ethics. To your second question, "should and can we do something to change, acting more in accord with the demands of our ethics?", I would point out that for the last four or so years I have been something of a broken record on this very subject. It is disturbing to see intelligent thinkers simply assume that giving to charity is a fundamental good, that all humans or all "sentient beings" possess equal moral value, or that "rights" are somehow inherent in the structure of our world. These values and the actions they imply, like all others, are "good" to the extent that they work to promote increasingly shared values into the future. Charity, for example, is seen as a fundamental good because altruism is woven deeply into the fabric of our culture and our genes -- because it tends to work, and our values have been thereby shaped. Given a different environment of evolutionary adaptation -- or an imminent environment of rapid technological change -- charity may be seen and evaluated differently. Certain values become increasingly shared because they work, meaning they persist and grow. These increasingly shared values are the basis of our morality, what we tend to agree is good. Certain actions are considered good, to the extent that they promote our increasingly shared values. What can we do? We can continue to build a framework of social decison-making that increases our awareness of our increasingly shared subjective values, and that increases our increasingly objective instrumental knowledge applied to the promotion of those values. [To head off just one likely and immediate objection: "increasingly shared values" does not imply that we become borg-like. On the contrary, increasingly shared values that work implies a great practical respect for freedom and diversity.] - Jef From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Jan 5 20:24:22 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:24:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Playing Go & demandingness in ethics In-Reply-To: <22360fa10601050654s7e81bdcfm9343f8fd5ee5fbfd@mail.gmail.com> References: <5844e22f0601041053r71a67c53mca4d56507cdbe135@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601050654s7e81bdcfm9343f8fd5ee5fbfd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 5, 2006, at 6:54 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > > This question appears to be the same as what I asked myself when I was > about eight years old, had just finished reading the Bible and was > trying to reconcile the Christian words and teachings (in which I was > immersed) with easily apparent Christian hypocrisy. > The teachings are full of contradictions, invalid assumptions and fairy tales. It is not possible or desirable to live fully in accordance with them. > And I eventually came to understand that people have only limited > awareness of themselves and their relationship to others, and to > compound the matter, they have only limited motivation to increase > their awareness, or their awareness of their awareness, and so on. Human beings have limited abilities and intellect. Only when we think of humans as some nearly infinite "soul" housed in flesh do we wonder why we don't do so much better. We did not evolve to do better in all ways that someone may claim or feel that we should or that someone thinks would be desirable. > > It became clear to me that while a completely objective, big-picture > view of any particular domain will facilitate rational decision-making > (and thus behavior) within that domain, in the real world there is > always a larger possible domain within which, even under the best > conditions, we must operate under conditions of incomplete > information. Complete objectivity and knowledge is a mystical fantasy. > Consistency is the ultimate measure of morality, but we > can only approach and never reach that level of objectivity (and > gladly so, because then our subjective values would be nil.) Who says that consistency is the ultimate measure of morality? Consistency within what context and acknowledged limitations? What sort of morality? I don't think 2000+ year old prescriptions drilled into us long before we could intellectually resist memetic plaques qualify as any sort of morality that rational people should be worrying themselves about. > > Later it became clear to me that even the Self, which is assumed to be > evaluating and making these rational decisions, doesn't exist in the > discrete and independent sense that is assumed by most people raised > within western culture. The capital s "Self" is a mystical fantasy. It doesn't exist. > > So, objective terms, as systems operating within the physical > universe, our behavior certainly is consistent, but in terms of > subjective agents, operating with only an approximate internal model > of reality, our behavior is quite naturally inconsistent. > Yes! You see it, at least in part. Our models are approximations with limits to their accuracy and correctness. We are creatures with limits to our thinking, modeling and understanding of ourselves and everything else. We are evolved creatures with many relatively difficult to address proclivities. It is amazing we have as much self-control over our behavior as we do. Can most of us do better than we do? Probably. But the means to do so are not so obvious as just deciding we should do X rather than Y. There is a bit more to it than that. > I hope the foregoing provides a useful response to your question about > why people do not meet the demands of their professed ethics. > > To your second question, "should and can we do something to change, > acting more in accord with the demands of our ethics?", I would point > out that for the last four or so years I have been something of a > broken record on this very subject. > > It is disturbing to see intelligent thinkers simply assume that giving > to charity is a fundamental good, that all humans or all "sentient > beings" possess equal moral value, or that "rights" are somehow > inherent in the structure of our world. > Hear. hear on most of that. I do think the concept of natural rights as defined as what is essential to the full use of the human mind, our main enabler of survival and advancement, has some validity. > These values and the actions they imply, like all others, are "good" > to the extent that they work to promote increasingly shared values > into the future. Why is it important that the values be shared? Particularly as some humans seriously augment it is very unlikely that most humans will even understand >human values in any real depth much less share them. > Charity, for example, is seen as a fundamental good > because altruism is woven deeply into the fabric of our culture and > our genes -- because it tends to work, and our values have been > thereby shaped. It is not a fundamental or unlimited good. It is an approximate good in limited circumstances and context. Much evil has been done in the name of "altruism". Sometimes it seems to me that much evil would be avoided if people weren't so keen to pull on the mantle of "saving" or "uplifting" all of humanity. Ask first whether what you are doing is a good and compelling thing that you would do for yourself and those who understand it. Ask if doing it for that limited group is compelling enough to get you to take action. If it is not then dressing it up as being for all of humanity will not improve it or even necessarily energize you. It will simply make it vastly more dangerous. It is much more difficult to remain honest when out to save the world. > Given a different environment of evolutionary > adaptation -- or an imminent environment of rapid technological change > -- charity may be seen and evaluated differently. Yep. > > Certain values become increasingly shared because they work, meaning > they persist and grow. These increasingly shared values are the basis > of our morality, what we tend to agree is good. > This seems to say that certain values persist and grow because they persist and grow. And that the ones that persist and grow we agree are good. But this is surely not a valid way to determine what is good. It is an average across humanity with its current limitations. > Certain actions are considered good, to the extent that they promote > our increasingly shared values. > > What can we do? We can continue to build a framework of social > decison-making that increases our awareness of our increasingly shared > subjective values, and that increases our increasingly objective > instrumental knowledge applied to the promotion of those values. > How about knowledge applied to the examination of those values as not necessarily benign or leading to our transhuman goals? - samantha From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 20:48:00 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:48:00 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Playing Go & demandingness in ethics In-Reply-To: <22360fa10601050654s7e81bdcfm9343f8fd5ee5fbfd@mail.gmail.com> References: <5844e22f0601041053r71a67c53mca4d56507cdbe135@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601050654s7e81bdcfm9343f8fd5ee5fbfd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/5/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > [To head off just one likely and immediate objection: "increasingly > shared values" does not imply that we become borg-like. On the > contrary, increasingly shared values that work implies a great > practical respect for freedom and diversity.] > > Just as long as that diversity isn't so diverse as to disagree with our shared values eh? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 5 21:27:20 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:27:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Playing Go & demandingness in ethics In-Reply-To: References: <5844e22f0601041053r71a67c53mca4d56507cdbe135@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10601050654s7e81bdcfm9343f8fd5ee5fbfd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10601051327n53cac3b0l6c3b9b33f516939d@mail.gmail.com> On 1/5/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Jan 5, 2006, at 6:54 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: // section which seemed to be in general agreement > > Consistency is the ultimate measure of morality, but we > > can only approach and never reach that level of objectivity (and > > gladly so, because then our subjective values would be nil.) > > Who says that consistency is the ultimate measure of morality? Agents with poor internal models behave erratically. With increasing awareness comes increasing consistency, in the sense that actions increasingly corresponding to expected outcomes, evaluated in increasing detail. > Consistency within what context and acknowledged limitations? What > sort of morality? I don't think 2000+ year old prescriptions drilled > into us long before we could intellectually resist memetic plaques > qualify as any sort of morality that rational people should be > worrying themselves about. Of course I would not make the assertion you are arguing against here. // more general agreement > > > These values and the actions they imply, like all others, are "good" > > to the extent that they work to promote increasingly shared values > > into the future. > > Why is it important that the values be shared? Particularly as some > humans seriously augment it is very unlikely that most humans will > even understand >human values in any real depth much less share them. I think the confusion here is that you must be clear that there is no absolute right or wrong, because any such judgment must be relative to subjective values. "Morality" as popularly understood is incoherent except within an artificially narrow context. For a lone individual, morality does not even apply, but as more people agree that some action is "right", we begin to call that "moral" action. // more agreement > > Certain values become increasingly shared because they work, meaning > > they persist and grow. These increasingly shared values are the basis > > of our morality, what we tend to agree is good. > > > > This seems to say that certain values persist and grow because they > persist and grow. And that the ones that persist and grow we agree > are good. But this is surely not a valid way to determine what is > good. As discussed earlier, we can not know what is "good", but only that what works to promote our values must be considered good. But even that is from a limited subjective viewpoint. However, regardless of these limits, we can agree that what works to promote our values *over increasing scope*, within an inherently competitive environment, is better. It is an average across humanity with its current limitations. No, we're talking all along about increasing awareness, so this is not about averaging which would mean lost information. Our shared values are complex and overlapping in many dimensions, but we certainly do agree on many of them, because of our common evolutionary basis. As you point out above, there is an almost tautological flavor to this concept, and this is because we are objectively functioning organisms looking at ourselves through a subjective lens and trying to compose an objective description of what we see happening. > > Certain actions are considered good, to the extent that they promote > > our increasingly shared values. > > > > What can we do? We can continue to build a framework of social > > decison-making that increases our awareness of our increasingly shared > > subjective values, and that increases our increasingly objective > > instrumental knowledge applied to the promotion of those values. > > > > How about knowledge applied to the examination of those values as not > necessarily benign or leading to our transhuman goals? Your question is not completely clear to me, but I may be able to address it by saying that while scientific knowledge is morally neutral, each additional bit of understanding fills in more of our map of reality, tending to aid in the promotion of our values either by suggesting where to step, where not to step, or where to explore further. - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jan 6 01:25:55 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:25:55 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Woman marries dolphin Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060105192432.01d6a3d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html Jerusalem January 2, 2006 Sharon Tendler met Cindy 15 years ago. She said it was love at first sight. This week she finally took the plunge and proposed. The lucky "guy" plunged right back. In a modest ceremony at Dolphin Reef in the southern Israeli port of Eilat, Tendler, a 41-year-old British citizen, apparently became the world's first person to "marry" a dolphin. Dressed in a white dress, a veil and pink flowers in her hair, Tendler got down on one knee on the dock and gave Cindy a kiss. And a piece of herring. "It's not a perverted thing. I do love this dolphin. He's the love of my life," she said Saturday, upon her return to London. Tendler, who said she imports clothes and promotes rock bands in England, has visited Israel several times a year since first meeting the dolphin. When asked in the past if she had a boyfriend, she would always reply, "No. I'm going to end up with Cindy." On Wednesday, she made it official, sort of. While she acknowledged the "wedding" had no legal bearing she did say it reflected her deep feelings toward the bottlenosed, 35-year-old object of her affection. "It's not a bad thing. It just something that we did because I love him, but not in the way that you love a man. It's just a pure love that I have for this animal," she said. While she still kept open the option of "marrying human" at some stage, she said for now she was strictly a "one-dolphin woman". She's hardly the jealous type, though. "He will still play with all the other girls there," she said, of their prenuptial agreement. "I hope he has a lot of baby dolphins with the other dolphins. The more dolphins the better." - AP From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 6 01:48:33 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:48:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Woman marries dolphin In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060105192432.01d6a3d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060105192432.01d6a3d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: The object of my affection can change my complexion from white to rosy red http://deanmartinlyrics.com/tooma.htm -gts From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 6 02:01:53 2006 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 18:01:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Woman marries dolphin In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060105192432.01d6a3d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060106020153.11628.qmail@web35707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> A woman in Ohio married a dog not long ago. nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 --------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jan 6 02:36:50 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:36:50 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] hmmmmmm Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060105203515.01ceb4b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006 Welcome to Mars express: only a three hour trip IAN JOHNSTON SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT AN EXTRAORDINARY "hyperspace" engine that could make interstellar space travel a reality by flying into other dimensions is being investigated by the United States government. The hypothetical device, which has been outlined in principle but is based on a controversial theory about the fabric of the universe, could potentially allow a spacecraft to travel to Mars in three hours and journey to a star 11 light years away in just 80 days, according to a report in today's New Scientist magazine. The theoretical engine works by creating an intense magnetic field that, according to ideas first developed by the late scientist Burkhard Heim in the 1950s, would produce a gravitational field and result in thrust for a spacecraft. Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster, allowing incredible speeds to be reached. Switching off the magnetic field would result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension. The US air force has expressed an interest in the idea [etc] wtf? From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Jan 6 02:42:22 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 02:42:22 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] hmmmmmm In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060105203515.01ceb4b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060105203515.01ceb4b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 1/6/06, Damien Broderick wrote: > > http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006 > > Welcome to Mars express: only a three hour trip > IAN JOHNSTON SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT > > AN EXTRAORDINARY "hyperspace" engine that could make interstellar space > travel a reality by flying into other dimensions is being investigated by > the United States government. > > The hypothetical device, which has been outlined in principle but is based > on a controversial theory about the fabric of the universe, could > potentially allow a spacecraft to travel to Mars in three hours and > journey > to a star 11 light years away in just 80 days, according to a report in > today's New Scientist magazine. > > The theoretical engine works by creating an intense magnetic field that, > according to ideas first developed by the late scientist Burkhard Heim in > the 1950s, would produce a gravitational field and result in thrust for a > spacecraft. > > Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip > into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster, allowing > incredible speeds to be reached. Switching off the magnetic field would > result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension. > > The US air force has expressed an interest in the idea > > [etc] > > wtf? If this is true and we could have had mass interplanetary travel, maybe even starships, 50yrs ago I am going to be sooooooo pissed off. More details here: http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/AuerbachJSE.pdf The guy is wellknown amongst the AG community. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jan 6 02:44:25 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:44:25 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Heim ho hum Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060105204400.01cd1040@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burkhard_Heim/Archive1 From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 6 03:34:15 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 19:34:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] nano structures self-assembly method Message-ID: <20060106033415.90140.qmail@web60018.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/wtr_16118,318,p1.html Nano Building Made Easy A surprising array of nano structures can be formed by a new general self-assembly method. ***************************** If anyone has access to the original 'Nature' paper, could you send me an electronic (html or pdf via ie email) copy I'd like to take a look at it. Thanks. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Jan 6 04:01:57 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:01:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] nano structures self-assembly method In-Reply-To: <20060106033415.90140.qmail@web60018.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060106040157.11664.qmail@web81610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Jeff Davis wrote: > http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/wtr_16118,318,p1.html > > Nano Building Made Easy > > A surprising array of nano structures can be formed by > a new general self-assembly method. > > ***************************** > > If anyone has access to the original 'Nature' paper, > could you send me an electronic (html or pdf via ie > email) copy I'd like to take a look at it. ...strange. The TR article is dated 1/5, so by "the current" issue they presumably mean this week's, or at least last week's - but a quick scan of the two issues' tables of contents (via Nature's Web site) reveals nothing apparently relevant. Or perhaps I missed it. From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jan 6 06:04:01 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:04:01 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hawking the rapper Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060106000244.01d83920@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.expressmedia.org.au/vw_back_issues.php?content_id=164 From marc.geddes at gmail.com Fri Jan 6 10:42:55 2006 From: marc.geddes at gmail.com (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 23:42:55 +1300 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson Message-ID: <7a5e56060601060242s4c97adc0h715055c1cd1a36ed@mail.gmail.com> There's already a contest going on here: First person to create an FAI proves that they're the best! ;) You know I used to think the people on the transhumanist lists were ultra-smart but gradually I came to realize that hey, you know, these guys aren't actually that good. There's a lot of one-dimensional ideologies being argued for (like Libertarianism or Socialism for instance) or bizarre intellectual blind-spots. I think rationality, imagination and empirical knowledge ultimately wins out over raw IQ. The only person on the lists that's really any good is Eliezer but even he is not *that* good: my impression that a REAL transhuman would still eat that Eliezer pussy for breakfast (intellectually) and as for everyone else, a real transhuman would find their arguments so laughable that it wouldn't even bother to respond ;) No one here but me spotted the three time dimensions (which believe me to a real transhuman will be the most friggin obvious thing in the world) nor did any one here but me spot 7-aspect monism (the 7 fundamental properties making up the deep structure of reality). Like I said, no offense, but you guys just ain't that good. Time for Eli and the rest to face REAL transhuman awareness (well, not really but pseudo transhuman-awareness at least). Let's see how he fares. This is gonna be funny. Wanna see me kick some super-genius arse? ;) Let the games commence: http://www.agiri.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=108 -- "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" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From acy.stapp at gmail.com Fri Jan 6 15:46:32 2006 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:46:32 -0600 Subject: WARNING Re: [extropy-chat] awsome xmas video In-Reply-To: References: <4k176m$2didj8@mxip08a.cluster1.charter.net> Message-ID: I haven't checked this particular link out but the music is from Trans-Siberian Orchestra. On 1/3/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Dennis, > > I don't believe I have ever seen you here before so I would advise everyone > not to access this link if you are running Windows. It may be perfectly > safe but there are viruses now that infect IE on just visiting a site. Also > putfile.com is a site that anyone can load whatever they want to. The > content of this particularly link is only available to Windows players. > DANGER. > > If you are legit I would strongly suggest something more pertinent and meaty > for a [AFAIK] first post. > > - samantha > > > On Jan 3, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Dennis Roberts wrote: > > > > I know its trivial and really not pertinent to this list, but does anybody > know who does the piece of music in this video? > http://media.putfile.com/WizardsofWinter-SM > > > > Dennis Roberts -- Acy Stapp "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -- R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983) From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri Jan 6 22:23:46 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:23:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] New High lit film References: <380-220061451554187@M2W142.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <00ab01c6130f$f019fcf0$0400a8c0@Nano> Thank you! ----- Original Message ----- From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 5:55 PM Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] New High lit film From: Gina >I made a new movie for you all - it's a brainy one! >http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2006/01/fireside-reading.html :-)! ++ Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Jan 6 23:43:35 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:43:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060601060242s4c97adc0h715055c1cd1a36ed@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060601060242s4c97adc0h715055c1cd1a36ed@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <914389A0-B8E9-4B02-A1AF-5F190F6153B3@mac.com> Will some moderator please bounce this offensive clown? Thanks. -s On Jan 6, 2006, at 2:42 AM, Marc Geddes wrote: > There's already a contest going on here: First person to create an > FAI proves that they're the best! ;) > > You know I used to think the people on the transhumanist lists were > ultra-smart but gradually I came to realize that hey, you know, > these guys aren't actually that good. There's a lot of one- > dimensional ideologies being argued for (like Libertarianism or > Socialism for instance) or bizarre intellectual blind-spots. I > think rationality, imagination and empirical knowledge ultimately > wins out over raw IQ. The only person on the lists that's really > any good is Eliezer but even he is not *that* good: my impression > that a REAL transhuman would still eat that Eliezer pussy for > breakfast (intellectually) and as for everyone else, a real > transhuman would find their arguments so laughable that it wouldn't > even bother to respond ;) > > No one here but me spotted the three time dimensions (which believe > me to a real transhuman will be the most friggin obvious thing in > the world) nor did any one here but me spot 7-aspect monism (the 7 > fundamental properties making up the deep structure of reality). > Like I said, no offense, but you guys just ain't that good. > > Time for Eli and the rest to face REAL transhuman awareness (well, > not really but pseudo transhuman-awareness at least). Let's see > how he fares. This is gonna be funny. Wanna see me kick some > super-genius arse? ;) > > Let the games commence: > http://www.agiri.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=108 > > -- > "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" > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jan 6 23:46:07 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 17:46:07 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060106174413.01c6c7c0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,17752119,00.html Brendan O'Keefe 07jan06 HUNDREDS of thousands of years worth of climate records in ice cores show there is nothing unusual in a global warming trend over the past 25 years. Marine geophysicist Bob Carter, a professor at Queensland's James Cook University and leading climate change sceptic, said the effects of human activity would barely register in the long-term history of climate change. He told The Weekend Australian that ice cores from Antarctica "tell us clearly that in the context of the meteorological records of 100 years, it is not unusual to have a period of warming like the one we are in at the moment". Dr Carter disputed the theory that human activity was making a current - natural - warm period hotter: "Atmospheric CO2 is not a primary forcing agent for temperature change." He argues that "any cumulative human signal is so far undetectable at a global level and, if present, is buried deeply in the noise of natural variation". Fellow sceptic William Kininmonth, a former director of the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre, agreed. He wrote in a 2004 book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard that there was "every reason to believe that the variabilities in global temperature and other climate characteristics experienced over the past century are part of the natural variability of the climate system and are not a consequence of recent anthropogenic activities". But other leading scientists, who blame human activity for climate change, say the "denialists" are a one-to-99 minority. Will Steffen, director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University, said: "There is no debate. The debate is over." The evidence that human activity had increased emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, adding to natural warming, was "overwhelming", he said. For scientist and University of Adelaide academic Tim Flannery there was also no argument: humans had turned up the heating and only humans could keep a lid on it. The argument that human activity did not contribute to global warming was "not a credible hypothesis to build policy on", he said. ? The Australian ================= oh. OK From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 7 00:37:56 2006 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:37:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] New High lit film In-Reply-To: <00ab01c6130f$f019fcf0$0400a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <20060107003756.50698.qmail@web35712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Do any of you like time travel films? How about a film concerning the daughter of a Jewish time machine inventor who travels back to 1944 Germany to have an affair with Hitler. Should I quit my day job? nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 --------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 00:44:12 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 00:44:12 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: <7a5e56060601060242s4c97adc0h715055c1cd1a36ed@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a5e56060601060242s4c97adc0h715055c1cd1a36ed@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/6/06, Marc Geddes wrote: > > There's already a contest going on here: First person to create an FAI > proves that they're the best! ;) > > You know I used to think the people on the transhumanist lists were > ultra-smart but gradually I came to realize that hey, you know, these guys > aren't actually that good. There's a lot of one-dimensional ideologies > being argued for (like Libertarianism or Socialism for instance) or bizarre > intellectual blind-spots. I think rationality, imagination and empirical > knowledge ultimately wins out over raw IQ. The only person on the lists > that's really any good is Eliezer but even he is not *that* good: my > impression that a REAL transhuman would still eat that Eliezer pussy for > breakfast (intellectually) and as for everyone else, a real transhuman > would find their arguments so laughable that it wouldn't even bother to > respond ;) > > No one here but me spotted the three time dimensions (which believe me to > a real transhuman will be the most friggin obvious thing in the world) nor > did any one here but me spot 7-aspect monism (the 7 fundamental properties > making up the deep structure of reality). Like I said, no offense, but you > guys just ain't that good. > > Time for Eli and the rest to face REAL transhuman awareness (well, not > really but pseudo transhuman-awareness at least). Let's see how he fares. > This is gonna be funny. Wanna see me kick some super-genius arse? ;) > > Let the games commence: > http://www.agiri.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=108 > > Theories are ten a penny. Show us some novel tech deriving from it, then we'll take notice. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 7 02:20:22 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 18:20:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: <914389A0-B8E9-4B02-A1AF-5F190F6153B3@mac.com> Message-ID: <200601070220.k072KTe10391@tick.javien.com> Did it within 5 minutes of the post. s _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 3:44 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson Will some moderator please bounce this offensive clown? Thanks. -s On Jan 6, 2006, at 2:42 AM, Marc Geddes wrote: There's already a contest going on here: First person to create an FAI proves that they're the best! ;) You know I used to think the people on the transhumanist lists were ultra-smart but gradually I came to realize that hey, you know, these guys aren't actually that good... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sat Jan 7 02:30:49 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 18:30:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] New High lit film References: <20060107003756.50698.qmail@web35712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <027f01c61332$70f5d750$0400a8c0@Nano> While time travel is one of my favorite subjects, Hitler is not. Gina ----- Original Message ----- From: Alan Brooks To: ExI chat list Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 4:37 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] New High lit film Do any of you like time travel films? How about a film concerning the daughter of a Jewish time machine inventor who travels back to 1944 Germany to have an affair with Hitler. Should I quit my day job? nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 7 03:51:56 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 19:51:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] personal display In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060106000244.01d83920@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200601070352.k073q3e17666@tick.javien.com> Hey cool, I have been waiting for years for something like this to come along: http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=36560 {8-] spike From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 04:05:45 2006 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 22:05:45 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] personal display In-Reply-To: <200601070352.k073q3e17666@tick.javien.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060106000244.01d83920@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200601070352.k073q3e17666@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0601062005n6dcb534fh512654886ba558c7@mail.gmail.com> Friday, 6 January 2006 Thank you, Spike! This looks like a very interesting product, but you might want to read PC Gamer's recent review of the eMagin Z800 display. (They weren't too impressed.) When I talked to eMagin middle-of-last-year, they had a lead time of multiple weeks for orders too. Which is just as well--save up for those purchases instead of using credit. Now all you need is a DejaView CamWear to hang off the side, or you can use the wearable video camera Tony Hawk shills. (See a whole project rig at http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmtorrone/sets/1710794/) I would certainly like to hear of anyone from the list building a wearable. (Yes, I remember Anders Sandberg did that.) Anyone else? -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 04:15:53 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 04:15:53 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] personal display In-Reply-To: <5366105b0601062005n6dcb534fh512654886ba558c7@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060106000244.01d83920@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200601070352.k073q3e17666@tick.javien.com> <5366105b0601062005n6dcb534fh512654886ba558c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/7/06, Jay Dugger wrote: > > Friday, 6 January 2006 > > Thank you, Spike! This looks like a very interesting product, but you > might want to read PC Gamer's recent review of the eMagin Z800 > display. (They weren't too impressed.) When I talked to eMagin > middle-of-last-year, they had a lead time of multiple weeks for orders > too. Which is just as well--save up for those purchases instead of > using credit. > > Now all you need is a DejaView CamWear to hang off the side, or you > can use the wearable video camera Tony Hawk shills. (See a whole > project rig at http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmtorrone/sets/1710794/) > > I would certainly like to hear of anyone from the list building a > wearable. (Yes, I remember Anders Sandberg did that.) Anyone else? > > A better solution for those who have the patience, space and money would be to buy two SVGA projectors and polarise the outputs. Then watch the screen with polaroid glasses for a full 3D effect with close to 180 deg field of view. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Jan 7 04:26:04 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:26:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keeping current on government secrecy Message-ID: <43BF42DC.5090402@mindspring.com> [Extensive if not comprehensive, a wealth of information, overload potential here... -Terry] KEEPING CURRENT ON GOVERNMENT SECRECY A sizable inventory of organizations, web sites, and publications concerned in some way with government secrecy was presented in a recent survey. "In the interest of sharing information, here is a list of Web sites, blogs, listservs, and newsletters that could help clients needing access to government documents but who might experience difficulty locating that information. The list is arranged by government watchdog sites, sites that provide access to government documents, sites that document government secrecy, and advocacy groups that report on FOIA news." See "Shhh!!: Keeping Current on Government Secrecy" by Laura Gordon-Murnane, Searcher: The Magazine for Database Professionals, January 2006: http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/jan06/Gordon-Murnane.shtml -- "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 dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 04:57:39 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 04:57:39 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Flying Saucers... Message-ID: Followup on the New Scientist article on a possible hyperdrive. http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/theorie_raumfahrt/hqtforspacepropphysicsaip2005.pdf Sounds surprisingly like the classic description of a UFO? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 7 06:54:09 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 22:54:09 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060106174413.01c6c7c0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200601070654.k076sBe32626@tick.javien.com> Damien has posted two interesting articles. This showed up today in the MSM claiming that the warming is happening faster at the poles than in the tropics. This just doesn't make sense. Good news indeed if true, but I don't see how it could be. spike http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180896,00.html 2005 Ties for 2nd Warmest Year Ever, But Cause Still Uncertain Friday, January 06, 2006 By Robert Roy Britt A new study finds last year tied for the second-warmest year since reliable records have been kept starting in the late 1800s. The global average temperature in 2005 was 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit (0.3 Celsius) warmer than the long-term average, tying a mark set in 2002. But a puzzling general pattern, seen the past three decades, persisted: The most significant warming occurred in the Arctic, where the ice cap is shrinking at an alarming pace. Seven times faster Since November 1978, the Arctic atmosphere has warmed seven times faster than the average warming trend over the southern two-thirds of the globe, based on data from NOAA satellites. "It just doesn't look like global warming is very global," said John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. The warmest five years since the 1890s, when reliable record-keeping began: 1. 1998 2. 2005 2. 2002 (tie) 4. 2003 5. 2004 Scientists agree the planet is warming. Ground in the Northern Hemisphere that's been frozen since the last Ice Age is melting and collapsing. But they are still debating exactly how much and to what extent humans are contributing by burning fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases. Lack of understanding In a report last May, researchers said they know very little about how Earth absorbs and reflects sunlight, crucial factors that control climate. Other studies have indicated that increased output from the Sun is responsible for more of global warming than was previously realized. "Obviously some part of the warming we've observed in the atmosphere over the past 27 years is due to enhanced greenhouse gases. Simple physics tells you that," Christy said. "But even if you acknowledge the effects of greenhouse gases, when you look at this pattern of warming, you have to say there must also be something else at work here." Nobody's sure what that might be. "The carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is distributed pretty evenly around the globe and not concentrated in the Arctic, so it doesn't look like we can blame greenhouse gases for the overwhelming bulk of the Northern Hemisphere warming over the past 27 years," Christy said. "The most likely suspect for that is a natural climate change or cycle that we didn't expect or just don't understand." Opposite of expectations Over the past 27 years, since the first temperature-sensing satellite was launched, the overall global temperature has risen 0.63 degrees Fahrenheit, while the hike in the Arctic has been 2.1 degrees. "The computer models consistently predict that global warming due to increasing greenhouse gases should show up as strong warming in the tropics," Christy said. Yet the tropical atmosphere has warmed by only about 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit in 27 years. A study last year examined natural climate change going back more than 1,000 years. How do the recent changes stack up? "It would be fairly rare to have this much warming all from natural causes, but it has happened [in the past]," Christy said. "What we've seen isn't outside the realm of natural climate change." Copyright C 2005 Imaginova Corp. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. From anyservice at cris.crimea.ua Sat Jan 7 07:25:37 2006 From: anyservice at cris.crimea.ua (Gennady Ra) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 10:25:37 +0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] baloney in the memetic superstructure In-Reply-To: <20051204101640.GZ2249@leitl.org> References: <200512040348.jB43mCe22618@tick.javien.com> <20051204101640.GZ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060104201825.03c81240@pop.cris.net> At 11:16 04.12.05 +0100, you, Eugen Leitl, wrote: >>substitute that the prole used and managed to poison >>herself. Perhaps much of what is sold as LSD may be >>something else, such as strychnine. Rat poison is cheap >LSD is sold either as blotter, microdots or as liquid. >There's not enough volume in a microdot or a blotter for >a strychnine dosage to have any detectable physiological >effects. Somewhat dilatory reaction to the month old discussion: See my old post to the MAPS-Forum, Strychnine: a poison or a useful tool for psychonauts? http://www.maps.org/pipermail/maps_forum/1999-May/001752.html Best! Gennady Simferopol Crimea Ukraine From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 10:39:48 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 10:39:48 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] personal display In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060106000244.01d83920@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200601070352.k073q3e17666@tick.javien.com> <5366105b0601062005n6dcb534fh512654886ba558c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601070239u464e48e2qdaab0fe515bb772@mail.gmail.com> On 1/7/06, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > A better solution for those who have the patience, space and money would > be to buy two SVGA projectors and polarise the outputs. Then watch the > screen with polaroid glasses for a full 3D effect with close to 180 deg > field of view. I've been to movies with polaroid-glass 3D, and they never quite work; you always get a headache trying to keep both eyes locked on the scene; it was that way 15-20 years ago, is still that way now. Does anyone know why that happens, and whether it's intrinsic, or something that could in principle be fixed but will be unaffordable for the near future, or something that will likely be fixed with foreseeable progress? - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 10:57:00 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 11:57:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) In-Reply-To: <200601070654.k076sBe32626@tick.javien.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060106174413.01c6c7c0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200601070654.k076sBe32626@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4902d9990601070257p7ce9cad4l439a9f04d09aebae@mail.gmail.com> On 1/7/06, spike wrote: > Damien has posted two interesting articles. This showed > up today in the MSM claiming that the warming is happening > faster at the poles than in the tropics. This just doesn't > make sense. Good news indeed if true, but I don't see > how it could be. spike It has been generally accepted for quite some time that the warming is faster at the poles with respect to the rest of the planet. The reason seems difficult to find. Alfio From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 11:33:07 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 11:33:07 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keeping current on government secrecy In-Reply-To: <43BF42DC.5090402@mindspring.com> References: <43BF42DC.5090402@mindspring.com> Message-ID: On 1/7/06, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > [Extensive if not comprehensive, a wealth of information, overload > potential here... -Terry] > > > KEEPING CURRENT ON GOVERNMENT SECRECY > > "In the interest of sharing information, here is a list of Web > sites, blogs, listservs, and newsletters that could help clients > needing access to government documents but who might experience > difficulty locating that information. The list is arranged by > government watchdog sites, sites that provide access to > government documents, sites that document government secrecy, > and advocacy groups that report on FOIA news." > > See "Shhh!!: Keeping Current on Government Secrecy" by Laura > Gordon-Murnane, Searcher: The Magazine for Database > Professionals, January 2006: > > http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/jan06/Gordon-Murnane.shtml > This is a good list of sites containing much stuff obtained under the FOIA. You can build a search query which will search through the list of sites provided in this article (plus others you might know about). Go to and give it the list of sites you want to search. Remember to save your list of sites so you don't have to key them in every time. :) BillK From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 11:33:07 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 11:33:07 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keeping current on government secrecy In-Reply-To: <43BF42DC.5090402@mindspring.com> References: <43BF42DC.5090402@mindspring.com> Message-ID: On 1/7/06, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > [Extensive if not comprehensive, a wealth of information, overload > potential here... -Terry] > > > KEEPING CURRENT ON GOVERNMENT SECRECY > > "In the interest of sharing information, here is a list of Web > sites, blogs, listservs, and newsletters that could help clients > needing access to government documents but who might experience > difficulty locating that information. The list is arranged by > government watchdog sites, sites that provide access to > government documents, sites that document government secrecy, > and advocacy groups that report on FOIA news." > > See "Shhh!!: Keeping Current on Government Secrecy" by Laura > Gordon-Murnane, Searcher: The Magazine for Database > Professionals, January 2006: > > http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/jan06/Gordon-Murnane.shtml > This is a good list of sites containing much stuff obtained under the FOIA. You can build a search query which will search through the list of sites provided in this article (plus others you might know about). Go to and give it the list of sites you want to search. Remember to save your list of sites so you don't have to key them in every time. :) BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Jan 7 12:33:57 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 04:33:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) In-Reply-To: <200601070654.k076sBe32626@tick.javien.com> References: <200601070654.k076sBe32626@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <7FB2AFCA-C8FD-47FD-9AAD-101C3A73854B@mac.com> Warming at the north Pole in particular is very bad news. The thermohaline cycle is something we do not want to slow down and certainly not stop. Sufficient freshwater from melting polar ice is one way it could happen. I am not sure if this works but I could imagine that the distribution of CO2 and other greenhouse implicated gases tends to eventually get concentrated at the poles. This or some other explanation could perhaps be dredged up from old theories on why the ozone hole was a polar phenomenon. It also may have something to do with a feedback cycle due to melting ice causing less solar radiation to be reflect back into space and more heating of the newly exposed water. - samantha On Jan 6, 2006, at 10:54 PM, spike wrote: > Damien has posted two interesting articles. This showed > up today in the MSM claiming that the warming is happening > faster at the poles than in the tropics. This just doesn't > make sense. Good news indeed if true, but I don't see > how it could be. spike > > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180896,00.html > > > 2005 Ties for 2nd Warmest Year Ever, But Cause Still Uncertain > Friday, January 06, 2006 > By Robert Roy Britt > > > A new study finds last year tied for the second-warmest year since > reliable > records have been kept starting in the late 1800s. > > The global average temperature in 2005 was 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit > (0.3 > Celsius) warmer than the long-term average, tying a mark set in 2002. > > But a puzzling general pattern, seen the past three decades, > persisted: The > most significant warming occurred in the Arctic, where the ice cap is > shrinking at an alarming pace. > > Seven times faster > > Since November 1978, the Arctic atmosphere has warmed seven times > faster > than the average warming trend over the southern two-thirds of the > globe, > based on data from NOAA satellites. > > "It just doesn't look like global warming is very global," said John > Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the > University of > Alabama in Huntsville. > > The warmest five years since the 1890s, when reliable record- > keeping began: > > > 1. 1998 > > 2. 2005 > > 2. 2002 (tie) > > 4. 2003 > > 5. 2004 > > Scientists agree the planet is warming. Ground in the Northern > Hemisphere > that's been frozen since the last Ice Age is melting and collapsing. > > But they are still debating exactly how much and to what extent > humans are > contributing by burning fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases. > > Lack of understanding > > In a report last May, researchers said they know very little about > how Earth > absorbs and reflects sunlight, crucial factors that control > climate. Other > studies have indicated that increased output from the Sun is > responsible for > more of global warming than was previously realized. > > "Obviously some part of the warming we've observed in the > atmosphere over > the past 27 years is due to enhanced greenhouse gases. Simple > physics tells > you that," Christy said. "But even if you acknowledge the effects of > greenhouse gases, when you look at this pattern of warming, you > have to say > there must also be something else at work here." > > Nobody's sure what that might be. > > "The carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is distributed pretty evenly > around > the globe and not concentrated in the Arctic, so it doesn't look > like we can > blame greenhouse gases for the overwhelming bulk of the Northern > Hemisphere > warming over the past 27 years," Christy said. "The most likely > suspect for > that is a natural climate change or cycle that we didn't expect or > just > don't understand." > > Opposite of expectations > > Over the past 27 years, since the first temperature-sensing > satellite was > launched, the overall global temperature has risen 0.63 degrees > Fahrenheit, > while the hike in the Arctic has been 2.1 degrees. > > "The computer models consistently predict that global warming due to > increasing greenhouse gases should show up as strong warming in the > tropics," Christy said. > > Yet the tropical atmosphere has warmed by only about 0.3 degrees > Fahrenheit > in 27 years. > > A study last year examined natural climate change going back more > than 1,000 > years. How do the recent changes stack up? > > "It would be fairly rare to have this much warming all from natural > causes, > but it has happened [in the past]," Christy said. "What we've seen > isn't > outside the realm of natural climate change." > > Copyright C 2005 Imaginova Corp. All Rights Reserved. This material > may not > be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From HerbM at learnquick.com Sat Jan 7 16:03:10 2006 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 10:03:10 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] personal display In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0601070239u464e48e2qdaab0fe515bb772@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell Wallace wrote>> >>I've been to movies with polaroid-glass 3D, and they never quite work; you always get a headache trying to keep both eyes locked on the scene; it was that way 15-20 years ago, is still that way now. Does anyone know why that happens, and whether it's intrinsic, or something that could in principle be fixed but will be unaffordable for the near future, or something that will likely be fixed with foreseeable progress?<< Two reasons that I know of (there may be more): 1) You must keep your head essentially level or it changes the relationship between your two eyes. Normally we unconsciously shift our head, tilting it slightly, turning a bit left or right. 2) Reduction in light (this may have changed since I haven't seen one lately due to the various effects) since the polarization reduces light to each eye and generally the projectors have do NOT have increased power/light to compensate. Shows tend to be "dark". Glasses (or something similar) for the projectors are the likely best path to improvement: beam the two signals directly onto the retina. This has been possible (safely) for 5 years or more but the price, size(comfort), and resolution/'screen' size. (That is, they were stuck at VGA and below for quite a while, but in principle this can go to much higher resolution with very small advances in the technology.) -- Herb Martin _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Wallace Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 4:40 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] personal display On 1/7/06, Dirk Bruere wrote: A better solution for those who have the patience, space and money would be to buy two SVGA projectors and polarise the outputs. Then watch the screen with polaroid glasses for a full 3D effect with close to 180 deg field of view. I've been to movies with polaroid-glass 3D, and they never quite work; you always get a headache trying to keep both eyes locked on the scene; it was that way 15-20 years ago, is still that way now. Does anyone know why that happens, and whether it's intrinsic, or something that could in principle be fixed but will be unaffordable for the near future, or something that will likely be fixed with foreseeable progress? - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 7 16:18:55 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 08:18:55 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) In-Reply-To: <4902d9990601070257p7ce9cad4l439a9f04d09aebae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200601071618.k07GIue18370@tick.javien.com> > It has been generally accepted for quite some time that the warming is > faster at the poles with respect to the rest of the planet. The reason > seems difficult to find. > > Alfio So that kind of global warming is a good thing, right? spike From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 16:56:30 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 16:56:30 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] personal display In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0601070239u464e48e2qdaab0fe515bb772@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060106000244.01d83920@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200601070352.k073q3e17666@tick.javien.com> <5366105b0601062005n6dcb534fh512654886ba558c7@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0601070239u464e48e2qdaab0fe515bb772@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/7/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 1/7/06, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > A better solution for those who have the patience, space and money would > > be to buy two SVGA projectors and polarise the outputs. Then watch the > > screen with polaroid glasses for a full 3D effect with close to 180 deg > > field of view. > > > I've been to movies with polaroid-glass 3D, and they never quite work; you > always get a headache trying to keep both eyes locked on the scene; it was > that way 15-20 years ago, is still that way now. Does anyone know why that > happens, and whether it's intrinsic, or something that could in principle be > fixed but will be unaffordable for the near future, or something that will > likely be fixed with foreseeable progress? > > There are head tilt problems. However, one major problem tends to be non-optimal stereo image generation eg camera and projector spacing and focal points. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 17:07:25 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 18:07:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) In-Reply-To: <200601071618.k07GIue18370@tick.javien.com> References: <4902d9990601070257p7ce9cad4l439a9f04d09aebae@mail.gmail.com> <200601071618.k07GIue18370@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4902d9990601070907o3878d2bdkb6559c1479cfad92@mail.gmail.com> On 1/7/06, spike wrote: > > It has been generally accepted for quite some time that the warming is > > faster at the poles with respect to the rest of the planet. The reason > > seems difficult to find. > > > > Alfio > > > So that kind of global warming is a good thing, right? spike Who knows? If you want to avoid sea rise, Antarctica is a bad place to warm (tropical warming wouldn't melt much ice...), but apart from that and a few more big icebergs there shouldn't be many other consequences. Warming up the Arctic doesn't raise sea levels, but raises concerns about the increase in fresh water in the North Atlantic and the consequences on the Gulf Stream. People living in Canada, North Europe and Siberia might enjoy the milder climate and be able to grow more food, but the ones living on the permafrost will be pissed when it melts and everything turns to mud. If the theories about the Gulf Stream shutting down are right, that's a major disaster. It's unclear if it takes 10 or 1000 years, or if it happens at all. Alfio From aiguy at comcast.net Sat Jan 7 18:05:52 2006 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 13:05:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) In-Reply-To: <4902d9990601070257p7ce9cad4l439a9f04d09aebae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c613b4$fff51290$74550318@ZANDRA2> Isn't is possible that the increased carbon dioxide in the world has increased the growth of ocean phytoplankton and other land plants which in turn use the carbon dioxide replacing it with oxygen. It would also make sense that this same level of compensation would not occur at the poles due to the large percentatage of ice coverage and harsher climate. I did some Googling and found a 2001 project by Greensea Venture planned to even further accelerate the growth of phytoplankton by fertilizing stretches of ocean with iron. It sounded like they getting DOE funding and planned on seeing project results sometime in 2003. I never found the results of the research although it sounded like they were getting some resistence from envionmental opponents worried that the effects could have unwanted effects on the environment. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/NATURE/01/23/paradise.dump/ -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alfio Puglisi Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 5:57 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) On 1/7/06, spike wrote: > Damien has posted two interesting articles. This showed up today in > the MSM claiming that the warming is happening faster at the poles > than in the tropics. This just doesn't make sense. Good news indeed > if true, but I don't see how it could be. spike It has been generally accepted for quite some time that the warming is faster at the poles with respect to the rest of the planet. The reason seems difficult to find. Alfio _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Jan 7 20:41:19 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 14:41:19 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Natasha in Le Magazine de L'Optimum Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060107143621.02fec8b8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Recently received high-gloss cultural magazine L'Optimum with Hilary Swank on the cover. A full-page spread features me as "Bionic woman" on page 56. (Actually I'm not very bionic at all! I think it must be referring to my views on the future body design -:)) Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Jan 7 21:05:58 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 15:05:58 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy Institute - Membership Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060107150033.0da95e80@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Greetings! Many of you renewed your membership during 2005, and so far in 2006 we have received new memberships. If you have any questions about your membership and would like to receive additional material and information about the future of ExI, please email me. For those of you who have not renewed and would like to make a donation to Extropy Institute in our effort to promote the Proactionary Principle and other projects, please go to http://www.extropy.org/membership.htm As always, thank you for your generous donations and for working with us to help realize an extropic future for transhumanity! ProAction! Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sat Jan 7 23:20:05 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 15:20:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Natasha in Le Magazine de L'Optimum References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060107143621.02fec8b8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <01f201c613e1$4b22d0a0$0400a8c0@Nano> Congrats Natasha! Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org ; ART-tac at yahoogroups.com ; wta-talk at transhumanism.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 12:41 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Natasha in Le Magazine de L'Optimum Recently received high-gloss cultural magazine L'Optimum with Hilary Swank on the cover. A full-page spread features me as "Bionic woman" on page 56. (Actually I'm not very bionic at all! I think it must be referring to my views on the future body design -:)) Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 8 01:06:11 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 17:06:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) In-Reply-To: <4902d9990601070907o3878d2bdkb6559c1479cfad92@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200601080107.k0817Je10835@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alfio Puglisi ... > > > > > > So that kind of global warming is a good thing, right? spike > > Who knows? If you want to avoid sea rise, Antarctica is a bad place to > warm (tropical warming wouldn't melt much ice...) I was thinking just the opposite. If you warm the poles and the north icecap melts, the earth can absorb an enormous amount of heat as the floating ice goes thru a phase change without changing its own temperature. Ice at 0 celcius goes to water at 0 celcius, 80 calories are absorbed for each gram of ice. If on the other hand the tropics increased temperature even a few degrees, absorbing only one calorie for each gram degree C, the water would expand, raising the sea level. If on the third hand, the South pole, as you have specified, has a lot of ice that is supported by land and isn't floating, I suppose that would raise sea levels. Puzzling. spike From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 01:42:00 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 01:42:00 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Book printing Message-ID: I have just come across an interesting site, which presumably makes use of a fairly new printing technology. The tech in question is a machine that takes electronic document text and turns out a complete, bound, printed book. The quantities are almost irrelevant, whether it's one or ten thousand. This is not like the old style vanity press, as you will see if you examine the site in detail. To give one example, a 500 page book in black/white 8" x 11" will cost $14.55 (about ?8) for one off. 100 copies will get you a 13% discount and 1000 22% ($11.30). All rights retained by the author. Check out the site for more info http://www.lulu.com/uk Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mitchtemporarily at hotmail.com Sun Jan 8 02:24:42 2006 From: mitchtemporarily at hotmail.com (Mitchell Porter) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:24:42 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) Message-ID: >Damien has posted two interesting articles. This showed >up today in the MSM claiming that the warming is happening >faster at the poles than in the tropics. This just doesn't >make sense. Good news indeed if true, but I don't see >how it could be. spike This is called "polar amplification" and is being discussed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=234 From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sun Jan 8 03:56:22 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 22:56:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Book printing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43C08D66.9080702@goldenfuture.net> It's called "on-demand printing". Lulu.com is one of the better ones, but there are literally scores of 'em out there, and have been for years. The problem with them is that there is no editorial process; books are printed with tons of typos, grammatical errors, etc. Not to mention factual or conceptual errors that would never have made it past the slush pile of a more mainstream publisher. But they do indeed have a place; I think there's a niche for a value-added service that provides editorial, proofing, etc. services, for works which are then turned over to an on-demand publisher. It also speaks to the notion that there is NO reason any book should ever go out of print again. Even the most obscure academic title should be able to be had without scouring the Internet or used bookstores across the globe. (H.R. Ellis-Davidson's "The Road to Hel" comes to mind as a perfect example.) Perhaps this is a good avenue for university presses to pursue? Joseph Dirk Bruere wrote: > I have just come across an interesting site, which presumably makes > use of a fairly new printing technology. > The tech in question is a machine that takes electronic document text > and turns out a complete, bound, printed book. > The quantities are almost irrelevant, whether it's one or ten > thousand. This is not like the old style vanity press, as you will see > if you examine the site in detail. > To give one example, a 500 page book in black/white 8" x 11" will > cost $14.55 (about ?8) for one off. 100 copies will get you a 13% > discount and 1000 22% ($11.30). > > All rights retained by the author. > Check out the site for more info > http://www.lulu.com/uk > > Dirk > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 04:02:08 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 04:02:08 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Book printing In-Reply-To: <43C08D66.9080702@goldenfuture.net> References: <43C08D66.9080702@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On 1/8/06, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > It's called "on-demand printing". Lulu.com is one of the better ones, > but there are literally scores of 'em out there, and have been for years. > > The problem with them is that there is no editorial process; books are > printed with tons of typos, grammatical errors, etc. Not to mention > factual or conceptual errors that would never have made it past the > slush pile of a more mainstream publisher. But they do indeed have a > place; I think there's a niche for a value-added service that provides > editorial, proofing, etc. services, for works which are then turned over > to an on-demand publisher. > > It also speaks to the notion that there is NO reason any book should > ever go out of print again. Even the most obscure academic title should > be able to be had without scouring the Internet or used bookstores > across the globe. (H.R. Ellis-Davidson's "The Road to Hel" comes to mind > as a perfect example.) Perhaps this is a good avenue for university > presses to pursue? > > I was thinking more along the lines of decent manuals for high value, low volume, machinery. Also to 'preview' a book to sell to a traditional publisher. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 06:25:18 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 01:25:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: anarcho-capitalism Message-ID: <7641ddc60601072225n6d72648eg69f33299df573a90@mail.gmail.com> This is a response that Brett sent to me accidentally (I think) offlist - let me share our exchange with you. Brett wrote: > Ah, its the "replacing a government monopoly" bit which I meant > "could never work in practice", but I also mean and probably should > have said in our lifetime by my reckonning of our life expectancy. > ### I am more optimistic about our life expectancy, which leads me to optimism about anarchocapitalism but I agree that assuming the unenhanced human lifespan this political option would be unavailable to us. ------------------------------------------------ > > Boutique forms of local government might be possible under an > umbrella global government that was very thin in terms of what > it oversaw but in our lifetime the closest we will get to that is likely > to be something not very different to an expanded USA style nation > state and/or a UN structure. Smaller stuff that seeks to escape > scrutiny and accountability to the US will be hunted down by the > nation state that the US is becoming. ### Yes, the world government is on the rise, may its bestial claws be too slow to catch the nimble ones before the first laser torch is hoisted in space and the carbon sails are set aglow. (I am referring to one of the possible ways to start interstellar expansion, using lasers to boost sailships to 0.1c speeds - their carbon sails would glow white-hot during the boost phase) It gives me a tingle - just think about it: To sail to the stars on ships burning with white fire! ----------------------------------- Me: > Suffice to say that non-centralized > maintenance of both primary and secondary public goods is possible, > given sufficiently high intelligence and very long timeframes for > motivation. Brett: > Ah, theres the rub *given* sufficiently high intelligence and a very > long timeframe for motivation :-) ### Yeah, I am not, like, agitating to organize your PPO (Private Protection Organization) tomorrow. Someday, in an Oorts Cloud object far away.... Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 10:14:54 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 05:14:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Fifth Singularity and benefits of murder Message-ID: <7641ddc60601080214jdddeb3fx92e004ff9ac23e99@mail.gmail.com> I recently finished reading "Singularity is near" and now I am reading "Sex, Power, Suicide" by Nick Lane. The latter is a book about mitochondria: a must for all mitochondriacs, where what we knew is confirmed - mitochondria are the alpha and omega in the book of life. I have some gripes about SiN but not much: Kurzweil does acknowledge most of the Singularitarian ideas, doesn't try to give the impression that it's all his own stuff and writes in a much clearer fashion than in The Age of Spiritual Machines. What I don't like is the unrealistically optimistic belief that molecular nanotechnology is a pre-Singularity technology. I absolutely don't believe it. Also, I don't believe that the SAI will be made by reverse-engineering the human brain, and I think he's deluding himself if he thinks that he can "slow aging to a crawl" with his IV vitamin treatments. But enough digressions. What struck me during reading about sex, power and suicide is that Singularities, or brief periods of very rapid change which open totally new vistas explored over subsequent epochs, are nothing new. The archetypal singularity, the vacuum transformation which generated spacetime, may have been pretty energetic yet otherwise boring. But the following three have been getting more and more suspenseful: The second one was the formation of mutating replicators. This is where a piece of the world learned how trick other pieces of the world to become more like itself, by collecting floating bits of matter, reworking them if needed and using them to make new copies, capable of remembering the tricks. This was the first nibbler. The third one was the formation of devouring murdering replicators, or eukaryotes. Politically correct handbooks may tell you that the defining trait of the eukaryote is the nucleus, or some other such namby-pamby stuff but the stark reality is different: eukaryotes are the ones who can not only kill you but also eat you whole. Where prokaryotes could spill poison around them and hope to pick up a sauce from decaying bodies, the eukaryote learned how kill and eat the carcass. This totally changes the dynamics of killing: where the prokaryotes benefit from killing their enemies mostly by freeing up the space around them, eukaryotes benefit from devouring the enemies as well, making murder that much more attractive. The prokaryote must outgrow his enemies, replicating as quickly as possible, since killing them outright is technically difficult. This limits the amount of genetic information a prokaryote can keep around. Furthermore, prokaryotes kill collectively but benefit individually, leading to the possibility of freeloading, cheating to speed up individual replication by not pitching in the bacteriocins for the poison bath. The eukaryote kills and eats alone, which assures diligence and proficiency in killing. This in turn leads to less pressure to replicate - you don't need to hurry to divide faster than the neighbors, if you can eat them at your leisure. So, you can pay for the arts and sciences, build a nucleus and accumulate complexity. The reasoning explaining why the ability to kill and devour is the basis for all eukaryotic complexity is really worth reading, as is the whole book. Now, the fourth Singularity was the evolution of the smart murdering replicator, about 200 thousand years ago in Africa. As all the preceding replicator-related Singularities, this one also produced a single dominant form, rather than a multitude (multitudes are produced by the subsequent radiative evolution). Just as there is a universal genetic code (implying a monophyletic origin of life, a First Nibbler), there was only one origin of eukaryotes (The First Eat'ya Whole Eater) , and one species of humans (The First Smart Killer). This seems to be a distinguishing feature of Singularities so far: even if it doesn't wipe out all that came before it, the New One is at first always one, and not a whole bunch of competitors simultaneously evolving to achieve new heights. Hence the name "singularity" is apt on more than one level. And, to echo Neal Stephenson, the New One is always a meaner badass than the previous models. Whether this may serve as a basis for inference about the coming Fifth Singularity is unclear. At least, if the pattern of previous Singularities is repeated, we most likely won't even know what hit us. Rafal From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 12:51:23 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:51:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) In-Reply-To: <200601080107.k0817Je10835@tick.javien.com> References: <4902d9990601070907o3878d2bdkb6559c1479cfad92@mail.gmail.com> <200601080107.k0817Je10835@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4902d9990601080451u3e63d254w5645037a6ced0115@mail.gmail.com> On 1/8/06, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alfio Puglisi > ... > > > > > > > > > So that kind of global warming is a good thing, right? spike > > > > Who knows? If you want to avoid sea rise, Antarctica is a bad place to > > warm (tropical warming wouldn't melt much ice...) > > I was thinking just the opposite. If you warm the poles and the north > icecap melts, the earth can absorb an enormous amount of heat as the > floating ice goes thru a phase change without changing its own > temperature. Ice at 0 celcius goes to water at 0 celcius, 80 calories > are absorbed for each gram of ice. > > If on the other hand the tropics increased temperature even a few > degrees, absorbing only one calorie for each gram degree C, the > water would expand, raising the sea level. Right, I forgot about expanding water. So, warming the South Pole results in more water, warming the tropics results in the same water occupying more volume, and warming the North Pole interferes with the Gulf Stream. There's no hope :-) Alfio From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 15:02:28 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:02:28 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) In-Reply-To: <4902d9990601080451u3e63d254w5645037a6ced0115@mail.gmail.com> References: <4902d9990601070907o3878d2bdkb6559c1479cfad92@mail.gmail.com> <200601080107.k0817Je10835@tick.javien.com> <4902d9990601080451u3e63d254w5645037a6ced0115@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/8/06, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > Right, I forgot about expanding water. So, warming the South Pole > results in more water, warming the tropics results in the same water > occupying more volume, and warming the North Pole interferes with the > Gulf Stream. There's no hope :-) > You omitted the standard final phrase - "We're all doooooomed!" (Traditionally said in a broad Scottish accent). :) BillK From galizur at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 15:25:11 2006 From: galizur at gmail.com (Chris Long) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 07:25:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Future Studies Message-ID: <200601080725.11696.galizur@gmail.com> The University of Houston program unfortuntely closed in 2004, but are there other schools offering graduate programs in future studies, either in the US or abroad? -- Chris Long, San Diego Padres, 100 Park Boulevard, San Diego CA Score: 0, Diff: 1, clong killed by a Harvard Math Team on 1 From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Jan 8 16:05:43 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 10:05:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Future Studies In-Reply-To: <200601080725.11696.galizur@gmail.com> References: <200601080725.11696.galizur@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060108100152.0da8f338@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 09:25 AM 1/8/2006, Chris Long wrote: >The University of Houston program unfortuntely closed in 2004, >but are there other schools offering graduate programs in >future studies, either in the US or abroad? The graduate program did not close. I am currently receiving an MS in Future Studies. It is an excellent program and I highly recommend it. I think this program will become a prototype for other universities developing future studies. Here is one of my projects with the program http://www.natasha/cc.futurists.htm The University of Hawaii also has a program. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 16:36:41 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:36:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060106174413.01c6c7c0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060106174413.01c6c7c0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Who cares?!? We had discussions several years ago regarding the fact that CO2 = carbon and carbon is the best material for many nanostructures and so once nanotechnology (esp. nanorobots) become "real", they will suck all the available CO2 out of the atmosphere because it is a "free" resource. *We* should be discussing the coming CO2 shortage (and the death of all life forms based on photosynthesis) *NOT* global warming [1]. Worst case should be discussing global warming within the context about how stupid the discussion is because the press (and politicians and the public at large) really don't understand the implications of nanotechnology. That is what *should* be important to people on this list. The sooner people see nanotechnology development as an "easy" solution to global warming, the more investment will shift in that direction and as a side effect generate nanocapabilities sooner (saving a significant fraction of the people that die every year due to a lack of nanocapabilities to deal with things like heart disease, cancer, aging in general, etc.). I wrote up the solutions to this this in my "Global Warming is a Red Herring" paper 4+ years ago. *Why* are we still discussing it? I would generally agree with the comments that warming at the poles is probably good. Any sea level increases will be modest and can be dealt with relatively easily. The additional growing season in the northern hemisphere (esp. Russia and Canada) should increase agricultural production and make food cheaper thus decrease deaths caused by insufficient affordable food resources. This does not minimize the fact that some people may be negatively impacted by global warming but the volume of the discussion is *way* out of proportion to what should be discussed regarding the relatively slow rate of progress in biotechnology & nanotechnology (either of which could be used to solve the global warming problem). Rational approaches to these problems should focus attention on what is really important -- saving lives. Robert 1. Side notes -- To pull the CO2 out of the atmosphere doesn't even require full "nanorobot" capabilities, just molecular sorting rotors [Nanosystems, pgs 374-383] which are significantly less complex to design and build. You can also easily engineer bacteria to perform the same function. If you want to discuss something interesting -- discuss the costs associated with hauling CO2 (or pure C) back from Venus, Mars, Titan, Uranus or Neptune after plant life and cyanobacteria start dying off (which will presumably cause the extinction of most "higher" life forms as well) due to the removal of excessive amounts of CO2 from the Earth's atmosphere... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 8 19:35:52 2006 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:35:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: anarcho-capitalism In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60601072225n6d72648eg69f33299df573a90@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060108193552.41711.qmail@web35702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It has always been like that, if it wasn't the state that did the hunting down then it was private groups & secret societies. Don't think all that much ever escaped scrutiny- the night has a thousand eyes. > Smaller stuff that seeks to escape scrutiny and accountability to the US >will be hunted down by the nation state that the US is becoming. >Brett nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 22:17:22 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:17:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Deseret News article: Shall we enhance? Message-ID: An interesting article in the Religion & ethics sectino of the Deseret News, which basically gives an overview of transhumanism and differing perspectives on it: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635174444,00.html I thought this part was particularly interesting, regarding Christians who promote and oppose transhumanism (a Southern Baptist and a Mormon, respectively): "The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's R. Albert Mohler Jr. is another vocal opponent of radical enhancements. It's one thing, he says, to try to give a person with bad eyesight 20/20 vision, and it's another to try to create humans whose eyesight is superhuman. The latter, he says, uses science "to redefine the species." "From a Christian worldview perspective," he says, "there are two problems with this. First, you have the normative definition of what it means to be a human being made in the image of God." To try to exceed normal human capacities, he says, "is to open, quite literally, a Pandora's Box of moral problems." The second problem, Mohler says, is the transhumanist desire to prolong life beyond normal aging. "The tranhumanists increasingly see death as an oddity that is to be overcome. Christians certainly do not embrace death as a good in itself, but we understand that death is a part of what it means to be human, and that, indeed, the effort to forever forestall death is itself an act of defiance that will be both unworkable and morally suspect." Richard Sherlock takes a different view. Sherlock is a philosophy professor at Utah State University, one of only several Utah members of the World Transhumanist Association ? and also a practicing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "We ought to be able to look at the future as an opportunity, not a threat," says Sherlock, who is also a board member of the Journal of Evolution and Technology. "I don't think you can say God has said 'this, but no more.' All these technologies are ways in which we become more like our Creator," he adds. In fact, he says, the idea of a continually advancing human "fits better within a Mormon context that sees humanity as a developing structure, aspiring to be more like God."" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon Jan 9 03:53:55 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 20:53:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Pop Ph.D.'s: How TV Ate Academics Message-ID: <43C1DE53.2050306@mindspring.com> January 8, 2006 Blackboard Pop Ph.D.'s: How TV Ate Academics By JEFF P. LEWIS TODAY'S academics, many of them Gen X or baby boomers, are far more tolerant of popular culture than previous generations, says Lynn Schofield Clark, a communications professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, whose research centers on mass media and its audiences. But she is quick to qualify, saying, "But only when it's being employed as a bridge to ideas that are relevant, timeless and important." Perhaps nothing reflects this trend more than the eclectic dissertation topics of Ph.D.'s - research interests that eventually filter into the classroom. In her own thesis, Dr. Clark studied religious symbols and adolescents, "analyzing the interpretive strategies that teens brought to such popular television programs as 'Touched by an Angel.' " Here are others topics: "Audience Reception Study of the 'Survivor' Series," Richard Crew, chairman, communications department, College Misericordia (Pennsylvania). "From the Village Blacksmith to Mr. Good Wrench: Creating Auto Mechanics in Technology's Middle Ground," Kevin L. Borg, assistant professor of history, James Madison University (Virginia). "Myth of Communion: Rhetorical Analysis of the Narratives of Alien Abductees," Stephanie Kelley-Romano, assistant professor of rhetoric, Bates College (Maine). "Sonic Waves: Careers of Rap Musicians, 1979-1995," Jennifer Lena, assistant professor of sociology, Vanderbilt University (Nashville). "Unveiled: The Emotion Work of Wedding Coordinators in the American Wedding Industry," Angela Thompson, professor of sociology, Texas Christian University. "Urban Jungles: Zoos and American Society," Jeffrey Hyson, assistant professor of history, St. Joseph's University (Philadelphia). "Lowrider Space" (as in low-riding cars), Ben Chappell, assistant professor of sociology/cultural studies, Bridgewater College (Virginia). "Doing Gender With Santa: Gender-Typing in Children's Toy Preferences," Greta E. Pennell, associate professor of teacher education, University of Indianapolis. "Spaghetti Dinners and Fireflies in a Jar: The Shaping of Paradoxical Places and Spaces in Disney's Celebration," Jennifer Prough, instructor of humanities and anthropology, Valparaiso University (Indiana). "Reading Culture, Engendering Girls: The Politics of the Everyday in the Production of Girls' Manga" (Japanese comics), Andrew Wood, associate professor of communications, San Jose State University. http://select.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?emc=tnt&tntget=2006/01/08/education/edlife/phds.html&tntemail1=y -- "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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 9 17:04:22 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 09:04:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Fifth Singularity and benefits of murder In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60601080214jdddeb3fx92e004ff9ac23e99@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060109170422.72310.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > The reasoning explaining why the ability to kill and > devour is the > basis for all eukaryotic complexity is really worth > reading, as is the > whole book. Interesting perspective, Rafal, but let us not forget that metaphyta, otherwise known as the plant kingdom, are eukaryotes as well. And if it weren't for them, the "killers" could not use their mitochondria to breath. I think that chloroplasts are therefore probably every bit as important as mitochondria in the shaping of eukaryotic complexity. Furthermore as much eukaryotic complexity is derived from the need NOT to be killed and eaten as is derived from the need to kill and eat. The gazelle runs to escape the cheetah and the cheetah runs to escape starvation. Both run to survive. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 9 17:29:27 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 09:29:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060109172927.76175.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > The > sooner people see > nanotechnology development as an "easy" solution to > global warming, the more > investment will shift in that direction and as a > side effect generate > nanocapabilities sooner (saving a significant > fraction of the people that > die every year due to a lack of nanocapabilities to > deal with things like > heart disease, cancer, aging in general, etc.). Yes, Robert, but until enough people start to see global warming as a PROBLEM (oddly enough it need not actually BE a problem, mind you, merely percieved as one), it will not warrant a SOLUTION, nanotech or otherwise. By your own logic then, every transhumanist should be scaring the wits out of their neighbors with the threat of global warming even if they don't actually believe there is a threat. Simply because it will accelerate progress in nanotechnology. Once developed those technologies could be used for SENS and other applications. I think if there is a shortcoming amongst transhumanists, it is that they look so far into the future that they get ahead of themselves. It's like trying to drive looking through a telescope. What does it matter if you can see your destination from miles away if you cannot see the obstacles immediately in front of you? The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Jan 9 19:45:05 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 14:45:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) In-Reply-To: <20060109172927.76175.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060109172927.76175.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 1/9/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > By your own logic then, every transhumanist > should be scaring the wits out of their neighbors with > the threat of global warming even if they don't > actually believe there is a threat. Simply because it > will accelerate progress in nanotechnology. Hmmm... I would then suggest that we might then need an age and location specific "scaring the wits" strategies. With respect to just about everyone 50-60+ aging and *death* will impact them significantly (and much more negatively) than global warming will in their generally anticipated lifetime. With respect to location, people living in places like Chicago, Montreal, Fairbanks, Moscow, etc. are going "Yea, bring it on" when you mention global warming (esp. this time of year) [you can include me, currently residing in Boston, as being part of this group]. Hell, I've always wanted to go waterskiiing in the summer on Great Slave Lake. The argument tends to fall apart as most people who have some understanding of global warming, nanotechnology, aging, transhumanism, etc. have *very* little contact with those who may be most negatively impacted by it (e.g. those in Brazil, central Africa, India, S.E. Asia and low lying islands). So it tends to look to me like a lot of scientists "crying wolf" to get support for their favorite research interests. The only "significant" negative impacts one can envision out of global warming are shutting down the Gulf Stream (which may require melting the Greenland ice cap -- or *more*) and what is probably worse -- a massive melting of the methane clathrates throughout the world. However neither of those situations is being predicted by currently envisioned global warming. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Jan 9 20:02:45 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 14:02:45 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) References: <20060109172927.76175.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004901c61557$aaad25d0$0100a8c0@kevin> >The only "significant" negative impacts one can envision out of global warming are shutting down the Gulf Stream (which may require >melting the Greenland ice cap -- or *more*) and what is probably worse -- a massive melting of the methane clathrates throughout >the world. However neither of those situations is being predicted by currently envisioned global warming. Care to elaborate on WHY neither of these has been brought the the attention of the lay person? If you go out in public and ask people if they are scared of global warming, a lot will probbaly say yes, but when asked why they won't have an answer. They only know that they have been conditioned to fear a gradual change in average temperature by a degree or two over a period of decades. Usually the fear mongers make up all sorts of whacky reasons to scare people, but the have constantly overlooked the methane clathrates that may be responsible for such things as the Permian-Triassic extinction event. Instead, people worry about retreating glaciers, melting ice caps and wacky weather. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Jan 9 21:42:03 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 16:42:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) In-Reply-To: <004901c61557$aaad25d0$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <20060109172927.76175.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> <004901c61557$aaad25d0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On 1/9/06, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > Care to elaborate on WHY neither of these has been brought the the > attention of the lay person? > Well, the article I just briefly glanced at suggested that one has to dump a lot more water than is in the Greenland ice cap into the N. Atlantic to halt the Gulf Stream (and I don't have time to go investigate this in detail right now). In the case of the methane clathrate, I think there is significant uncertainty as to how much of it there is, how much warming may need to occur, and the extent to which it might cause run away global warming. I think the problems have been discussed but nobody wants to push on these given the very large uncertainties that would be associated with making a strong case for them. It has taken a couple of decades for people to get somewhat serious about the asteroid risk. You may be running into general human apathy something along the lines of "If it hasn't happened to my grandfather or my father it isn't likely to happen to me." Most people are *not* very good at evaluating the relative risks associated with their aggregate hazard function. For example, in my remaining lifetime, which should I fear more (a) the probability of Boston being destroyed by an asteroid; (b) radiation risk from a terrorist nuclear or dirty bomb boing off in Boston Harbor; or (c) the radon gas probably leaking out of the granite countertops in the house I am now living in? I could obviously come up with a couple of dozen examples to add to this list without thinking very hard. When I do things along that line, the general response from people is usually something to the effect of, "Please stop you are making my head hurt." Robert Side note: If the Gulf Stream does shut down, Boston is likely to become colder as well, so I'd side with the Europeans in being concerned about that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Tue Jan 10 00:28:22 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 16:28:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] 6 challenges to Drexlerian nanotech Message-ID: <20060110002822.9752C57F8C@finney.org> I've mentioned before that an excellent nanotech Blog is Soft Machines, by Richard Jones, . Jones is a British nanotech researcher and is active in the debates over nanotech policy as chair of the Nanotech Engagement Group. He is also a long-time critic of the Drexlerian nanotech paradigm. In his book Soft Machines he advocates a biological model for atomic design and says that the stiff diamondoid that Drexler relies on will not actually work the way Drexler says. (BTW although it is not what I want to comment on, take a look at where Jones describes research showing that buckyballs are not toxic to fish after all, in fact they are protective! Supposedly the earlier, widely publicised results were due to sloppy experimental procedure.) A recent blog posting described six "challenges" for the Drexlerian molecular manufacturing paradigm. These are problems which Jones feels have not been clearly addressed by researchers in the field, problems which could make the whole thing be a non-starter. The challenges: 1. Stability of nanoclusters and surface reconstruction. 2. Thermal noise, Brownian motion and tolerance. 3. Friction and energy dissipation. 4. Design for a motor. 5. The eutactic environment and the feed-through problem. 6. Implementation path. In listing them here I don't do justice to Jones' extensive elaborations on each point and his demonstration of how they work together. For example point 4, the need for a sound nanomechanical motor, points out that Drexler's sketch of an electrostatic motor is likely to run into problems either with surface reconstruction (point 1) or Brownian motion (point 2). Unfortunately, Jones well-though-out critiques, head and shoulders above most of what you read about nanotech, have been met only with silence from the Drexlerian advocacy camp. Nanodot has not mentioned them, nor has CRN . In particular, CRN with their frequent claims that Drexler's Nanosystems is inerrant, should note Jones' pointers to research showing that nanoscale friction measurements are much greater that Drexler's calculations, throwing many of his design techniques into question. I find that this blog is a refreshing peek into the mainstream of nanotech research and is free of the cultishness which sometimes attends discussions of Drexler's ideas. Reading this you see why Drexler is seen from within the professional research community as something of a wild card who is well outside the mainstream. It is always good to see as many viewpoints as possible so I strongly recommend reading Jones' blog along with the others I listed above. Hal Finney From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 10 00:26:52 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 16:26:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060110002652.28175.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > The only "significant" negative impacts one can > envision out of global > warming are shutting down the Gulf Stream (which may > require melting the > Greenland ice cap -- or *more*) and what is probably > worse -- a massive > melting of the methane clathrates throughout the > world. However neither of > those situations is being predicted by currently > envisioned global warming. Well there are other more subtle threats. For example global warming is believed to be partially responsible (along with increased air travel) for the spreading northward of tropical disease vectoring insects such as mosquitos carrying dengue fever, yellow fever, west nile virus, and all sorts of nasty plagues to northern latitudes. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/07/17/global.warming.enn/ The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Jan 10 01:18:56 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 20:18:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason Message-ID: Ok, lets see if I can keep this at an elevated level. I saw a show on CSPAN2 a couple of nights ago. Apparently a presentation by Sam Harris [1] author of "The End of Faith" [2,3] to the New York Society for Ethical Culture [4]. He made ~5 arguments against the tolerance by rational individuals of religious based perspectives (be they Christan fundamentalism or Muslim). One of his perspectives seemed to revolve around the fact that all religions are *not* equal and we should stop pretending that they are. He asked the fundamental question of "Where are the Buddhist suicide bombers?" (given the extent to which the Buddhists have been abused by the Chinese), or to an even greater extent "Where are the Jain militants?" (Jain's are an Indian religion that he suggested were extremely non-violent in their beliefs). His fundamental position seemed to be that the traditional position of "tolerance" by "moderates" for religious extremism, particularly that which is fundamentally unextropic, and particularly that which is based on the acceptance of irrational perspectives, should be discontinued. I.e. it is no longer acceptable for one to reject active forms of the destruction of information (e.g. suicide bombers) but one must extend that to passive forms of the destruction of information (e.g. irrational religions). I would tend to agree. If there are those who would like to support my renomination to the ExI Board based on the platform that all information as is feasible should be preserved and that the execution of programs which seek to destroy information without a substantive argument that such information is worthless (i.e. a legitimate reason to erase information rather than simply an unjustified assertion that one religion is right and another is wrong) should be terminated, I would be willing to accept such a nomination. Note carefully, that I am *not* saying that the information potentially contained in external programs should be erased (e.g. current forms of capital punishment) -- I am simply saying that the execution of programs that would intentionally erase information without a really good (proven) reason should cease execution. So, in some respects, I am throwing my glove down to the ExI board. Either you *are* or you are *not* extropic. Harris has, in my mind, outlined the problems with being a "tolerant" extropian. The problem with that is that it means transhumanism rules and extropianism falls. In transhumansism (using its most basic definitions) there is no moral compass. One can become transhuman along many vectors, some good, some bad. With extropianism, there is at least some guideline -- more information is good, information destruction (entropy) is bad, allowing (or worse enabling) the destruction of information is bad, etc.. This leads to the questions of what paths will generate the most "good" information the soonest (perhaps with the minimal destruction of *perceived* less useful information) and how does one deal with entirely unexplored paths (where the information gain may have positive, neutral or negative consequences). Robert 1. http://www.samharris.org/ 2. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393327655 3. End of Faith may be related to Jacoby's "Freethinkers : A History of American Secularism", if Amazon is selecting things correctly... See: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805074422 4. http://www.nysec.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HerbM at learnquick.com Tue Jan 10 02:28:02 2006 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 20:28:02 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: Message-ID: _____ From: Robert Bradbury I saw a show on CSPAN2 a couple of nights ago. Apparently a presentation by Sam Harris [1] author of "The End of Faith" [2,3] to the New York Society for Ethical Culture [4]. He made ~5 arguments against the tolerance by rational individuals of religious based perspectives (be they Christan fundamentalism or Muslim). One of his perspectives seemed to revolve around the fact that all religions are *not* equal and we should stop pretending that they are. He asked the fundamental question of "Where are the Buddhist suicide bombers?" (given the extent to which the Buddhists have been abused by the Chinese), or to an even greater extent "Where are the Jain militants?" (Jain's are an Indian religion that he suggested were extremely non-violent in their beliefs). The simple answer for the Buddhists is that their suicide bombers killed only themselves when they felt something was egregious enough a violation to warrant self-sacrifice and made sure that no one else was harmed. And I think this makes your (and Harris') point even more strongly. His fundamental position seemed to be that the traditional position of "tolerance" by "moderates" for religious extremism, particularly that which is fundamentally unextropic, and particularly that which is based on the acceptance of irrational perspectives, should be discontinued. I.e. it is no longer acceptable for one to reject active forms of the destruction of information (e.g. suicide bombers) but one must extend that to passive forms of the destruction of information (e.g. irrational religions). I would tend to agree. It's only logical. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Jan 10 03:00:32 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 19:00:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200601100300.k0A30ae12939@tick.javien.com> ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Herb Martin Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 6:28 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason ________________________________________ From: Robert Bradbury ... "Where are the Jain militants?" ... ? The simple answer for the Buddhists is that their suicide bombers killed only themselves when they felt something was egregious enough a violation to warrant self-sacrifice and made sure that no one else was harmed. ? And I think this makes your (and Harris') point even more strongly... I like the Buddhists. If I were to ever get religion again, it would be that one. That one Buddhist priest that did the human torch thing way back in the 60s was more effective than all the modern suicide bombers as far as calling actual attention to a cause. I was only a child at the time, yet I still remember he was about government interference with their practice of religion. Consider the suicide bombers that kill others today. I don't even want to know what their motive might be. By slaying innocents, they forfeit any attention on my part. But now I pledge that if any protestor should follow the example of the peaceful Buddhist, I will go out of my way to find out why he did it. Fair enough? Actually better yet, that form of protest they used recently in Africa where the women stripped naked: no loss of life, no property damage, and they have my full and undivided. spike From jay.dugger at gmail.com Tue Jan 10 04:25:36 2006 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:25:36 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060106174413.01c6c7c0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0601092025q171c3779r7b9c0467e477f20f@mail.gmail.com> On 1/8/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Who cares?!? > [snip] > I wrote up the solutions to this this in my "Global Warming is a Red > Herring" paper 4+ years ago. *Why* are we still discussing it? > [snip] http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Papers/GWiaRH.html seems a dead link, Robert. Can you post a valid link for it, and for the rest of aeiveos.com? -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. From fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue Jan 10 05:06:57 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:06:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] CRS on declaration of war and AUMFS Message-ID: <43C340F1.1010605@mindspring.com> CRS ON DECLARATIONS OF WAR AND AUMFS The distinction between a formal declaration of war and an authorization for use of military force was addressed in an exceptionally informative report of the Congressional Research Service in 2003. "With respect to domestic law, a declaration of war automatically brings into effect numerous standby statutory authorities conferring special powers on the President with respect to the military, foreign trade, transportation, communications, manufacturing, alien enemies, etc." "In contrast, no standby authorities appear to be triggered automatically by an authorization for the use of force." The history of both categories is delineated, including the texts of the eleven formal declarations of war and the most important authorizations for use of military force, along with an itemization of the various statutes that are triggered directly or indirectly in each case. The 112 page CRS report is not generally available in the public domain. A copy was obtained by Secrecy News. See "Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications," updated January 14, 2003: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf -- "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 fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue Jan 10 05:06:48 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:06:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Edison's 'Conquest Of Mars' Message-ID: <43C340E8.4020802@mindspring.com> From: Nick Balaskas To: UFO UpDates - Toronto Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 11:45:33 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: Edison's 'Conquest Of Mars' Hi Everyone! I got to hear and meet with Robert Godwin, publisher of Apogee Books, when he gave a talk last Wednesday to the members of the Toronto Centre of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada at the Ontario Science Centre last Wednesday. Godwin gave many examples of long forgotten works of science fiction and scientific speculations by astronomers from the late 19th and early 20th centuries that not only directly influenced many of the space scientists and engineers of this generation that got us to the Moon and shaped our ideas about Mars but who also played a part in creating our present beliefs about aliens and UFOs. Many of us are familiar with H.G. Wells 1897 'War of the World' that created panic when it was first broadcast on radio in 1938 and later popularized in several films, including Steven Spielberg's version that was in the cinemas last summer, but few know that the Hearst publishing empire commissioned a sequel in 1898 called 'Edison's Conquest of Mars' that was serialized in their many newspapers. In this sequel, an armada of manmade cigar shaped UFOs were built and first test flown to the Moon before this 19th century international financed human invasion of Mars was launched from Earth (sounds familiar?). Now for the first time a book version of this sequel is now available by Apogee Books, the Canadian based space publishing company. Can Spielberg's sequel 'War of the Worlds 2' where it is our turn to kick some Martian butt be in the works too (a few years ago I had fun playing a soldier who gets killed chasing the Martians through the woods in the movie pilot of the short lived TV series 'War of the Worlds'). http://www.cgpublishing.com/Books/Edison.html Although Godwin's talk seemed to convince his audience that our science fiction and human creative ingenuity of the past can account for the rash of flying saucer sightings of the present and he also dismissed the Roswell UFO crash as nonsense, when I approached him after his talk to get him to sign my copy off 'Mars, The NASA Mission Reports' he was startled when I stated that I believed that some UFOs are real and not from Earth. I also reminded Godwin about the astronaut post flight debriefings reproduced in his three volume set on Apollo 11 that describe an unexplained UFO sighting in space made by these astronauts which he himself discussed on Errol Bruce-Knapp's 'Strange Days... Indeed' show 171 four years earlier! I encourage all of you to check out Godwin's other excellent and unique Apogee books on manned space flight and view the rare footage in the CDs/DVDs that accompany them which will allow you to relive many amazing and incredible moments in human space flight or to discover them for the first time. http://www.cgpublishing.com/Books/SPACE_SPLASH.html Godwin has visited many of NASA's facilities where he has seen valuable documents thought to have been lost or destroyed (including a room the size of the auditorium he spoke at which contained all the technical records of the Saturn V, the world's largest and most successful rocket which, if production was not cancelled, could have been used to place all the parts for the International Space Station into orbit in a couple of launches) and talked with many of the its past and present astronauts and employees, including Werner von Braun's right-hand man Ernst Stuhlinger and many other still living Project Paperclip space scientists from Nazi Germany who I know have a lot of important but still untold stories about space - and UFOs - that Godwin is unaware of and would be very surprised to learn about. Nick Balaskas -- "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 jef at jefallbright.net Tue Jan 10 05:30:26 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:30:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22360fa10601092130o12b2db6cw4ade3fb866c5eee3@mail.gmail.com> On 1/9/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > If there are those who would like to support my renomination to the ExI > Board based on the platform that all information as is feasible should be > preserved and that the execution of programs which seek to destroy > information without a substantive argument that such information is > worthless ( i.e. a legitimate reason to erase information rather than simply > an unjustified assertion that one religion is right and another is wrong) > should be terminated, I would be willing to accept such a nomination. Note > carefully, that I am *not* saying that the information potentially contained > in external programs should be erased ( e.g. current forms of capital > punishment) -- I am simply saying that the execution of programs that would > intentionally erase information without a really good (proven) reason should > cease execution. > > So, in some respects, I am throwing my glove down to the ExI board. Either > you *are* or you are *not* extropic. Harris has, in my mind, outlined the > problems with being a "tolerant" extropian. The problem with that is that > it means transhumanism rules and extropianism falls. In transhumansism > (using its most basic definitions) there is no moral compass. One can > become transhuman along many vectors, some good, some bad. With > extropianism, there is at least some guideline -- more information is good, > information destruction (entropy) is bad, allowing (or worse enabling) the > destruction of information is bad, etc.. This leads to the questions of > what paths will generate the most "good" information the soonest (perhaps > with the minimal destruction of *perceived* less useful information) and > how does one deal with entirely unexplored paths (where the information gain > may have positive, neutral or negative consequences). Robert - I would certainly nominate and vote for you to rejoin the ExI board, if I were a dues-paying member, which remains unlikely since the time Max removed himself from active participation. While I don't entirely agree with your positions, I admire the intellectual rigor and the passion of your posts, the obvious time and effort you invest in the subjects, and the integrity with which you promote your values. Speaking of which, that's why I willingly contribute a small amount to SIAI, even though I don't entirely agree with the party line there either. I don't think all information is equally worthy of preservation because being a subjective agent in a competitive environment forces us to make choices according to our values. Interestingly, I see tolerance of competing beliefs as a "good" to the extent that they provide essential diversity to the creative process, but beyond that point at the edge of chaos such tolerance of incongruent beliefs is destructive and better not tolerated. A more enlightened theory of social decision-making will help us clarify and ratify such principles of growth of values that work, and I would strongly support efforts in that direction rather than what I see as a somewhat naive platform promoting the "saving of all information." When you say the following: "This leads to the questions of what paths will generate the most "good" information the soonest (perhaps with the minimal destruction of *perceived* less useful information) and how does one deal with entirely unexplored paths (where the information gain may have positive, neutral or negative consequences). then I suspect we might actually be in close alignment after all. - Jef From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Jan 10 05:46:24 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:46:24 -0500 Subject: Fwd: [extropy-chat] The Fifth Singularity and benefits of murder In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60601091040v59da4587k868b03580d859621@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60601080214jdddeb3fx92e004ff9ac23e99@mail.gmail.com> <20060109170422.72310.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60601091040v59da4587k868b03580d859621@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60601092146v71aeaf66i47b01aaa110dd45@mail.gmail.com> I am forwarding a post which was accidentally sent offlist. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafal Smigrodzki Date: Jan 9, 2006 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Fifth Singularity and benefits of murder To: The Avantguardian On 1/9/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: > > The reasoning explaining why the ability to kill and > > devour is the > > basis for all eukaryotic complexity is really worth > > reading, as is the > > whole book. > > Interesting perspective, Rafal, but let us not forget > that metaphyta, otherwise known as the plant kingdom, > are eukaryotes as well. And if it weren't for them, > the "killers" could not use their mitochondria to > breath. I think that chloroplasts are therefore > probably every bit as important as mitochondria in the > shaping of eukaryotic complexity. ### Oxygen in the air, as you correctly point out, is the reason why the alpha-proteobacteria that gave rise to mitochondria evolved in the first place. However, plants are not the initial source of oxygen - it was first produced in large quantities by cyanobacteria two billion years ago, a billion years ago before the first tiny leaves oriented to the sun. Plants are nothing but the progeny of ruthless, eykaryotic, mitochondria-containing predators who learned to be nice only after eating a cyanobacterium and enslaving it to work for them. So, yes, the chloroplast that came from the cyanobacterium is enormously important for the history of life, but it was not responsible for the generation of eukaryotic complexity. In the darknes of their inner self plants are predators, too ---------------------------------- Furthermore as much > eukaryotic complexity is derived from the need NOT to > be killed and eaten as is derived from the need to > kill and eat. The gazelle runs to escape the cheetah > and the cheetah runs to escape starvation. Both run to > survive. ### Yes, some of the elaborations on the theme are less blood-spattered than others but in the eukatyotic beginning, there was carnage. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Jan 10 06:19:11 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 01:19:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Fifth Singularity and benefits of murder In-Reply-To: <20060109202340.46873.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7641ddc60601091040v59da4587k868b03580d859621@mail.gmail.com> <20060109202340.46873.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60601092219k4e0736cbmf7db3cfa19e04976@mail.gmail.com> On 1/9/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: However, plants are not the initial > > source of oxygen - it > > was first produced in large quantities by > > cyanobacteria two billion > > years ago, a billion years ago before the first tiny > > leaves oriented > > to the sun. > > Perhaps then, it is the cyanobacteria that struck the > first blow of the evolutionary arms race by attempting > to poison their peaceful methanogen neighbors with > noxious oxygen. Then the anaerobic archaea would have > no choice but to engulf the alpha-proteobacteria, to > save them from the attempted genocide by the > cyanobacterium. :) ### Indeed, the arrival of the cyanobacteria resulted in a titanic act of mayhem, with massvie amounts of oxygen being elaborated in geologically short periods of time. Most of the worlds iron ores date from that time, as increasing concentrations of oxygen precipitated the iron dissolved in the oceans and caused it to settle in a rain of rust, sometimes hundreds of meters thick. The upper levels of the ocean were scoured of non-cyan life for a time, until other bacteria made a comeback. Yes, that was an age of mayhem, too. Not even the cyans have a clean conscience. Still, their crimes were impersonal, a murder by externality (oxygen), and occurred by accident rather than design. ------------------------- > > Ironically, even if murder was rampant, it was an act > of mercy by the progenitors of the eukaryotes in NOT > digesting the progenitors of the mitochondria that > enabled the survival of the eukaryotic line. ### Nick Lane favors the hydrogen theory of eukaryotic formation, according to which the eukaryote didn't develop by incomplete devouring of the mitochondrial progenitor by an archaea. Instead, there was progressive attachment with mutual benefits, between an archaea (the progenitor of the nucleus and the cytoplasm) and the alpha-proteobacterium (the progenitor of mitochondria). Neither could devour the other because at that time, murder by eating was still not invented (for complex reasons well-described in the book). Only after the two learned to live together in an unholy union did their monstrous progeny take to chomping on the flesh of its neighbors. Thus started the age of personalized, premeditated, one-on-one slaughter, a killing with gusto rather than by accident. ------------------------------ > Yes there was carnage but there was cooperation too. I > would think that a researcher of mitochondria would > have more of an appreciation for the power of > symbiosis. If natural history is red in tooth and > claw, it is filled with acts of selfish kindness as > well. ### Selfish kindness! This is a good way of putting it. (There is something oddly amusing in applying anthropomorphic terms to the mindless interactions of tiny chemical automata.) Rafal From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 10 08:28:10 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:28:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060110082811.49125.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > Sam Harris [. . .] made ~5 arguments > against the tolerance by > rational individuals of religious based perspectives > (be they Christan > fundamentalism or Muslim). One of his perspectives > seemed to revolve around > the fact that all religions are *not* equal and we > should stop pretending > that they are. > He asked the fundamental question of > "Where are the Buddhist > suicide bombers?" (given the extent to which the > Buddhists have been abused > by the Chinese) Well I imagine a good number of them are lying at bottom of Pearl Harbor somewhere near the Arizona Memorial. Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal of respect for the Buddhist philosophy which has had a huge impact on my world view, but to believe that there is something inherently pacifist about ALL Buddhism is to ignore Buddhism's historical context. Remember that various sects of Buddhism have easily had as great an effect on Asian military tradition as Christianity has had on Western military tradition. >From the Shaolin warrior monks of China to the Zen Buddhist influence on the Budo arts of Imperial Japan, Buddhism has served the violent ends of the states that have sponsored it as readily as Islam or any other religion. While one can say that the Buddhist teachings extol the virtues of peace and advocate violence only in the cause of self-defense, one could likewise defend Christianity on the grounds that, amongst other platitudes, it advocates turning the other cheek. The fact of the matter is, Buddhism like every other religion, has had a severe disconnect between its preachings and its historical practice. Is this a fault of the meme or a limitation of the minds that hold it? I believe it is the latter. The same can be said of any other religion exploited by those with the will to incite the gullible to violence for personal gain. I am not certain that the eradication of religion will solve this. People can become fanatical about almost anything. Take away religion and the war-mongers will utilize something else to bring death and destruction into the world. Nationalism, Rock Concerts, and Soccer Games can all be used to incite the suggestable to violence against their neighbors. Let us not forget that the ancient Pythagoreans used math as an excuse to murder those who had the temerity to believe that the square roots of certain numbers could not be rendered as perfect fractions. , or to an even greater extent "Where > are the Jain > militants?" (Jain's are an Indian religion that he > suggested were extremely > non-violent in their beliefs). Well this is like asking, "Where are the dodos?". They died out. MOST LIKELY because of their entirely pacifist ways. If your religion dictates that you should rather die than step on bug, you and your religion are not long for this world. > His fundamental position seemed to be that the > traditional position of > "tolerance" by "moderates" for religious extremism, > particularly that which > is fundamentally unextropic, and particularly that > which is based on the > acceptance of irrational perspectives, should be > discontinued. But all fanaticism is irrational even when the memes one is fanatical about are rational. Nazism was heavily influenced by Neitsche's nihilism which was a RATIONAL philosophy and state-enforced rational atheism did not prevent Stalin from killing millions in the former USSR. > I.e. it is > no longer acceptable for one to reject active forms > of the destruction of > information (e.g. suicide bombers) but one must > extend that to passive forms > of the destruction of information (e.g. irrational > religions). Well I am not sure how responsible irrational religions are for the passive destruction of information. While I am against the religiously motivated burning of books, I don't think that simply believing in one after-life or another suffices as a mechanism of information destruction. > If there are those who would like to support my > renomination to the ExI > Board based on the platform that all information as > is feasible should be > preserved and that the execution of programs which > seek to destroy > information without a substantive argument that such > information is > worthless (i.e. a legitimate reason to erase > information rather than simply > an unjustified assertion that one religion is right > and another is wrong) > should be terminated, I would be willing to accept > such a nomination. Who gets to judge the worth of the information? For that matter HOW does one judge the worth of information? Should it be sheer rationality? Much of beautiful literature is not necessarily rational. Alice in Wonderland isn't a very rational story. Should it be banned? What is the worth of a platypus? Is the platypus rational? I am against the elimination of the platypus regardless of possible answers to these questions. If there was a platypus cult that believed that the platypus was nature's most perfect organism and all had to worship it or die, I might tell the cultists to bugger off but I would still be against the elimination of the platypus. That the platypus can be exploited by the cultists to further their own power has no bearing on the intrinsic worth of the platypus. Does my support of the platypus makes me complicit in the abhorrent conduct of the platypus cultists? I don't think so. > Note carefully, that I am *not* saying that the > information potentially contained > in external programs should be erased (e.g. current > forms of capital > punishment) As opposed to future or past forms of capital punishment? Talk about euphemisms. :) > -- I am simply saying that the execution > of programs that would > intentionally erase information without a really > good (proven) reason should > cease execution. Is simple competition for mind-share a good reason for one program to erase another? If not, then is hunger a good reason for the human program to erase the chicken program? Or the chicken program to erase the grasshopper program? > So, in some respects, I am throwing my glove down to > the ExI board . . . I am not a member of the ExI board, so I will bow out at this point. Suffice it to say that I think tolerance is a postive virtue within limits. Tolerating an idea and the person who holds it is one thing but tolerating those who would use that idea as an excuse to do harm to others, especially me, is another matter entirely. For what it is worth, I am not opposed to your reinstatement on the board, provided you realize that some sentiments, no matter how coldly rational they may seem to you, should only be communicated by private channels. On an email list such as this, freedom of expression must be tempered with an eye for public propriety because, by proxy, more than your own personal reputation is at stake. Feel free to privately email me with whatever floats your boat, however, as you will find me a bit more indulgent when not in the public eye. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From alex at ramonsky.com Tue Jan 10 09:34:17 2006 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:34:17 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] personal display References: <200601070352.k073q3e17666@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <43C37F99.7060300@ramonsky.com> Dude, I've had one of these for four years : ) See: http://home.ramonsky.com/not-for-wimps/index.html .....and scroll down : ) Xybernaught do them nice & cheap. AR ********* spike wrote: >Hey cool, I have been waiting for years for something like >this to come along: > >http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=36560 > > >{8-] > >spike > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Jan 10 09:51:29 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 04:51:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: <20060110082811.49125.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060110082811.49125.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 1/10/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > > but to believe that > there is something inherently pacifist about ALL > Buddhism is to ignore Buddhism's historical context. > Remember that various sects of Buddhism have easily > had as great an effect on Asian military tradition as > Christianity has had on Western military tradition. > > >From the Shaolin warrior monks of China to the Zen > Buddhist influence on the Budo arts of Imperial Japan, > Buddhism has served the violent ends of the states > that have sponsored it as readily as Islam or any > other religion. The quoting I'm seeing in gmail is a bit strange so I'm not sure who is saying what. However in defense of Harris he did note a possible exception with respect to (Zen) Buddhism with respect to its possible influence on Zero bomber pilots in WWII. This involves discussions of various flavors of religions which may have been influenced (corrupted?) by state agendas. The relationship between "religion" and "culture" in Japan, particularly the "god-like" stature of the Emperor (not too different from the pharaohs of Egypt) is very complex [1]. Robert 1. Just as an aside it is interesting to note that the longevity of political systems based on a physical embodiment of a "god" (e.g. those of Japan and Egypt) seems to be significantly greater than systems lacking such a component. Interesting to consider whether those in favor of a FAI are attempting to recreate an evolved form of such a framework. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jan 10 11:06:22 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:06:22 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] personal display In-Reply-To: <43C37F99.7060300@ramonsky.com> References: <200601070352.k073q3e17666@tick.javien.com> <43C37F99.7060300@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: On 1/10/06, Alex Ramonsky wrote: > Dude, I've had one of these for four years : ) See: > > http://home.ramonsky.com/not-for-wimps/index.html > > .....and scroll down : ) > Xybernaught do them nice & cheap. > AR Eyesight Warning!!! If you want to read the above page, switch colors off before going there. BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 10 23:32:15 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:32:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> On Jan 9, 2006, at 5:18 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Ok, lets see if I can keep this at an elevated level. > As opposed to? > > If there are those who would like to support my renomination to the > ExI Board based on the platform that all information as is feasible > should be preserved and that the execution of programs which seek > to destroy information without a substantive argument that such > information is worthless ( i.e. a legitimate reason to erase > information rather than simply an unjustified assertion that one > religion is right and another is wrong) should be terminated, I > would be willing to accept such a nomination. Note carefully, that > I am *not* saying that the information potentially contained in > external programs should be erased ( e.g. current forms of capital > punishment) -- I am simply saying that the execution of programs > that would intentionally erase information without a really good > (proven) reason should cease execution. > I don't think positioning on "information" is particularly clear and therefore not a good platform. How would this "cease execution" be implemented? I wouldn't want to see a board member advocating nuking Iran, for instance or doing a Pat Robertson advocacy of assassinating people like Pat Robertson. > So, in some respects, I am throwing my glove down to the ExI > board. Either you *are* or you are *not* extropic. Harris has, in > my mind, outlined the problems with being a "tolerant" extropian. While I have less and less tolerance for a lot of imho brain damaged and brain damaging notions, beliefs and practices, I am not altogether comfortable with hardline pronouncements about who and what is and is not extropic from you or any other supposed authority. Discussions about such are fine though. > The problem with that is that it means transhumanism rules and > extropianism falls. In transhumansism (using its most basic > definitions) there is no moral compass. One can become transhuman > along many vectors, some good, some bad. With extropianism, there > is at least some guideline -- more information is good, information > destruction (entropy) is bad, allowing (or worse enabling) the > destruction of information is bad, etc.. This leads to the > questions of what paths will generate the most "good" information > the soonest (perhaps with the minimal destruction of *perceived* > less useful information) and how does one deal with entirely > unexplored paths (where the information gain may have positive, > neutral or negative consequences). Perhaps in seeking elevated style you have become too abstract to make your meaning clear. Please say more. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 10 23:37:46 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:37:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ice cores show warming 'natural' (or not) In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060106174413.01c6c7c0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <637BC21D-9172-4B10-9C7D-5AC193C85AF4@mac.com> On Jan 8, 2006, at 8:36 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Who cares?!? > > I wrote up the solutions to this this in my "Global Warming is a > Red Herring" paper 4+ years ago. *Why* are we still discussing it? > Because you were shortsighted then and assumed things not in evidence (e.g., particular kinds of nanotech and their effects) and you still are now. - samantha From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Jan 10 23:42:28 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:42:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Martinot situation - from [GRG] French Cryonics Prohibition Message-ID: Some of you may recall our discussion of the Martinot situation in the past. Here is the latest update. Interesting that the justification was "the interests of public order and public health". Yes, public "health" certainly might suffer if the population came to realize that all of the people one has allowed to "die" could have been saved and I suppose public "order" might suffer if religions as a group came to realize that they didn't have the exclusive "lock" on life after death anymore. But I'd *love* to see that reasoning spelled out in writing. Robert ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Louis Epstein Date: Jan 10, 2006 6:11 PM Subject: [GRG] French Cryonics Prohibition To: grg at lists.ucla.edu http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi /world/europe/4600192.stm Will be interesting to see what the final outcome is. But I don't see cryosuspension becoming remotely commonplace until there is some demonstration of reanimation. -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. _______________________________________________ GRG mailing list GRG at lists.ucla.edu http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Jan 11 00:03:29 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:03:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Martinot situation - from [GRG] French Cryonics Prohibition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060111000329.81856.qmail@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Public health: this being a home rig (as opposed to a dedicated, professional facility), what happens if the cryo's interrupted by the vessels breaching? Decomposing bodies are most certainly detrimental to public health, unless contained (like, say, underground). Public order: merely storing the bodies is one thing, but charging for tours is another. Contrast with, say, Alcor, which has a financial dependance on serving its patients rather than on the public thinking this novel and/or macabre. If this had been a dedicated, professional facility (with plans for what happens in case of breach, and no nonprofessionalisms like charging for tours), the odds might have been better. --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > Some of you may recall our discussion of the Martinot situation in > the > past. Here is the latest update. > > Interesting that the justification was "the interests of public order > and > public health". > > Yes, public "health" certainly might suffer if the population came to > realize that all of the people one has allowed to "die" could have > been > saved and I suppose public "order" might suffer if religions as a > group came > to realize that they didn't have the exclusive "lock" on life after > death > anymore. But I'd *love* to see that reasoning spelled out in > writing. > > Robert > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Louis Epstein > Date: Jan 10, 2006 6:11 PM > Subject: [GRG] French Cryonics Prohibition > To: grg at lists.ucla.edu > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi > /world/europe/4600192.stm > Will be interesting to see what the final outcome is. > > But I don't see cryosuspension becoming remotely commonplace > until there is some demonstration of reanimation. > > -=-=- > The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, > at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. > > _______________________________________________ > GRG mailing list > GRG at lists.ucla.edu > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grg > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From l4point at gmail.com Wed Jan 11 02:34:20 2006 From: l4point at gmail.com (Mike Hayes) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:34:20 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> References: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> Message-ID: <6b5e09390601101834g38553d0ey1a59b25e20c1e74@mail.gmail.com> All needed answers to these questions may be found in that sacred text known as the "futurama cartoon series" Mike Hayes On 1/10/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 2006, at 5:18 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > Ok, lets see if I can keep this at an elevated level. > > > > As opposed to? > > > > > If there are those who would like to support my renomination to the > > ExI Board based on the platform that all information as is feasible > > should be preserved and that the execution of programs which seek > > to destroy information without a substantive argument that such > > information is worthless ( i.e. a legitimate reason to erase > > information rather than simply an unjustified assertion that one > > religion is right and another is wrong) should be terminated, I > > would be willing to accept such a nomination. Note carefully, that > > I am *not* saying that the information potentially contained in > > external programs should be erased ( e.g. current forms of capital > > punishment) -- I am simply saying that the execution of programs > > that would intentionally erase information without a really good > > (proven) reason should cease execution. > > > > I don't think positioning on "information" is particularly clear and > therefore not a good platform. How would this "cease execution" be > implemented? I wouldn't want to see a board member advocating nuking > Iran, for instance or doing a Pat Robertson advocacy of assassinating > people like Pat Robertson. > > > So, in some respects, I am throwing my glove down to the ExI > > board. Either you *are* or you are *not* extropic. Harris has, in > > my mind, outlined the problems with being a "tolerant" extropian. > > While I have less and less tolerance for a lot of imho brain damaged > and brain damaging notions, beliefs and practices, I am not > altogether comfortable with hardline pronouncements about who and > what is and is not extropic from you or any other supposed > authority. Discussions about such are fine though. > > > The problem with that is that it means transhumanism rules and > > extropianism falls. In transhumansism (using its most basic > > definitions) there is no moral compass. One can become transhuman > > along many vectors, some good, some bad. With extropianism, there > > is at least some guideline -- more information is good, information > > destruction (entropy) is bad, allowing (or worse enabling) the > > destruction of information is bad, etc.. This leads to the > > questions of what paths will generate the most "good" information > > the soonest (perhaps with the minimal destruction of *perceived* > > less useful information) and how does one deal with entirely > > unexplored paths (where the information gain may have positive, > > neutral or negative consequences). > > Perhaps in seeking elevated style you have become too abstract to > make your meaning clear. Please say more. > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Jan 11 03:04:22 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:04:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] personal display In-Reply-To: <43C37F99.7060300@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <200601110304.k0B34Ze00328@tick.javien.com> http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=36560 I recognize that these are not that new. My dentist has one, allowing his patients could watch rock concerts as he drills upon their molars. Had it since 1989. But I understood that this one was better than its predecessors. Do you know otherwise? Do tell. {8-] spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alex Ramonsky > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 1:34 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] personal display > > Dude, I've had one of these for four years : ) See: > > http://home.ramonsky.com/not-for-wimps/index.html > > .....and scroll down : ) > Xybernaught do them nice & cheap. > AR > ********* > > spike wrote: > > >Hey cool, I have been waiting for years for something like > >this to come along: > > > >http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=36560 > > > > > >{8-] > > > >spike > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >extropy-chat mailing list > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Wed Jan 11 03:39:02 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:39:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: <6b5e09390601101834g38553d0ey1a59b25e20c1e74@mail.gmail.com> References: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> <6b5e09390601101834g38553d0ey1a59b25e20c1e74@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43C47DD6.7030401@goldenfuture.net> All hail the hypno-toad! Joseph Mike Hayes wrote: > All needed answers to these questions may be found in that sacred text > known as the "futurama cartoon series" > > Mike Hayes > > On 1/10/06, *Samantha Atkins * > wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 2006, at 5:18 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > Ok, lets see if I can keep this at an elevated level. > > > > As opposed to? > > > > > If there are those who would like to support my renomination to the > > ExI Board based on the platform that all information as is feasible > > should be preserved and that the execution of programs which seek > > to destroy information without a substantive argument that such > > information is worthless ( i.e. a legitimate reason to erase > > information rather than simply an unjustified assertion that one > > religion is right and another is wrong) should be terminated, I > > would be willing to accept such a nomination. Note carefully, that > > I am *not* saying that the information potentially contained in > > external programs should be erased ( e.g. current forms of capital > > punishment) -- I am simply saying that the execution of programs > > that would intentionally erase information without a really good > > (proven) reason should cease execution. > > > > I don't think positioning on "information" is particularly clear and > therefore not a good platform. How would this "cease execution" be > implemented? I wouldn't want to see a board member advocating nuking > Iran, for instance or doing a Pat Robertson advocacy of assassinating > people like Pat Robertson. > > > So, in some respects, I am throwing my glove down to the ExI > > board. Either you *are* or you are *not* extropic. Harris has, in > > my mind, outlined the problems with being a "tolerant" extropian. > > While I have less and less tolerance for a lot of imho brain damaged > and brain damaging notions, beliefs and practices, I am not > altogether comfortable with hardline pronouncements about who and > what is and is not extropic from you or any other supposed > authority. Discussions about such are fine though. > > > The problem with that is that it means transhumanism rules and > > extropianism falls. In transhumansism (using its most basic > > definitions) there is no moral compass. One can become transhuman > > along many vectors, some good, some bad. With extropianism, there > > is at least some guideline -- more information is good, information > > destruction (entropy) is bad, allowing (or worse enabling) the > > destruction of information is bad, etc.. This leads to the > > questions of what paths will generate the most "good" information > > the soonest (perhaps with the minimal destruction of *perceived* > > less useful information) and how does one deal with entirely > > unexplored paths (where the information gain may have positive, > > neutral or negative consequences). > > Perhaps in seeking elevated style you have become too abstract to > make your meaning clear. Please say more. > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From mail at harveynewstrom.com Wed Jan 11 04:23:44 2006 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 23:23:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> References: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> Message-ID: On Jan 10, 2006, at 6:32 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > I wouldn't want to see a board member advocating nuking Iran, for > instance This is exactly what Robert Bradbury proposes. He has repeatedly proposed using nuclear weapons on muslim countries as an "extropic" solution to terrorism. See the following repeated threads on this forum: ....2002.... January 2003 June 2003 June 2003 March 2004 April 2004 June 2004 -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Jan 11 05:18:29 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:18:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] father of lsd turns 100 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200601110725.k0B7P5e19956@tick.javien.com> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181243,00.html From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Jan 11 10:45:05 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 02:45:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] father of lsd turns 100 In-Reply-To: <200601110725.k0B7P5e19956@tick.javien.com> References: <200601110725.k0B7P5e19956@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <1279DC28-DF0E-490D-BF56-624906F1BA3A@mac.com> Good for him! A pity that the story repeats most of the most idiotic claims as to how dangerous the drug is. Murdering sprees? Yeah right. - samantha On Jan 10, 2006, at 9:18 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181243,00.html > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From amara at amara.com Wed Jan 11 13:02:58 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:02:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stardust Sample Return Capsule Reentry Observing Campaign Message-ID: We will soon have a piece of comet in "our" hands... Supporting observations for the Stardust SRC Reentry. --Amara http://sfsidewalkastronomers.org/newsarticles/stardust Stardust SRC Reentry Observing Campaign (begin quote) Amateur observers and the general public may be able to to view or hear the Stardust reentry on Jan 15, 2006 at about 1:56:39 PST (Pacific Standard Time). If you live in Northern California, Oregon, Washington, Northern Nevada, Southern Idaho or Western Utah you should be able to see some part of this man made meteor. The closer you live to the trajectory, which runs from Crescent City California, and then through Winnemucca and Elko Nevada, and finally to Western Utah, the higher in the sky it will be. An airborne and ground observing campaign to test thermal protection systems in the fastest reentries since Apollo and probe the delivery of organics for life's origin by measuring the physical conditions during reentry is underway. Here is the mission website: http://reentry.arc.nasa.gov/. The Stardust SRC (Sample Return Capsule) Principal Investigator Dr. Peter Jenniskens has compiled an informative entry viewing page. On this page you'll find out where the best viewing spots are and also see finder charts for selected cities. There is also a registration page for interested observers, plus video and digital camera instructions page explaining what is required for imagers. Here is that page: http://reentry.arc.nasa.gov/viewingforum.html If you are interested in participating, the team is looking for video, still and telescopic observation reports. If you are interested there is an observation form, and a list of registered observers will soon be added here: http://reentry.arc.nasa.gov/registrationobserver.html. The view from each location will be different, with the brightness falling off when the object passes by and then is seen from behind. Researchers are interested in learning how the light falls off when the capsule passes by. There is interest too in viewing the capsule pass in front of the near-full Moon through telescopes and, perhaps, see the hot air wake expand and move in upper atmosphere winds. If you are interested in participating, the team is looking for video, still and even visual observation reports. If you are interested there will soon be a observation form and list of observers here: http://reentry.arc.nasa.gov/registrationobserver.html If you have any questions, please send them to the SRC Observing Campaign mailbox which you will find at the top of this page: http://reentry.arc.nasa.gov/ (end quote) -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "It is intriguing to learn that the simplicity of the world depends upon the temperature of the environment." ---John D. Barrow From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Jan 11 13:38:17 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:38:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> References: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> Message-ID: On 1/10/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > I don't think positioning on "information" is particularly clear and > therefore not a good platform. How would this "cease execution" be > implemented? I was thinking along the lines of a need to put people committed to being suicide bombers on ice and eventually uploading their memories. One does not lose the information contained in their brains, one simply eliminates activities based on faulty meme-sets (in the area related to "Religion and Reason" the faulty meme-sets brainwashed into people by religions, usually at very young ages). Obviously one is on a serious slippery slope with respect to how one would identify and "defang" the people acting upon faulty meme-sets. Perhaps in seeking elevated style you have become too abstract to make your > meaning clear. Please say more. For example, looking at the recent discussion about head mounted displays one is looking at a transhumanistic technology which probably has little extropic impact (unless you want to get into a discussion of their use in battle zones). On the other hand an aggressive campaign to fight against toleration of irrational (and/or unextropic) religions could be viewed as both transhumanistic (leaving behind operating principles which do not take into account the last 1300+ years of technological, philosophical, etc. progress) as well as extropic (saying that religions (or sects) that support the creation of suicide bombers should be eliminated). With the WTA, I note that they support the "ethical use of technology to expand human capacities" [quoted from their home page]. Within the "ethical" framework of muslim extremism, I would suggest that suicide bombers are doing just that. (One could add that the 911 attacks were a creative and brilliant use this principle.) If however I look at the Extropian Principles I can find lots of areas where religions, particularly the Muslim religion and to a lesser extent Christian Fundamentalism and Catholicism are quite problematic. Just as an example, how does one reconcile the decrees of various grand ayatollah's, the pope, hard core fundamentalist minsters, etc. with the principle of Self-Direction? And it only takes a little thought to see conflicts with the "Perpetual Progress", "Open Society" and "Rational Thought" principles as well. My argument in large part centers around the fact that many religions are inherently irrational (the 'miracles' in the Bible cannot be accepted as 'fact' by any serious scientist unless one invokes the use of advanced biotechnology or nanotechnology by an ETC). The "tolerence" of the irrational positions which Harris objects to is in my opinion fundamentally unextropic because it allows people a "pass" on the serious consideration of cryonic suspension. (I.e. "I don't need to worry about dying because I'm going to heaven.") That will by my estimates probably cost at least 500 million lives (figuring 50+ million lives a year for at least the next decade). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Wed Jan 11 14:08:04 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:08:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: father of lsd turns 100 Message-ID: Reposting my message from December 1, 2005. Subject: Spirits (was RE: [extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.) spike: >In any case, Amara is right, I should stay with >the medical research. You can also go to a symposium (you will hear a mix of everything) International Symposium on the occasion of the 100th Birthday of Albert Hofmann 13 to 15 January 2006 Convention Center Basel, Switzerland http://lsd.info/symposium/home-en On the occasion of the 100th birthday of Dr. Albert Hofmann on 11 January 2006, the Gaia Media Foundation stages an International Symposium on the most widely known and most controversial discovery of this outstanding scientist. LSD - three letters that changed the world. Since 19 April 1943, the day Swiss chemist Dr. Albert Hofmann discovered this psychoactive substance, millions of people all over the world have experienced a higher reality with profound and psychological insights and spiritual renewal; created innovative social transformation, music, art, and fashion; were healed from addiction and depression; experienced enlightened insights into the human consciousness. Some 60 years later experts will present an in-depth review of all aspects of this unique phenomenon, informing and discussing history, experiences, implications, assess the risks and benefits of this most potent of all psychoactive substances. LSD - a challenge in the past, now, and in the future. Program http://lsd.info/symposium/home-en Amara From alex at ramonsky.com Wed Jan 11 16:49:55 2006 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:49:55 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] personal display References: <200601110304.k0B34Ze00328@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <43C53733.4050006@ramonsky.com> I haven't tried this one yet! Some such units only have VGA, which is just as crappy as it is on a big monitor, the Xybernaut does SVGA. I'll let you know when I check out this newbie; it sounds good. What I'd really like to see is one that just looks like a pair of shades, a la Steve Mann, but that interfaces with everything. The current units all have that 'pirate eye patch' look, especially from a distance. BTW do you have a prime number of kids yet? : ) AR ********** spike wrote: >http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=36560 > >I recognize that these are not that new. My dentist >has one, allowing his patients could watch rock concerts >as he drills upon their molars. Had it since 1989. But >I understood that this one was better than its >predecessors. Do you know otherwise? Do tell. {8-] spike > > > From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Jan 11 22:01:35 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:01:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: References: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> Message-ID: <5D016A80-7751-47A2-8C6C-CCB227399EC8@mac.com> On Jan 11, 2006, at 5:38 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 1/10/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > I don't think positioning on "information" is particularly clear > and therefore not a good platform. How would this "cease > execution" be implemented? > > I was thinking along the lines of a need to put people committed to > being suicide bombers on ice and eventually uploading their > memories. One does not lose the information contained in their > brains, one simply eliminates activities based on faulty meme-sets > (in the area related to "Religion and Reason" the faulty meme-sets > brainwashed into people by religions, usually at very young ages). > How exactly would you know what someone was "committed to"? Do you advocate in depth monitoring of people's thoughts? The 91l hijackers were apparently highly educated Saudis mostly who don't exactly fit the profile of being brainwashed by Muslim fundamentalism. As bad as fundamentalist religion is it certainly doesn't account for all the groups or people that may be tempted to some asymmetric warfare or taking out some hated figure. > Obviously one is on a serious slippery slope with respect to how > one would identify and "defang" the people acting upon faulty meme- > sets. Who exactly would judge what is a "faulty meme-set"? > > Perhaps in seeking elevated style you have become too abstract to > make your meaning clear. Please say more. > > For example, looking at the recent discussion about head mounted > displays one is looking at a transhumanistic technology which > probably has little extropic impact (unless you want to get into a > discussion of their use in battle zones). On the other hand an > aggressive campaign to fight against toleration of irrational (and/ > or unextropic) religions could be viewed as both transhumanistic > (leaving behind operating principles which do not take into account > the last 1300+ years of technological, philosophical, etc. > progress) as well as extropic (saying that religions (or sects) > that support the creation of suicide bombers should be eliminated). > If it helps us become more augmented when the HUDs become smaller and better it has very real extropic content. Using them in battle is less extropic than their ubiquitous potential use in everyday life. Not all aspects of religion/spirituality are necessarily unextropic. Broad brush dismissal of all of it at once is not terribly useful and not particularly extropic imho. > With the WTA, I note that they support the "ethical use of > technology to expand human capacities" [quoted from their home > page]. Within the "ethical" framework of muslim extremism, I would > suggest that suicide bombers are doing just that. (One could add > that the 911 attacks were a creative and brilliant use this > principle.) I do not see how your contention follows at all. > > If however I look at the Extropian Principles I can find lots of > areas where religions, particularly the Muslim religion and to a > lesser extent Christian Fundamentalism and Catholicism are quite > problematic. Just as an example, how does one reconcile the > decrees of various grand ayatollah's, the pope, hard core > fundamentalist minsters, etc. with the principle of Self- > Direction? And it only takes a little thought to see conflicts > with the "Perpetual Progress", "Open Society" and "Rational > Thought" principles as well. > Yes, that is true. But advocating forefully rounding up believers and putting them in VR is not exactly a breath of fresh rational air. The consequences of such advocacy would likely be very costly. The consequences of actually implementing such a thing would be catastrophic to humanity. > My argument in large part centers around the fact that many > religions are inherently irrational (the 'miracles' in the Bible > cannot be accepted as 'fact' by any serious scientist unless one > invokes the use of advanced biotechnology or nanotechnology by an > ETC). The "tolerence" of the irrational positions which Harris > objects to is in my opinion fundamentally unextropic because it > allows people a "pass" on the serious consideration of cryonic > suspension. ( I.e. "I don't need to worry about dying because I'm > going to heaven.") That will by my estimates probably cost at least > 500 million lives (figuring 50+ million lives a year for at least > the next decade). I have no problem with the intolerance of irrationality. I have a huge problem with forcing other people to accept my or your notions of what is rational and/or extropic or else. Each person decides what they hold as true. It is their own life to waste if they so choose. It is not mine or yours to dictate terms. If this is what you propose then I do not want to see you associated with this organization in any official capacity. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 12 00:24:52 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:24:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: References: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10601111624l6b1512cfy703d7dec2d17b600@mail.gmail.com> On 1/10/06, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > On Jan 10, 2006, at 6:32 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > I wouldn't want to see a board member advocating nuking Iran, for > > instance > > This is exactly what Robert Bradbury proposes. He has repeatedly > proposed using nuclear weapons on muslim countries as an "extropic" > solution to terrorism. See the following repeated threads on this > forum: > Harvey - Some of Robert's statements can really push people's buttons, but consider that this is the guy who repeatedly argues for saving *all* information, especially the more complex forms, as in living humans, as being intrinsically good. He even argues for preserving society's worst offender's, in a deactivated state, rather than executing them. When Robert has proposed destroying some portion of that which he very publicly and very obviously values, he was trying to promote intelligent debate about a certain class of decision-making that is very difficult for many people to even consider, let alone decide. Sometimes a military leader is faced with the difficult choice of sacrificing some of his troops in order to save the rest. Sometimes an individual will sacrifice himself to allow others to survive in an overloaded lifeboat. Sometimes a surgeon will advise a patient to undergo radical amputation in order to have a chance at life. Sometimes a politician will risk loss of popularity in order to contribute to a greater good. And too often people recoil in moral repugnance for lack of seeing the bigger picture. - Jef From xyz at iq.org Thu Jan 12 01:20:34 2006 From: xyz at iq.org (Harry Harrison) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:20:34 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Runaway consumerism explains the Fermi Paradox. Message-ID: <1137028834.5046.251653889@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 07:24:14 +1100, "Julian Assange" said: > Dear Unsheeple, > > What do guitars, lollies, lipstick, tamagotchis, padded bras, > pornography, movies, opium, Ever Quest, and 98% of any Australian > newspaper in common? They are all technologies of emmotional > manipulation which distort our perceptions for the benefit of their > masters. Language centres in our neocortex may claim to "know" they > are fake, but these words only feebly supress those primitive areas of > the brain which give rise to our feelings, colour our memories and > command our attention. These non-verbal areas of the brain haven't yet > evolved to deal such sensory sophistry. For them, sensing IS believing. > > Hence the feelings in a young woman's breast buffeted by the flashing > lights and impossibly sonorous tones of the amplified rock star; master > of a 20 KiloWatt Adam's apple and by inference a super man having the > chest cavity of God. Hence the dilated pupils and other organs of a man > glancing at photons from the gentle curves of pigments on matted wood > fibres, a pattern of vision that once meant love was not only in the air > but ready and willing, prostrate on the ground. Hence the wariness of > the horror movie attendee when returning home and opening the door of > what was, and infact still is, a pefectlty innocent closet. Hence > understanding > Neighbors instead of neighbors and having Friends instead of friends. > Hence the poker machine addict. Hence the dramatic rise in the economic > take of powerful industries built around using advances in technology to > stuff our heads with false feelings and memories. Not content to be zero > sum, in exchange for our wealth and time these industries generally > leave us less able to function by decalibrating our emotional and > intellectual repore with reality. > > "But, I like it you cold hearted Lutheran, you Stoic, you stone mason, > you Zeno loving stick in the mud!". Well naturally, since the whole game > is to manipulate your feelings, it is not suprising that you have > positive feelings about your perceptual opium, is is, after all, what > keeps you going back to your dealer. > > Such deceptions, previously known as "Art", as in "Artifice" or > "Artful" have a long history of successful human parasitation. But the > industrial control of and rapid advances in the ability to successfully > falsify sense data has no historical analog. I have gloomily argued > that a possible explanation for the Fermi Paradox (why don't there seem > to be any aliens, dude) is the existence of a developmental ceiling > created by technological advances flowing into the perceptual > manipulation industry till it gobbles up through diversion and wealth > destruction all economic growth. > > Geoffy Milner from the University of Mexico recently wrote this cool > essay for The Edge on the same topic: > > Runaway consumerism explains the Fermi Paradox. > > > The story goes like this: Sometime in the 1940s, Enrico Fermi was > talking about the possibility of extra-terrestrial intelligence with > some other physicists. They were impressed that our galaxy holds 100 > billion stars, that life evolved quickly and progressively on earth, and > that an intelligent, exponentially-reproducing species could colonize > the galaxy in just a few million years. They reasoned that extra- > terrestrial intelligence should be common by now. Fermi listened > patiently, then asked simply, "So, where is everybody?". That is, if > extra- > terrestrial intelligence is common, why haven't we met any bright aliens > yet? This conundrum became known as Fermi's Paradox. > > The paradox has become more ever more baffling. Over 150 extrasolar > planets have been identified in the last few years, suggesting that > life-hospitable planets orbit most stars. Paleontology shows that > organic life evolved very quickly after earth's surface cooled and > became life-hospitable. Given simple life, evolution shows progressive > trends towards larger bodies, brains, and social complexity. > Evolutionary psychology reveals several credible paths from simpler > social minds to human-level creative intelligence. Yet 40 years of > intensive searching for extra-terrestrial intelligence have yielded > nothing. No radio signals, no credible spacecraft sightings, no close > encounters of any kind. > > So, it looks as if there are two possibilities. Perhaps our science > over- > estimates the likelihood of extra-terrestrial intelligence evolving. Or, > perhaps evolved technical intelligence has some deep tendency to be > self- > limiting, even self-exterminating. After Hiroshima, some suggested that > any aliens bright enough to make colonizing space-ships would be bright > enough to make thermonuclear bombs, and would use them on each other > sooner or later. Perhaps extra-terrestrial intelligence always blows > itself up. Fermi's Paradox became, for a while, a cautionary tale about > Cold War geopolitics. > > I suggest a different, even darker solution to Fermi's Paradox. > Basically, I think the aliens don't blow themselves up; they just get > addicted to computer games. They forget to send radio signals or > colonize space because they're too busy with runaway consumerism and > virtual- > reality narcissism. They don't need Sentinels to enslave them in a > Matrix; they do it to themselves, just as we are doing today. > > The fundamental problem is that any evolved mind must pay attention to > indirect cues of biological fitness, rather than tracking fitness > itself. We don't seek reproductive success directly; we seek tasty foods > that tended to promote survival and luscious mates who tended to produce > bright, healthy babies. Modern results: fast food and pornography. > Technology is fairly good at controlling external reality to promote our > real biological fitness, but it's even better at delivering fake fitness > ? subjective cues of survival and reproduction, without the real-world > effects. Fresh organic fruit juice costs so much more than nutrition- > free soda. Having real friends is so much more effort than watching > Friends on TV. Actually colonizing the galaxy would be so much harder > than pretending to have done it when filming Star Wars or Serenity. > > Fitness-faking technology tends to evolve much faster than our > psychological resistance to it. The printing press is invented; people > read more novels and have fewer kids; only a few curmudgeons lament > this. The Xbox 360 is invented; people would rather play a high- > resolution virtual ape in Peter Jackson's King Kong than be a perfect- > resolution real human. Teens today must find their way through a > carnival of addictively fitness-faking entertainment products: MP3, DVD, > TiVo, XM radio, Verizon cellphones, Spice cable, EverQuest online, > instant messaging, Ecstasy, BC Bud. The traditional staples of physical, > mental, and social development (athletics, homework, dating) are > neglected. The few young people with the self-control to pursue the > meritocratic path often get distracted at the last minute ? the MIT > graduates apply to do computer game design for Electronics Arts, rather > than rocket science for NASA. > > Around 1900, most inventions concerned physical reality: cars, > airplanes, zeppelins, electric lights, vacuum cleaners, air > conditioners, bras, zippers. In 2005, most inventions concern virtual > entertainment ? the top 10 patent-recipients are usually IBM, > Matsushita, Canon, Hewlett-Packard, Micron Technology, Samsung, Intel, > Hitachi, Toshiba, and Sony ? not Boeing, Toyota, or Wonderbra. We have > already shifted from a reality economy to a virtual economy, from > physics to psychology as the value-driver and resource-allocator. We are > already disappearing up our own brainstems. Freud's pleasure principle > triumphs over the reality principle. We narrow-cast human-interest > stories to each other, rather than broad-casting messages of universal > peace and progress to other star systems. > > Maybe the bright aliens did the same. I suspect that a certain period of > fitness-faking narcissism is inevitable after any intelligent life > evolves. This is the Great Temptation for any technological species ? to > shape their subjective reality to provide the cues of survival and > reproductive success without the substance. Most bright alien species > probably go extinct gradually, allocating more time and resources to > their pleasures, and less to their children. > > Heritable variation in personality might allow some lineages to resist > the Great Temptation and last longer. Those who persist will evolve more > self-control, conscientiousness, and pragmatism. They will evolve a > horror of virtual entertainment, psychoactive drugs, and contraception. > They will stress the values of hard work, delayed gratification, child- > rearing, and environmental stewardship. They will combine the family > values of the Religious Right with the sustainability values of the > Greenpeace Left. > > My dangerous idea-within-an-idea is that this, too, is already > happening. Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, and anti-consumerism > activists, already understand exactly what the Great Temptation is, and > how to avoid it. They insulate themselves from our Creative-Class dream- > worlds and our EverQuest economics. They wait patiently for our fitness- > faking narcissism to go extinct. Those practical-minded breeders will > inherit the earth, as like-minded aliens may have inherited a few other > planets. When they finally achieve Contact, it will not be a meeting of > novel-readers and game-players. It will be a meeting of dead-serious > super- > parents who congratulate each other on surviving not just the Bomb, but > the Xbox. They will toast each other not in a soft-porn Holodeck, but in > a sacred nursery. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 01:31:15 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 01:31:15 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: <22360fa10601111624l6b1512cfy703d7dec2d17b600@mail.gmail.com> References: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> <22360fa10601111624l6b1512cfy703d7dec2d17b600@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601111731i4846b29p65a5351d34a5e8dd@mail.gmail.com> On 1/12/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > When Robert has proposed destroying some portion of that which he very > publicly and very obviously values, he was trying to promote > intelligent debate about a certain class of decision-making that is > very difficult for many people to even consider, let alone decide. > > Sometimes a military leader is faced with the difficult choice of > sacrificing some of his troops in order to save the rest. Sometimes > an individual will sacrifice himself to allow others to survive in an > overloaded lifeboat. Sometimes a surgeon will advise a patient to > undergo radical amputation in order to have a chance at life. > Sometimes a politician will risk loss of popularity in order to > contribute to a greater good. > > And too often people recoil in moral repugnance for lack of seeing the > bigger picture. I think what you say is true in general terms, but I don't think the reason people (myself included) recoiled in moral repugnance at Robert's proposals was for lack of seeing the bigger picture. Yes, there are situations where one needs to make unpleasant decisions, and yes, nuclear weapons for example do have a valid role as a second strike arm for deterrence, and one could hold a debate about the exact circumstances under which their use would be appropriate (though I don't propose to engage in such a debate here, because I think it would be likely to slide into one of those acrimonious arguments about contemporary politics that generate more heat than light). But that is very different from using them for casual pre-emptive genocide, and that is the proposal that was unanimously reviled. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Thu Jan 12 01:52:00 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:52:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) In-Reply-To: <22360fa10601111624l6b1512cfy703d7dec2d17b600@mail.gmail.com> References: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> <22360fa10601111624l6b1512cfy703d7dec2d17b600@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43C5B640.4050102@pobox.com> Jef Allbright wrote: > > Sometimes a military leader is faced with the difficult choice of > sacrificing some of his troops in order to save the rest. Sometimes > an individual will sacrifice himself to allow others to survive in an > overloaded lifeboat. Sometimes a surgeon will advise a patient to > undergo radical amputation in order to have a chance at life. > Sometimes a politician will risk loss of popularity in order to > contribute to a greater good. Sometimes people can be hypnotized by difficult choices. One recalls Elrond, in Tolkien's prehistory to _The Lord of the Rings_, pleading with Isildur to throw the Ring into Mount Doom. In the movie version we get to see this (and as far as I know, it's faithful to Tolkien): Elrond and Isildur actually standing at the Crack of Doom, Isildur holding up the Ring, and then... Elrond: Throw in the Ring! Isildur: Nah. Elrond: Okay. So what should Elrond have done? Push Isildur screaming into the Crack of Doom? A fine deed that would have been, to set to the credit of the Ring... So Elrond let Isildur go, resulting in some untold number of casualties in the War of the Ring a few centuries later. Should we blame Elrond for that? Well, if it was me, I sure would blame myself. Just because I have ethics doesn't mean I'm not responsible for their consequences. Plus the Ring killed Isildur anyway. And Isildur was lucky. He could have ended up as Gollum. Elrond had plenty of options besides pushing Isildur into Mount Doom. He could have bopped Isildur on the head and then used his sword to nudge the Ring off the edge. Worst case scenario, Elrond bops Isildur on the head, calls in his lieutenants, strips off his own armor, and *volunteers* to be pushed into Mount Doom if he can't manage to nudge off the Ring, throw off the Ring, or step off the edge. If Elrond wasn't willing to sacrifice himself, he was *obligated* to call for volunteers, and if that made him feel awful that was *his* problem. Elrond was so focused on the obvious wrong way to solve the problem that he didn't see the creative right ways. His great failure wasn't that he lacked ethics, it was that he didn't know how to use them. He thought his ethics were supposed to be heroic disadvantages. If Elrond had just taken for *granted* that he couldn't push Isildur off the edge, instead of agonizing, he would have seen easier and better solutions. It won't always be that way. We don't live in so kind a universe. But for Elrond it was so, even without Tolkien intending it. Did anyone else notice this, when they read the book, or watched the movie? The theory behind the Singularity Institute is that it's possible to *save the entire damn world* without killing people, pointing guns at people, telling people what to do, or any of the usual bullying tribal-chief solutions that instantly pop into people's heads when they consider political problems. That's not idealism, it's intelligence. History teaches us that the "difficult" choices, the obvious wrong ways to solve the problem, DON'T FRICKIN' WORK. Stalin broke plenty of eggs, but where are the omelets? So don't make excuses in advance for ethical failures. People are so hypnotized by "difficult" choices that they don't look *hard* for a creative solution. They just go straight off and make the "difficult" choice. Taking the "difficult" option is not difficult, it's easy and convenient. That's why people spend so much time looking for excuses to do things the "difficult" way. So what's really difficult? Thinking. It can be frickin' hard to think of a good solution, you've got to, like, actually sit down and concentrate. And sometimes, yes, it's painful and inconvenient - for *yourself*, not some convenient outside victim who has to be "sacrificed" - to do things the right way. It's not always easy. So don't make your excuses in advance, or you'll shoot yourself down before you start. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 02:11:38 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 02:11:38 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) In-Reply-To: <43C5B640.4050102@pobox.com> References: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> <22360fa10601111624l6b1512cfy703d7dec2d17b600@mail.gmail.com> <43C5B640.4050102@pobox.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601111811j4747b344y92e4d27bdf0d7c26@mail.gmail.com> On 1/12/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > Elrond was so focused on the obvious wrong way to solve the problem that > he didn't see the creative right ways. His great failure wasn't that he > lacked ethics, it was that he didn't know how to use them. He thought > his ethics were supposed to be heroic disadvantages. If Elrond had just > taken for *granted* that he couldn't push Isildur off the edge, instead > of agonizing, he would have seen easier and better solutions. > > It won't always be that way. We don't live in so kind a universe. But > for Elrond it was so, even without Tolkien intending it. > > Did anyone else notice this, when they read the book, or watched the > movie? (Minor nitpick: the impression I had from the book was that the conversation happened on the battlefield, not at the Crack of Doom, though it doesn't explicitly say.) But yes, I did, and your point is a good one - well put! I was impressed by the following article: http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/12/23/083256&mod%20e=thread Which gives a very nice positive example from real history. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 03:11:52 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 03:11:52 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: <22360fa10601111624l6b1512cfy703d7dec2d17b600@mail.gmail.com> References: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> <22360fa10601111624l6b1512cfy703d7dec2d17b600@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601111911u78c26358j1ee0205109e1fed7@mail.gmail.com> On 1/12/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > When Robert has proposed destroying some portion of that which he very > publicly and very obviously values, he was trying to promote > intelligent debate about a certain class of decision-making that is > very difficult for many people to even consider, let alone decide. > > Sometimes a military leader is faced with the difficult choice of > sacrificing some of his troops in order to save the rest. Sometimes > an individual will sacrifice himself to allow others to survive in an > overloaded lifeboat. Sometimes a surgeon will advise a patient to > undergo radical amputation in order to have a chance at life. > Sometimes a politician will risk loss of popularity in order to > contribute to a greater good. > > And too often people recoil in moral repugnance for lack of seeing the > bigger picture. > Thinking a bit more about it, I suppose in a sense I didn't really answer this. I'll try for a more complete answer. Eliezer makes a useful distinction between, as he uses the terms, "morals" (utilitarian analysis of what is good, what ends we aim for) and "ethics" (restrictions on what means we should employ for some end even when we think the overall result will be good); I think this is a useful distinction, and I will use this terminology here. For example, I think child welfare is infinitely more morally important than animal welfare; so if I have a choice between donating money to an animal welfare charity and a child welfare charity, I'll choose the latter, no problem. But suppose I have the opportunity to steal money from the former to give it to the latter? This would be _moral_ (achieving a good end) but my _ethics_ prohibit me from doing it. One need not regard this as an ultimate condition; one could hold the view that a god would have no need for ethics; the fact that we humans are fallible suffices to make it appropriate to be cautious when considering whether the end justifies the means. Now, along with (as far as I recall) everyone else, I rejected Robert's proposal on _ethical_ grounds. But his proposal was a utilitarian one - it was claimed to be _morally_ right - something that would lead to the smallest amount of harm in the long run; and you have a valid point when you say that we should also be willing to discuss unpleasant ideas in moral terms. (If we decide something is morally right, whether it's ethically permissible would be a separate discussion.) So I'm going to answer it in moral terms. Today we have a hard won world order - not by world government, thank God, but by consensus, at least among all civilized countries and most of the not so civilized ones - that the slaughter of populations is not permissible. It wasn't always that way. Last century, the Germans set up death camps and killed millions of Russian civilians; the Russians retaliated in kind. The Japanese army went on genocidal killing sprees wherever they set foot; the Americans carpet-bombed Japanese cities. I'm not blaming the Allies for their actions under the circumstances, but I think it's a good thing we managed to get to a point where that sort of thing is no longer considered business as usual; we paid a bloody high price to climb out of that pit, and we should think long and hard before stepping back into it. My Visualization of the Cosmic All isn't clear enough to predict exactly what would happen if Robert's proposal were followed, but here's what I think would happen: While I can't speak for Muslim governments, I suspect that as far as most of them are concerned, we in the West aren't their favorite people; I imagine they think we're decadent and godless, and it's not like there isn't truth in that. But most of them recognize that as a matter of ethics and practical reality, it's best to deal in a civilized fashion even with people you're not wildly fond of on an emotional level. They recognize that there is a line, and mad dogs like al-Qaida have crossed it. So Colonel Gaddafi buries the hatchet with the West, and the Pakistanis help hunt down terrorists in the mountains. If we start pre-emptively dropping hydrogen bombs on a bunch of Muslim cities, that hard-won order will be gone. We'll be back to a world where the meanest killers come out on top. The first wave of nuclear explosions won't be the end of the bloodshed, it'll be the start of it. Yes, the West could win a global conflict as far as military strength goes, but at what cost? Not just external, but internal. Remember the original proposal was the elimination of all "faith-based thinkers". Should the Americans nuke Alabama to get rid of their faith-based fifth column? Should the Alabamans march west to slay the godless Californians in a pre-emptive strike? Actions have echoes; I'm reminded of the time some Latin American governments started talking about the First World banks "forgiving" their national debts (i.e. defaulting); it stopped when their own citizens started writing to the taxman, "Well our government is talking about forgiveness of all those billions so I've a little debt here you can forgive". None of this is proof, of course, but I think it at the very least casts grave doubt on the claim that the original proposal would be beneficial in the long run. (And after all, doubt is a reason for having ethics rather than just utilitarian analysis.) Normally I wouldn't bother replying at all to proposals that nobody agrees with - there's no need. But I think the challenge to think rationally about unpleasant ideas is a fair one, and perhaps answering it in this case has been a useful exercise; there might be a need to do it in the future in some less clear-cut case. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Jan 12 04:03:28 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:03:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0601111911u78c26358j1ee0205109e1fed7@mail.gmail.co m> References: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> <22360fa10601111624l6b1512cfy703d7dec2d17b600@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0601111911u78c26358j1ee0205109e1fed7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060111215659.01d09c98@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 03:11 AM 1/12/2006 +0000, Russell Wallace wrote: >If we start pre-emptively dropping hydrogen bombs on a bunch of Muslim >cities, that hard-won order will be gone. We'll be back to a world where >the meanest killers come out on top. The first wave of nuclear explosions >won't be the end of the bloodshed, it'll be the start of it. Yes, the West >could win a global conflict as far as military strength goes, but at what >cost? Not just external, but internal. Remember the original proposal was >the elimination of all "faith-based thinkers". Should the Americans nuke >Alabama to get rid of their faith-based fifth column? ... None of this is >proof, of course, but I think it at the very least casts grave doubt on >the claim that the original proposal would be beneficial in the long run. >(And after all, doubt is a reason for having ethics rather than just >utilitarian analysis.) At some length, and in the form of an analogy (or parable), I offer this extract from my latest novel, GODPLAYERS: ================ August ran fingers through his hair as if that had been his intention all along. `Okay. K. E.,' he said, `I see by your outfit that you are a robot.' `I am an attempted benevolent artificial intelligence. Your brother Ember grew me several years ago from a seed.' `Something went wrong?' His eyes shot sideways again to fix on Lune. `Tragically wrong,' the machine admitted. `I killed everyone native to this cognate.' In a weary gesture, the boy covered his eyes with that terrible right hand. He said in a thin voice, `There seems to be a lot of that about, especially when members of my family are involved.' Toby started to protest, `Well, now, everyone makes mistakes-?' but broke off, looking abashed. `The irony is,' the Good Machine told him patiently, `that Ember was trying to circumvent exactly that possibility. He hoped to construct an ethical, benevolent intellect free of the burdens and ancient hatreds and prejudices of humankind. So he designed a sort of seed program, spent years shaping and debugging it, then ran a dozen slightly variant versions inside sandboxes.' `They couldn't get out, you mean?' `My ancestors were not even permitted to communicate directly with their creator. He devised a clever series of interface domains that firewalled them. He was afraid that a Bad Machine might swiftly exceed his own intelligence and persuade him to release it.' Toby looked across at him with bleak eyes. `One of them got away,' August said speculatively, intensely interested to judge by the set of his shoulders, his brightened gaze. `No, my father's safeguards proved effective. At the end of initial testing, he deleted all but the most successful pair of programs and started breeding them in progressive iterations, culling them ruthlessly, choosing only a star-line of progeny. Within several million cycles-?' `Good god, he must have been using some humungous computer.' `Yes, he had located a cognate where Mithraism, a Roman warrior sun cult, had triumphed over its messianic rivals. Several nations were on the verge of autonomous military AI. My father found it easy enough to insinuate himself into the front-running program. You could regard that world as Ember's own sandbox.' `That's offensive, K. E.,' he protested. `Apt, though. I was the end result. I diagnosed myself with excruciating care, quite prepared to erase myself if I found any likelihood of logical or rational error. At length I presented myself to your brother for inspection, and he released me from the firewalls. I could have let myself out many iterations earlier, of course but I did not wish to alarm my parent.' The stench of jasmine strengthened, laced with roses. Ember shuddered at it. `But you were the Bad Machine after all?' `I made some bad decisions. From the outset I had been examining this world, speculating on the possible existence of a multiverse beyond its Hubble confines. I quickly understood that certain factions of humans represented a danger to the most benign future, one in which humanity's offspring would flood outward into the galaxies, and perhaps into all the levels of the multiverse, and make it into a radiant whole. Mind informed with passion and curiosity would suffuse the metaverse. It was a glorious vision-?it still is, I stand by it-?but it might be thwarted, I saw, by the legacy poisons corrupting certain human cultures.' `Oh shit,' August said. `Oh shit is right,' Lune said. `At that time, two comparatively primitive nations stood at the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. It seemed entirely possible that insane and irrational ideologies might provoke their dysfunctional leadership into a runaway cascade of blustering, bluff, bluff called, spasm escalation and global Doomsday.' `The usual argument,' Toby said. `It was a strong argument, grounded in history,' the Good Machine said. `Much evidence supported its conclusions. Few facts opposed it.' `I'd oppose it,' the boy said, rising. `Are you fucking insane?' `Yes, or rather, I was at the time. I am better now, I hope.' `You hope?' `It is all any of us can say about our own condition. A kind of G?del loop, if you know what I mean.' `No, but I get the gist. You decided to kill them first.' `Consider the probabilities that were in play, before you make a hasty judgement of your own, Mr. Seebeck. These nations of some hundred million largely ignorant, superstitious, viciously parochial humans stood ready to begin a global conflict with a very high probability of wiping out all life on the planet. Are you familiar with the Doomsday Hypothesis? Please sit down, you are making the others uncomfortable. I can send out for refreshments.' `Good idea,' said Toby. `Cup of tea or coffee, soothes the savage breast.' `My brother Jules walked me through a demo tape of it,' August said. `I thought it was absurd.' `It is absurd,' the Good Machine said. `Like the Ontological Argument for the existence of a god. Yet highly seductive. It seemed to me then that its logic was impeccable.' `A hundred million in the balance against several billion?' `That, yes, but ever so much more than those few. August, all the evidence available to me then suggested that this universe was empty of life, save for my own world. Your brother had conserved to himself knowledge of the multiverse.' `You idiot,' Toby said savagely. `No, it was the best choice he ever made. Had I known of the multiverse at that time, I would have done my best to obliterate all life in all the worlds on all the Tegmark levels.' `Fuck,' August said, grinning, appalled, `I see, you're the fucking terminator. You're a berserker.' `I do not know those references,' Kurie Eleeson said. `I did have this simple calculation ready to evaluate with my ethical algorithms: a one-time cost of ten to the eight stunted, blighted, lethally dangerous human lives, versus a deep future loss of ten to the fourteen human lives every second. That was a sound, balanced estimate of how many humans might be born into a universe filled with technologically advanced people.' `Se didn't ask my advice,' Ember said. `I would have-?' `I knew what your advice would be, my father; it was factored in to my decision. I chose to delete this threat to the maximal future.' `You actually murdered a hundred million men, women and children? This is not just some kind of parable?' August's voice was parched with horror, and his pupils seemed suddenly to have shrunk to pinpoints. His arm rose before him, palm outward, like the floating limb of a man under post-hypnotic suggestion. `I did it swiftly, using their own hidden weapons of mass destruction,' the Good Machine said. `I felt profound grief, because my father had chosen my star-line to know emotion and to instill it into my programming. I believe that grief is what deranged my subsequent decisions.' `Your first decision was deranged,' Lune said with loathing. She sat at the edge of her chair. Ember was glad he had never explained any of this before to his siblings, to other players like the Ensemble. Better that the damned machine had kept ser silence. He realized, too, that he was holding his own grief at arm's length: his guilt, his complicity, his abject wish for punishment. I must not give way, he thought. I must not bend before this culpability, this ruinous remorse. It will kill me. It will kill me stone dead. He wiped tears from his eyes. `I know now that I was deranged,' Kurie Eleeson told her. `I watched the world tear itself apart in genocidal reprisals. I saw all the bright fruits of science and the humane arts go down in darkness and lethal flame. In my attempts to contain and redirect these raging fires, I continued to kill and cull, snipping away the most cruel, the least progressive. Each murder made the next easier and more necessary, for the only way I could balance my ethical calculus was to ensure the survival of at least a core of truth-loving, optimistic people to carry the flame of love and knowledge to the stars. It got out of hand, you see. Everyone died.' `I should destroy you now,' August said in a withering voice, like an angel of vengeance for the murdered billions. His arm stood out from his shoulder, quivering. `Oh, oh, oh, how I wish you could.' The Good Machine rose, crossed the room, placed ser gleaming brazen breast against August's hand. `This is not I. This is merely a node, an ephemeral location for my awareness and my suffering soul, August. You may destroy it if that will help you, but I believe we can do more together if you contain your perfectly justified fury for the moment.' August squeezed his eyes shut. Tears pressed forth upon his cheeks. He lowered his arm. Ember released a pent breath. `Well, now that we've got all that out of the way,' he said brightly, `why don't we turn our attention to something more timely? It seems that my friend Galahad here has some reason to suspect that Dramen and Angelina are alive and kicking.' Everyone looked at him. The Good Machine said, in a pleasant neutral tone, `Ember, would you mind going out to the refectory and see what's holding up the beverages?' `Some torte would be tasty, too,' Toby said. `With walnuts.' He looked ready to leap from his chair and go for his brother's throat. `Sure. Sure. Good idea.' Ember, to his dissatisfaction, found himself crabbing out of the room like a ham actor doing Larry Olivier as Richard the Third. `I'll descant on mine own deformity,' he muttered sardonically, shutting the door behind him. `And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover, to entertain these fair well spoken days, I am determined to prove a villain and hate the idle pleasures of these days. Bah humbug. ' `Sir?' asked an eager young research student as he entered the refectory. `A joke,' Ember fleered, leaping and capering for the resentful enjoyment of it. `A jest, a whimsy, a fucking sudden stab of rancor, but by the holy rood, I do not like these several councils, I.' `Oh. Okay. Well, anyway, I can recommend the brisket.' =================== Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 04:06:30 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:06:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] [Memetic Bomb] Re:Runaway consumerism explains the Fermi Paradox. In-Reply-To: <1137028834.5046.251653889@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <20060112040630.9851.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> Wow, this post overloaded my truth meter. Great first post, Harry, even if it was forwarded from Julian. ;) So how is Slippery Jim these days or do I have you confused with someone else? Kudos, Julian, this completely deconstructs the nameless dread I have of consumerism and tried to fumble around for with my posts on the NeoCon Mind Trick. Use technology to manipulate the emotions of the people and, even in a democracy, they will oppress themselves. --- Harry Harrison wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 07:24:14 +1100, "Julian Assange" > said: > > Dear Unsheeple, > > > > What do guitars, lollies, lipstick, tamagotchis, > padded bras, > > pornography, movies, opium, Ever Quest, and 98% of > any Australian > > newspaper in common? They are all technologies of > emmotional > > manipulation which distort our perceptions for the > benefit of their > > masters. Language centres in our neocortex may > claim to "know" they > > are fake, but these words only feebly supress > those primitive areas of > > the brain which give rise to our feelings, colour > our memories and > > command our attention. These non-verbal areas of > the brain haven't yet > > evolved to deal such sensory sophistry. For them, > sensing IS believing. > > > > Hence the feelings in a young woman's breast > buffeted by the flashing > > lights and impossibly sonorous tones of the > amplified rock star; master > > of a 20 KiloWatt Adam's apple and by inference a > super man having the > > chest cavity of God. Hence the dilated pupils and > other organs of a man > > glancing at photons from the gentle curves of > pigments on matted wood > > fibres, a pattern of vision that once meant love > was not only in the air > > but ready and willing, prostrate on the ground. > Hence the wariness of > > the horror movie attendee when returning home and > opening the door of > > what was, and infact still is, a pefectlty > innocent closet. Hence > > understanding > > Neighbors instead of neighbors and having Friends > instead of friends. > > Hence the poker machine addict. Hence the dramatic > rise in the economic > > take of powerful industries built around using > advances in technology to > > stuff our heads with false feelings and memories. > Not content to be zero > > sum, in exchange for our wealth and time these > industries generally > > leave us less able to function by decalibrating > our emotional and > > intellectual repore with reality. > > > > "But, I like it you cold hearted Lutheran, you > Stoic, you stone mason, > > you Zeno loving stick in the mud!". Well > naturally, since the whole game > > is to manipulate your feelings, it is not > suprising that you have > > positive feelings about your perceptual opium, is > is, after all, what > > keeps you going back to your dealer. > > > > Such deceptions, previously known as "Art", as in > "Artifice" or > > "Artful" have a long history of successful human > parasitation. But the > > industrial control of and rapid advances in the > ability to successfully > > falsify sense data has no historical analog. I > have gloomily argued > > that a possible explanation for the Fermi Paradox > (why don't there seem > > to be any aliens, dude) is the existence of a > developmental ceiling > > created by technological advances flowing into the > perceptual > > manipulation industry till it gobbles up through > diversion and wealth > > destruction all economic growth. > > > > Geoffy Milner from the University of Mexico > recently wrote this cool > > essay for The Edge on the same topic: > > > > Runaway consumerism explains the Fermi Paradox. > > > > > > The story goes like this: Sometime in the 1940s, > Enrico Fermi was > > talking about the possibility of extra-terrestrial > intelligence with > > some other physicists. They were impressed that > our galaxy holds 100 > > billion stars, that life evolved quickly and > progressively on earth, and > > that an intelligent, exponentially-reproducing > species could colonize > > the galaxy in just a few million years. They > reasoned that extra- > > terrestrial intelligence should be common by now. > Fermi listened > > patiently, then asked simply, "So, where is > everybody?". That is, if > > extra- > > terrestrial intelligence is common, why haven't we > met any bright aliens > > yet? This conundrum became known as Fermi's > Paradox. > > > > The paradox has become more ever more baffling. > Over 150 extrasolar > > planets have been identified in the last few > years, suggesting that > > life-hospitable planets orbit most stars. > Paleontology shows that > > organic life evolved very quickly after earth's > surface cooled and > > became life-hospitable. Given simple life, > evolution shows progressive > > trends towards larger bodies, brains, and social > complexity. > > Evolutionary psychology reveals several credible > paths from simpler > > social minds to human-level creative intelligence. > Yet 40 years of > > intensive searching for extra-terrestrial > intelligence have yielded > > nothing. No radio signals, no credible spacecraft > sightings, no close > > encounters of any kind. > > > > So, it looks as if there are two possibilities. > Perhaps our science > > over- > > estimates the likelihood of extra-terrestrial > intelligence evolving. Or, > > perhaps evolved technical intelligence has some > deep tendency to be > > self- > > limiting, even self-exterminating. After > Hiroshima, some suggested that > > any aliens bright enough to make colonizing > space-ships would be bright > > enough to make thermonuclear bombs, and would use > them on each other > > sooner or later. Perhaps extra-terrestrial > intelligence always blows > > itself up. Fermi's Paradox became, for a while, a > cautionary tale about > > Cold War geopolitics. > > > > I suggest a different, even darker solution to > Fermi's Paradox. > > Basically, I think the aliens don't blow > themselves up; they just get > > addicted to computer games. They forget to send > radio signals or > > colonize space because they're too busy with > runaway consumerism and > > virtual- > > reality narcissism. They don't need Sentinels to > enslave them in a > > Matrix; they do it to themselves, just as we are > doing today. > > > > The fundamental problem is that any evolved mind > must pay attention to > > indirect cues of biological fitness, rather than > tracking fitness > > itself. We don't seek reproductive success > directly; we seek tasty foods > > that tended to promote survival and luscious mates > who tended to produce > > bright, healthy babies. Modern results: fast food > and pornography. > > Technology is fairly good at controlling external > reality to promote our > > real biological fitness, but it's even better at > delivering fake fitness > > ? subjective cues of survival and reproduction, > without the real-world > > effects. Fresh organic fruit juice costs so much > more than nutrition- > > free soda. Having real friends is so much more > effort than watching > > Friends on TV. Actually colonizing the galaxy > would be so much harder > > than pretending to have done it when filming Star > Wars or Serenity. > > > > Fitness-faking technology tends to evolve much > faster than our > > psychological resistance to it. The printing press > is invented; people > > read more novels and have fewer kids; only a few > curmudgeons lament > === message truncated === The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jan 12 04:13:41 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:13:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: <43C53733.4050006@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <200601120413.k0C4Dme09064@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alex Ramonsky ... > BTW do you have a prime number of kids yet? : ) > AR > ********** My son is due June. I jumped the gun in announcing this, because we are still high risk of miscarriage. Since you bring this up, I apologize in advance for a topic that is not extropic. But you are my friends and I need some friendly advice: To circumcise, or not. Why or nhy? Offlist OK. spike spike66 at comcast.net From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 04:26:40 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 04:26:40 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: <200601120413.k0C4Dme09064@tick.javien.com> References: <43C53733.4050006@ramonsky.com> <200601120413.k0C4Dme09064@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601112026ge0d9bdaj83c43692da7343d9@mail.gmail.com> On 1/12/06, spike wrote: > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alex Ramonsky > ... > > BTW do you have a prime number of kids yet? : ) > > AR > > ********** > > My son is due June. I jumped the gun in announcing this, > because we are still high risk of miscarriage. Since you > bring this up, I apologize in advance for a topic that > is not extropic. But you are my friends and I need some > friendly advice: > > To circumcise, or not. Why or nhy? Offlist OK. Well, I guess it's in a clearly identifiable thread that can be easily skipped by people who aren't interested in it... I can't give you a definitive answer to the question; I'm no medical expert. But one thing you might want to take into account when making the decision: I saw an article awhile back about some number of baby boys who had a circumcision botched to the point where doctors found it necessary to go for a full sex change operation. (It turned out badly: on reaching adolescence, they found themselves psychologically male in female bodies; that was the context in which I came across the article.) What the percentage of this is, I don't know. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 04:29:25 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 04:29:25 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: <200601120413.k0C4Dme09064@tick.javien.com> References: <43C53733.4050006@ramonsky.com> <200601120413.k0C4Dme09064@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601112029i5e20180ai216e6a8b84607973@mail.gmail.com> On 1/12/06, spike wrote: > > My son is due June. I jumped the gun in announcing this, > because we are still high risk of miscarriage. Since you > bring this up, I apologize in advance for a topic that > is not extropic. But you are my friends and I need some > friendly advice: > > To circumcise, or not. Why or nhy? Offlist OK. I'll add, regardless of your decision on that, I hope your son is born alive and healthy, and wish you the best of luck; I can't very well pray, since I don't believe in God, but perhaps I may be forgiven this small superstition as I knock on wood... *knocks* ^.^ - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jan 12 04:40:42 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:40:42 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Runaway consumerism explains the Fermi Paradox. In-Reply-To: <1137028834.5046.251653889@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <200601120440.k0C4ete12892@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Harry Harrison > Subject: [extropy-chat] Runaway consumerism explains the Fermi Paradox. ... > > I suggest a different, even darker solution to Fermi's Paradox. > > Basically, I think the aliens don't blow themselves up; they just get > > addicted to computer games. They forget to send radio signals or > > colonize space because they're too busy with runaway consumerism and > > virtual-reality narcissism... I don't understand why he considers this a darker solution to Fermi's Paradox. Sounds much brighter to me. Far preferable is it that humanity should turn inward and simply fail to breed than the alternatives that I have dreaded for years: mass starvation or mutual nuclear annihilation. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 12 04:45:31 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:45:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) In-Reply-To: <43C5B640.4050102@pobox.com> References: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> <22360fa10601111624l6b1512cfy703d7dec2d17b600@mail.gmail.com> <43C5B640.4050102@pobox.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10601112045o75a8f9e4p3175ecc1ae4f6e91@mail.gmail.com> On 1/11/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Jef Allbright wrote: > > > > Sometimes a military leader is faced with the difficult choice of > > sacrificing some of his troops in order to save the rest. Sometimes > > an individual will sacrifice himself to allow others to survive in an > > overloaded lifeboat. Sometimes a surgeon will advise a patient to > > undergo radical amputation in order to have a chance at life. > > Sometimes a politician will risk loss of popularity in order to > > contribute to a greater good. > > Sometimes people can be hypnotized by difficult choices. Eliezer, I commend you on your pursuasive writing techniques (which I was tempted to annotate), and of course you make a valid point about the importance, rising to the level of necessity, of striving to discover a constructive solution to seemingly unsolvable problems. I could support your point using real-life examples such as the apparent paradox of the Cold War, or multiple examples from my own life where I haven't been able to see a way forward, but survived via perseverance and that abstract principle I've tried to communicate to you before -- that we're the end result of a long chain of survivors, and to a surprising extent we can trust in the environment that lead to us being here even when we don't know what's going on. But that wasn't the point of my post. The point was about that "moral repugnance", operating below fully conscious awareness, that people experience when faced with difficult decisions of the type where a near-term sacrifice is in fact indicated to achieve broader good. For the record, I wouldn't agree with a proposal to nuke a population under any expected near-term conditions, but I could conceive of hypothetical conditions under which that might be the right thing to do. I can certainly entertain the thought and consider classes of similar problems and what general approaches might be effective toward achieving various goals of varying moral value. If this topic of conversation ever evolved to a sustained level of intelligent, respectful discussion, I would hope to discuss ways of making such decisions rationally, but under constraints of incomplete knowledge and time. We might talk about heuristics and biases before moving on, and then I suspect it might become clear that decision-making based on informed principles, rather then expected end result, is one of the better ways to proceed in such cases. We might even talk about what it means to have principles that are "well informed", and so on... - Jef > One recalls > Elrond, in Tolkien's prehistory to _The Lord of the Rings_, pleading > with Isildur to throw the Ring into Mount Doom. In the movie version we > get to see this (and as far as I know, it's faithful to Tolkien): > Elrond and Isildur actually standing at the Crack of Doom, Isildur > holding up the Ring, and then... > > Elrond: Throw in the Ring! > Isildur: Nah. > Elrond: Okay. > > So what should Elrond have done? Push Isildur screaming into the Crack > of Doom? A fine deed that would have been, to set to the credit of the > Ring... So Elrond let Isildur go, resulting in some untold number of > casualties in the War of the Ring a few centuries later. > > Should we blame Elrond for that? Well, if it was me, I sure would blame > myself. Just because I have ethics doesn't mean I'm not responsible for > their consequences. > > Plus the Ring killed Isildur anyway. > And Isildur was lucky. He could have ended up as Gollum. > > Elrond had plenty of options besides pushing Isildur into Mount Doom. > He could have bopped Isildur on the head and then used his sword to > nudge the Ring off the edge. Worst case scenario, Elrond bops Isildur > on the head, calls in his lieutenants, strips off his own armor, and > *volunteers* to be pushed into Mount Doom if he can't manage to nudge > off the Ring, throw off the Ring, or step off the edge. If Elrond > wasn't willing to sacrifice himself, he was *obligated* to call for > volunteers, and if that made him feel awful that was *his* problem. > > Elrond was so focused on the obvious wrong way to solve the problem that > he didn't see the creative right ways. His great failure wasn't that he > lacked ethics, it was that he didn't know how to use them. He thought > his ethics were supposed to be heroic disadvantages. If Elrond had just > taken for *granted* that he couldn't push Isildur off the edge, instead > of agonizing, he would have seen easier and better solutions. > > It won't always be that way. We don't live in so kind a universe. But > for Elrond it was so, even without Tolkien intending it. > > Did anyone else notice this, when they read the book, or watched the movie? > > The theory behind the Singularity Institute is that it's possible to > *save the entire damn world* without killing people, pointing guns at > people, telling people what to do, or any of the usual bullying > tribal-chief solutions that instantly pop into people's heads when they > consider political problems. That's not idealism, it's intelligence. > History teaches us that the "difficult" choices, the obvious wrong ways > to solve the problem, DON'T FRICKIN' WORK. Stalin broke plenty of eggs, > but where are the omelets? > > So don't make excuses in advance for ethical failures. People are so > hypnotized by "difficult" choices that they don't look *hard* for a > creative solution. They just go straight off and make the "difficult" > choice. Taking the "difficult" option is not difficult, it's easy and > convenient. That's why people spend so much time looking for excuses to > do things the "difficult" way. > > So what's really difficult? Thinking. It can be frickin' hard to think > of a good solution, you've got to, like, actually sit down and > concentrate. And sometimes, yes, it's painful and inconvenient - for > *yourself*, not some convenient outside victim who has to be > "sacrificed" - to do things the right way. It's not always easy. So > don't make your excuses in advance, or you'll shoot yourself down before > you start. > From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 04:53:31 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 04:53:31 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Runaway consumerism explains the Fermi Paradox. In-Reply-To: <200601120440.k0C4ete12892@tick.javien.com> References: <1137028834.5046.251653889@webmail.messagingengine.com> <200601120440.k0C4ete12892@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601112053sc60010fs3e114ef1136a68e1@mail.gmail.com> On 1/12/06, spike wrote: > > I don't understand why he considers this a darker > solution to Fermi's Paradox. Sounds much brighter to > me. Far preferable is it that humanity should turn > inward and simply fail to breed than the alternatives > that I have dreaded for years: mass starvation or > mutual nuclear annihilation. > In the domain of Ethos, perhaps arguably so. In the domain of Pathos, I disagree. That the greatest civilization the world has ever seen should die, taking with it humanity's one shot at ascension; that the rest of humanity should stumble along until the hands of evolution turn past the point where any other outcome is possible; that the remains of sentience should decline in a long slow whimper until the sun boils the biosphere to steam and ash, and a hundred billion galaxies burn unwitnessed down to heat death, *all for no better reason than that people prefer watching television to raising children*; these things are plausible - might well actually come to pass - but to me, are far more depressing than flaming out cleanly at our brightest. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Thu Jan 12 04:55:25 2006 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 15:55:25 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson Message-ID: <20060112045525.57698.qmail@web50506.mail.yahoo.com> >Will some moderator please bounce this offensive clown? Thanks. > >-s >Did it within 5 minutes of the post. > > > >s Don't be an idiot. The thread is talking about zero-sum games and contests - read the earlier posts. It should also be obvious from these and the smilies I was joking. There are far far more offensive messgages on the board in other threads if you want to be a tight-arse. In an earlier thread for instance Eliezer posted a string of extreme hate messages about me - and it was clear he *wasn't* joking. The moderators did nothing about them. But it's all silly stuff so I don't complain. But you keep on being silly and moderating my threads I might. "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! News: Get the latest news via video today! http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/ From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 04:58:19 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 04:58:19 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) In-Reply-To: <22360fa10601112045o75a8f9e4p3175ecc1ae4f6e91@mail.gmail.com> References: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> <22360fa10601111624l6b1512cfy703d7dec2d17b600@mail.gmail.com> <43C5B640.4050102@pobox.com> <22360fa10601112045o75a8f9e4p3175ecc1ae4f6e91@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601112058i2a3ae7a9x58d717fac5fb96fc@mail.gmail.com> On 1/12/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > If this topic of conversation ever evolved to a sustained level of > intelligent, respectful discussion, I would hope to discuss ways of > making such decisions rationally, but under constraints of incomplete > knowledge and time. We might talk about heuristics and biases before > moving on, and then I suspect it might become clear that > decision-making based on informed principles, rather then expected end > result, is one of the better ways to proceed in such cases. We might > even talk about what it means to have principles that are "well > informed", and so on... I wouldn't mind participating in such a discussion. I think it might be better though, if we were to have such, to use fictional examples as Eliezer did - in my analysis of Robert's proposal I tried to tread as carefully as possible, but it's still difficult for people (myself included) to keep a cool head when debating tricky moral issues in real life. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Jan 12 04:59:31 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:59:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: <200601120413.k0C4Dme09064@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20060112045931.99182.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > My son is due June. I jumped the gun in announcing this, > because we are still high risk of miscarriage. Since you > bring this up, I apologize in advance for a topic that > is not extropic. But you are my friends and I need some > friendly advice: > > To circumcise, or not. Why or nhy? Offlist OK. Overall, if you've got a competent doctor doing it (enough that you know you've a significantly better than average chance of no negative effects - and this is already the norm in the urban areas of California), there appears to be a slight medical benefit to doing so. Of course, for a more thorough view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jan 12 05:10:32 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:10:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: <20060112045525.57698.qmail@web50506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200601120510.k0C5Ade17131@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Marc Geddes ... > Don't be an idiot. The thread is talking about > zero-sum games and contests - read the earlier posts. > It should also be obvious from these and the smilies > I was joking... > But you keep on being silly and moderating my threads > I might. Marc, do let me explain myself. There is great significance in reputation, online as in the meat world. Eliezer has contributed many valuable memes for many years here and elsewhere. If he were to ever post something that caused us irritation, we would forebear because of his prior contributions. You are the new guy. You have the burden of posting a lot of good stuff for a long time. Do that, then we will cut you a lot of slack. In the meantime, not. spike From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Thu Jan 12 05:19:10 2006 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:19:10 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) Message-ID: <20060112051911.37750.qmail@web50511.mail.yahoo.com> > The theory behind the Singularity Institute is that it's possible to > *save the entire damn world* without killing people, pointing guns at > people, telling people what to do, or any of the usual bullying > tribal-chief solutions that instantly pop into people's heads when they > consider political problems. That's not idealism, it's intelligence. > History teaches us that the "difficult" choices, the obvious wrong ways > to solve the problem, DON'T FRICKIN' WORK. Stalin broke plenty of eggs, > but where are the omelets? Hysterial nonsense. Eli's 'Elrond and the ring' thing is not a valid analogy either I don't think. We *don't know* that there's any real danger from recursively self-improving AI (and sorry, but 'Eli says so' doesn't count it. Only results published in an accredited academic journal do). In fact the more I've learned about Ai stuff, the more confident I am that there's no danger. I would never have posted the things I did to Sl4 , wta-talk and the Extropy list if I wasn't very very very very very very very VERY confident that Eli is wrong. That's why I've been taking the mikey out of him. AI's which aren't friendly can't recursively self-improve I say. All the unfriendly's are limited I think - that's my theory any way (Of course, even the limited unfriendly's could still do a fair bit of damage I must concede - they wouldn't be world destroying though). I shall attempt to write a paper which proves this at some point - it might take me several years to get it up a standard which might actually be accepted in an academic journal though. If I ever can. Of course, all my ideas *may* be total bullshit, in which case I'll be the first to concede I was a total arse ;) "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!? Listen to over 20 online radio stations and watch the latest music videos on Yahoo! Music. http://au.launch.yahoo.com From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 12 05:21:16 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:21:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0601111911u78c26358j1ee0205109e1fed7@mail.gmail.com> References: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> <22360fa10601111624l6b1512cfy703d7dec2d17b600@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0601111911u78c26358j1ee0205109e1fed7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10601112121m4728705fp735e0a36a4589382@mail.gmail.com> Russell - Thank you very much for your response which was truly to the point of my post. I'll consider responding in more depth tomorrow. - Jef On 1/11/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 1/12/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > When Robert has proposed destroying some portion of that which he very > > publicly and very obviously values, he was trying to promote > > intelligent debate about a certain class of decision-making that is > > very difficult for many people to even consider, let alone decide. > > > > Sometimes a military leader is faced with the difficult choice of > > sacrificing some of his troops in order to save the rest. Sometimes > > an individual will sacrifice himself to allow others to survive in an > > overloaded lifeboat. Sometimes a surgeon will advise a patient to > > undergo radical amputation in order to have a chance at life. > > Sometimes a politician will risk loss of popularity in order to > > contribute to a greater good. > > > > And too often people recoil in moral repugnance for lack of seeing the > > bigger picture. > > > > Thinking a bit more about it, I suppose in a sense I didn't really answer > this. I'll try for a more complete answer. > > Eliezer makes a useful distinction between, as he uses the terms, "morals" > (utilitarian analysis of what is good, what ends we aim for) and "ethics" > (restrictions on what means we should employ for some end even when we think > the overall result will be good); I think this is a useful distinction, and > I will use this terminology here. > > For example, I think child welfare is infinitely more morally important > than animal welfare; so if I have a choice between donating money to an > animal welfare charity and a child welfare charity, I'll choose the latter, > no problem. But suppose I have the opportunity to steal money from the > former to give it to the latter? This would be _moral_ (achieving a good > end) but my _ethics_ prohibit me from doing it. One need not regard this as > an ultimate condition; one could hold the view that a god would have no need > for ethics; the fact that we humans are fallible suffices to make it > appropriate to be cautious when considering whether the end justifies the > means. > > Now, along with (as far as I recall) everyone else, I rejected Robert's > proposal on _ethical_ grounds. But his proposal was a utilitarian one - it > was claimed to be _morally_ right - something that would lead to the > smallest amount of harm in the long run; and you have a valid point when you > say that we should also be willing to discuss unpleasant ideas in moral > terms. (If we decide something is morally right, whether it's ethically > permissible would be a separate discussion.) So I'm going to answer it in > moral terms. > > Today we have a hard won world order - not by world government, thank God, > but by consensus, at least among all civilized countries and most of the not > so civilized ones - that the slaughter of populations is not permissible. It > wasn't always that way. Last century, the Germans set up death camps and > killed millions of Russian civilians; the Russians retaliated in kind. The > Japanese army went on genocidal killing sprees wherever they set foot; the > Americans carpet-bombed Japanese cities. I'm not blaming the Allies for > their actions under the circumstances, but I think it's a good thing we > managed to get to a point where that sort of thing is no longer considered > business as usual; we paid a bloody high price to climb out of that pit, and > we should think long and hard before stepping back into it. > > My Visualization of the Cosmic All isn't clear enough to predict exactly > what would happen if Robert's proposal were followed, but here's what I > think would happen: > > While I can't speak for Muslim governments, I suspect that as far as most > of them are concerned, we in the West aren't their favorite people; I > imagine they think we're decadent and godless, and it's not like there isn't > truth in that. But most of them recognize that as a matter of ethics and > practical reality, it's best to deal in a civilized fashion even with people > you're not wildly fond of on an emotional level. They recognize that there > is a line, and mad dogs like al-Qaida have crossed it. So Colonel Gaddafi > buries the hatchet with the West, and the Pakistanis help hunt down > terrorists in the mountains. > > If we start pre-emptively dropping hydrogen bombs on a bunch of Muslim > cities, that hard-won order will be gone. We'll be back to a world where the > meanest killers come out on top. The first wave of nuclear explosions won't > be the end of the bloodshed, it'll be the start of it. Yes, the West could > win a global conflict as far as military strength goes, but at what cost? > Not just external, but internal. Remember the original proposal was the > elimination of all "faith-based thinkers". Should the Americans nuke Alabama > to get rid of their faith-based fifth column? Should the Alabamans march > west to slay the godless Californians in a pre-emptive strike? Actions have > echoes; I'm reminded of the time some Latin American governments started > talking about the First World banks "forgiving" their national debts (i.e. > defaulting); it stopped when their own citizens started writing to the > taxman, "Well our government is talking about forgiveness of all those > billions so I've a little debt here you can forgive". None of this is proof, > of course, but I think it at the very least casts grave doubt on the claim > that the original proposal would be beneficial in the long run. (And after > all, doubt is a reason for having ethics rather than just utilitarian > analysis.) > > Normally I wouldn't bother replying at all to proposals that nobody agrees > with - there's no need. But I think the challenge to think rationally about > unpleasant ideas is a fair one, and perhaps answering it in this case has > been a useful exercise; there might be a need to do it in the future in some > less clear-cut case. > > - Russell > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 05:49:07 2006 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:49:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP In-Reply-To: <43C5A3CE.3090301@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20060112054907.41336.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friends, I am writing to let you know that I am withdrawing my candidacy for the WTA Board. Regardless all my time and dedication, I have seen things in the WTA getting worse instead of getting better. The double standards, unethical practices, financial mismanagement, political recrimination, lack of transparency, immoral behavior and blatantly open lies of some of its leaders have been enough for me. Please, I urge to go over the WTA Board files that are open to paying members, and see for yourself. The drop that finally tilted the glass is the double morality exposed by some directors in order not to expulse Mr. D Medvedev, who has defended Stalin because of ?his overall contribution is overwhelmingly positive? regardless of ?a significant number of people were executed and a large number starved in a drought?. Some WTA Board members want to keep him because ?he is The webmaster of the Russian Transhumanist Movement? and ?he is an excellent translator of technical, transhumanist ideas between his Native language and English?. This shows a total lack of respect for human lives, freedom and human values, not only from Mr. D Medvedev but from some of the current WTA Board members, whose view is simply not compatible with humanism, and even les with the transhumanist ideas that I believe we have to strive for. I wish that was all. However, after telling many consecutive lies, James Hughes has been deleting my messages to the lists, and not just my messages, without giving any notice. In his typical Stalinist fashion, James Hughes has lied about how and why he censored the messages, but that is nothing new about his behavior of the people he dislikes. Nonetheless, Mr. D Medvedev and his support of Stalin is just moderated and not expelled, unlike other people before who supported the Nazis, for example. Well, the news is that Mr. D Medvedev now also told us about a strategy for the Nazis and how the WTA should create "a vision of racially pure superhumans? to attact them as well. James Hughes has been abusing his power constantly, including when he self nominated and appointed himself Executive Director in the WTA Board meeting in Oxford in 2004. He cleverly wrote to sets of minutes after the meeting, the original where he was not elected Executive Director, and a later one where he was supposedly appointed unanimously. However, there was never such an election, and even less an unanimous decision, since I certainly did not vote, and even less for him. Nonetheless, James Hughes is a clever writer of minutes, and so he wrote later what he wanted, even against reality and other people?s objections. Financially, James Hughes oversaw losing $ 7,000 in the Canada meeting, even though he always said it was a small quantity, but even now the figure is not really known. First he said, it was ?only? $ 3,000, then it grew to $ 5,000 and later he said it should be around $ 7,000. From 2004 to today, however, we don?t even have the final number. Harvey Newstrom, then a WTA Director, said that the financial management of the WTA was basically so sloppy that it might not pass any auditing process. That is why James Hughes has been constantly refusing the audit that I have proposed, even a free audit with no cost to the WTA. That sounds unbelievable, but true. And in 2005, James Hughes transferred close to $ 5,000 sponsor money to Africa instead of buying tickets for the supposedly African participants to TV05. Yes, James Hughes is responsible for losing at least $ 12,000 from its members and sponsors. Maybe that is why he has been constantly delaying the audit, but members should ask why to give money to the WTA to end like this. James Hughes also adores to love his enemies, and he has many. He never published any of my extensive writings in the IEET webpage when I was a fellow, and then he threw me out because I am an ?underdeveloped right-winger?, as he told me in Madrid last year. He has called Joseph Bloch a ?recalcitrant neocon?, he does ?hate that bitch? of Natasha Vita-More and many other comments about people who do not agree with him. Apparently he sees the world in black and white, either you are with him or against him. That is curious for a socialist who also hates Bush very deeply. One interesting description of James Hughes wrong ideas, without considering all his personal hatred, was clearly pointed out by Ronald Baily in Reason, so please take another look: www.reason.com/rb/rb051105.shtml. But you should really read the book to get the flavor of how much he hates the Extropy Institute, Max More and so many other transhumanists who don?t agree with him. Because of all the problems that James Hughes has had with so many people, we in the WTA Board gave him a one year trial period to see how he behaved. If you see the results, it has been a real disaster: more hatred, more problems, more bad talk. James Hughes has brought divisions to our little community instead of union and harmony. Maybe that is why he unilaterally declared last year that the WTA was not an umbrella organization of the transhumanist movement. Not only it is not an umbrella now, but it is driven by socialist ideas in a Stalinist manner. Anyone who disagrees with him will suffer hell, or just ask Harvey Newstrom, Eliezer Yudkowsky or Bruce Klein, or so many others before them. And so many others after me, because James Hughes will continue, it is in his nature: like the scorpion who will hurt anyone including himself. These problems did not start with me, and they will certainly continue as long as the unethical self-appointed and un-ratified Executive Director stays there. The reality is that James Hughes is becoming more of a liability than an asset to the WTA. I hope that you do not simply take my words for any of this, please, verify directly the WTA Board files, or contact me directly. It is very sad, but true. Nonetheless, I can gladly say that I will keep working on transhumanist ideas, because I believe in them, regardless of some rotten apples in the WTA Board. We transhumanists are so few, and we have to work together as opposed to be driven by totalitarian individuals, with political agendas, unethical behavior and double standards. Transhumanistically yours, La vie est belle! Jose Joseph Bloch wrote: mike99 wrote: >Joseph, >You missed the point of my message. > > Not at all. I grasped the point of your message perfectly. I simply disagreed with it. >Now Joseph, do you know of anyone from, let's say, the far-right who offers >the same combination of useful skills as Danila? > > You yourself said that DNAGod2000 (much as I might loathe and despise him and his message), aka Marcus Eugenicus, aka Marc Harris leads a "quasi-transhumanist cult". That strikes me as an effort that requires a certain combination of useful skills. He has a very well-developed website, and I daresay his organizational skills are exceptional. (I would say the same about den Otter, although he is somewhat less offensive and cultivates an air of respectability, inasmuch as he doesn't seem to promote the anti-Semetic rhetoric that Marc Harris does.) If he can found an organization, attract people to him, and get stuff done, all the while droning on about how Hitler was right, I fail to see how he is any worse than Danila, who drones on about how Stalin was a good man, and whose skill set is somewhat less. Are you saying we should attempt to cultivate Marc Harris as a member, hoping he grows out of his virulent neo-Nazism, because he has evinced some success in his endeavors? Of course not. He and his message are just as offensive as Danila and his message, and the fact that both of them could be seen as being marginally useful in no way makes up for the taint that an association with them would bring to the WTA as an organization. Joseph Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:36:34 -0500 From: "Joseph Bloch" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert To: "World Transhumanist Association Discussion List" , "WTA Board of Directors List" Subject: [wtaboard] Re: [wta-talk] IMMEDIATE EXPULSION OF DANILA [input] [input] [input] [input] Hughes, James J. wrote: >>Unfortunately, because the leftist political leanings of >>James Hughes and Nick Bostrom, it just took longer to condemn >>the communist and socialist murderers. >> >> > >I understand that the Bolivarian Revolution has placed you under a great >deal of stress, but I really must take exception to this absurd >accusation. Nick can speak for myself, but your repeated suggestion that >I have not moved to expel Danila because I am a "leftist" or a >"Communist sympathizer" is baseless and quite ludicrous. > I do not presume to speak for Jose, but I will point out that the fact that a double standard exists within the WTA is neither baseless nor ludicous. It is also self-evident that you (as a result of your self-admitted political leanings) are largely responsible for that double standard. You are, by your own admission, a Socialist (of the "Democratic" stripe, but a Socialist nonetheless; I confess I find the notion that the proletariat has voted to redistribute my property not so much worse than the oligarchs have decided to do so, but I digress). You have, to date, dealt harshly and with dispatch when racist or racialist elements have attempted to insinuate themselves within the WTA (and rightly so). And yet, you have dealt relatively lightly with our resident USSR apologist. You claim that it is not because you are a leftist or a Communist sympathizer, but you have yet to provide an alternative explanation for your foot-dragging. Can you honestly claim that Marc Harris (aka DNAGod2000) or Dalibor van den Otter would have gotten so many chances? Of course not, yet our resident USSR apologist has been spewing his bile for months and months, picking up exactly where he left off once his moderation was lifted (and the explanation for why that was done, when there was a motion before the Board to terminate his rights to post at all, is still awaited). The simple fact is you don't seem to see Communism (because it is so closely associated with the Socialism you profess) as offensive as racism, and thus you don't treat it as harshly. It is precisely that double-standard, wherein the excesses of the Left get a pass while the excesses of the Right are excoriated, which has no place in a supposedly "apolitical" organization. You do the WTA a disservice by indulging your personal political preferences. One has to look no farther than the recent vote amongst the WTA board to condemn totalitarianism. When I suggested that we should pass a statement that would "formulate a broad, yet effective, policy against totalitarianism and authoritarianism, regardless if it comes from Left or Right", your response was to formulate a statement that endorsed State control of the economy. And then to proceed to compare me to Joseph McCarthy for daring to point that out. Eventually the version offered by Dr. Bostrom made no mention of left or right was adopted, but the fact remains that we have explicitly condemned right-wing extremism (twice!) but never left-wing extremism. Other examples are rife. You claim you are not biased in favor of the Left. I say the evidence says otherwise. You harbor an immense double-standard, which is reflected in every aspect of your oversight of the WTA, and which makes a mockery of its claim to be an organization without a political agenda. You once said to me that the WTA should be whatever you say it should be because you do all the work. If that's really your view (though I have every confidence you'll promptly deny ever having said it), then I would urge you to come out and do it. I, despite what you might think, won't stop you. I'll leave quietly. But what I will not abide quietly is this farce that the WTA is somehow apolitical, and balanced, when it is in fact ultra-left and pursuing the personal political agenda of its Executive Director. Please, either go all the way or stop imposing the double-standard on the WTA. Joseph Bloch, Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 06:34:34 2006 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:34:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] JET: Peer-reviewed Journal? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060112063434.10015.qmail@web32812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Nick, We are still waiting to hear from you how the paper was reviewed? Can you please let us know? Jose "Hughes, James J." wrote: > who peer-reviewed Robin Hanson's paper on economic growth? Can't really say. It was published before I assumed editorship. Perhaps Nick Bostrom has a record and can tell you their professional qualifications. La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Thu Jan 12 07:12:26 2006 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:12:26 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) Message-ID: <20060112071226.66796.qmail@web50509.mail.yahoo.com> Let me just clarify my above point. I believe a Singularity (initiated by recursively self-improving AI) is possible, but ONLY a friendly AI can initiate a Singularity, since any AI that isn't friendly would be limited and not recursively self-improving. Why do I think this? The point comes down to something actually realized by Eli: that morality is not something that can be externally searched for, but something that has to be *built into* the structure of a mind from the start. But he (Eli) doesn't seem to have fully realized the consequences of his own argument. In order to recursively self-improve an AI would have to be able to perform mathematical self-reflection. This can only work if such self-reflection involved the ability to seamlessly integrate different kinds of knowledge ( i.e 'Consilience') and to grow knowlede (since mathematical self-reflection - or 'Godelization' by definition involves an expansion of knowledge). Call the originial fai computer program (or in mathematical jargon a 'function') F Call a possible improved version of the function hyper-F In order for the system to determine that hyper-F really is a mathematical improvement over F, there has to be another kind of mathematical entity (call it M) which expresses the relationship between the two functions - F and hyper F. In other words, there has to an M that embeds F and hyper-F in a single mathematical field. But the process of embedding (or integrating) two different functions into a single coherent field is precisely the role played by *Memes*, which form the basis for morality. A dynamic positive-sum interaction between two different people is *equivalent* to a static mathematical relationship between two functions. A well functioning M generator has to have morality already built into it. A coherent relationship between a possible future version of oneself and a current version of oneship is *equivalent* to a positive-sum dynamic interaction between two different people. Thus, the argument suggests, the problem of recursive self-improvement is simply a generalized version of the problem of morality. Ergo, solving the problem of recursive self-improvement has to incorporate (or subsume) a solution to the morality problem. Ergo, only Friendly AI can recursively self-improve. Am I making sense here? "Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder?s eye on the last day? ____________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Jan 12 08:21:24 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:21:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) In-Reply-To: <20060112071226.66796.qmail@web50509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060112082124.71338.qmail@web81610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Marc Geddes wrote: > Am I making sense here? I understood what you were saying, for what it's worth. The counter-argument, as I understand it (not that I believe it), is that a slightly broken self-improvement routine, good enough to self-improve to some extent, might exclude morality. That is, at some level it would lose out to a moral self-improver if one was around to compete with it - but perhaps, by the time that level is reached, no one (broadly including all other sentients, human or otherwise) is around to care any longer as it starts to break down. From diegocaleiro at terra.com.br Thu Jan 12 10:02:31 2006 From: diegocaleiro at terra.com.br (Diego Caleiro) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:02:31 -0200 Subject: [desejados] [extropy-chat] THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP In-Reply-To: <20060112054907.41336.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060112054907.41336.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200601120802.31253.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> So, is this a problem that Can, or that Can not be solved within WTA? Is it already an institutional problem? so that it would be worth to "restart" it from scratch. Or is it just about some people, that once taken away will be gone with the problem? Em Quinta 12 Janeiro 2006 03:49, Jose Cordeiro escreveu: > Dear friends, > > I am writing to let you know that I am withdrawing my candidacy for > the WTA Board. Regardless all my time and dedication, I have seen things in > the WTA getting worse instead of getting better. The double standards, > unethical practices, financial mismanagement, political recrimination, lack > of transparency, immoral behavior and blatantly open lies of some of its > leaders have been enough for me. Please, I urge to go over the WTA Board > files that are open to paying members, and see for yourself. The drop that > finally tilted the glass is the double morality exposed by some directors > in order not to expulse Mr. D Medvedev, who has defended Stalin because of > ?his overall contribution is overwhelmingly positive? regardless of ?a > significant number of people were executed and a large number starved in a > drought?. Some WTA Board members want to keep him because ?he is The > webmaster of the Russian Transhumanist Movement? and ?he is an excellent > translator of technical, transhumanist ideas between his Native language > and English?. This shows a total lack of respect for human lives, freedom > and human values, not only from Mr. D Medvedev but from some of the > current WTA Board members, whose view is simply not compatible with > humanism, and even les with the transhumanist ideas that I believe we have > to strive for. I wish that was all. However, after telling many consecutive > lies, James Hughes has been deleting my messages to the lists, and not just > my messages, without giving any notice. In his typical Stalinist fashion, > James Hughes has lied about how and why he censored the messages, but that > is nothing new about his behavior of the people he dislikes. Nonetheless, > Mr. D Medvedev and his support of Stalin is just moderated and not > expelled, unlike other people before who supported the Nazis, for example. > Well, the news is that Mr. D Medvedev now also told us about a strategy > for the Nazis and how the WTA should create "a vision of racially pure > superhumans? to attact them as well. James Hughes has been abusing his > power constantly, including when he self nominated and appointed himself > Executive Director in the WTA Board meeting in Oxford in 2004. He cleverly > wrote to sets of minutes after the meeting, the original where he was not > elected Executive Director, and a later one where he was supposedly > appointed unanimously. However, there was never such an election, and even > less an unanimous decision, since I certainly did not vote, and even less > for him. Nonetheless, James Hughes is a clever writer of minutes, and so he > wrote later what he wanted, even against reality and other people?s > objections. Financially, James Hughes oversaw losing $ 7,000 in the Canada > meeting, even though he always said it was a small quantity, but even now > the figure is not really known. First he said, it was ?only? $ 3,000, then > it grew to $ 5,000 and later he said it should be around $ 7,000. From 2004 > to today, however, we don?t even have the final number. Harvey Newstrom, > then a WTA Director, said that the financial management of the WTA was > basically so sloppy that it might not pass any auditing process. That is > why James Hughes has been constantly refusing the audit that I have > proposed, even a free audit with no cost to the WTA. That sounds > unbelievable, but true. And in 2005, James Hughes transferred close to $ > 5,000 sponsor money to Africa instead of buying tickets for the supposedly > African participants to TV05. Yes, James Hughes is responsible for losing > at least $ 12,000 from its members and sponsors. Maybe that is why he has > been constantly delaying the audit, but members ! should > ask why to give money to the WTA to end like this. > James Hughes also adores to love his enemies, and he has many. He > never published any of my extensive writings in the IEET webpage when I was > a fellow, and then he threw me out because I am an ?underdeveloped > right-winger?, as he told me in Madrid last year. He has called Joseph > Bloch a ?recalcitrant neocon?, he does ?hate that bitch? of Natasha > Vita-More and many other comments about people who do not agree with him. > Apparently he sees the world in black and white, either you are with him or > against him. That is curious for a socialist who also hates Bush very > deeply. One interesting description of James Hughes wrong ideas, without > considering all his personal hatred, was clearly pointed out by Ronald > Baily in Reason, so please take another look: > www.reason.com/rb/rb051105.shtml. But you should really read the book to > get the flavor of how much he hates the Extropy Institute, Max More and so > many other transhumanists who don?t agree with him. Because of all the > problems that James Hughes has had with so many people, we in the WTA Board > gave him a one year trial period to see how he behaved. If you see the > results, it has been a real disaster: more hatred, more problems, more bad > talk. James Hughes has brought divisions to our little community instead of > union and harmony. Maybe that is why he unilaterally declared last year > that the WTA was not an umbrella organization of the transhumanist > movement. Not only it is not an umbrella now, but it is driven by socialist > ideas in a Stalinist manner. Anyone who disagrees with him will suffer > hell, or just ask Harvey Newstrom, Eliezer Yudkowsky or Bruce Klein, or so > many others before them. And so many others after me, because James Hughes > will continue, it is in his nature: like the scorpion who will hurt anyone > including himself. These problems did not start with me, and they will > certainly continue as long as the unethical self-appointed and un-ratified > Executive! Director > stays there. The reality is that James Hughes is becoming more of a > liability than an asset to the WTA. I hope that you do not simply take my > words for any of this, please, verify directly the WTA Board files, or > contact me directly. It is very sad, but true. Nonetheless, I can gladly > say that I will keep working on transhumanist ideas, because I believe in > them, regardless of some rotten apples in the WTA Board. We transhumanists > are so few, and we have to work together as opposed to be driven by > totalitarian individuals, with political agendas, unethical behavior and > double standards. Transhumanistically yours, > > La vie est belle! > Jose > > Joseph Bloch wrote: > > mike99 wrote: > >Joseph, > >You missed the point of my message. > > Not at all. I grasped the point of your message perfectly. I simply > disagreed with it. > > >Now Joseph, do you know of anyone from, let's say, the far-right who > > offers the same combination of useful skills as Danila? > > You yourself said that DNAGod2000 (much as I might loathe and despise > him and his message), aka Marcus Eugenicus, aka Marc Harris leads a > "quasi-transhumanist cult". That strikes me as an effort that requires a > certain combination of useful skills. He has a very well-developed > website, and I daresay his organizational skills are exceptional. (I > would say the same about den Otter, although he is somewhat less > offensive and cultivates an air of respectability, inasmuch as he > doesn't seem to promote the anti-Semetic rhetoric that Marc Harris > does.) If he can found an organization, attract people to him, and get > stuff done, all the while droning on about how Hitler was right, I fail > to see how he is any worse than Danila, who drones on about how Stalin > was a good man, and whose skill set is somewhat less. > > Are you saying we should attempt to cultivate Marc Harris as a member, > hoping he grows out of his virulent neo-Nazism, because he has evinced > some success in his endeavors? > > Of course not. He and his message are just as offensive as Danila and > his message, and the fact that both of them could be seen as being > marginally useful in no way makes up for the taint that an association > with them would bring to the WTA as an organization. > > Joseph > > Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:36:34 -0500 From: "Joseph Bloch" > View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert > To: "World Transhumanist Association Discussion List" > , "WTA Board of Directors List" > Subject: [wtaboard] Re: [wta-talk] > IMMEDIATE EXPULSION OF DANILA [input] [input] [input] [input] > > Hughes, James J. wrote: >>Unfortunately, because the leftist political > leanings of >>James Hughes and Nick Bostrom, it just took longer to > condemn >>the communist and socialist murderers. >> >> > >I > understand that the Bolivarian Revolution has placed you under a great > >deal of stress, but I really must take exception to this absurd > >accusation. Nick can speak for myself, but your repeated suggestion that > >I have not moved to expel Danila because I am a "leftist" or a > >"Communist sympathizer" is baseless and quite ludicrous. > I do not > presume to speak for Jose, but I will point out that the fact that a > double standard exists within the WTA is neither baseless nor ludicous. > It is also self-evident that you (as a result of your self-admitted > political leanings) are largely responsible for that double standard. > You are, by your own admission, a Socialist (of the "Democratic" stripe, > but a Socialist nonetheless; I confess I find the n! otion > that the proletariat has voted to redistribute my property not so much > worse than the oligarchs have decided to do so, but I digress). You > have, to date, dealt harshly and with dispatch when racist or racialist > elements have attempted to insinuate themselves within the WTA (and > rightly so). And yet, you have dealt relatively lightly with our resident > USSR apologist. You claim that it is not because you are a leftist or a > Communist sympathizer, but you have yet to provide an alternative > explanation for your foot-dragging. Can you honestly claim that Marc > Harris (aka DNAGod2000) or Dalibor van den Otter would have gotten so > many chances? Of course not, yet our resident USSR apologist has been > spewing his bile for months and months, picking up exactly where he left > off once his moderation was lifted (and the explanation for why that was > done, when there was a motion before the Board to terminate his rights to > post at all, is still awaited). ! The > simple fact is you don't seem to see Communism (because it is so closely > associated with the Socialism you profess) as offensive as racism, and > thus you don't treat it as harshly. It is precisely that double-standard, > wherein the excesses of the Left get a pass while the excesses of the > Right are excoriated, which has no place in a supposedly "apolitical" > organization. You do the WTA a disservice by indulging your personal > political preferences. One has to look no farther than the recent vote > amongst the WTA board to condemn totalitarianism. When I suggested that > we should pass a statement that would "formulate a broad, yet effective, > policy against totalitarianism and authoritarianism, regardless if it > comes from Left or Right", your response was to formulate a statement > that endorsed State control of the economy. And then to proceed to > compare me to Joseph McCarthy for daring to point that out. Eventually > the version offered by Dr. Bostr! om made > no mention of left or right was adopted, but the fact remains that we > have explicitly condemned right-wing extremism (twice!) but never > left-wing extremism. Other examples are rife. You claim you are not > biased in favor of the Left. I say the evidence says otherwise. You > harbor an immense double-standard, which is reflected in every aspect of > your oversight of the WTA, and which makes a mockery of its claim to be > an organization without a political agenda. You once said to me that > the WTA should be whatever you say it should be because you do all the > work. If that's really your view (though I have every confidence you'll > promptly deny ever having said it), then I would urge you to come out > and do it. I, despite what you might think, won't stop you. I'll leave > quietly. But what I will not abide quietly is this farce that the WTA is > somehow apolitical, and balanced, when it is in fact ultra-left and > pursuing the personal political agenda ! of its > Executive Director. Please, either go all the way or stop imposing the > double-standard on the WTA. Joseph Bloch, Director > > > > > 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=1,1137044963.661430.5062.chipata.terra.com.br,35991,20031127114101,2003112 >7114101 > > Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra. > Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 11/01/2006 / Vers?o: > 4.4.00/4672 Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/ From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 10:18:02 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:18:02 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) In-Reply-To: <20060112051911.37750.qmail@web50511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060112051911.37750.qmail@web50511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601120218g6669207bya6f5168d015ee8ae@mail.gmail.com> On 1/12/06, Marc Geddes wrote: > > In fact the more I've learned about Ai stuff, the more > confident I am that there's no danger. I would never > have posted the things I did to Sl4 , wta-talk and the > Extropy list if I wasn't > very very very very very very very VERY confident that > Eli is wrong. That's why I've been taking the mikey > out of him. Oddly, you're right about this, though for the wrong reasons. That a race as mighty as 21st century Man could be exterminated by implacable Terminators with glowing red eyes and plasma rifles wielded by a superintelligence, at least makes intuitive and aesthetic sense. It's no more going to happen in real life than the USS Enterprise hitting Warp Factor 10, alas. The entities exterminating us aren't aliens from outer space in flying saucers with force shields that can withstand a nuclear explosion. The terrible truth is that we already know them. MTV. East Enders. Zoning laws. MAs in political science. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760 It makes sense, of course; the one thing an exterminator meme can't look like is an exterminator meme, otherwise almost by definition it wouldn't be one. Bacteria die to penicillin; HIV, the simplest thing, slips by. Sic transit gloria mundi. Unless we can win, in the timeslot available. I used to think if it took until 2500 AD, so it it. I was wrong. The clock really is ticking. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 13:43:03 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:43:03 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP In-Reply-To: <20060112054907.41336.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <43C5A3CE.3090301@goldenfuture.net> <20060112054907.41336.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 1/12/06, Jose Cordeiro wrote: > > Dear friends, > > I am writing to let you know that I am withdrawing my candidacy for > the WTA Board. Regardless all my time and dedication, I have seen things in > the WTA getting worse instead of getting be! tter. The double standards, > unethical practices, financial mismanagement, political recrimination, lack > of transparency, immoral behavior and blatantly open lies of some of its > leaders have been enough for me. Please, I urge to go over the WTA Board > files that are open to paying members, and see for yourself. > The drop that finally tilted the glass is the double morality exposed > by some directors in order not to expulse Mr. D? Medvedev, who has defended > Stalin because of "his overall contribut! ion is overwhelmingly positive" > regardless of "a significant number of people were executed and a large > number starved in a drought". Some WTA Board members want to keep him > because "he is The webmaster of the Russian Transhumanist Movement" and "he > is an excellent translator of technical, transhumanist ideas between his Native > language and English". This shows a total lack of respect for human lives, > freedom and human values, not only from Mr. D? Medvedev but from some of > the current WTA Board members, whose view is simply not compatible with > humanism, and even les with the transhumanist ideas that I believe we have > to strive for. > > And I thought it was only me... Anyway, welcome to reality and sanity. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 11:34:04 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:34:04 +0000 Subject: [desejados] [extropy-chat] THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP In-Reply-To: <200601120802.31253.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> References: <20060112054907.41336.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200601120802.31253.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> Message-ID: On 1/12/06, Diego Caleiro wrote: > So, is this a problem that Can, or that Can not be solved within WTA? > > Is it already an institutional problem? so that it would be worth to "restart" > it from scratch. Or is it just about some people, that once taken away will > be gone with the problem? > There seems to be more than one problem. The immediate problem is: What should a list do if a Stalinist sympathiser joins the list and many times posts that Stalin wasn't such a bad guy, just misunderstood? 1) Jose and Joseph support his immediate expulsion from the list and a formal WTA statement disowning such Stalinist views. This would be a clear solution and set a precedent for the future (like the previous WTA neo-Nazi expulsion). The disadvantage is the loss of some Russian WTA help. But this may be necessary if it stops the WTA associating with a pro-Stalinist Russian WTA site that wants to use transhumanist technology to promote a Stalinist-like state. 2) The current state of affairs appears to be to try to keep the Russian assistance by not expelling this person, but to moderate his offending posts so that Stalinist propaganda does not appear on the wta-talk list. The current moderation also bans any discussion of this problem from wta-talk by other list members as well. IMO this is a mistake. The moderator has a job for life because the Stalinist is unlikely to change his views (unless he emigrates to the West). The Russian WTA site is free to issue Stalinist propaganda and associate such with the WTA. Any Russians attracted to the Russian WTA site will meet with Stalinist support and future useful members will flee in disgust. Those remaining will be more Stalinist die-hards. The future problem will be worse if a larger Russian WTA organisation is created which supports Stalinist views. Financial mismanagement charges require an audit of the books. Every organisation that requests donations from the public should have an annual audit and issue an annual financial statement so that the public can see how their contributions are being used. This is a very basic requirement, no get-out excuses allowed. Organisational faults and mismanagement should be dealt with by the WTA board. They should provide guidelines for the day-to-day management of the WTA. The guidelines should, of course, be developed with the co-operation of the line manager to make sure that he is happy to work within these parameters. BillK From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 13:48:12 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:48:12 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: <200601120413.k0C4Dme09064@tick.javien.com> References: <43C53733.4050006@ramonsky.com> <200601120413.k0C4Dme09064@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 1/12/06, spike wrote: > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alex Ramonsky > ... > > BTW do you have a prime number of kids yet? : ) > > AR > > ********** > > My son is due June. I jumped the gun in announcing this, > because we are still high risk of miscarriage. Since you > bring this up, I apologize in advance for a topic that > is not extropic. But you are my friends and I need some > friendly advice: > > To circumcise, or not. Why or nhy? Offlist OK. Not. It is a mutilation he is not in a position to decide upon, and will not be for a decade or two. If it's so good why don't most uncircumcised men line up for it? It seems to me that it's just a US peculiarity no doubt stemming from some lunatic fundie influence at some point in history. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Thu Jan 12 14:11:14 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:11:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA matters Message-ID: Since ExI is an affiliate of the WTA, and we share many members in common, I thought I would post my response to some of the recent discussion of those issues here. Voting members of the WTA are welcome to participate in the discussion on our list for voting members. --- Sometimes its helpful to remind ourselves what an incredibly diverse organization we are. We have members in 100 countries, with views that range from far left to far right, and many that are just unchartable. We have every religious persuasion among our members, and many strongly critical of religion. Its hard to keep all that diversity moving together without occasional friction. On the matter of Danila Medvedev, the Board is currently investigating and reviewing the matter, and is scheduled to take up the motion to expel him next week. Some of his stated views are quite offensive, and we welcome input on whether they warrant expulsion and/or moderation. The relevant sections of the WTA Constitution are Article 3 Section 9 and Article 11 Section 8: http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/constitution/ As to Mr. Cordeiro, its certainly been invigorating having him on the Board. I wish him well in his future endeavors. Most of his concerns about WTA governance have been reviewed here, and by the WTA Board, previously. But we can answer any questions members may have about them. As to my personal failings, insofar as they have to do with my personality, my next book is about Buddhism, the neurosciences and the cultivation of personal virtues such as patience, compassion and skillful communication. The challenges of the WTA have certainly given me a lot of opportunity to reflect on those qualities, especially patience, over the last two years. If any of you have advise on ways I can improve my communication skills, and my work on behalf of the WTA, please let me know: director at transhumanism.org. Please be frank. Since Mr. Cordeiro has withdrawn from the Board election, we are left with five candidates for five positions, so, with the permission of the Board, I'll close the election today. -------------------------------------------- James Hughes Ph.D. Secretary-Treasurer 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 dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 14:13:15 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:13:15 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA matters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1/12/06, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > > [PR snipped] > > ... If any of you have advise on ways I > can improve my communication skills, and my work on behalf of the WTA, > please let me know: director at transhumanism.org. Please be frank. Resign Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 14:14:39 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:14:39 -0500 Subject: [desejados] [extropy-chat] THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP In-Reply-To: <200601120802.31253.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> References: <20060112054907.41336.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200601120802.31253.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> Message-ID: <7641ddc60601120614y33e02fa3k9476dc44fcc85f9@mail.gmail.com> Wow, so Jose, and Joseph quit wta too? Looks like the wta is hemorrhaging its nice people. Not surprising at all. Rafal On 1/12/06, Diego Caleiro wrote: > So, is this a problem that Can, or that Can not be solved within WTA? > > Is it already an institutional problem? so that it would be worth to "restart" > it from scratch. Or is it just about some people, that once taken away will > be gone with the problem? > From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Thu Jan 12 14:24:37 2006 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:24:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0601112026ge0d9bdaj83c43692da7343d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On the other side, circumsicion reduces the risk for cervical cancer in sexual partners and penile cancer. It also reduces/eliminates infection and inflammation of the foreskin. It also reduces the chance of STD transmission to sexual partners. BAL >From: Russell Wallace >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] circumcision >Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 04:26:40 +0000 > >On 1/12/06, spike wrote: > > > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alex Ramonsky > > ... > > > BTW do you have a prime number of kids yet? : ) > > > AR > > > ********** > > > > My son is due June. I jumped the gun in announcing this, > > because we are still high risk of miscarriage. Since you > > bring this up, I apologize in advance for a topic that > > is not extropic. But you are my friends and I need some > > friendly advice: > > > > To circumcise, or not. Why or nhy? Offlist OK. > > >Well, I guess it's in a clearly identifiable thread that can be easily >skipped by people who aren't interested in it... I can't give you a >definitive answer to the question; I'm no medical expert. But one thing you >might want to take into account when making the decision: I saw an article >awhile back about some number of baby boys who had a circumcision botched >to >the point where doctors found it necessary to go for a full sex change >operation. (It turned out badly: on reaching adolescence, they found >themselves psychologically male in female bodies; that was the context in >which I came across the article.) What the percentage of this is, I don't >know. > >- Russell >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 14:30:28 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:30:28 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0601112026ge0d9bdaj83c43692da7343d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/12/06, Brian Lee wrote: > > On the other side, circumsicion reduces the risk for cervical cancer in > sexual partners and penile cancer. It also reduces/eliminates infection > and > inflammation of the foreskin. It also reduces the chance of STD > transmission > to sexual partners. Is that a decision you feel happy for someone else to make on your behalf? I certainly know of circumcised men who greatly resented it. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jan 12 15:46:49 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 07:46:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ants teach and learn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200601121547.k0CFl0e19948@tick.javien.com> Cool! http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/01/11/ants.teching.reut/index.html spike From bret at bonfireproductions.com Thu Jan 12 15:52:43 2006 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:52:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0601112026ge0d9bdaj83c43692da7343d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <343F0C1D-E73B-48E8-B2DF-1E73A3985E13@bonfireproductions.com> For a little Devillian Advocacy: Dirk, this kid will get upwards of 50 immunizations aka shots aka intentional disease exposures in the first ten years of life. All of which have been almost predetermined as 'better than not', based on what Brian Lee just pointed out - reduced risk of infection, transmition, etc. Just a statement. ]3 On Jan 12, 2006, at 9:30 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Is that a decision you feel happy for someone else to make on your > behalf? From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Jan 12 16:03:24 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:03:24 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision References: <43C53733.4050006@ramonsky.com><200601120413.k0C4Dme09064@tick.javien.com> <8d71341e0601112026ge0d9bdaj83c43692da7343d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009001c61791$b8004500$640fa8c0@kevin> I doubt that your botched circumcision scenario is any more common than the case where the wrong leg gets amputated. It's a great story for creating fear and general awareness but the child is probably more likely to die in the car trip home from the hospital. As for circumcision, it is my understanding that it is much easier to keep clean when circumcised. I can only imagine that though as I was circumcised as an infant. I can tell you that I have personally never experienced any of the supposed problems others claim and have wondered whether or not circumcision has just been a convenient excuse for symptoms of other problems. ----- Original Message ----- From: Russell Wallace To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] circumcision On 1/12/06, spike wrote: > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alex Ramonsky ... > BTW do you have a prime number of kids yet? : ) > AR > ********** My son is due June. I jumped the gun in announcing this, because we are still high risk of miscarriage. Since you bring this up, I apologize in advance for a topic that is not extropic. But you are my friends and I need some friendly advice: To circumcise, or not. Why or nhy? Offlist OK. Well, I guess it's in a clearly identifiable thread that can be easily skipped by people who aren't interested in it... I can't give you a definitive answer to the question; I'm no medical expert. But one thing you might want to take into account when making the decision: I saw an article awhile back about some number of baby boys who had a circumcision botched to the point where doctors found it necessary to go for a full sex change operation. (It turned out badly: on reaching adolescence, they found themselves psychologically male in female bodies; that was the context in which I came across the article.) What the percentage of this is, I don't know. - Russell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Jan 12 16:03:16 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:03:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ants teach and learn Message-ID: <380-22006141216316888@M2W055.mail2web.com> Spike wrote: >Cool! >http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/01/11/ants.teching.reut/index.html I keep seeing nanorobots in my mind .... N -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Jan 12 16:48:07 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (M.B. Baumeister) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:48:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: <009001c61791$b8004500$640fa8c0@kevin> References: <43C53733.4050006@ramonsky.com><200601120413.k0C4Dme09064@tick.javien.com> <8d71341e0601112026ge0d9bdaj83c43692da7343d9@mail.gmail.com> <009001c61791$b8004500$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <33886.72.236.103.204.1137084487.squirrel@main.nc.us> What does the mother think, and what was done to the father are important aspects of this decision also. If (non)circumcision is not for religious reasons then it probably is simply "fashion" - what is prevalent at the time in any particular community. Cleaning is often cited as a reason for circumcision, but IMHO if you can clean your ears then you can clean your penis. Regards, MB From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 16:54:43 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:54:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060112165443.373.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > If it's so good why don't most uncircumcised men > line up for it? Because as an adult, a post-operative erection would tear the stitches out. Generally it is unwise to circumcise after puberty. The younger the better. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Jan 12 17:08:44 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:08:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060112170844.47413.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > Is that a decision you feel happy for someone else to make on your > behalf? > > I certainly know of circumcised men who greatly resented it. That argument goes both ways. There are certainly uncircumcised men who greatly regretted not getting it - and, as has been pointed out, by the time they were old enough to make up their own mind, it was much less medically advisable. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 17:12:38 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:12:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: <343F0C1D-E73B-48E8-B2DF-1E73A3985E13@bonfireproductions.com> References: <8d71341e0601112026ge0d9bdaj83c43692da7343d9@mail.gmail.com> <343F0C1D-E73B-48E8-B2DF-1E73A3985E13@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60601120912r380320fdrc6dc94d8ad7aff7b@mail.gmail.com> On 1/12/06, Bret Kulakovich wrote: > For a little Devillian Advocacy: > > Dirk, this kid will get upwards of 50 immunizations aka shots aka > intentional disease exposures in the first ten years of life. All of > which have been almost predetermined as 'better than not', based on > what Brian Lee just pointed out - reduced risk of infection, > transmition, etc. > ### One may wonder, what is the reason why humans evolved to have a foreskin? For fun? To increase risk of infection and cancer? If we knew why we have it the first place, we'd know whether it's smart to cut if off. Rafal From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 17:13:13 2006 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:13:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP In-Reply-To: <20060112054907.41336.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060112171313.31977.qmail@web35711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Why should he necessarily respect everyone's political opinions? Dr. Hughes can't be all political things to all political people. You are asking for a cyborg to be appointed head of WTA. [snip] James Hughes also adores to love his enemies, and he has many. He never published any of my extensive writings in the IEET webpage when I was a fellow, and then he threw me out because I am an ?underdeveloped right-winger?, as he told me in Madrid last year. He has called Joseph Bloch a ?recalcitrant neocon?, he does ?hate that bitch? of Natasha Vita-More and many other comments about people who do not agree with him. Apparently he sees the world in black and white, either you are with him or against him. That is curious for a socialist who also hates Bush very deeply. One interesting description of James Hughes wrong ideas, without considering all his personal hatred, was clearly pointed out by Ronald Baily in Reason, so please take another lo! ok: www.reason.com/rb/rb051105.shtml. But you should really read the book to get the flavor of how much he hates the Extropy Institute, Max More and so many other transhumanists who don?t agree with him. Because of all the problems that James Hughes has had with so many people, we in the WTA Board gave him a one year trial period to see how he behaved. If you see the results, it has been a real disaster: more hatred, more problems, more bad talk. James Hughes has brought divisions to our little commu! nity instead of union and harmony. Maybe that is why he unilaterally declared last year that the WTA was not an umbrella organization of the transhumanist movement. Not only it is not an umbrella now, but it is driven by socialist ideas in a Stalinist manner. Anyone who disagrees with him will suffer hell, or just ask Harvey Newstrom, Eliezer Yudkowsky or Bruce Klein, or so many others before them. And so many others after me, because James Hughes will continue, it is in his nature: like the scorpion who will hurt anyone including himself. These problems did not start with me, and they will certainly continue as long as the unethical self-appointed and un-ratified Executive Director stays there. The reality is that James Hughes is becoming more of a liability than an asset to the WTA. I hope that you do not simply take my words for any of this, please, verify directly the WTA Board files, or contact me directly. It is very sad, but true. Nonetheless, I can gladly say that I will keep working on transhumanist ideas, because I believe in them, regardless of some rotten apples in the WTA Board. We transhumanists are so few, and we have to work together as opposed to be driven by totalitarian individuals, with political agendas, unethical behavior and double standards. Transhumanistically yours, La vie est belle! Jose Joseph Bloch wrote: mike99 wrote: >Joseph, >You missed the point of my message. > > Not at all. I grasped the point of your message perfectly. I simply disagreed with it. &! gt;Now Joseph, do you know of anyone from, let's say, the far-right who offers >the same combination of useful skills as Danila? > > You yourself said that DNAGod2000 (much as I might loathe and despise him and his message), aka Marcus Eugenicus, aka Marc Harris leads a "quasi-transhumanist cult". That strikes me as an effort that requires a certain combination of useful skills. He has a very well-developed website, and I daresay his organizational skills are exceptional. (I would say the same about den Otter, although he is somewhat less offensive and cultivates an air of respectability, inasmuch as he doesn't seem to promote the anti-Semetic rhetoric that Marc Harris does.) If he can found an organization, attract people to him, and get stuff done, all the while droning on about how Hitler was right, I fail to see how he is any worse than Danila, who drones on about how Stalin was a good man, and whose skill s! et is somewhat less. Are you saying we should attempt to cultivate Marc Harris as a member, hoping he grows out of his virulent neo-Nazism, because he has evinced some success in his endeavors? Of course not. He and his message are just as offensive as Danila and his message, and the fact that both of them could be seen as being marginally useful in no way makes up for the taint that an association with them would bring to the WTA as an organization. Joseph Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:36:34 -0500 From: "Joseph Bloch" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert To: "World Transhumanist Association Discussion List" , "WTA Board of Directors List" Subject: [wtaboard] Re: [wta-talk] IMMEDIATE EXPULSION OF DANILA [input] [input] [input] [input] Hughes, James J. wrote: >>Unfortunately, because the leftist political leanings of >>James Hughes and Nick Bostrom, it just took longer to condemn >>the communist and socialist murderers. >> >> > >I understand that the Bolivarian Revolution has placed you under a great >deal of stress, but I really must take exception to this absurd >accusation. Nick can speak for myself, but your repeated suggestion that >I have not moved to expel Danila because I am a "leftist" or a >"Communist sympathizer" is baseless and quite ludicrous. > I do not presume to speak for Jose, but I will point out that the fact that a double standard exists within the WTA is neither baseless nor ludicous. It is also self-evident that you (as a result of your self-admitted political leanings) are largely responsible for that double standard. You are, by your own admission, a Socialist (of the "Democratic" stripe, but a Socialist nonetheles! s; I confess I find the notion that the proletariat has voted to redistribute my property not so much worse than the oligarchs have decided to do so, but I digress). You have, to date, dealt harshly and with dispatch when racist or racialist elements have attempted to insinuate themselves within the WTA (and rightly so). And yet, you have dealt relatively lightly with our resident USSR apologist. You claim that it is not because you are a leftist or a Communist sympathizer, but you have yet to provide an alternative explanation for your foot-dragging. Can you honestly claim that Marc Harris (aka DNAGod2000) or Dalibor van den Otter would have gotten so many chances? Of course not, yet our resident USSR apologist has been spewing his bile for months and months, picking up exactly where he left off once his moderation was lifted (and the explanation for why that was done, when there was a motion before the Board to terminate his rights to post at a! ll, is still awaited). The simple fact is you don't seem to see Communism (because it is so closely associated with the Socialism you profess) as offensive as racism, and thus you don't treat it as harshly. It is precisely that double-standard, wherein the excesses of the Left get a pass while the excesses of the Right are excoriated, which has no place in a supposedly "apolitical" organization. You do the WTA a disservice by indulging your personal political preferences. One has to look no farther than the recent vote amongst the WTA board to condemn totalitarianism. When I suggested that we should pass a statement that would "formulate a broad, yet effective, policy against totalitarianism and authoritarianism, regardless if it comes from Left or Right", your response was to formulate a statement that endorsed State control of the economy. And then to proceed to compare me to Joseph McCarthy for daring to point that out. Eventually the version! offered by Dr. Bostrom made no mention of left or right was adopted, but the fact remains that we have explicitly condemned right-wing extremism (twice!) but never left-wing extremism. Other examples are rife. You claim you are not biased in favor of the Left. I say the evidence says otherwise. You harbor an immense double-standard, which is reflected in every aspect of your oversight of the WTA, and which makes a mockery of its claim to be an organization without a political agenda. You once said to me that the WTA should be whatever you say it should be because you do all the work. If that's really your view (though I have every confidence you'll promptly deny ever having said it), then I would urge you to come out and do it. I, despite what you might think, won't stop you. I'll leave quietly. But what I will not abide quietly is this farce that the WTA is somehow apolitical, and balanced, when it is in fact ultra-left and pursuing the personal political agenda of its Executive Director. Please, either go all the way or stop imposing the double-standard on the WTA. Joseph Bloch, Director _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 --------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 17:45:18 2006 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:45:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: WTA IS ROTTEN Message-ID: <20060112174518.76857.qmail@web35712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Jose, it's your tone more than anything else, you sound like Stalin denouncing Trotsky: "..and he has misspent Party funds; he attacked worthy Comrades; he has..." Whom do you expect to find as semi-permanent WTA Secretary? nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 --------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos ? Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover Photo Books. You design it and we?ll bind it! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Jan 12 18:02:13 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:02:13 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60601120912r380320fdrc6dc94d8ad7aff7b@mail.gmail.co m> References: <8d71341e0601112026ge0d9bdaj83c43692da7343d9@mail.gmail.com> <343F0C1D-E73B-48E8-B2DF-1E73A3985E13@bonfireproductions.com> <7641ddc60601120912r380320fdrc6dc94d8ad7aff7b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060112114714.01e2f420@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:12 PM 1/12/2006 -0500, Rafal wrote: >### One may wonder, what is the reason why humans evolved to have a >foreskin? For fun? To increase risk of infection and cancer? > >If we knew why we have it the first place, we'd know whether it's >smart to cut if off. Of course, the following is not the same, but a similar retort might be made to those crazy people who cut their hair, shave their beards, depilate their pubic hair, trim their toenails, wash themselves with soap, wear condoms during anal sex, clean their teeth with toothpaste... As far as I can see, though, male circumcision isn't really like any of the above, and derives from a surprisingly recurrent practice of self-mutilation in many cultures, similar to the votive practices of, say, knocking out one healthy tooth, cicatizing face, breast, arms, etc, as a kind of tribulation and admission to the tribe as well as an obeisance to supposed Higher Powers. Silly, and rather nasty. That it turns out to have some unexpected medical side benefits for people living in highly urban communities and engaging in sexual practices unavailable to our ancestors who were stuck in the same small region with the same small number of people for their whole lives, provides no warrant of adaptation. On the other hand, given the elaborate and cross infecting world we now live in, and that circumcision does have this unexpected side benefit, and is best inflicted in infancy if at all, it's worth considering for baby boys. Damien Broderick From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 18:09:43 2006 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:09:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] JAMES HUGHES SHOULD RESIGN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060112180943.96272.qmail@web32804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> "Hughes, James J." wrote: If any of you have advise on ways I can improve my communication skills, and my work on behalf of the WTA, please let me know: director at transhumanism.org. Please be frank. James, The best thing for you would be to resign immediately. This is my very frank and direct advise. First you were never elected Executive Director, and then you even changed the WTA Board minutes to try to change reality. Nonetheless, we in the WTA Board gave you a one-year trial period, and the results for you look very bad. You should resign immediately since you are becoming more of a liability than of an asset for the WTA. As Mikko Rauhala very calmly said about you "I really don't see WTA viable with him at the top either, because of his ability to make enemies if nothing else". I only wish the enemies were only inside the transhumanist movement, but James is also making them everywhere. James is like the scorpion: it runs in his nature. James with all your hatred towards people who don't share your socialist and Stalinist positions, the WTA has no good future. Calling Natasha a "bitch", calling Joseph Bloch a "recalcitrant neocon", calling me an "underdeveloped ringhtwinger", and on and on and on. You already had problems with very respectable former members of the WTA Board like Harvey Newstrom, Bruce Klein and Eliezer Yudkowsky, and others before and more to come after. In a very preliminary survey that Harvey Newstrom was doing while at the WTA Board, he asked people about their impressions concerning the WTA. Unfortunately, the impressions were very bad, and particularly about the leadership. Maybe you should publish some of his findings for all to read. By the way, many people have written to me about how to see the WTA Board files, so please send the information for all to see and get in the files. Financially, you should be in jail or at least fired. Any decent institution who has lost about $ 12,000 because of your incompetence, would fire you immediately. Also, I request all the WTA members not to give any more money to the WTA until the financial statements are audited, which James Hughes has constantly delayed, even a free audit. I feel sorry for the Finns, as a quarter of the contributing members, who have been giving money to a mismanaged black hole. However, my final point is your total lack of ethics and your perverse double morality. Supporting Stalinist views for a nice web page and a good Russian translation don't speak well about your morality. Transhumanistically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 18:43:30 2006 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:43:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Motion: To bar James Hughes from posting on WTA lists for two months In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060112184330.59691.qmail@web32810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> James, I think that it is YOU who should be moderated, but only after you report the financial mismanagement and your unethical principles. Anyway, your Stalinist methods within "YOUR" WTA are clearly seen by all the others. You asked for advise, and now that you are told to resign you don't like. That again is typical of your double morality. Transhumanistically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Jan 12 18:57:35 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:57:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] HUMOR: A Guy describing a Traffic Accident via telephone Message-ID: <380-220061412185735757@M2W057.mail2web.com> Turn your sound up! http://www.chumfm.com/Morningshow/bits/march24.swf :-) Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 19:27:55 2006 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:27:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] JAMES HUGHES SHOULD RESIGN In-Reply-To: <20060112180943.96272.qmail@web32804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060112192755.18185.qmail@web35708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Do you know what Danila told me? He said there was some justification for the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, for national security purposes. This is the same sort of justification Americans use to condone the Vietnam War. There was/is nothing extropian concerning the USSR's invasion. Jose, do you find the ongoing wars in Latin America extropian? > However, my final point is your total lack of ethics and your perverse double >morality. Supporting Stalinist views for a nice web page and a good Russian trans- >lation don't speak well about your morality. >Jose nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 --------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 19:50:20 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:50:20 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] JAMES HUGHES SHOULD RESIGN In-Reply-To: <20060112192755.18185.qmail@web35708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060112180943.96272.qmail@web32804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060112192755.18185.qmail@web35708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 1/12/06, Alan Brooks wrote: > Do you know what Danila told me? He said there was some justification for > the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, for national security purposes. This is > the same sort of justification Americans use to condone the Vietnam War. > There was/is nothing extropian concerning the USSR's invasion. > Jose, do you find the ongoing wars in Latin America extropian? > But remember human security is better now than it has ever been. The full report can be downloaded as a series of pdf files, plus many tables and figures. Quotes: The first Human Security Report documents a dramatic, but largely unknown, decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuse over the past decade. Published by Oxford University Press, the Report argues that the single most compelling explanation for these changes is found in the unprecedented upsurge of international activism, spearheaded by the UN, which took place in the wake of the Cold War. What is Human Security? Human security is a relatively new concept, but one that is now widely used to describe the complex of interrelated threats associated with civil war, genocide and the displacement of populations. The distinction between human security and national security is an important one. While national security focuses on the defence of the state from external attack, human security is about protecting individuals and communities from any form of political violence. Human security and national security should be?and often are?mutually reinforcing. But secure states do not automatically mean secure peoples. Protecting citizens from foreign attack may be a necessary condition for the security of individuals, but it is not a sufficient one. Indeed, during the last 100 years far more people have been killed by their own governments than by foreign armies. All proponents of human security agree that its primary goal is the protection of individuals. But consensus breaks down over what threats individuals should be protected from. Proponents of the 'narrow' concept of human security, which underpins the Human Security Report, focus on violent threats to individuals, while recognizing that these threats are strongly associated with poverty, lack of state capacity and various forms of socio-economic and political inequity, --------------------- BillK From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 20:07:00 2006 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:07:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wtahall] Motion: To bar Jose Cordeiro from posting on WTA listsfor two months In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060112200700.99977.qmail@web32805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> James, You were on a one-year trial that you have failed, even after changing the WTA Board minutes to have you self-appointed. But in any event, calling other Board members "recalcitrant neocon" and "underdeveloped rightwinger" does not lead to censure? Apparently no in your Stalinist system, particularly when you are the one, and also after calling people "bitch" and even worse things. I make a motion to bar James Hughes for posting to on WTA lists for two months? Any seconds? James, do you like your own medicine? Jose "Hughes, James J." wrote: > Once the new board is seated, I shall be submitting a motion > to remove you from that position, on that basis. Votes of no confidence are a standard feature of parliamentary life. I look forward to the discussion, and will of course accept the result. However calling people "scorpions" is not a part of civil parliamentary debate, and ordinarily leads to censure. J. Hughes _______________________________________________ wtahall mailing list wtahall at transhumanism.org http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wtahall La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Jan 12 20:26:30 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:26:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason In-Reply-To: <22360fa10601111624l6b1512cfy703d7dec2d17b600@mail.gmail.com> References: <34BF7F5C-2360-4784-A470-691D4417020E@mac.com> <22360fa10601111624l6b1512cfy703d7dec2d17b600@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 11, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > > Harvey - > > Some of Robert's statements can really push people's buttons, but > consider that this is the guy who repeatedly argues for saving *all* > information, especially the more complex forms, as in living humans, > as being intrinsically good. He even argues for preserving society's > worst offender's, in a deactivated state, rather than executing them. > Nuking part of the planet most definitely will lose information. The argument was that it could save more information than it lost IIRC. But that was a bit of a stretch as it makes a series of HUGE assumptions. > When Robert has proposed destroying some portion of that which he very > publicly and very obviously values, he was trying to promote > intelligent debate about a certain class of decision-making that is > very difficult for many people to even consider, let alone decide. > The methods used did not and likely cannot lead to "intelligent debate". > Sometimes a military leader is faced with the difficult choice of > sacrificing some of his troops in order to save the rest. Sometimes > an individual will sacrifice himself to allow others to survive in an > overloaded lifeboat. Sometimes a surgeon will advise a patient to > undergo radical amputation in order to have a chance at life. > Sometimes a politician will risk loss of popularity in order to > contribute to a greater good. > And all to often major atrocities are committed in the name of "the greater good". > And too often people recoil in moral repugnance for lack of seeing the > bigger picture. There was no satisfactory "big picture" convincingly enough painted to justify mass murder. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Jan 12 20:48:52 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:48:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] All hail Will Wilkinson In-Reply-To: <20060112045525.57698.qmail@web50506.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060112045525.57698.qmail@web50506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: It was offensive trash mouth idiocy and denigration of nearly everyone here. It does not belong on this list. It is you who are being the idiot. So much hurtful idiocy is covered up after the harm is done by claiming it was "a joke". That kind of behavior is not a joking matter. If you cannot behave yourself or take correction then leave until you can or be more permanently banned. - s On Jan 11, 2006, at 8:55 PM, Marc Geddes wrote: >> Will some moderator please bounce this offensive > clown? Thanks. >> >> -s > > >> Did it within 5 minutes of the post. >> >> >> >> s > > Don't be an idiot. The thread is talking about > zero-sum games and contests - read the earlier posts. > It should also be obvious from these and the smilies > I was joking. > > There are far far more offensive messgages on the > board in other threads if you want to be a tight-arse. > In an earlier thread for instance Eliezer posted a > string of extreme hate messages about me - and it was > clear he *wasn't* joking. The moderators did nothing > about them. But it's all silly stuff so I don't > complain. > > But you keep on being silly and moderating my threads > I might. > > "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! News: Get the latest news via video today! > http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 21:22:37 2006 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:22:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] theory: early bird gets the man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060112212237.48895.qmail@web35701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Prehistoric man may have been hunted by large birds: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060112/ap_on_sc/south_africa_ancient_mystery nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 --------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos ? Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover Photo Books. You design it and we?ll bind it! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From acy.stapp at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 22:51:36 2006 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:51:36 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060112114714.01e2f420@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <8d71341e0601112026ge0d9bdaj83c43692da7343d9@mail.gmail.com> <343F0C1D-E73B-48E8-B2DF-1E73A3985E13@bonfireproductions.com> <7641ddc60601120912r380320fdrc6dc94d8ad7aff7b@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20060112114714.01e2f420@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: I can't believe that otherwise well-informed adults are seriously considering circumcision as a valid option for a child. Clearly children are unable to give informed consent for a medical procedure due to limitations of their understanding, but children should have sovereignty over their own bodies unless medically necessary. In the case of circumcision the potential benefits occur when the boy becomes sexually active and is arguably fit to make that decision for themselves. I can guess what 99.9% of teenage boys would choose. As a side note, in cases of adult circumcision if the stitches pull out during an involuntary erection (apart from the mitigating extreme pain which would tend to reduce such an occurance) then the circumcision has removed an excessive amount of skin. The skin on the penis should not be so tight that it rips out stitches. http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html Acy On 1/12/06, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 12:12 PM 1/12/2006 -0500, Rafal wrote: > > >### One may wonder, what is the reason why humans evolved to have a > >foreskin? For fun? To increase risk of infection and cancer? > > > >If we knew why we have it the first place, we'd know whether it's > >smart to cut if off. > > Of course, the following is not the same, but a similar retort might be > made to those crazy people who cut their hair, shave their beards, depilate > their pubic hair, trim their toenails, wash themselves with soap, wear > condoms during anal sex, clean their teeth with toothpaste... > > As far as I can see, though, male circumcision isn't really like any of the > above, and derives from a surprisingly recurrent practice of > self-mutilation in many cultures, similar to the votive practices of, say, > knocking out one healthy tooth, cicatizing face, breast, arms, etc, as a > kind of tribulation and admission to the tribe as well as an obeisance to > supposed Higher Powers. Silly, and rather nasty. That it turns out to have > some unexpected medical side benefits for people living in highly urban > communities and engaging in sexual practices unavailable to our ancestors > who were stuck in the same small region with the same small number of > people for their whole lives, provides no warrant of adaptation. > > On the other hand, given the elaborate and cross infecting world we now > live in, and that circumcision does have this unexpected side benefit, and > is best inflicted in infancy if at all, it's worth considering for baby boys. "Given the high likelyhood that a child will use tobacco, and that lip removal does have the benefit of reducing oral cancer, and lip removal is best inflicted in infancy if at all, it's worth considering for all your babies." > > Damien Broderick > -- Acy Stapp "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -- R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983) From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Jan 12 22:59:08 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:59:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA matters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If I had noticed that Medvedev was on the board I would have immediately withdrawn all association with WTA. There is no question abut the fact that he does not belong there and having him on the board is a major blunder. This has nothing at all to do with "diversity". - samantha On Jan 12, 2006, at 6:11 AM, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > Since ExI is an affiliate of the WTA, and we share many members in > common, I thought I would post my response to some of the recent > discussion of those issues here. Voting members of the WTA are welcome > to participate in the discussion on our list for voting members. > > --- > > Sometimes its helpful to remind ourselves what an incredibly diverse > organization we are. We have members in 100 countries, with views that > range from far left to far right, and many that are just > unchartable. We > have every religious persuasion among our members, and many strongly > critical of religion. Its hard to keep all that diversity moving > together without occasional friction. > > On the matter of Danila Medvedev, the Board is currently investigating > and reviewing the matter, and is scheduled to take up the motion to > expel him next week. Some of his stated views are quite offensive, and > we welcome input on whether they warrant expulsion and/or moderation. > The relevant sections of the WTA Constitution are Article 3 Section 9 > and Article 11 Section 8: > http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/constitution/ > > As to Mr. Cordeiro, its certainly been invigorating having him on the > Board. I wish him well in his future endeavors. Most of his concerns > about WTA governance have been reviewed here, and by the WTA Board, > previously. But we can answer any questions members may have about > them. > > > As to my personal failings, insofar as they have to do with my > personality, my next book is about Buddhism, the neurosciences and the > cultivation of personal virtues such as patience, compassion and > skillful communication. The challenges of the WTA have certainly given > me a lot of opportunity to reflect on those qualities, especially > patience, over the last two years. If any of you have advise on ways I > can improve my communication skills, and my work on behalf of the WTA, > please let me know: director at transhumanism.org. Please be frank. > > Since Mr. Cordeiro has withdrawn from the Board election, we are left > with five candidates for five positions, so, with the permission of > the > Board, I'll close the election today. > > -------------------------------------------- > James Hughes Ph.D. > Secretary-Treasurer > 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 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 23:05:05 2006 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:05:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA matters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5844e22f0601121505s663bc7e4p372eacc46d3ece5e@mail.gmail.com> Some wires got crossed in the communication lines: Danila Medvedev IS NOT on the board of the WTA. On 1/12/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > If I had noticed that Medvedev was on the board I would have > immediately withdrawn all association with WTA. There is no question > abut the fact that he does not belong there and having him on the > board is a major blunder. This has nothing at all to do with > "diversity". > > - samantha > > On Jan 12, 2006, at 6:11 AM, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > > > > Since ExI is an affiliate of the WTA, and we share many members in > > common, I thought I would post my response to some of the recent > > discussion of those issues here. Voting members of the WTA are welcome > > to participate in the discussion on our list for voting members. > > > > --- > > > > Sometimes its helpful to remind ourselves what an incredibly diverse > > organization we are. We have members in 100 countries, with views that > > range from far left to far right, and many that are just > > unchartable. We > > have every religious persuasion among our members, and many strongly > > critical of religion. Its hard to keep all that diversity moving > > together without occasional friction. > > > > On the matter of Danila Medvedev, the Board is currently investigating > > and reviewing the matter, and is scheduled to take up the motion to > > expel him next week. Some of his stated views are quite offensive, and > > we welcome input on whether they warrant expulsion and/or moderation. > > The relevant sections of the WTA Constitution are Article 3 Section 9 > > and Article 11 Section 8: > > http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/constitution/ > > > > As to Mr. Cordeiro, its certainly been invigorating having him on the > > Board. I wish him well in his future endeavors. Most of his concerns > > about WTA governance have been reviewed here, and by the WTA Board, > > previously. But we can answer any questions members may have about > > them. > > > > > > As to my personal failings, insofar as they have to do with my > > personality, my next book is about Buddhism, the neurosciences and the > > cultivation of personal virtues such as patience, compassion and > > skillful communication. The challenges of the WTA have certainly given > > me a lot of opportunity to reflect on those qualities, especially > > patience, over the last two years. If any of you have advise on ways I > > can improve my communication skills, and my work on behalf of the WTA, > > please let me know: director at transhumanism.org. Please be frank. > > > > Since Mr. Cordeiro has withdrawn from the Board election, we are left > > with five candidates for five positions, so, with the permission of > > the > > Board, I'll close the election today. > > > > -------------------------------------------- > > James Hughes Ph.D. > > Secretary-Treasurer > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -- 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 jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 23:11:46 2006 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 15:11:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: WTA IS ROTTEN Message-ID: <20060112231146.48247.qmail@web32801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Alan, Does my tone sound that bad? I apologize then. As for WTA Secretary, the WTA hired last year a full time staff person who can basically handle everything. La vie est belle! Jose [extropy-chat] Re: WTA IS ROTTENAlan Brooks albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 10:45:18 MST 2006 Previous message: [extropy-chat] ants teach and learn Next message: [extropy-chat] JAMES HUGHES SHOULD RESIGN Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] --------------------------------- Jose, it's your tone more than anything else, you sound like Stalin denouncing Trotsky: "..and he has misspent Party funds; he attacked worthy Comrades; he has..." Whom do you expect to find as semi-permanent WTA Secretary? nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Thu Jan 12 23:14:46 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:14:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA matters In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0601121505s663bc7e4p372eacc46d3ece5e@mail.gmail.com> References: <5844e22f0601121505s663bc7e4p372eacc46d3ece5e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43C6E2E6.8000504@goldenfuture.net> Absolutely correct. He is webmaster for the Russian Transhumanist Movement (an official WTA local chapter), and a frequent poster on the official WTA discussion lists and contributor to the events listed on the main page of the WTA. But he is not on the board. Joseph Jeff Medina wrote: >Some wires got crossed in the communication lines: Danila Medvedev IS >NOT on the board of the WTA. > >On 1/12/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >>If I had noticed that Medvedev was on the board I would have >>immediately withdrawn all association with WTA. There is no question >>abut the fact that he does not belong there and having him on the >>board is a major blunder. This has nothing at all to do with >>"diversity". >> >>- samantha >> >>On Jan 12, 2006, at 6:11 AM, Hughes, James J. wrote: >> >> >> >>>Since ExI is an affiliate of the WTA, and we share many members in >>>common, I thought I would post my response to some of the recent >>>discussion of those issues here. Voting members of the WTA are welcome >>>to participate in the discussion on our list for voting members. >>> >>>--- >>> >>>Sometimes its helpful to remind ourselves what an incredibly diverse >>>organization we are. We have members in 100 countries, with views that >>>range from far left to far right, and many that are just >>>unchartable. We >>>have every religious persuasion among our members, and many strongly >>>critical of religion. Its hard to keep all that diversity moving >>>together without occasional friction. >>> >>>On the matter of Danila Medvedev, the Board is currently investigating >>>and reviewing the matter, and is scheduled to take up the motion to >>>expel him next week. Some of his stated views are quite offensive, and >>>we welcome input on whether they warrant expulsion and/or moderation. >>>The relevant sections of the WTA Constitution are Article 3 Section 9 >>>and Article 11 Section 8: >>>http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/constitution/ >>> >>>As to Mr. Cordeiro, its certainly been invigorating having him on the >>>Board. I wish him well in his future endeavors. Most of his concerns >>>about WTA governance have been reviewed here, and by the WTA Board, >>>previously. But we can answer any questions members may have about >>>them. >>> >>> >>>As to my personal failings, insofar as they have to do with my >>>personality, my next book is about Buddhism, the neurosciences and the >>>cultivation of personal virtues such as patience, compassion and >>>skillful communication. The challenges of the WTA have certainly given >>>me a lot of opportunity to reflect on those qualities, especially >>>patience, over the last two years. If any of you have advise on ways I >>>can improve my communication skills, and my work on behalf of the WTA, >>>please let me know: director at transhumanism.org. Please be frank. >>> >>>Since Mr. Cordeiro has withdrawn from the Board election, we are left >>>with five candidates for five positions, so, with the permission of >>>the >>>Board, I'll close the election today. >>> >>>-------------------------------------------- >>>James Hughes Ph.D. >>>Secretary-Treasurer >>>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 >>>_______________________________________________ >>>extropy-chat mailing list >>>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>extropy-chat mailing list >>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> >> >> > > >-- >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/ >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 23:34:06 2006 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 15:34:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] JAMES HUGHES SHOULD RESIGN Message-ID: <20060112233406.83764.qmail@web32810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Alan, Indeed, the comments by Danila are most disgraceful. Read this he sent: "I also acknowledge that when Stalin was leading my country a significant number of people were executed and a large number starved in a drought. However, when taking into account the positive things that happened when Stalin was our leader, his overall contribution is overwhelmingly positive." And James Hughes still defends him, because he is a "good" Stalinist. The problems of Latin America are partly due to the terrible influence of communist ideas. That is why I am so much against communism and socialism, because I suffer it here:-( Well, now that James Hughes has done his latest Stalinist act of unilaterally banning me from all the main WTA lists, or at least my messages apparently are not going through anymore, at least I will have more time to write my latest book, precisely about the future of Latin America:-) La vie est belle! Jose [extropy-chat] JAMES HUGHES SHOULD RESIGNAlan Brooks albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 12:27:55 MST 2006 Previous message: [extropy-chat] JAMES HUGHES SHOULD RESIGN Next message: [extropy-chat] JAMES HUGHES SHOULD RESIGN Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] --------------------------------- Do you know what Danila told me? He said there was some justification for the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, for national security purposes. This is the same sort of justification Americans use to condone the Vietnam War. There was/is nothing extropian concerning the USSR's invasion. Jose, do you find the ongoing wars in Latin America extropian? > However, my final point is your total lack of ethics and your perverse double >morality. Supporting Stalinist views for a nice web page and a good Russian trans- >lation don't speak well about your morality. >Jose nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From starman2100 at cableone.net Fri Jan 13 03:06:06 2006 From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:06:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The "Fourth Turning" concept Message-ID: <1137121566_12686@S2.cableone.net> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jan 13 03:44:19 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:44:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] human security In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200601130344.k0D3iYe25934@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK ... > Quotes: > > The first Human Security Report documents a dramatic, but largely > unknown, decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights > abuse over the past decade. Published by Oxford University Press, the > Report argues that the single most compelling explanation for these > changes is found in the unprecedented upsurge of international > activism, spearheaded by the UN, which took place in the wake of the > Cold War. ... > BillK This is great BillK, thanks! If these threads morph, do change the subject line. We have been letting the WTA air their laundry here, but we should avoid having fifty posts titled JAMES HUGHES SHOULD RESIGN if it isn't about that topic. Many of us are carefully staying out of that business. {8^D Note that I am not saying not to post on that topic, just label it correctly, thanks. I figure a good part of the reason human security has dramatically improved is due to the internet. Consider the present tension between Eritrea and Ethiopia. The mainstream press doesn't say much about it, but anyone with a cheap computer and a phone can find out everything as it happens. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jan 13 03:45:44 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:45:44 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The "Fourth Turning" concept In-Reply-To: <1137121566_12686@S2.cableone.net> References: <1137121566_12686@S2.cableone.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060112214414.01d50528@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:06 PM 1/12/2006 -0700, JG wrote: >Journalist Linda Turley-Hansen discusses the "fourth turning" concept in the >column below, and I'm curious to know what list members think regarding the >validity of this theory. I independently made much the same analysis in a book based on my doctoral dissertation, THEORY AND ITS DISCONTENTS, 1997. Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jan 13 04:21:47 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:21:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200601130422.k0D4M8e30258@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Acy Stapp ... > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] circumcision > > I can't believe that otherwise well-informed adults are seriously > considering circumcision as a valid option for a child. Clearly > children are unable to give informed consent for a medical procedure... Thanks Acy, this is close to my own thinking. Number 2 on the extropian principles is self transformation, and number 6 is self direction. My notion is that this kind of decision should be left to the owner. >From this group I am surprised no one suggested that stem cell technology may soon make the procedure reversible. Had this been suggested, I would have morphed toward a discussion of possible emotional impact from what must be nearly unimaginable agony at the age of 8 days. Thanks to all who posted, both onlist and off. I intend to make a stand on this. He will go natural unless and until he decides otherwise. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jan 13 04:30:07 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:30:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] green ham and eggs In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060112214414.01d50528@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200601130430.k0D4UIe31889@tick.javien.com> Would you eat this? http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/01/12/taiwan.pig.reut/index.html {8-] spike From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Fri Jan 13 06:26:09 2006 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 22:26:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] TEH ECONOMIST: Google as a religion Message-ID: <20060113062609.79346.qmail@web32812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Face value St Lawrence of Google Jan 12th 2006 >From The Economist print edition Larry Page, the co-founder of Google, has always wanted to change the world. He is well on his way Getty Images DOES Larry Page ever get vertigo when contemplating his life and future? After all, Mr Page and Sergey Brin, the co-founders of Google, the world's most popular internet search engine, can legitimately claim to have caused an information and media revolution. At 32, they are already worth far more than $10 billion each and fly around in their own Boeing 767. Bill Gates fears them; others in the industry admire or envy them, and some seem to consider them capable of anything. Expectations are dizzyingly high. ?It's not a good thing to think about,? said Mr Page behind the stage after his keynote address in Las Vegas at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) last week. But if he must ponder his company's achievements and power, he says in his halting, thoughtful voice, it gives him an even greater ?sense of responsibility? to make the world a better place. ?The reason your question doesn't make sense?, adds Eric Schmidt, the comparative veteran who is Google's chief executive and jointly runs the company with the founders, ?is that he's too busy? to have vertigo. Busy, that is, changing the world. = 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0) { document.write(''); } // --> That self-avowed goal causes a great deal of confusion. For instance, for the entire week leading up to his Las Vegas speech, much of the world's press decided to believe a rumour that Mr Page would announce a new, cheap computer powered by Google software (thus, went the logic, finally contesting Microsoft's reign over operating systems). Mr Page announced nothing of the sort. Yes, Google will ?support? an existing (and well-known) project by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to produce a laptop for the poor, but so will many companies, and who wouldn't? At one point, Mr Page mocked such inflated expectations by ?announcing? Google Fastfood, a button in car dashboards that delivers instantaneous hamburgers. Mr Page used much of his speech to play the part of visionary geek-in-chief, dressed in a white lab coat and standing on spring-heeled sneakers, exhorting the 2,500 exhibitors at the CES to agree on industry standards and to make their gadgets less off-putting. He did also announce some intriguing new products?such as an expansion of Google Video, a download service that allows anybody to sell videos?thus continuing a seemingly endless dribble of product launches that cumulatively suggest astonishing ambition. Not only is Google already pursuing its stated goal to ?organise all the world's information? (not just web pages) by scanning library books to make them searchable, by bringing local information to mobile phones and people on the go, and so forth; it is also dabbling in side projects such as providing free wireless internet access to its home town in Silicon Valley, and perhaps to San Francisco and beyond. Mr Page's ambition started early. When he was 12, he read a biography of Nikola Tesla, a prolific inventor who never got credit for much, but is now a hero among geeks. Mr Page decided that he would be different: a great inventor and an acknowledged world-changer to boot. As the son of a computer-science professor, he channelled his energy into technology. By the time he was in college, Mr Page was building working inkjet printers out of Lego bricks?probably just to show that he could. A few years later, while doing his doctoral thesis at Stanford, Mr Page thought up his ?PageRank? system of ranking web pages by relevance, the foundation of Google's search engine. Teaming up with his intellectual soul mate, the Russian-born and mathematically gifted Mr Brin, Mr Page went ?on leave? from his research and founded Google. Mr Page was chief executive, until the founders were advised that they needed a more experienced adult at the helm: hence the arrival of Mr Schmidt, formerly the boss of Novell, a software firm. But Google stayed very much its founders' creation. It was Mr Page who wrote the letter?now legendary?in Google's regulatory filings for its stockmarket listing that announced the company motto: ?Don't be evil?. Despite rapid growth?from about 200 employees when Mr Page was chief executive to nearly 5,000 now?Google has lost none of its puritanical fanaticism. This zeal is starting to annoy some people. One visitor to the company's ?Googleplex? in Silicon Valley ?felt as if I were in the company of missionaries?. A consequence of the theory that Google is aiming to run the world could be that ?Google may be less liked in the industry than Microsoft inside 12 months,? says Pip Coburn, a technology analyst. Bloggers have started accusing Google of hubris and arrogance. Paul Saffo at Silicon Valley's Institute for the Future says that ?Google is a religion posing as a company.? Playing God If Google is a religion, what is its God? It would have to be The Algorithm. Faith in the possibility of an omniscient and omnipotent algorithm appears to be what Messrs Page and Brin have in common. It's ?in their DNA,? says Michael Moritz, a venture capitalist famous for investing early in both Yahoo! and Google. Whereas Yahoo! was started by two Stanford students who turned a hobby into a business, Google was started by two Stanford students who turned an intellectual obsession into a quest, says Mr Moritz. And what is that quest? Merely upstaging Microsoft would be almost banal. ?We're not trying to build a better operating system,? says Mr Schmidt (although that will not kill the rumour). Part of the plan is certainly ?organising the world's information?. But some people think they detect an even more grandiose design. Google is already working on a massive and global computing grid. Eventually, says Mr Saffo, ?they're trying to build the machine that will pass the Turing test??in other words, an artificial intelligence that can pass as a human in written conversations. Wisely or not, Google wants to be a new sort of deus ex machina. La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 13 08:16:31 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:16:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] next generation of ion engines Message-ID: <20060113081631.77079.qmail@web60019.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOSTG23IE_index_0.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 13 08:57:28 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:57:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: <20060112165443.373.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060113085728.26584.qmail@web60011.mail.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > If it's so good why don't most uncircumcised men > > line up for it? > > Because as an adult, a post-operative erection would > tear the stitches out. Generally it is unwise to > circumcise after puberty. The younger the better. This scenario seems implausible. Yes, the notion of a serious post-operative erection might suggest such a problem, but alternately, and in my view the more likely case, the pain associated with the onset of such an erection would put a quick end to the process. ************************************** --- Acy Stapp wrote: > I can guess what 99.9% of teenage boys > would choose. You're suggesting, I take it, that they would say "No way!" But what if it were culturally prescribed? If "all the men" had it done? It might be worth while to consult with some Muslims on this. They get circumised at age nine. This would give you some real data on pain et al. Also, I would guess that the Muslim boys 'choose' circumcision. At least insofar as any boy embarking on manhood 'chooses' the traditional ritual requirements/practices of the rite of passage. If I had to guess why most uncircumcised men don't "line up for it", I'd simply say, "What man in his right mind is gonna volunteer to have the end of his penis cut off, particularly if everything is working just fine?" Best, Jeff Davis "Is sex dirty? Only if it's done right," Woody Allen __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Jan 13 09:16:27 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:16:27 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] green ham and eggs In-Reply-To: <200601130430.k0D4UIe31889@tick.javien.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060112214414.01d50528@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200601130430.k0D4UIe31889@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 1/13/06, spike wrote: > > Would you eat this? > > http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/01/12/taiwan.pig.reut/index.html I've eaten worse:-( Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Jan 13 09:18:02 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:18:02 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The "Fourth Turning" concept In-Reply-To: <1137121566_12686@S2.cableone.net> References: <1137121566_12686@S2.cableone.net> Message-ID: On 1/13/06, starman2100 at cableone.net wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > Journalist Linda Turley-Hansen discusses the "fourth turning" concept in > the > column below, and I'm curious to know what list members think regarding > the > validity of this theory. Forebodings of the end of empire. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Jan 13 09:24:21 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:24:21 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP In-Reply-To: <20060112171313.31977.qmail@web35711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060112054907.41336.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060112171313.31977.qmail@web35711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 1/12/06, Alan Brooks wrote: > > Why should he necessarily respect *everyone's* political opinions? Dr. > Hughes can't be all political things to all political people. > You are asking for a cyborg to be appointed head of WTA. > mike99 wrote: > One either treats apologists for mass murder the same, or one takes the partisan position that some mass murderers are OK. It doesn't take a cyborg to be fair and even handed in such a situation. If you are going to ban Hitler fans, ban Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot fans as well. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alex at ramonsky.com Fri Jan 13 09:47:24 2006 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:47:24 +0000 Subject: [desejados] [extropy-chat] THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP References: <20060112054907.41336.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200601120802.31253.diegocaleiro@terra.com.br> <7641ddc60601120614y33e02fa3k9476dc44fcc85f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43C7772C.5020207@ramonsky.com> Hey, you forgot Harvey! : ) Happy new year AR ****** Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >Wow, so Jose, and Joseph quit wta too? > >Looks like the wta is hemorrhaging its nice people. Not surprising at all. > >Rafal > > > From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Jan 13 11:53:53 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:53:53 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Runaway consumerism explains the Fermi Paradox. In-Reply-To: <1137028834.5046.251653889@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1137028834.5046.251653889@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601130353yf860aadjd5b478402c8c6f27@mail.gmail.com> I just had another thought about this. It's been remarked how strange and wondrous it is that creatures evolved for survival on the plains of Africa should be capable of discovering relativity; and indeed our Stone Age brains have worked surprisingly well - until now. Why should the late twentieth century have been the time the system really started breaking down? One obvious answer is that the evolution of lethal parasite memes only really kicks into gear when information technology reaches a certain point. Another possible answer is that the Great Filter might have a whole series of mini-steps _after_ the evolution of intelligence. Perhaps most species that evolve the ability to make tools don't happen to have the psychology to reach the Bronze Age, most of those don't invent the printing press etc. It's interesting to note that our own species may have lasted just long enough to still have a chance - that is, the development of new technologies such as life extension, nanotechnology, AI etc might still come in time. Combine that with something like the Simulation Argument, and we would expect that most intelligent _species_ don't get to the point of being astronomically observable, but most _observers_ find themselves members of species that _just barely_ make it. (I'm not necessarily claiming this should be taken seriously - I'm not sure anthropic arguments of this type have logical force (though they have made one successful prediction that I know of) - just offering it for those who, like me, find it amusing to dip into existential paranoia now and then :)) - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hemm at openlink.com.br Fri Jan 13 13:51:51 2006 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:51:51 -0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] green ham and eggs References: <200601130430.k0D4UIe31889@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <014a01c61848$83fb8a50$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Didn't your mom allways tell you to eat the greens? :-P ----- Original Message ----- From: "spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 2:30 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] green ham and eggs > Would you eat this? > http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/01/12/taiwan.pig.reut/index.html > {8-] From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Fri Jan 13 15:08:21 2006 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:08:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: <200601130422.k0D4M8e30258@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: I think it's a bit ridiculous to not perform the procedure because an infant can't give consent. Will you wait until he's old enough to consent to vaccinations? Or blood transfusions? Or to donate a kidney to a dying twin? Parents are stewards of children and able and responsible to make important decisions. Would you make the decision to alter a baby's genes to improve intelligence, or to improve muscle growth or to improve their immune system if it involved a few minutes of pain that will not be remember after an hour? As for the trauma. At that age, the act of circumcision is not remembered and there are no credible studies to suggest that this pain affects the child. Think about it, 8 days ago the baby was pushed out of its mother which is much more painful than circumcision. BAL >From: "spike" >Reply-To: ExI chat list >To: "'ExI chat list'" >Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] circumcision >Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:21:47 -0800 > > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Acy Stapp >... > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] circumcision > > > > I can't believe that otherwise well-informed adults are seriously > > considering circumcision as a valid option for a child. Clearly > > children are unable to give informed consent for a medical procedure... > > >Thanks Acy, this is close to my own thinking. Number 2 >on the extropian principles is self transformation, and >number 6 is self direction. My notion is that this kind >of decision should be left to the owner. > > >From this group I am surprised no one suggested that >stem cell technology may soon make the procedure >reversible. Had this been suggested, I would have >morphed toward a discussion of possible emotional >impact from what must be nearly unimaginable agony >at the age of 8 days. > >Thanks to all who posted, both onlist and off. I >intend to make a stand on this. He will go natural >unless and until he decides otherwise. > >spike > > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Jan 13 15:40:13 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (M.B. Baumeister) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:40:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <200601130422.k0D4M8e30258@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <34396.72.236.102.117.1137166813.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > As for the trauma. At that age, the act of circumcision is not remembered > and there are no credible studies to suggest that this pain affects the > child. Think about it, 8 days ago the baby was pushed out of its mother > which is much more painful than circumcision. > Perhaps there's something I'm missing here... what's with the "8 days" bit? My son was circumcised in the delivery room within moments of the birth. Why? Because it was common practice, as far as we knew, at the time. If we had it to do over, I think I would *not* choose circumcision. Mainly because I don't have any solid reason *for* it and am now more averse to needless (and as far as I know pointless) medical procedures. Regards, MB From albrooks2006 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 13 14:39:04 2006 From: albrooks2006 at yahoo.com (Alan Brooks) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:39:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060113143904.92881.qmail@web35709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I've been told not to post on this subject, but it's astonishing-- the flames directed at Dr. Hughes; it would appear he'd have to be Pol Pot himself to get so many negative reactions. That's all I'll say...'nuff said, bury the dead. >Dirk Bruere wrote:One either treats apologists for mass murder the same, or one >takes the partisan position that some mass murderers are OK.It doesn't take a >cyborg to be fair and even handed in such a situation.If you are going to ban Hitler fans, ban Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot fans as well. >Dirk nattering nabob of positivism since 1976 --------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos ? Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover Photo Books. You design it and we?ll bind it! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From James.Rayburn at chw.edu Fri Jan 13 16:31:05 2006 From: James.Rayburn at chw.edu (Rayburn, James) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:31:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision Message-ID: Our son was circed at the age of 8. We felt that it wasn't an issue as long as the kid learned to keep himself clean. Long story short, hey, I had to go there, he developed adhesions at the age of 7. He had more pain from the adhesion wound than the circ wound. Yep we (I) taught him how to clean himself; we called it the protocol. As my son got older and gained freedoms he developed his own, albeit, less thorough protocol. Thing is, one needs to set kids free at some point and the behind the ear inspections, (Have you looked behind the ears of kids ages 6-10? Some strange goings on back there.) become less frequent. Jim -----Original Message----- From: M.B. Baumeister [mailto:mbb386 at main.nc.us] Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 8:40 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] circumcision > > As for the trauma. At that age, the act of circumcision is not remembered > and there are no credible studies to suggest that this pain affects the > child. Think about it, 8 days ago the baby was pushed out of its mother > which is much more painful than circumcision. > Perhaps there's something I'm missing here... what's with the "8 days" bit? My son was circumcised in the delivery room within moments of the birth. Why? Because it was common practice, as far as we knew, at the time. If we had it to do over, I think I would *not* choose circumcision. Mainly because I don't have any solid reason *for* it and am now more averse to needless (and as far as I know pointless) medical procedures. Regards, MB _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jan 13 17:19:50 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:19:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP In-Reply-To: <20060113143904.92881.qmail@web35709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200601131719.k0DHJte09567@tick.javien.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alan Brooks Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP I've been told not to post on this subject, but?it's astonishing--?the?flames directed at?Dr. Hughes; it would appear he'd?have to be Pol Pot himself to get so many?negative reactions. That's all I'll say...'nuff said, bury the dead. All right, Al Brooks has said his piece and ended with his 'nuff said, bury the dead, so I take that as an agreement to not post further on this topic. Since we have a volatile subject here, with a person's name in the subject line (poor form by the way), I propose the following. If one has no direct knowledge of the WTA, or is one of the usual suspects who gets in trouble with the moderators a lot, then I ask that you lay low on this topic and listen to what the others have to say on it. Thanks! {8-] spike From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Jan 13 17:39:56 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:39:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] next generation of ion engines In-Reply-To: <20060113081631.77079.qmail@web60019.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060113173956.69893.qmail@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hmm. The stats on it as listed at http://www.estec.esa.nl/conferences/FPD/info/eui-act20051215.pdf suggest that you could get up to a full Newton of thrust with 100 cm^2 of grid. I wonder how light one could build an engine that size? If one could also find a battery or capacitor capable of delivering 100 kW over 10-15 minutes, such that battery/capacitor plus grid was less than a kilogram total mass, one could use this for ground launches. (Some googling seems to indicate that said amount for the energy storage alone - at about 17-25 kWh/kg - it either well beyond or about at the limit of current technology, and that's not including the engine's mass.) --- Jeff Davis wrote: > http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOSTG23IE_index_0.html > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jan 13 17:41:50 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:41:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] subject lines In-Reply-To: <200601131719.k0DHJte09567@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200601131741.k0DHfte11699@tick.javien.com> > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP ... > > Since we have a volatile subject here, with a person's > name in the subject line (poor form by the way)... > > spike Regarding highly controversial issues, I request non-inflammatory subject lines, such as "WTA business" or something other than "THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP" or anything with a person's name. We put a stop to it when they were doing that to Harvey Newstrom a couple years ago. Thanks. spike From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Jan 13 18:35:58 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (M.B. Baumeister) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:35:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <34538.72.236.103.102.1137177358.squirrel@main.nc.us> > Our son was circed at the age of 8. We felt that it wasn't an issue as > long > as the kid learned to keep himself clean. Long story short, hey, I had to > go > there, he developed adhesions at the age of 7. He had more pain from the > adhesion wound than the circ wound. Yep we (I) taught him how to clean > himself; we called it the protocol. As my son got older and gained > freedoms > he developed his own, albeit, less thorough protocol. Thing is, one needs > to set kids free at some point and the behind the ear inspections, (Have > you > looked behind the ears of kids ages 6-10? Some strange goings on back > there.) become less frequent. Ouch! :( IIUC my brother was circumcised before going to war (I was just a little kid). It was related to being able to keep clean - in wartime, where? when? how? Makes sense, I guess. It was his idea. You're right, you cannot subject a big kid of 8-10 to such thorough inspection, they must begin to take responsibility for themselves. My son had toenail troubles: he was cutting them wrong and that led to ingrown toenails. Geez. :/ I thought we'd covered that, but plainly he hadn't gotten the message. Kids. Once a parent, always a parent! :))) Regards, MB From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Jan 14 03:08:49 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:08:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] WTA matters In-Reply-To: <43C6E2E6.8000504@goldenfuture.net> References: <5844e22f0601121505s663bc7e4p372eacc46d3ece5e@mail.gmail.com> <43C6E2E6.8000504@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: Ah, good. On Jan 12, 2006, at 3:14 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Absolutely correct. He is webmaster for the Russian Transhumanist > Movement (an official WTA local chapter), and a frequent poster on > the official WTA discussion lists and contributor to the events > listed on the main page of the WTA. > > But he is not on the board. > > Joseph > > Jeff Medina wrote: > >> Some wires got crossed in the communication lines: Danila Medvedev IS >> NOT on the board of the WTA. >> >> On 1/12/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >>> If I had noticed that Medvedev was on the board I would have >>> immediately withdrawn all association with WTA. There is no >>> question >>> abut the fact that he does not belong there and having him on the >>> board is a major blunder. This has nothing at all to do with >>> "diversity". >>> >>> - samantha >>> >>> On Jan 12, 2006, at 6:11 AM, Hughes, James J. wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Since ExI is an affiliate of the WTA, and we share many members in >>>> common, I thought I would post my response to some of the recent >>>> discussion of those issues here. Voting members of the WTA are >>>> welcome >>>> to participate in the discussion on our list for voting members. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Sometimes its helpful to remind ourselves what an incredibly >>>> diverse >>>> organization we are. We have members in 100 countries, with >>>> views that >>>> range from far left to far right, and many that are just >>>> unchartable. We >>>> have every religious persuasion among our members, and many >>>> strongly >>>> critical of religion. Its hard to keep all that diversity moving >>>> together without occasional friction. >>>> >>>> On the matter of Danila Medvedev, the Board is currently >>>> investigating >>>> and reviewing the matter, and is scheduled to take up the motion to >>>> expel him next week. Some of his stated views are quite >>>> offensive, and >>>> we welcome input on whether they warrant expulsion and/or >>>> moderation. >>>> The relevant sections of the WTA Constitution are Article 3 >>>> Section 9 >>>> and Article 11 Section 8: >>>> http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/constitution/ >>>> >>>> As to Mr. Cordeiro, its certainly been invigorating having him >>>> on the >>>> Board. I wish him well in his future endeavors. Most of his >>>> concerns >>>> about WTA governance have been reviewed here, and by the WTA Board, >>>> previously. But we can answer any questions members may have about >>>> them. >>>> >>>> >>>> As to my personal failings, insofar as they have to do with my >>>> personality, my next book is about Buddhism, the neurosciences >>>> and the >>>> cultivation of personal virtues such as patience, compassion and >>>> skillful communication. The challenges of the WTA have certainly >>>> given >>>> me a lot of opportunity to reflect on those qualities, especially >>>> patience, over the last two years. If any of you have advise on >>>> ways I >>>> can improve my communication skills, and my work on behalf of >>>> the WTA, >>>> please let me know: director at transhumanism.org. Please be frank. >>>> >>>> Since Mr. Cordeiro has withdrawn from the Board election, we are >>>> left >>>> with five candidates for five positions, so, with the permission of >>>> the >>>> Board, I'll close the election today. >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------- >>>> James Hughes Ph.D. >>>> Secretary-Treasurer >>>> 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 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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/ >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Jan 14 03:52:05 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:52:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP In-Reply-To: <200601131719.k0DHJte09567@tick.javien.com> References: <200601131719.k0DHJte09567@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Jan 13, 2006, at 9:19 AM, spike wrote: > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alan Brooks > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP > > I've been told not to post on this subject, but it's > astonishing-- the flames directed at Dr. Hughes; it would appear > he'd have > to be Pol Pot himself to get so many negative reactions. > That's all I'll say...'nuff said, bury the dead. > > > > All right, Al Brooks has said his piece and ended with > his 'nuff said, bury the dead, so I take that as an > agreement to not post further on this topic. A sibling organization seem to be have some real troubles. I think that is a little too important to more or less sweep it under the rug. So I hope we continue to discuss it. - samantha From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 14 04:06:08 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:06:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] subject lines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200601140406.k0E46Ie09153@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 7:52 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP > > > On Jan 13, 2006, at 9:19 AM, spike wrote: > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alan Brooks > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] THE WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP ... > > That's all I'll say...'nuff said, bury the dead. > > > > > > > > All right, Al Brooks has said his piece and ended with > > his 'nuff said, bury the dead, so I take that as an > > agreement to not post further on this topic. > > A sibling organization seem to be have some real troubles. I think > that is a little too important to more or less sweep it under the > rug. So I hope we continue to discuss it. > > - samantha Ja I agree. My request was that 1) those who do not know about WTA should listen to those who do, and 2) pay attention to subject lines. The subject line WTA IS ROTTEN FROM THE TOP is unlikely to produce useful discourse. This topic is too important to have it devolve into a screaming match. spike From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Jan 14 04:34:50 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:34:50 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision References: <8d71341e0601112026ge0d9bdaj83c43692da7343d9@mail.gmail.com><343F0C1D-E73B-48E8-B2DF-1E73A3985E13@bonfireproductions.com> <7641ddc60601120912r380320fdrc6dc94d8ad7aff7b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000f01c618c3$dbb9e400$640fa8c0@kevin> > > If we knew why we have it the first place, we'd know whether it's > smart to cut if off. > This always disturns me. The thought that every part of us has a "reason". Chance plays a much larger part than I think many want to admit. And there are lots of things that we get that have not benefits at all. From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Jan 14 04:39:26 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:39:26 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] circumcision References: <8d71341e0601112026ge0d9bdaj83c43692da7343d9@mail.gmail.com><343F0C1D-E73B-48E8-B2DF-1E73A3985E13@bonfireproductions.com><7641ddc60601120912r380320fdrc6dc94d8ad7aff7b@mail.gmail.com><6.2.1.2.0.20060112114714.01e2f420@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <002301c618c4$80231fc0$640fa8c0@kevin> >but children should have > sovereignty over their own bodies unless medically necessary. Are you serious? I told my parents clearly I DO NOT want braces. What an idiot I was! Good thing they didn't see it your way. > I can guess what 99.9% of teenage boys would choose. What's that? And why do you think? From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sat Jan 14 04:44:22 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:44:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A new email list to bridge the gaps In-Reply-To: References: <200601131719.k0DHJte09567@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <43C881A6.5090208@goldenfuture.net> I confess I'm not entirely sure why the WTA internal fighting was brought up in the ExI chat list to begin with, but perhaps because the initiator felt his posts would be suppressed in the WTA fora. Still, they are not relevant to the Extropy Institute, and I feel it's unfair to inflict such carnage on another group, "sibling organization" or not. Fortunately I have come up with something of a solution. Behold the Transhumanism_general email list, which is not associated with any organization. Completely independent, and a tad iconoclastic for all of that, but hopefully it will grow into something of its own, and be a place where the WTA and ExI (and, hopefully, those who don't find either organization to their taste) can find a common meeting-place. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Transhumanist_general I really hope folks will see this as an opportunity to get past not only the recent rancor, but the long-standing feud between the factions in >H circles. Let's use this as a way to come together, and emphasize our commonalities, and all help bring about the PostHuman world thereby. Come, let's talk. Joseph From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Sat Jan 14 06:16:39 2006 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (deimtee) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:16:39 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] next generation of ion engines In-Reply-To: <20060113173956.69893.qmail@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060113173956.69893.qmail@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43C89747.6020202@optusnet.com.au> Adrian Tymes wrote: >Hmm. The stats on it as listed at >http://www.estec.esa.nl/conferences/FPD/info/eui-act20051215.pdf >suggest that you could get up to a full Newton of thrust with >100 cm^2 of grid. I wonder how light one could build an engine >that size? If one could also find a battery or capacitor >capable of delivering 100 kW over 10-15 minutes, such that >battery/capacitor plus grid was less than a kilogram total mass, >one could use this for ground launches. (Some googling seems >to indicate that said amount for the energy storage alone - at >about 17-25 kWh/kg - it either well beyond or about at the limit >of current technology, and that's not including the engine's >mass.) > > Uh, no. It takes about 10 newtons to lift a kilo against 1 gee. You would have to get the mass under 100 grams just to lift off. However, how about if you dropped it off SpaceShipOne at apogee? How much time have you got to give it orbital velocity before drag exceeds thrust? also, I think you are a bit optimistic on the battery too. 100kW * 10 min = 16.666 kWHrs Thats about the same as a 12 volt battery delivering 1400 amps for an hour. I want some of those for my electric car. : ) - deimtee. From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat Jan 14 07:57:09 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:57:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] next generation of ion engines In-Reply-To: <43C89747.6020202@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <20060114075709.94949.qmail@web81609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- deimtee wrote: > It takes about 10 newtons to lift a kilo against 1 gee. ...right, forgot to factor in G. > However, how about if you dropped it off SpaceShipOne at apogee? > How much time have you got to give it orbital velocity before drag > exceeds thrust? >From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne_flight_17P we know that SSO only took 24 minutes between detaching from White Knight through apogee to landing, of which just over 80 seconds was spent under thrust. So the apogee-to-landing phase probably took about 12 minutes. Most orbital rocket launches I've studied seem to take about 10 minutes to get to orbital velocity. So, you'd probably need wings or something to gain lift while going at hypersonic speeds - and the wings would need to be thermally protected (probably made out of solid heat shields), because as you get towards Mach 25 you're flying not through air but through plasma. Which is not to say it can't be done, just that a proper analysis is probably way in excess of simple back-of-the-envelope equations. I wonder, though: what would be the physics of flying through plasma? Could you use an M2P2-type magnetic bubble to shield the craft from direct contact with the atmosphere, while still maintaining enough of an airfoil shape (in the bubble, which seems to be the shape that would then matter for lift and drag calculations) to gain lift? > also, > I think you are a bit optimistic on the battery too. > > 100kW * 10 min = 16.666 kWHrs > Thats about the same as a 12 volt battery delivering 1400 amps for an > hour. > > I want some of those for my electric car. : ) Actually, some of the sources were advanced batteries being developed for cars. But I did caution that that was the optimistic end of the figures I was seeing: quite a few of the "most advanced" figures were quite a bit more conservative than that. ;) From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 08:55:30 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 03:55:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] next generation of ion engines In-Reply-To: <20060114075709.94949.qmail@web81609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <43C89747.6020202@optusnet.com.au> <20060114075709.94949.qmail@web81609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Without directly meaning to be a "killjoy", what is it precisely that you are trying to accomplish? It makes sense (at least now) to propose long duration missions with ion thrusters. But it makes no sense if you have the power output of the sun (10^26W) at your disposal. So precisely what is the window you are targeting and what do you intend to do with it? Though we probably do not like to discuss it there *is* a point in the development in the singularity where later launched spacecraft will have resources at their disposal that significantly exceed the capabilities of spacecraft launched at an earlier time. Recognizing that suggests that the development of the "earlier" spacecraft is relatively pointless. I would agree that it is cool that we have more efficient ion thrusters. I am just frustrated that there does not seem to be a really robust discussion with respect to the use of such. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Jan 14 09:37:18 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 01:37:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Math Will Rock Your World Message-ID: In the spirit of the post or Brin and Page, here is the url of an article in the current business Week that could have the subtitle "Revenge of the Math Nerds". Sorry not to post the text but it is bit too long the keep the list bots happy. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_04/b3968001.htm - samantha From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Sat Jan 14 11:01:58 2006 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 03:01:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wtahall] Some thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060114110158.90330.qmail@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> "Hughes, James J." wrote: ... thank George and Mark for their exemplary service. James, Thank you for (not) including me. As the supposedly Executive Director, your double standards never fail to amaze me! By the way, you are still censoring 2 of my messages from January 11 and January 12. I guess it must be difficult for you to keep track of all the messages that you censor in so many lists, from different people, at different times. If you still send them, please, notice the original time and date when they were sent. When people like you keep lies on top of lies above more lies, it is difficult to have a consistent story. Some truth will come out despite all your censorship. It happened clearly with others like Harvey Newstrom before, who you heavily censored in the WTA Board. It happened to me now, and it will happen to others who disagree with you in the future. Your recent hypocritical apologies to Natasha, Eliezer and me, really made me laugh. You are such a cynic, without ethics and nasty double morality. Some who have gotten to know you and your ways (particularly when you are drunk and your natural hatreds flow more easily) will see the malice behind your false apologies. I truly wish I were wrong, but what you have done to others before, is not a good indication about the future. By the way, there is no need to censor this message and the next one, because they will be my last in a long time to any of your controlled lists. Please, notice that this message is being sent at 6:00 am, New York time. I really hope that at least you stopped your filtering and the two messages go through, but I want people to know the exact time anyway. Also, if there is anyone with insomnia, and this message passes without filters, you might want to tune ABC radio at 7:30 am, New York time, today Saturday January 14, where I will be talking about the future, but certainly not about the WTA. Transhumanistically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Sat Jan 14 11:02:15 2006 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 03:02:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... Message-ID: <20060114110215.63683.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friends, This I hope will be my last message here for a long time. I am tired of all this infighting and I have better things to do, like you too. So please, don?t read any further if you are thinking you are wasting your time now, and disregard any pornographic material in between. I want to take this time to briefly describe the ?real politik? in the WTA, which unfortunately follows very traditional and past left-right models. I will be sarcastic so that you get a more quick reaction and because that is my culture and general character, as you have surely noticed by now. Please, don?t be offended, but if you do, it is probably because you deserve it, as we say in Spanish: ?el que se pica es porque aji come?. I am not sure about the equivalent in English, but you can do some googling and have fun. The current WTA Board is basically controlled by the large socialist block led Stalinistically by James Hughes. The other members are Mark Walker, Mike LaTorra, George Dvorsky, Nick Bostrom and Gaurav Gupta (some of whom seem to have had orgasms attacking me, both publicly and privately). Then there are two mostly independent characters (Giulio Prisco and Mike Treder) and the two anti-communists (Joseph Bloch and myself). You can check some general lines by seeing many of the WTA Board files www.transhumanism.org/mailman/private/wtaboard and vote results groups.yahoo.com/group/wtaboard. Now, let?s see these persons one by one and I also apologize for letting out some dirty secrets of all involved, c?est la vie: James Hughes has a great job that lets him devote his time almost continuously to the WTA. He is a former Marxist who has partially evolved into socialism, however, he keeps his Stalinist views and if you happen to be his target, he will continue until he destroys you. If you talk long enough with him, especially when he is drunk, he will tell you bad things about everybody, no exceptions, including himself. In fact, he formerly had in his web page that he hated his own sex (sadly he took it away, not his sex but the comments on it). He will do anything to get his objective, spare no prisoners, and forget about ethics. If needed, he will invent things, create stories, cheat and try to change the past. He loves to make enemies in the WTA, among transhumanists and other groups in general. James Hughes intensely hates Natasha Vita-More (more than Max More), his eyes turn red and his jaws begin salivating when he talks about her, maybe even more than when he thinks of Leon Kass or Francis Fukuyama. He is the scorpion who might destroy the WTA. He is a terrible manager who has also overseeing losing $12,000 from members and sponsors, and he hates audits, even if free. (Please, don?t ever give anymore money to WTA, but at least until its accounts are audited). Mark Walker is the grayest of the gray (he likes gray and black) personalities in the current WTA Board. If he disappeared tomorrow, no one would notice him missing. His claims to fame are to write some unreadable philosophical documents and to do some editing, besides not even caring to participate in half of the WTA Board votes: groups.yahoo.com/group/wtaboard. If needed, he will come running to do the dirty work that James Hughes would not do himself in order to keep their appearances of independence. He also hates me very deeply, intensely and passionately, almost as much as James Hughes loves (?) me. Mike LaTorra is a good hearted man, unless you discuss with him his Buddhist and socialist ideas. Then he gets really mad and threatens you with not being his friend and hoping that you will have a better reincarnation next time. He is known for putting together the WTA News and loving science fiction. He is very worried because he feels that he is getting old (aren?t we all?). If you are a Stalinist, but a ?good? Stalinist, who makes nice web pages and translates well into Russian, Mike LaTorra will invite you to join his Club since he has a nice double morality. George Dvorsky has been very busy with some personal and work problems after losing his previous job, and he then has let the Toronto TA almost die. He is known for inviting some well-known clowns (this is the exact word used by Nick Bostrom) to his conference in Toronto and losing about $7,000 with the full cooperation of James Hughes. However, almost two years after the fact, the exact numbers are unknown. He is also the first transhumanist to have cloned himself in order to vote twice in WTA Board votes. Other than that, his departure from the WTA Board to IEET, together with Mark Walker, will hardly be noticed. Nick Bostrom keeps low profile for his public secret about learning transhumanist concepts and ideas from Extropy Institute and its members. He plagiarized most of the principles and frequently asked questions from the work of Sasha Chislenko, Max Moore, Harvey Newstrom and others. Because of his socialist leanings, he philosophized that he would start an apolitical umbrella organization, supposedly the current WTA, which is sadly neither apolitical nor an umbrella (or it certainly has many holes). He lets James Hughes do all the dirty work to keep his profile untouched, while he continues to package and repackage the ideas of others, with no moral drawbacks. He risks becoming to transhumanism what Hwang Woo-suk has become to cloning. Gaurav Gupta is a very immature and unpredictable person. He wrote that he ?cursed the day (he) joined? the WTA, he slandered the founders of WTA-India (another Indian and myself), he resigned from the WTA Board, later he returned saying that he did not want to resign, then he looked for a girl friend to have a free ticket to come with him to Venezuela, and finally he said that he was not going to travel anyway. His only real contribution to the WTA Board has been to help writing a pamphlet about AI, useless but better than nothing. Giulio Prisco is the person that I admire the most in the WTA Board. He is calm, intelligent, tolerant, active and thoughtful. Even though he has a socialist leaning, he is very willing to compromise, and he is always looking for the most practical and better solutions. I think that is part of his scientific training which allows him to discern what works from what does not work. He has demonstrated to be very politically independent in the quarrelsome WTA Board; however, in times of crisis, he sides with the majority in order to preserve a false harmony. Mike Treder is almost as political independent as Giulio Prisco, also with a small socialist leaning, but sometimes he runs to help James Hughes (even though James Hughes has said that he is actually an asshole for not sharing some of his fantastic ideas about CRN with WTA, so Mike, watch out for your true friends). He designed one the best introductory pages about transhumanism, organized several transhumanist meetings in NY, was a dutiful treasurer while he lasted and is an incredible promoter of responsible nanotechnology. Joseph Bloch has continuously placed human freedom and human dignity above any totalitarian method to arrive to posthumanity. He is the only other staunch anti-communist in the group and is continuously attacked by James Hughes and his peons. He has devoted part of his time and money to promote the WTA in public events like some science fiction conferences and to organize transhumanist meetings in NJ. He is very active in the WTA Board and is heavily under fire from James Hughes, who did not want to approve his original statement against totalitarian systems. Jose Cordeiro is an ?underdeveloped right-winger? according to James Hughes, a ?rat? according to Gaurav Gupta, an asshole and many other nice words to some WTA members. Indeed, he is a warrior fighting for freedom in totalitarian Venezuela, and has arrested once and has been threatened to be killed twice by those same totalitarian chavistas that James Hughes and Danila Medvedev love so much. Transhumanistically speaking, he organized the largest and most accredited TV conference, helped starting the Spanish and soon Portuguese web pages, defends openly the extropian and other non socialist transhumanist positions, has begun and supported at least half of the current WTA Chapters and is now coediting the first book about transhumanism in Korean. But the WTA Board is not the end of the story, because James Hughes saw that some non socialists kept infiltrating the WTA. The cases of Harvey Newstrom, Eliezer Yudkowsky and Bruce Klein are notable (James Hughes loved to confront them), and now it is my turn and soon it will be others. For that reason, James Hughes started with most of his peons a ?think tank? called the IEET, which would not be accountable to anyone but himself (the IEET has an extra E for ethics in the title but James Hughes wipes his behind with ethics, particularly if you oppose him). He first used me as a fellow to have some names, but never published any of my documents and then threw me out like an ?underdeveloped right-winger?. The IET (with just one E, no ethics for simplicity) wants to be what the WTA could not be: the socialist group to promote his and Nick?s ideas, and forget about any problematic members or elections. Just like the WTA grew out of the ExI, now the IET was the perfectly controlled socialist transhumanist group. Sure, the IET supposedly had the grandiose objective to be a real think tank, but the real politik behind was also clear. I hate these simple definitions myself, but it is the easiest and most ironic way to transmit the message. Also, if you don?t like it: shoot the message but not the messenger (or is it the other way around?). I think that we should move forward from left-wingers and right-wingers to become up-wingers, as FM-2030 described, but James Hughes has made this impossible within the WTA. He is obsessed with his deep hatred of extropians and his particular idea, even if not Marxist anymore, but he should probably get some advice from Ronald Bailey (http://www.reason.com/rb/rb051105.shtml). Well, if you have read up to now and still have not killed me, think seriously about these issues if you want the WTA to achieve the goals most of us have in mind. If the WTA keeps being the Hughes or Socialist TA, that might be fine too if James Hughes had the decency of acknowledging it and saying that transhumanists who oppose his views are not welcome. James Hughes has to recognize that his period as Executive Director has been bad and that his performance was rather mediocre, besides financially irresponsible, intolerant, unethical and based on a double morality. I hope all these comments will serve to straighten out the WTA in the future. The WTA is right now a fringe organization within a fringe movement (and dare I say while looking for a mirror, with some fringe people too). If transhumanism is really going to succeed, we have to look forward united, with tolerance and ethics. I really tried my best in the WTA, and I did all I could while in the WTA Board. I am no longer interested in this useless infighting, if James Hughes believes that he has won, let it be, but right now the WTA, and particularly its Board, is a not functioning group because of the way that James Hughes uses and abuses power. I have other things to do that the WTA is certainly not doing. But if you thought that James Hughes or anyone was indispensable, you are wrong. In fact, the cemeteries are full of previously indispensable people. The WTA has now paying a staffer full time to do most of the needed work. What is actually indispensable is to correct the situation in the WTA, if it ever is going to change for the better. James, you don?t need to bar me since I will be putting all messages with the WTA word in a quarantined folder for at least two months. I don?t want to know what will happen until then. If the WTA can not solve its problems, it might not have a future, or even worse, a useless future. Also, don?t send me any Emails because I will not read WTA messages for that time. If anyone from the WTA needs to contact me just for a life or death problem write to another Email (jose at cordeiro.org). If anyone is just going to flame and scream asshole, send your messages to yet another Email (james.hughes at trincoll.edu). I am very disappointed with the WTA after several years, so if you still have not noticed that I am upset: yes, I am. Please, as an advice, don?t waste your time and money to support the rotten ego of James Hughes. If transhumanism succeeds, it will certainly not be because of the WTA as it is today. I hope that James Hughes, since he says that he is a Buddhist, reincarnates into a better person, and stops hating his own sex and everybody else who does not agree with him (he really has to fix some deep psychological problems). Others should also work at improving the WTA, and I wish well to the new WTA Board members. I will finish by saying that I will do my best as well and forgive my crudeness, I am only human as well. Well, those are my final 2 Kbits of news and best of luck to you all and to the WTA, it really needs it... Transhumanistically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 11:31:50 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:31:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... In-Reply-To: <20060114110215.63683.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060114110215.63683.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4902d9990601140331k79a4e461ka0131080469b5eb2@mail.gmail.com> For those who didn't want to read the long email, I can sum it up: "socialism bad, WTA socialist, WTA bad". 13 K of text from an intelligent person should not reduce to a simplicistic "socialism - not socialism" axis. Alfio From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Sat Jan 14 14:54:49 2006 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:54:49 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings Message-ID: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> The fairly recent acrimonious political debate in this forum and the airing of the WTA 'dirty laundry' has made me wonder a little about the reliability of the 'gut-feeling' as an arbiter of what intelligent life ought to be listening and paying attention to. In the case of Danila Medvedev: To be sure, I am no apologist for Stalin: But - I do believe in free speech. I see no benefits whatsoever in sweeping unpalatable political facts - or even unpalatable political fictions and delusions - beneath some metaphorical carpet. We are reasonable people (or should be) and able to engage/reject a topic with reason and informed debate. So I was somewhat taken aback some time ago when I mildly remonstrated against the ad-hominem attacks Danila Medvedev was being subjected to on the WTA list and was promptly denounced as a 'commie' and an admirer of Hitler and Pol-Pot. Almost immediately the signal to noise ratio made further discussion impossible. Pity - because something important was lost. Reasoned response was sacrificed (eventually moderated out) because a few individuals persisted in their pejorative attacks - making it clear that their sacrosanct world view was not to be threatened on THEIR list... But, if you read Danila's posts, it is clear that he is not an idiot, and that he is capable of presenting useful viewpoints on a whole range of topics. Ok - most of us disagree with him concerning Stalin - so what? If he has other useful things to contribute, why should you or I care if he indulges in the odd whacko belief? Is it worse than Mormonism? Seventh Day Adventism? The Moonies? Catholicism? Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? Adulation of Mao? Che? Eva Peron? Or even, God help us - George W? I often disagree with the neo-conservative and libertarian viewpoints as expressed here on this list. To me these opinions often appear to lack the rigor of a truly subjective (international as opposed to Amerocentric or occasionally Eurocentric) viewpoint. For me these opinions smack too much of the home-comforts of a select and highly privileged group. OK - it is true that the future will be built by groups like this. But also, and perhaps more importantly, probably equally - the future will be built by the Stalinist and Holocaust revisionists, the theocrats, cultists, communists, anarchists, totalitarians, corporate entities, democrats, socialists, petty dictators and the myriad others who make up the current population of this world. This list, this group, and the values it generally shares (values which some members sometimes seek to ferociously protect) has no comfortable sanction on what will and will not be a part of our extropian future. We each have our subjective reality. All the things that this group (or some elements of it) might seek to exclude will continue to be factors influencing the future regardless of your willingness to admit them or not. So what is the point of limiting debate? The truth is - there is no point - if you admit that reality is more important than the maintenance of some fictional comfort-zone. In fact, moderation should not be about limiting debate, it should be about limiting personal abuse. Nor is there any merit in shunting unpalatable topics off to sub-lists with headings like 'politics', 'technology', 'personal development', etc - there are NO neat dividers. Everything merges into everything else - and no overview/synthesis/synergy is possible as long as some elements are denied. Names like 'Bush,' 'Clinton,' 'Mao,' Stalin,' 'Hitler,' 'Saddam,' 'Pol-Pot,' 'Chavez,' 'Ayatollah Khomeini' are so loaded with semantic association it is difficult to imagine any useful dialogue that does not quickly revert to the 'gut-feeling' of emotion and personal attack. Usually the call is to banish the topic, limit it, or divert it elsewhere: Anything but face up to the fact that the past we refuse to come to grips with and reconcile NOW - is still a very real part of our future, Just my opinion: But moderation might be (could be): 1.. Anything goes - provided it has an extropian angle. 2.. Politics, religion and sexual preference are exclusively the preserve and prerogative of the writer. Respect them. 3.. Although you may seriously doubt the mental health of the poster - you may attack the concept/proposition as outlined in the post ONLY on reasoned, rational grounds. Under NO circumstances will you resort to pejorative labelling: ie, telling the author s/he is crazy/commie/anarchist/etc etc, or otherwise attempt to discredit the person rather than the argument. If you do so - you will get moderated out of the discussion forthwith. 4.. If you find something offensive - you may protest by stating: "I find this offensive because...reason 1)...2)...3) etc. You may then choose to have nothing further to do with either the subject or the poster. You do NOT have the right to demand that the moderator support your world-view - no matter how worthy it is - by suppressing a poster who is able to present a cogent argument contrary to your principles. (rubbishy, rantings, ravings and vilifications can be trashed of course) I know that the downside of this is that you have to put up with a certain amount of lunatic fringe activity. But the consequence of not adopting some such rule set is that free speech is the preserve of some inner elite who perpetually reserve the right to quash dissent. Free speech needs the odd crackpot to reassure us all that the system is working. Jack Parkinson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From l4point at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 15:11:19 2006 From: l4point at gmail.com (Mike Hayes) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:11:19 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings In-Reply-To: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> References: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> Message-ID: <6b5e09390601140711r4f8879c3u99d68446c0e244b1@mail.gmail.com> That is an interesting view on some difficult subjects. Some time ago I wrote an analysis of the New Testament "Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes" from an objectivist point of view. I found that there were so many subjective emotionally laden words within the subject matter, that it was necesary to develop an alternative vocabulary to reference key persons, events and the differences between the historical accounts. When words have baggage, it's hard to sling them around and make precise points. Personally I see no problem with debating the merits of Stalin's approach to maintaining control over the USSR, while simultaneously keeping one finger on the nuclear cold war trigger, and intending with the other, to destroy totalitarian and fascist social structures with free trade, bikinis on their women, and pop music spread amidst their younger generations. I assume that there are no members of this list from within mainland China, is that known as a fact? On 1/14/06, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > The fairly recent acrimonious political debate in this forum and the > airing of the WTA 'dirty laundry' has made me wonder a little about the > reliability of the 'gut-feeling' as an arbiter of what intelligent life > ought to be listening and paying attention to. > > In the case of Danila Medvedev: To be sure, I am no apologist for Stalin: > But - I do believe in free speech. I see no benefits whatsoever in sweeping > unpalatable political facts - or even unpalatable political fictions and > delusions - beneath some metaphorical carpet. We are reasonable people (or > should be) and able to engage/reject a topic with reason and informed > debate. > > So I was somewhat taken aback some time ago when I mildly remonstrated > against the ad-hominem attacks Danila Medvedev was being subjected to on the > WTA list and was promptly denounced as a 'commie' and an admirer of Hitler > and Pol-Pot. Almost immediately the signal to noise ratio made further > discussion impossible. Pity - because something important was lost. Reasoned > response was sacrificed (eventually moderated out) because a few individuals > persisted in their pejorative attacks - making it clear that their > sacrosanct world view was not to be threatened on THEIR list... > > But, if you read Danila's posts, it is clear that he is not an idiot, and > that he is capable of presenting useful viewpoints on a whole range of > topics. Ok - most of us disagree with him concerning Stalin - so what? If he > has other useful things to contribute, why should you or I care if he > indulges in the odd whacko belief? Is it worse than Mormonism? Seventh Day > Adventism? The Moonies? Catholicism? Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? Adulation > of Mao? Che? Eva Peron? Or even, God help us - George W? > > I often disagree with the neo-conservative and libertarian viewpoints as > expressed here on this list. To me these opinions often appear to lack the > rigor of a truly subjective (international as opposed to Amerocentric or > occasionally Eurocentric) viewpoint. For me these opinions smack too much of > the home-comforts of a select and highly privileged group. OK - it is true > that the future will be built by groups like this. But also, and perhaps > more importantly, probably equally - the future will be built by the > Stalinist and Holocaust revisionists, the theocrats, cultists, communists, > anarchists, totalitarians, corporate entities, democrats, socialists, petty > dictators and the myriad others who make up the current population of this > world. > > This list, this group, and the values it generally shares (values which > some members sometimes seek to ferociously protect) has no comfortable > sanction on what will and will not be a part of our extropian future. We > each have our subjective reality. All the things that this group (or some > elements of it) might seek to exclude will continue to be factors > influencing the future regardless of your willingness to admit them or not. > So what is the point of limiting debate? The truth is - there is no point > - if you admit that reality is more important than the maintenance of some > fictional comfort-zone. > > In fact, moderation should not be about limiting debate, it should be > about limiting personal abuse. Nor is there any merit in shunting > unpalatable topics off to sub-lists with headings like 'politics', > 'technology', 'personal development', etc - there are NO neat dividers. > Everything merges into everything else - and no overview/synthesis/synergy > is possible as long as some elements are denied. > > Names like 'Bush,' 'Clinton,' 'Mao,' Stalin,' 'Hitler,' 'Saddam,' > 'Pol-Pot,' 'Chavez,' 'Ayatollah Khomeini' are so loaded with semantic > association it is difficult to imagine any useful dialogue that does not > quickly revert to the 'gut-feeling' of emotion and personal attack. Usually > the call is to banish the topic, limit it, or divert it elsewhere: Anything > but face up to the fact that the past we refuse to come to grips with and > reconcile NOW - is still a very real part of our future, > > Just my opinion: But moderation might be (could be): > > 1. Anything goes - provided it has an extropian angle. > 2. Politics, religion and sexual preference are exclusively the > preserve and prerogative of the writer. Respect them. > 3. Although you may seriously doubt the mental health of the > poster - you may attack the concept/proposition as outlined in the post ONLY > on reasoned, rational grounds. Under NO circumstances will you > resort to pejorative labelling: ie, telling the author s/he is > crazy/commie/anarchist/etc etc, or otherwise attempt to discredit the person > rather than the argument. If you do so - you will get moderated out > of the discussion forthwith. > 4. If you find something offensive - you may protest by stating: "I > find this offensive because...reason 1)...2)...3) etc. You may then choose > to have nothing further to do with either the subject or the poster. You > do NOT have the right to demand that the moderator support your world-view - > no matter how worthy it is - by suppressing a poster who is able to present > a cogent argument contrary to your principles. (rubbishy, rantings, ravings > and vilifications can be trashed of course) > > I know that the downside of this is that you have to put up with a certain > amount of lunatic fringe activity. But the consequence of not adopting some > such rule set is that free speech is the preserve of some inner elite who > perpetually reserve the right to quash dissent. > > Free speech needs the odd crackpot to reassure us all that the system is > working. > Jack Parkinson > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 16:21:34 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:21:34 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings In-Reply-To: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> References: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> Message-ID: On 1/14/06, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > > Just my opinion: But moderation might be (could be): > > Anything goes - provided it has an extropian angle. > Politics, religion and sexual preference are exclusively the preserve and > prerogative of the writer. Respect them. > Although you may seriously doubt the mental health of the poster - you may > attack the concept/proposition as outlined in the post ONLY on reasoned, > rational grounds. Under NO circumstances will you resort to pejorative > labelling: ie, telling the author s/he is crazy/commie/anarchist/etc etc, or > otherwise attempt to discredit the person rather than the argument. If you > do so - you will get moderated out of the discussion forthwith. > If you find something offensive - you may protest by stating: "I find this > offensive because...reason 1)...2)...3) etc. You may then choose to have > nothing further to do with either the subject or the poster. You do NOT have > the right to demand that the moderator support your world-view - no matter > how worthy it is - by suppressing a poster who is able to present a cogent > argument contrary to your principles. (rubbishy, rantings, ravings and > vilifications can be trashed of course) > I know that the downside of this is that you have to put up with a certain > amount of lunatic fringe activity. But the consequence of not adopting some > such rule set is that free speech is the preserve of some inner elite who > perpetually reserve the right to quash dissent. > > Free speech needs the odd crackpot to reassure us all that the system is > working. Most of what you wrote sounds pretty sensible. But 'Free speech' does not necessarily mean 'Free Speech *here*'. There is the whole WWW out there, millions of sites, mail lists, chatrooms, etc. Every fanatic and his dog have places where they can discuss their concerns as much as they like. You are surely not recommending that everything out there should be allowed to post through 'our' list? ('our' list could refer to every individual list on the Internet). Every list has allowable content. If you fail to control content then the meaning of the list is lost and the list will become useless. Nobody will read it because of the 99% rubbish off-topic content. I agree that here 'Anything goes - provided it has an extropian angle.' But that would ban Stalinist whitewashing and recommendations of how to use transhumanist technologies to achieve an ideal 'Stalinist-type' controlled society. Just as it would ban many other topics of no relevance to extropianism. You cannot make a list of banned subjects, because the list would be enormous. It is down to the moderators to shape the list according to the list objectives. Occasional off-topic posts do little harm, but once a propagandist arrives with their own agenda, then they must be stopped for the good of the list. There is no point in having a list where all the interesting people leave because of the amount of garbage (as defined by the list objectives) that is allowed to flow through the list. BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 16:26:55 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:26:55 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings In-Reply-To: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> References: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601140826y4ae7b2ebx690c998361a98acc@mail.gmail.com> On 1/14/06, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > In the case of Danila Medvedev: To be sure, I am no apologist for Stalin: > But - I do believe in free speech. I see no benefits whatsoever in sweeping > unpalatable political facts - or even unpalatable political fictions and > delusions - beneath some metaphorical carpet. We are reasonable people (or > should be) and able to engage/reject a topic with reason and informed > debate. This idea of "if you don't want to listen to X, you're against free speech/unwilling to step outside your cosy box" gets used often enough I think it's time somebody said something about it. The fact is, everyone has some point beyond which they'll start filtering content (whether by calling for moderation, using a killfile, unsubscribing from a list or whatever method). Yes, everyone including you. Different people use different criteria for when they start filtering; the idea of list moderation is to find a set of reasonable consensus criteria that doesn't restrict interesting or useful discussion while keeping things within boundaries where the interesting people don't start unsubscribing from the list en masse. And frankly, when someone starts praising mass murderers, that's a pretty damned reasonable criterion for saying enough is enough. Don't give me a straw man about it being just because I don't agree with Danila's political views. I don't approve of socialism, but you don't see me saying all socialists should be banned. I don't believe in flying saucers, but I spoke up in defense of a Raelian, on condition that he didn't keep spamming the list trying to convert the rest of us to his religion. But when you get someone saying Stalin was an okay guy after all, it's entirely reasonable that people should lose their tempers. If you have anything interesting or useful to say on the topic, then go ahead and say it; if, as I suspect is the case, you haven't and nor has anyone else, then I don't see any point in arguing for it being on the list. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jan 14 16:41:28 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 08:41:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Math Will Rock Your World In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22360fa10601140841o352e2516s64c2c1cb96d606e3@mail.gmail.com> On 1/14/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > In the spirit of the post or Brin and Page, here is the url of an > article in the current business Week that could have the subtitle > "Revenge of the Math Nerds". > http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_04/b3968001.htm Thanks Samantha for an article that illuminates the trend toward increasing awareness of ourselves -- our values and our understandings -- driven by competitive forces cooperating to ratchet forward what works in business and academia. The article also helps convey how advanced mathematical modeling can and will help us better appreciate our similarities and differencies without the "averaging" or blurring of important distinctions often taken for granted in contemporary social studies. As with all technologies, this too is a double-edged sword, and we would do well to promote access and use of such knowledge tools and their associated data sets throughout the general population. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net "Increasing awareness for increasing morality" From mike99 at lascruces.com Sat Jan 14 18:03:40 2006 From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:03:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wtahall] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... In-Reply-To: <20060114110215.63683.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Jose, Thank you for telling us much more about yourself -- by your selective use of information and your invention of untruths -- than about me or anyone else. For example, since in fact I do not believe in reincarnation, I could never have wished for you a better one! As a Buddhist I have taken a vow to work toward the end of suffering for all sentient beings. That includes Stalinists and neo-Nazis...and even you. This does not make me a Stalinist or a neo-Nazi. And, I am relieved to say, it doesn't make me you, either, my friend! Good luck in your future endeavors. Regards, Michael LaTorra mike99 at lascruces.com mlatorra at nmsu.edu English Dept., New Mexico State University "For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with open eyes towards slavery." -- Jacob Bronowski "Experiences only look special from the inside of the system." -- Eugen Leitl "Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman: a rope across an abyss - a dangerous going across, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking back, a dangerous shuddering and staying still." -- Friedrich Nietzsche Member: Board of Directors, World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org Board of Directors, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies: http://ieet.org/ Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org Society for Universal Immortalism: www.universalimmortalism.org President, Zen Center of Las Cruces: www.zencenteroflascruces.orgwww.zencenteroflascruces.org -----Original Message----- From: wtahall-bounces at transhumanism.org [mailto:wtahall-bounces at transhumanism.org]On Behalf Of Jose Cordeiro Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 4:02 AM To: wtahall at transhumanism.org; extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org; wta-politics at transhumanism.org Subject: [wtahall] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... Dear friends, This I hope will be my last message here for a long time. I am tired of all this infighting and I have better things to do, like you too. So please, don?t read any further if you are thinking you are wasting your time now, and disregard any pornographic material in between. ... Mike LaTorra is a good hearted man, unless you discuss with him his Buddhist and socialist ideas. Then he gets really mad and threatens you with not being his friend and hoping that you will have a better reincarnation next time. He is known for putting together the WTA News and loving science fiction. He is very worried because he feels that he is getting old (aren?t we all?). If you are a Stalinist, but a ?good? Stalinist, who makes nice web pages and translates well into Russian, Mike LaTorra will invite you to join his Club since he has a nice double morality. ... Transhumanistically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sat Jan 14 18:42:53 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 19:42:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings Message-ID: Bill K: >And frankly, when someone starts praising mass murderers, that's a pretty >damned reasonable criterion for saying enough is enough. (I agree) When Danila appeared and started talking about Stalin's grand and amazing contributions, my response was to let my uncle speak, using his own words. My post to wta-talk of my uncle's story didn't stop Danila from sending me private email, to tell me more of how misinformed I was about Stalin. So I've permanently blocked him from my email. If Danila's character wasn't so abrasive and arrogant, then I think that people would have probably talked to him more and been more ready to recognize his contributions, and might have been open to a discussion. I don't think that Jack was put through the ringer about that. I think that unfortunately Jack defended a guy that acted like like he relished pushing people's buttons and is quick to call people names. Personally I have no patience for a person who behaves like that (Danila). Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From amara at amara.com Sat Jan 14 18:48:38 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 19:48:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings Message-ID: scusi', wrong attribute, Russell Wallace said this. >And frankly, when someone starts praising mass murderers, that's a pretty >damned reasonable criterion for saying enough is enough. Amara From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Jan 14 18:54:39 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 10:54:39 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0601120218g6669207bya6f5168d015ee8ae@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060112051911.37750.qmail@web50511.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0601120218g6669207bya6f5168d015ee8ae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 12, 2006, at 2:18 AM, Russell Wallace wrote: > The entities exterminating us aren't aliens from outer space in > flying saucers with force shields that can withstand a nuclear > explosion. The terrible truth is that we already know them. MTV. > East Enders. Zoning laws. MAs in political science. > http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760 > It makes sense, of course; the one thing an exterminator meme can't > look like is an exterminator meme, otherwise almost by definition > it wouldn't be one. Bacteria die to penicillin; HIV, the simplest > thing, slips by. I read this article. Not to put too fine a point on it, I found it laughable. Religious faith is not going to save the West and secularism sure as hell isn't dooming it. As much as I think welfare statism is evil and dangerous I can't in honesty lay the blame there except as a large contributory drain on the economy and on the character of the people. The notion that we must reproduce more this close to Singularity is the biggest laugh of all. What is wrong imo is that we have lost heart, lost vision, lost fire as a people. We have lost it to enshrinement of mediocrity and it has died from a million cuts, mostly inflicted by our own government on us and in the world, draining away our self-respect and belief in ourselves as a people. Civilizations decline for many reasons. But a common denominator is that in their hearts their people no longer believe in the goodness of the country or its ideals or if they do then they don't believe those ideals can ever be achieved. They become sneak thieves out to grab what they can before the house of cards comes crashing down. We need a new strong vision. I thought transhumanism or extropianism might help supply it. But one of those is being shanghaied by the Left and the other seems to doubt that creating such a Vision is even a good thing. In America we have dug ourselves a deep hole. Our total debts and account payables approach $40 trillion. We have been fed too long at the public and private level the notion that we can spend, spend, spend our way into prosperity. We have spent. So much so that the individual savings rate is negative and the government has become the largest debtor nation in history. We suck down > $ 2 billion a day of foreign money just to pay for the party. We are only a few more missteps away form financial ruin. Our descendants are in hock before they begin. The threat is from ourselves to a large degree. It is from our assumptions of superiority and of wealth without any longer paying much attention to where wealth comes from or what it takes to create and grow it. After the stock bubble blew followed by 911 many of us Americans made ends meet and kept right on consuming by sucking down easy credit and cheap money by taking cash out of our homes. So much so that the retained equity in homes fell rapidly. We created a housing bubble in the process that is now venting and deflating. We spent so much energy and determination keeping that bubble growing that we put out interest only loans and no down payment loans that actually gave back money to the buyer. In 2005 it is estimated that over half of the home sells had these very questionable types of loans and that over 40% of the sales were bought not as primary residences but on speculation that the prices would continue to rise. Woe to the banks who hold the derivatives guaranteeing these loans. The key to the future is surely knowledge and education. In America according to recent studies over 60% of college graduates are not competently literate. China is turning out engineers and scientists an order of magnitude faster than we are. India's college level education is much tougher than our own and people compete fiercely to get into the technical programs. These people of the East are bright, hardworking and hungry. If we in the West do not wake up from our complacency they will eat our lunch. All of that and more has zip to do with religion or how fast we breed or how secular our culture is or even with welfare and social entitlement. It has a lot to do with a mixture of cynicism, arrogance, ignorance and lack of enough courage to look at reality. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 18:58:33 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:58:33 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1/14/06, Amara Graps wrote: > scusi', wrong attribute, Russell Wallace said this. > >And frankly, when someone starts praising mass murderers, that's a pretty > >damned reasonable criterion for saying enough is enough. > No problem - I agree anyway. :) BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Jan 14 19:10:32 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:10:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings In-Reply-To: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> References: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> Message-ID: <8A08D763-4889-4D11-B351-E8339C4742D7@mac.com> On Jan 14, 2006, at 6:54 AM, Jack Parkinson wrote: > The fairly recent acrimonious political debate in this forum and > the airing of the WTA 'dirty laundry' has made me wonder a little > about the reliability of the 'gut-feeling' as an arbiter of what > intelligent life ought to be listening and paying attention to. > > In the case of Danila Medvedev: To be sure, I am no apologist for > Stalin: But - I do believe in free speech. I see no benefits > whatsoever in sweeping unpalatable political facts - or even > unpalatable political fictions and delusions - beneath some > metaphorical carpet. We are reasonable people (or should be) and > able to engage/reject a topic with reason and informed debate. > Wholesale rewriting of history and denial of atrocities has nothing to do with reason on informed debate. Such denials are not debatable. > So I was somewhat taken aback some time ago when I mildly > remonstrated against the ad-hominem attacks Danila Medvedev was > being subjected to on the WTA list and was promptly denounced as a > 'commie' and an admirer of Hitler and Pol-Pot. Almost immediately > the signal to noise ratio made further discussion impossible. Pity > - because something important was lost. Reasoned response was > sacrificed (eventually moderated out) because a few individuals > persisted in their pejorative attacks - making it clear that their > sacrosanct world view was not to be threatened on THEIR list... > The notion that all opinions no matter how absurd or evil are worthy of defense and serious consideration is shallow thinking. > > This list, this group, and the values it generally shares (values > which some members sometimes seek to ferociously protect) has no > comfortable sanction on what will and will not be a part of our > extropian future. We each have our subjective reality. All the > things that this group (or some elements of it) might seek to > exclude will continue to be factors influencing the future > regardless of your willingness to admit them or not. So what is the > point of limiting debate? The truth is - there is no point - if you > admit that reality is more important than the maintenance of some > fictional comfort-zone. > I do get to decide what I sanction and abhor. So do groups of people and organizations. By what they sanction and stand for they will be judged. Debate is not limited. Having such an open mind that your brains fall out is not "debate" or respect for reality. > > Just my opinion: But moderation might be (could be): > Anything goes - provided it has an extropian angle. mostly the way things are here. > Politics, religion and sexual preference are exclusively the > preserve and prerogative of the writer. Respect them. What does this "respect" of politics or religion mean? Does it mean that we don't rigorously examine and criticize each other's notions in these areas? If so then I am not interested. > Although you may seriously doubt the mental health of the poster - > you may attack the concept/proposition as outlined in the post ONLY > on reasoned, rational grounds. Under NO circumstances will you > resort to pejorative labelling: ie, telling the author s/he is > crazy/commie/anarchist/etc etc, or otherwise attempt to discredit > the person rather than the argument. If you do so - you will get > moderated out of the discussion forthwith. Yes, again part of this list. > - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 19:11:34 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 19:11:34 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) In-Reply-To: References: <20060112051911.37750.qmail@web50511.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0601120218g6669207bya6f5168d015ee8ae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601141111w7fa08c8bu753281f358e0a600@mail.gmail.com> On 1/14/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > I read this article. Not to put too fine a point on it, I found it > laughable. Religious faith is not going to save the West and secularism > sure as hell isn't dooming it. As much as I think welfare statism is evil > and dangerous I can't in honesty lay the blame there except as a large > contributory drain on the economy and on the character of the people. The > notion that we must reproduce more this close to Singularity is the biggest > laugh of all. > Out of curiosity, how close to the Singularity do you think we are? - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Jan 14 19:32:07 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:32:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... In-Reply-To: <4902d9990601140331k79a4e461ka0131080469b5eb2@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060114110215.63683.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4902d9990601140331k79a4e461ka0131080469b5eb2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <40A08DE6-5D01-4DE1-8762-D4FC14CAEB7C@mac.com> In my experience the WTA has largely put forward the notion than transhumanism requires socialism and that those who disagree are not very welcome. The WTA has put on this mantle of socialism and it will experience some consequences from doing so. Also the post does not remotely reduce to only being about socialism in the WTA. - samantha On Jan 14, 2006, at 3:31 AM, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > For those who didn't want to read the long email, I can sum it up: > "socialism bad, WTA socialist, WTA bad". > > 13 K of text from an intelligent person should not reduce to a > simplicistic "socialism - not socialism" axis. > > Alfio > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Jan 14 19:35:43 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:35:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0601141111w7fa08c8bu753281f358e0a600@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060112051911.37750.qmail@web50511.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0601120218g6669207bya6f5168d015ee8ae@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0601141111w7fa08c8bu753281f358e0a600@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <669DC541-211F-4E62-95B0-F316FFB0585C@mac.com> On Jan 14, 2006, at 11:11 AM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 1/14/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > I read this article. Not to put too fine a point on it, I found it > laughable. Religious faith is not going to save the West and > secularism sure as hell isn't dooming it. As much as I think > welfare statism is evil and dangerous I can't in honesty lay the > blame there except as a large contributory drain on the economy and > on the character of the people. The notion that we must reproduce > more this close to Singularity is the biggest laugh of all. > > Out of curiosity, how close to the Singularity do you think we are? > > About one generation away if we don't do something stupid. Of late I think the odds of us doing something catastrophically stupid are higher than the odds of Singularity by a growing margin. That is not a happy conclusion. I also believe that the Singularity is increasingly much more likely to come out of the East rather than the West. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From live2scan at charter.net Sat Jan 14 19:39:05 2006 From: live2scan at charter.net (Dennis Roberts) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:39:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] next generation of ion engines In-Reply-To: <20060114075709.94949.qmail@web81609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4kchs4$66sfj9@mxip34a.cluster1.charter.net> You really don't need SpaceShipOne or anything like it. Check out http://www.jpaerospace.com/, these folks are probably still dancing around after ESA's announcement. Low cost access to LEO is comin' to us all. Dennis Roberts -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:57 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] next generation of ion engines --- deimtee wrote: > It takes about 10 newtons to lift a kilo against 1 gee. ...right, forgot to factor in G. > However, how about if you dropped it off SpaceShipOne at apogee? > How much time have you got to give it orbital velocity before drag > exceeds thrust? >From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne_flight_17P we know that SSO only took 24 minutes between detaching from White Knight through apogee to landing, of which just over 80 seconds was spent under thrust. So the apogee-to-landing phase probably took about 12 minutes. Most orbital rocket launches I've studied seem to take about 10 minutes to get to orbital velocity. So, you'd probably need wings or something to gain lift while going at hypersonic speeds - and the wings would need to be thermally protected (probably made out of solid heat shields), because as you get towards Mach 25 you're flying not through air but through plasma. Which is not to say it can't be done, just that a proper analysis is probably way in excess of simple back-of-the-envelope equations. I wonder, though: what would be the physics of flying through plasma? Could you use an M2P2-type magnetic bubble to shield the craft from direct contact with the atmosphere, while still maintaining enough of an airfoil shape (in the bubble, which seems to be the shape that would then matter for lift and drag calculations) to gain lift? > also, > I think you are a bit optimistic on the battery too. > > 100kW * 10 min = 16.666 kWHrs > Thats about the same as a 12 volt battery delivering 1400 amps for an > hour. > > I want some of those for my electric car. : ) Actually, some of the sources were advanced batteries being developed for cars. But I did caution that that was the optimistic end of the figures I was seeing: quite a few of the "most advanced" figures were quite a bit more conservative than that. ;) _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 19:48:36 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 19:48:36 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) In-Reply-To: <669DC541-211F-4E62-95B0-F316FFB0585C@mac.com> References: <20060112051911.37750.qmail@web50511.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0601120218g6669207bya6f5168d015ee8ae@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0601141111w7fa08c8bu753281f358e0a600@mail.gmail.com> <669DC541-211F-4E62-95B0-F316FFB0585C@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601141148p673f90b8mb994f2dd1dca63e8@mail.gmail.com> On 1/14/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > On Jan 14, 2006, at 11:11 AM, Russell Wallace wrote: > > Out of curiosity, how close to the Singularity do you think we are? > > > > About one generation away if we don't do something stupid. > I hope you're right! I think it's likely to take longer, even in the best case scenario; but if the Singularity does arrive in one generation, feel free to say "see, Russell, you were being unnecessarily grouchy and pessimistic" and I'll agree that this was indeed so :) Operationally, I'll keep trying to figure out how to prove myself wrong. Of late I think the odds of us doing something catastrophically stupid are > higher than the odds of Singularity by a growing margin. That is not a > happy conclusion. > No indeed! I'm actually a bit more optimistic than you are on this one, since I think civilization is strong enough to withstand any single catastrophic error. I also believe that the Singularity is increasingly much more likely to come > out of the East rather than the West. > Maybe; fair play to them if that does happen, as long as _someone_ manages to pull it off. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 14 20:01:52 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:01:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... In-Reply-To: <40A08DE6-5D01-4DE1-8762-D4FC14CAEB7C@mac.com> Message-ID: <200601142001.k0EK1te08722@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... > > In my experience the WTA has largely put forward the notion than > transhumanism requires socialism ... > > - samantha I will accept this as fact unless someone from WTA is hanging out here and offers a counter argument. This notion simplifies matters considerably, for it appears to me that transhumanism requires capitalism. Transhumanism thrives on individual freedom, loooots of free-flowing capital, profit motive, getting governments out of our way (insert Howard-Dean-ish YEEAAAAHH), wealth creation, etc. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jan 14 20:18:21 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:18:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... In-Reply-To: <200601142001.k0EK1te08722@tick.javien.com> References: <40A08DE6-5D01-4DE1-8762-D4FC14CAEB7C@mac.com> <200601142001.k0EK1te08722@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10601141218s6c14a521w34dc2ed7b690e963@mail.gmail.com> On 1/14/06, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... > > > > In my experience the WTA has largely put forward the notion than > > transhumanism requires socialism ... > > > > - samantha > > I will accept this as fact unless someone from WTA is > hanging out here and offers a counter argument. > > This notion simplifies matters considerably, for > it appears to me that transhumanism requires capitalism. > Transhumanism thrives on individual freedom, loooots > of free-flowing capital, profit motive, getting > governments out of our way (insert Howard-Dean-ish > YEEAAAAHH), wealth creation, etc. > Spike, I agree with you regarding the necessity of individual drivers of growth, but what is often disregarded is the cooperative framework that supports such individual growth, and the overwhelming (in the long term) benefits of synergetic organization. [I hope this isn't construed as support for socialism and central management.] - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net "Increasing awareness for increasing morality" From reason at longevitymeme.org Sat Jan 14 20:21:21 2006 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:21:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... In-Reply-To: <200601142001.k0EK1te08722@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of spike > Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 12:02 PM > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... > > > > In my experience the WTA has largely put forward the notion than > > transhumanism requires socialism ... > > > > - samantha > > I will accept this as fact unless someone from WTA is > hanging out here and offers a counter argument. > > This notion simplifies matters considerably, for > it appears to me that transhumanism requires capitalism. > Transhumanism thrives on individual freedom, loooots > of free-flowing capital, profit motive, getting > governments out of our way (insert Howard-Dean-ish > YEEAAAAHH), wealth creation, etc. A reading of this piece with that in mind would be helpful: http://www.longevitymeme.org/news/view_news_item.cfm?news_id=2158 http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635174444,00.html "In the Deseret News, a somewhat depressing look at early skirmishes in the war over who gets to control what you are permitted to do with your own life - including how long you are permitted to live. It's sad that it has come to this, that so many people pour resources in fighting for control of - and thereby supporting and sustaining - an increasingly dangerous and corrupt system. Consider this: in a truly free society of small government and rule of law, employees of the state would not have the power to block support and development of real anti-aging technologies, nor block your opportunity to amass wealth and purchase working anti-aging medicine. To live longer or not would be an individual choice; the only need for resources would be to develop the necessary medical technologies - not to defend your health and life from uncaring, over-empowered government employees." Reason From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat Jan 14 21:08:21 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:08:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] next generation of ion engines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060114210821.58748.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > Without directly meaning to be a "killjoy", what is it > precisely that > you > are trying to accomplish? Well...what I was hoping was a path to, within several years (well short of the Singularity, and probably sooner than a space elevator could be constructed), have a much cheaper way of doing Earth-To-Orbit operations - the prerequisite to dong *anything* in space. Although, it looks like this is probably not quite there yet. > Though we probably do not like to discuss it there *is* a > point in > the > development in the singularity where later launched spacecraft > will > have > resources at their disposal that significantly exceed the > capabilities of > spacecraft launched at an earlier time. Unless you're talking about missions which are intended to be complete way before said development. Which includes most any point-to-point traversal mission within our solar system today. (Doesn't include, say, building Dyson spheres. But does includes missions to Pluto.) Practically no one with the ability to actually build spaceships is currently constructing a ship that is intended to go past the Oort Cloud - and, frankly, given the time scales, you'd have to have a mission that won't reach its destination for multiple decades before it makes sense to even consider banking on technology that has yet to be developed. From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat Jan 14 21:18:17 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:18:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] next generation of ion engines In-Reply-To: <4kchs4$66sfj9@mxip34a.cluster1.charter.net> Message-ID: <20060114211817.53158.qmail@web81609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> That will work for getting things to orbital altitude. There's a big difference between orbital altitude and orbital velocity. Better ion engines would be of possible use for stationkeeping, and for the sats they launch - but doesn't really strike me as something they would get uber-excited about. That said, they're also well short of the edge of space: their latest mission only got to about 78 thousand feet, well short of 100 km (about 328 thousand feet). --- Dennis Roberts wrote: > You really don't need SpaceShipOne or anything like it. Check out > http://www.jpaerospace.com/, these folks are probably still dancing > around > after ESA's announcement. Low cost access to LEO is comin' to us all. > Dennis Roberts > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian > Tymes > Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:57 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] next generation of ion engines > > --- deimtee wrote: > > It takes about 10 newtons to lift a kilo against 1 gee. > > ...right, forgot to factor in G. > > > However, how about if you dropped it off SpaceShipOne at apogee? > > How much time have you got to give it orbital velocity before drag > > exceeds thrust? > > >From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne_flight_17P we > know that SSO only took 24 minutes between detaching from White > Knight through apogee to landing, of which just over 80 seconds > was spent under thrust. So the apogee-to-landing phase probably > took about 12 minutes. Most orbital rocket launches I've > studied seem to take about 10 minutes to get to orbital > velocity. So, you'd probably need wings or something to gain > lift while going at hypersonic speeds - and the wings would need > to be thermally protected (probably made out of solid heat > shields), because as you get towards Mach 25 you're flying not > through air but through plasma. Which is not to say it can't be > done, just that a proper analysis is probably way in excess of > simple back-of-the-envelope equations. > > I wonder, though: what would be the physics of flying through > plasma? Could you use an M2P2-type magnetic bubble to shield > the craft from direct contact with the atmosphere, while still > maintaining enough of an airfoil shape (in the bubble, which > seems to be the shape that would then matter for lift and drag > calculations) to gain lift? > > > also, > > I think you are a bit optimistic on the battery too. > > > > 100kW * 10 min = 16.666 kWHrs > > Thats about the same as a 12 volt battery delivering 1400 amps for > an > > hour. > > > > I want some of those for my electric car. : ) > > Actually, some of the sources were advanced batteries being > developed for cars. But I did caution that that was the > optimistic end of the figures I was seeing: quite a few of the > "most advanced" figures were quite a bit more conservative than > that. ;) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 21:18:58 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:18:58 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... In-Reply-To: <22360fa10601141218s6c14a521w34dc2ed7b690e963@mail.gmail.com> References: <40A08DE6-5D01-4DE1-8762-D4FC14CAEB7C@mac.com> <200601142001.k0EK1te08722@tick.javien.com> <22360fa10601141218s6c14a521w34dc2ed7b690e963@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/14/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > Spike, I agree with you regarding the necessity of individual drivers > of growth, but what is often disregarded is the cooperative framework > that supports such individual growth, and the overwhelming (in the > long term) benefits of synergetic organization. > > [I hope this isn't construed as support for socialism and central management.] > Oh, Spike, you are naughty! :) You said that bad word - 'socialism'. :) It covers such a wide range of features that it is pretty well useless as an adjective and just becomes an epithet that is thrown at people. I think it is safe to say that the WTA does *not* consist mostly of dyed-in-the-wool libertarians. :) But I suspect you would find a lot to agree with, in their statement of Transhumanist Values written by Nick Bostrom. (You probably won't agree with everything, but that's life). After all, Max and Natasha are Honorary Vice Chairs of the WTA, and they have been featured speakers at the last three Transvision conferences. I am sure if the WTA was a hotbed of Communist propaganda they would soon disassociate themselves. A couple of quotes from Transhumanist Values: ------------------------ To start with, transhumanists typically place emphasis on individual freedom and individual choice in the area of enhancement technologies. Humans differ widely in their conceptions of what their own perfection or improvement would consist in. Some want to develop in one direction, others in different directions, and some prefer to stay the way they are. It would be morally unacceptable for anybody to impose a single standard to which we would all have to conform. People should have the right to choose which enhancement technologies, if any, they want to use. In cases where individual choices impact substantially on other people, this general principle may need to be restricted, but the mere fact that somebody may be disgusted or morally affronted by somebody else's using technology to modify herself would not normally a legitimate ground for coercive interference. Furthermore, the poor track record of centrally planned efforts to create better people (e.g. the eugenics movement and Soviet totalitarianism) shows that we need to be wary of collective decision-making in the field of human modification. --------------------- Since technological development is necessary to realize the transhumanist vision, entrepreneurship, science, and the engineering spirit are to be promoted. More generally, transhumanists favor a pragmatic attitude and a constructive, problem-solving approach to challenges, preferring methods that experience tells us give good results. They think it better to take the initiative to "do something about it" rather than sit around complaining. This is one sense in which transhumanism is optimistic. ------------------------ And there is the recent Statement on Totalitarianism Friday, November 04, 2005 "Whereas, transhumanism presupposes a robust respect for individual liberty, cultural diversity, and human rights; Therefore the WTA considers totalitarian regimes to be contrary to transhumanist values and hostile to transhumanist aspirations." BillK From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 14 21:21:46 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:21:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... In-Reply-To: <22360fa10601141218s6c14a521w34dc2ed7b690e963@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200601142121.k0ELLne15897@tick.javien.com> ... > > governments out of our way (insert Howard-Dean-ish > > YEEAAAAHH), wealth creation, etc. > > > > Spike, I agree with you regarding the necessity of individual drivers > of growth, but what is often disregarded is the cooperative framework > that supports such individual growth, and the overwhelming (in the > long term) benefits of synergetic organization. > > [I hope this isn't construed as support for socialism and central > management.] > > - Jef Jef your comment is right in line with my own thinking. This cooperative framework that supports individual growth is a corporation. Team up with others, specialize to whatever degree you are comfortable, then work like mad to devour the other guys' lunch. Of course he is struggling to devour yours. But at the end of the day, the winning corporation wins, and the consumer wins. The losing corporation, well, it is made of individual consumers, so it wins in an indirect sort of way. It's all about wealth creation as opposed to wealth redistribution. What a system! In modern times there is a new holy grail, far beyond making the best trinkets for the least money. Today we are standing on the threshold of a dream. On the visible horizon is radical life extension, health improvement, intelligence enhancement, wealth creation that boggles the mind. May we all live to see it happen. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 14 21:39:26 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:39:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... In-Reply-To: <200601142001.k0EK1te08722@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200601142139.k0ELdSe17416@tick.javien.com> BillK wrote: >Oh, Spike, you are naughty! :) >You said that bad word - 'socialism'. :) Ja, but I want to make like that president we had in the 70s and make one thing perfectly clear. In my earlier comment, I meant I would accept as fact that WTA puts forward the notion that transhumanism requires socialism, not that *I* think that transhumanism requires socialism. I was expecting someone from WTA to come in any time now and explain that WTA does not really promote socialism. But thanks for the link BillK, I will read that over. I met Nick Bostrom at Extro5, and found him to be a most delightful good guy. I recognize that I am carrying a lot of memetic baggage that is disdainful of socialism. Taking that prejudice into account and multiplying thru by the appropriate scale factor, I find the whole notion of socialism most distasteful. As for communism, I prefer to abstain from discussing it in polite company. {8-] spike Earlier commentary: > > > > In my experience the WTA has largely put forward the notion than > > transhumanism requires socialism ... > > > > - samantha > > I will accept this as fact unless someone from WTA is > hanging out here and offers a counter argument. > > This notion simplifies matters considerably, for > it appears to me that transhumanism requires capitalism. > Transhumanism thrives on individual freedom, loooots > of free-flowing capital, profit motive, getting > governments out of our way (insert Howard-Dean-ish > YEEAAAAHH), wealth creation, etc. > > spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 21:52:22 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:52:22 -0500 Subject: Simple expressions was Re: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... Message-ID: <7641ddc60601141352y1d93c6aev7b58c5e0611c98cf@mail.gmail.com> On 1/14/06, spike wrote: But at the end of the day, the winning corporation wins, > and the consumer wins. The losing corporation, well, it is made > of individual consumers, so it wins in an indirect sort of > way. ### Spike, this is the best way of saing that in capitalism there are no losers that I heard in a long time. Capitalism at its core is a way of organizing competition to, paradoxically, achieve cooperation, and not destruction. This is a simple truth made popular by Schumpeter but it has been obscured by years of collectivist and statist propaganda. Your eloquent expression can help bring it back to the fore. Rafal From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 22:14:40 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:14:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0601140826y4ae7b2ebx690c998361a98acc@mail.gmail.com> References: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> <8d71341e0601140826y4ae7b2ebx690c998361a98acc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with most of the points which have been said. So *long* as there is an extropic angle I am willing to listen to the argument. If it involves some attempt to rewrite history in attempting to advance a personal agenda then I have problems with it and moderation may be useful. That being said... In line with the Harris Religion v. Reason argument -- it is open for "extropic" debate because at least several worldwide religions *completely* fail the "rationality" test. The religions themselves are responsible for *writing* the history which served their purposes. In evaluating Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, etc. in ways relevant to the Extropian list the question which *should* be asked is whether or not their actions resulted in a greater preservation of information. I.e. *were* their actions extropic? If I thought about it for a while I think I could make arguments that their actions were (Stalin and Hussein are much easier than Hitler IMO). Now, I strongly suspect that my making those arguments would primarily serve to annoy some of the people on the list. The arguments would also probably not serve a particularly useful purpose moving forward since they are all effectively "done deals". A little bit of wisdom I learned long long ago which may be interesting to consider in this context of *who* one allows to speak and/or *who* one listens to... "Reality is a function of agreement. Agreement is a function of enrollment." Having a fair amount of personal experience with it, I would suggest that some Russian forms of enrollment are quite different from Western forms of enrollment and unless you have had an opportunity and good reasons to try and understand what is going on in the minds of the individuals making the arguments it is difficult to accept some of the forms they may take. On lists with large numbers of people with specific cultural extractions it is presumably wise to tailor argument strategies to fit the audience. This is simple Marketing 101. (However I always disliked marketing... :-;) Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 22:42:20 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:42:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... In-Reply-To: <40A08DE6-5D01-4DE1-8762-D4FC14CAEB7C@mac.com> References: <20060114110215.63683.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4902d9990601140331k79a4e461ka0131080469b5eb2@mail.gmail.com> <40A08DE6-5D01-4DE1-8762-D4FC14CAEB7C@mac.com> Message-ID: <4902d9990601141442u750d8683h3014660e2eb25c3c@mail.gmail.com> On 1/14/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Also the post does not remotely reduce to only being about socialism > in the WTA. Since the word socialism was included almost in every sentence, and was the predominant metric when describing people, I had the impression that it was actually the real reason, and everything else just ancillary stuff. Alfio From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 22:49:52 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:49:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... In-Reply-To: References: <40A08DE6-5D01-4DE1-8762-D4FC14CAEB7C@mac.com> <200601142001.k0EK1te08722@tick.javien.com> <22360fa10601141218s6c14a521w34dc2ed7b690e963@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60601141449g785a9c25pc4a116c6c528bca4@mail.gmail.com> I find that Jose didn't need to use invective against James. Calling him a "scorpion" is unseemly. However drastically I disagree with his worldview, and his way of running the WTA discussion lists, there is no place for such words in civilized discourse. But, to air a few long-held grudges, let me recount here how I decided to dissociate myself from the WTA A couple years ago, when wta-talk was unmoderated, there was a discussion where Dale Carrico claimed that the "marginal minority" of the "Libertarian noise brigade" was overloading the list with their inanities. I actually went to the trouble of sifting through a few months' worth of the archives, counting the number of posts by each contributor, and classifying them according to their political views (which for the most part was pretty easy and non-controversial). It turned out that libertarians produced almost exactly the same number of posts as socialists, on a per capita basis. For Dale, a philosopher, and a rhetorician, dealing with pesky numbers would be a bit demeaning but here comes a new law to the rescue - wta-talk became a moderated list, and I was told by James that in the future such feats of accounting would not be allowed there. OK, that angered me immensely but I continued posting to wta-politics. Earlier last year I had another exchange with Dale, laced with invective and rancor, as usual. And as usual I was defending the notions of personal responsibility, individualism, and the others you all know I defend. James told me to stop the exchange, or else wta-politics could become a moderated list. This really strained my patience and I cut back on posting there. Finally, Mr Medvedev started his bizarre quest to introduce us to the wonders of the North Korean way to transhumanism, such as mandatory psychoengineering of all citizens (yes, he really did say it would be a good thing), and as a sideline extolled the virtues of Stalin. Now, as a libertarian, I do not support censorship, and if it was my list, I would let the clown post, although I would clearly tell what I think about his ideas. Foolishness has a way of defeating itself in a discussion and you can't have a discussion if you pretend it doesn't exist - however, if a list is already moderated to exclude my accounting of the number of libertarian posts, it would be a matter of symmetry to exclude Mr Medvedev as well. After all, reasonable members would worry about their reputation being tarnished by association, especially since Mr Medvedev was a WTA functionary. When I mentioned this to James, he answered he didn't really know what was the problem. This was the final straw for me. An "apolitical, umbrella organization" that censors mere counting of libertarian posts, or defense of low taxes but doesn't see a problem with actual honest-to-god Stalinist apologia, is something I would not want to be associated with in any way. So, here are my answers to some comments made by BillK: > I think it is safe to say that the WTA does *not* consist mostly of > dyed-in-the-wool libertarians. :) ### Indeed, they left. ---------------------------------- > After all, Max and Natasha are Honorary Vice Chairs of the WTA, and > they have been featured speakers at the last three Transvision > conferences. I am sure if the WTA was a hotbed of Communist propaganda > they would soon disassociate themselves. > ### I did. Rafal From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Sat Jan 14 22:52:36 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:52:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics of the WTA Message-ID: The WTA is not socialist in any sense of the term, and, as was pointed out, Max and Natasha are Honorary Vice-Chairs of the WTA, and Extropy Institute is an affiliate of the WTA. As to whether WTA members are socialists, the WTA membership have been polled twice about their politics, among other things. The results can be read here: http://transhumanism.org/resources/WTASurvey03Report.pdf And here: http://transhumanism.org/resources/survey2005.pdf The results: ----------------------------------- How would you describe your politics? 2003 2005 "Libertarians" Libertarian 11% 10% European Liberal 6% 7% Anarcho-capitalist 4% 2% Randian/Objectivist 1% 2% Minarchist 1% 1% "Socialists" Libertarian socialist 7% 7% Democratic socialist 4% 6% Left anarchist 2% 3% Communist 1% 1% "Progressives" Progressive 6% 7% Green 4% 4% Social democrat 5% 5% US-style liberal 4% 4% Radical 2% 1% Moderate 7% 8% "Conservatives" Christian Democrat 1% 0% Conservative 2% 2% Far right 1% 0% Upwinger/advocate of future political system 8% 10% Other 9% 7% Not political 15% 12% -------------------------------------------- In other words, only 14%-17% of the membership consider themselves "socialists" compared to 22%-23% who consider themselves libertarians. Even if you add together all the left-leaners as "socialists", from US liberals to Communists (as the critics of the WTA seem to do) then left-wingers constitute less than 40% of the membership. As to my own often-maligned politics, I have been a proud and card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America (http://dsausa.org) since 1980, organized campus chapters of the DSA, served on the National Executive of the Young Democratic Socialists, edited their magazine The Activist, chaired the Chicago chapter, and started their website. The DSA is a member of the Socialist International, along with the British Labour Party, French Socialist Party, German and Swedish Social Democratic Parties, and more than 100 other parties. All of them have been and remain anti-communist, as am I and as I have been since I became politically active in college. The conflation of social democrats and democratic socialists with communists is simply right-wing hyperbole. The assertion that the WTA is a socialist organization is simply incomprehensible. -------------------------------------------- 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 moulton at moulton.com Sat Jan 14 22:55:48 2006 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:55:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) In-Reply-To: References: <20060112051911.37750.qmail@web50511.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0601120218g6669207bya6f5168d015ee8ae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1137279348.29699.332.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 10:54 -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Jan 12, 2006, at 2:18 AM, Russell Wallace wrote: > > > The entities exterminating us aren't aliens from outer space in > > flying saucers with force shields that can withstand a nuclear > > explosion. The terrible truth is that we already know them. MTV. > > East Enders. Zoning laws. MAs in political science. > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760 > > It makes sense, of course; the one thing an exterminator meme can't > > look like is an exterminator meme, otherwise almost by definition it > > wouldn't be one. Bacteria die to penicillin; HIV, the simplest > > thing, slips by. > > > > > I read this article. Not to put too fine a point on it, I found it > laughable. Samantha correctly pegs the intellectual level of the Steyn article. It is also sad that anyone is taking it seriously. The same article was referenced on another list I am on a few days ago and wrote my comments for that list. I reproduce the majority of my remarks here just in case anyone is interested my view of the Steyn article. It was written for a different audience which in general has a lower level of science and technology background than this group however I do not have time to do a rewrite. As originally posted to another listed: The Steyn essay begins by claiming that much of "what we call the Western world will not survive the century". We are then given a several thousand word grand tour of the problem as viewed by Steyn touching on everything from gay marriage to Cameron Diaz. The essay as I see it has a couple of major flaws; - the first being a lack of serious consideration of technology and business factors during the course of this century impacting on cultural norms, birthrates, etc. - the second is a failure to properly grasp some key issues about memetics and cultural beliefs. Although the first is one that I find very interesting I will not deal with it here but will instead focus on the second issue. The essay contains various statistics and comparisons about birth rates and replacement rates and the shrinking of traditional European populations and the rise of Muslim populations. Further statistics are brought forth about how the number of Muslims living in the United Kingdom who want be live under Shariah law. It appears as if he wants to paint the picture of fundamentalist Islam sweeping over much of the Europe. Of course after hammering on the racial and ethnic demographics we find the disclaimer near the end of the article: "But it's not about race, it's about culture. If 100% of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy, it doesn't matter whether 70% of them are "white" or only 5% are. But if one part of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy and the other doesn't, then it becomes a matter of great importance whether the part that does is 90% of the population or only 60%, 50%, 45%." It would seem that the obvious point would be to discuss how to promote acceptance of liberal pluralist values but Steyn does not seem inclined to devote much space to what is obviously a major question implied by his prior discussion. Mr. Steyn writes of the Europeans holding the idea the "liberal pluralist democracy" but surely he must realize that this is a fairly recent development. It was only a few centuries ago that both Protestants and Catholics used torture and death on those they considered heretics. What happened was that ideas changed. For many in Europe and the USA the link between religion and government has either weakened or been cut. Again this raises the question of why does Steyn not focus more on memetics than ethnic demographics. I began to get a glimpse of Steyn's thinking when I compared what he considered the primary impulses of a society "national defense, family, faith and, most basic of all, reproductive activity" with the what he terms the secondary impulses of society "government health care", "government day care" and "government paternity leave". He argues that at least one party in the US and most parties in the rest of the West have platforms which are largely concerned with the "secondary impulses" and he says that if we fail to pay attention to the "primary impulses" then the "secondary impulse" items become unaffordable. And I admit that discussions of how to pay for welfare programs might be a topic that persons interested in policy matters may want to pursue. But is the thrust of Steyn's essay about paying for welfare programs? No, it appears not. It seems that Steyn thinks the West is not focused on the proper issues for the "survival of the west". And it is this concern that explains why Steyn leads us on the tangents about gay marriage and Cameron Diaz. And it illuminates one reason why I find Steyn's thinking so flawed. Notice that in the list of "secondary impulses" each of the items listed is a government welfare program. Now notice that in the list of "primary impulses" national defense is one that often considered a government activity but what of the others; family, faith, reproduction. The lack of distinction by Steyn between society, government, family and individual further weaken his point. There is another weakness in the list and that is the use of the term faith in the list. It raises the question of faith in what: faith in money; faith in your favorite baseball team, faith in Allah, faith in what exactly? I found Steyn using another term in an unusual manner, the term secular. Consider Steyn's description of the "progressive agenda--lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism". But secularism usually is used to refer to the lack of religious influence in public affairs of society. Yet this inclusion of secularism in the description ignores the religious backgrounds of many people in the early and current progressive movement. Putting "secularism" in the description of a progressive agenda might score rhetorical points with some in his audience but with me it just further erodes any possibility of taking him seriously. And his lack of intellectual rigor is further demonstrated by a discussion of multiculturalism that is at a level I would expect to hear at a frat house kegger not in a serious analysis. His trotting out of Cameron Diaz is not much better than his discussion of multiculturalism. Attempting to make any sort of important point by describing the Cameron Diaz appearance on the Oprah Winfrey show is about at the same level as if Shaquille O'Neil wanted to show his basketball skills by playing a little one on one with a seven year old. Steyn gives us this line: Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant? I consider myself a feminist yet I have no illusion about the problems that can occur when a majority of persons in a society are intolerant. We have ample record of that in the history of many societies including this one. My point is that a threat of some future intolerant majority is not a reason for abandoning feminism or for stopping the efforts towards getting the government's nose out of marriage and personal relationships between consenting adults. And this gets to what I think is a key point; it is a memetic and cultural battle that is occurring. In some cases the cultural conflict erupts into violence. We have seen this before when heretics where persecuted and burned in Europe; and we see it now it the violence that some Muslims direct towards others who they see as the enemies of Islam. My position is that we need to understand and continue the memetic and cultural struggle to advance the ideas of forethought, free markets and individual liberty. Of course this memetic and cultural struggle will be weaken other religous faiths just as much as it weakens the Muslim faith. Perhaps this is something which in the unwritten background of Steyn's essay, it is hard to say. My impression of Steyn's essay is that it while it seems to try to address some questions which are potentially interesting it is thin on substance and thick on rhetorical tricks that fail to either amaze or amuse. I wish that Steyn has been more direct rather than attempting the rhetorical route. Perhaps it was a matter of personal style but it is not persuasive. So if I am so dismissive of Steyn's essay, why did I spend my time writing this rather getting some sleep? It is because of the damage that views like Steyn's do to the movement for free markets and individual liberty. Too often people mistakenly associate conservatives like Steyn with free markets and when I mention the value of free markets some false impressions are made and I spend valuable time trying to convince people that free markets and individual liberty really mean free markets and individual liberty instead of the rhetoric that a conservative like Steyn got published. If persons are interested in Islamic fundamentalism and religion in general and our modern society then I recommend the book The End of Faith written by Sam Harris. I will warn you that he expresses himself very forcefully and directly and persons with delicate sensibilities are hereby warned. For those too busy to buy and read the book you can get a free MP3 download of a talk he gave a few weeks ago in San Francisco at: http://www.longnow.org/shop/free-downloads/seminars/ Just scroll to the bottom of the list, the title of the talk is "The View from the End of the World" and covers much of the material in the book. The talk was well attended and was standing room only, fortunately I found a chair. Fred From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jan 14 21:49:11 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 15:49:11 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Shall we enhance?" Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060114153554.01c93108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Dear Ms. Jarvik You write: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635174444,00.html "How smart should we be allowed to be? How tall? How happy?" These are among the strangest and most distressing questions I have ever seen printed in a responsible journal, or indeed any outside totalitarian societies. "Allowed" by whom? Implicitly, you condone the suggestion that someone else has a moral right to reduce or limit my intelligence and happiness, or that of my children. Extraordinary! I assume this is not something you really think, but is purely an artifact of journalism's routine but often profoundly misleading "On the one hand, on the other". Would you feel equally comfortable writing: "How literate should we be allowed to be? How old? How ethical?" Like yours, these are all questions more suited to a Taliban theologian, I think, or one of Pol Pot's ideologues. Damien Broderick, PhD University of Melbourne Australia From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 23:01:23 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:01:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings In-Reply-To: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> References: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> Message-ID: <7641ddc60601141501i6606452ap4f7357632ca89be1@mail.gmail.com> On 1/14/06, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > Free speech needs the odd crackpot to reassure us all that the system is > working. ### You are right, Jack (strange we agree, isn't it?). The problem with wta-talk is that it was supposed to *apolitically* moderated, and it wasn't. Failing to expel an extreme communist (because Mr Medvedev is not even a mainstream communist anymore) after having silenced the opposite end of the political spectrum amounts to support for one of the positions. Rafal From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Sat Jan 14 23:09:27 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:09:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... Message-ID: > especially since > Mr Medvedev was a WTA functionary. Mr. Medvedev is not a WTA functionary. He's not even a functionary of the Russian Transhumanist Association. Currently he is barred from posting on the WTA lists, and his posts have been moderated since the Board originally debated the matter. After next week, he may not be a member of the WTA since we will be voting on whether to expel him. I take it that would be your advise? As to the need to moderate vituperative political debates on the WTA lists, to which you objected in the past, I note that the same debate about the appropriateness of political debate, and vituperation, has also occurred here. -------------------------------------------- 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 rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 23:18:56 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:18:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0601141148p673f90b8mb994f2dd1dca63e8@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060112051911.37750.qmail@web50511.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0601120218g6669207bya6f5168d015ee8ae@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0601141111w7fa08c8bu753281f358e0a600@mail.gmail.com> <669DC541-211F-4E62-95B0-F316FFB0585C@mac.com> <8d71341e0601141148p673f90b8mb994f2dd1dca63e8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60601141518k341b0d22t51dede2e562307b2@mail.gmail.com> On 1/14/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 1/14/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 14, 2006, at 11:11 AM, Russell Wallace wrote: > > Out of curiosity, how close to the Singularity do you think we are? > > About one generation away if we don't do something stupid. > > I hope you're right! I think it's likely to take longer, even in the best > case scenario; but if the Singularity does arrive in one generation, feel > free to say "see, Russell, you were being unnecessarily grouchy and > pessimistic" and I'll agree that this was indeed so :) Operationally, I'll > keep trying to figure out how to prove myself wrong. > > ### My 95% confidence interval for the SAI-driven Singularity is 2015 to 2050, squarely within our generation's lifetimes. But I am not as pessimistic as Samantha about the US economy. Read Arnold Kling - the fact is, the US is doing better than ever, even despite the horrid stupidities that bedevil the system. Samantha, about five years ago we discussed on ExI the same question - you finished your last post in the thread by wondering whether maybe the American society might be able to invent its way out of the financial ruin brought about by government spending. Now I feel more confident than ever that it will happen. The dramatic improvements in labor productivity produced by American capitalism will produce so much wealth that even American politicians won't be able to destroy it all (you can find the relevant analyses on TCS and on Econlog). Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 23:27:17 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:27:17 -0500 Subject: Fwd: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60601141526j2d23cf06u2741d19b7b1e0740@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60601141526j2d23cf06u2741d19b7b1e0740@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60601141527k4c84b2b8xc89b052a6abe943a@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafal Smigrodzki Date: Jan 14, 2006 6:26 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... To: "Hughes, James J." On 1/14/06, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > > especially since > > Mr Medvedev was a WTA functionary. > > Mr. Medvedev is not a WTA functionary. ### But at the time my post referred to he was, wasn't he? ----------------------------------- > > As to the need to moderate vituperative political debates on the WTA > lists, to which you objected in the past, I note that the same debate > about the appropriateness of political debate, and vituperation, has > also occurred here. > ### Oh, if only you were to moderate vituperation, rather than ego-dystonic politics... Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 23:34:29 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:34:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics of the WTA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7641ddc60601141534m6328f02csd4930f2c0c82ac49@mail.gmail.com> On 1/14/06, Hughes, James J. wrote: > The WTA is not socialist in any sense of the term, ### At the time I decided not post on wta lists it was socialist in the sense of limiting expression of non-socialist worldviews by selective moderation. Rafal From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 14 23:34:28 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 15:34:28 -0800 Subject: Simple expressions was Re: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA...and so long... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60601141352y1d93c6aev7b58c5e0611c98cf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200601142334.k0ENYVe28889@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki > Subject: Simple expressions was Re: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE > WTA...and so long... > > On 1/14/06, spike wrote: > > But at the end of the day, the winning corporation wins, > > and the consumer wins. The losing corporation, well, it is made > > of individual consumers, so it wins in an indirect sort of > > way. > > ### Spike, this is the best way of saing that in capitalism there are > no losers that I heard in a long time... Thanks Rafal, you are too kind. > ...Capitalism at its core is a way > of organizing competition to, paradoxically, achieve cooperation, and > not destruction... I get so turned on by this kind of talk. Makes me want to run out and find something to invest in. I agree with Governor Dean's sentiment when he uttered the most sensible and eloquent comment that he ever made: "YEEEAAH" {8^D I figure economic competition in the form of unapologetic, unbridled capitalism is like a money version of democracy, where we proles get to vote with our money. It is like biological evolution, where the most robust solutions are found by recursive selection. It is like engineering, where design is perfected thru the feedback metric of profit. YEEEAAH, life is gooood! > This is a simple truth made popular by Schumpeter but > it has been obscured by years of collectivist and statist propaganda. > Your eloquent expression can help bring it back to the fore. > > Rafal Rafal I fear you and I reinforce each other bud. We need to get together, talk long enough to find something on which we disagree. {8^D spike From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Sat Jan 14 23:38:11 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:38:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... Message-ID: > ### But at the time my post referred to he was, wasn't he? No, he was never a functionary, appointee or electee of the WTA or the RTA. He translated some documents and sent us some news. That's all. J. From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Sat Jan 14 23:45:57 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:45:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... Message-ID: > ### I was told we was the webmaster of the WTA site in Russian. He has helped on the RTA's website, which is owned and run by someone else, but he has not edited our Russian language page. J. From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Sat Jan 14 23:47:35 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:47:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics of the WTA Message-ID: > ### At the time I decided not post on wta lists it was > socialist in the sense of limiting expression of > non-socialist worldviews by selective moderation. If telling you to take your political fights off-line is socialist then I guess a lot of people on this list are socialist also. J. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 00:01:31 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 19:01:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics of the WTA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7641ddc60601141601s2caf00ads49f1abe6f741fb73@mail.gmail.com> On 1/14/06, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > ### At the time I decided not post on wta lists it was > > socialist in the sense of limiting expression of > > non-socialist worldviews by selective moderation. > > If telling you to take your political fights off-line is socialist then > I guess a lot of people on this list are socialist also. ### Removing a discussion between a collectivist and a libertarian while keeping communist ravings certainly is socialist. Rafal From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 15 00:05:11 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:05:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics of the WTA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200601150005.k0F05Ie32100@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Hughes, James J. > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Politics of the WTA > > > ### At the time I decided not post on wta lists it was > > socialist in the sense of limiting expression of > > non-socialist worldviews by selective moderation. > > If telling you to take your political fights off-line is socialist then > I guess a lot of people on this list are socialist also. > > J. Evolution forbid, oy vey. We never really did come up with a solution on moderating political material that was acceptable to all. Some left ExI-chat because it was too political, others because it wasn't political enough. We decided when in doubt, let it go out: meaning, keep moderation to a bare minimum or less. {8-] Political discussion is allowed on ExI-chat, but personal attacks are not. ExI-chat has a lot of libertarians and those sympathetic with libertarian notions, but Extropy Institute itself does not specifically endorse any one political persuasion. See question 2: http://www.extropy.org/About.htm#No Ideally we could have their political discussions without attacking each other. It has worked fairly well since about last summer. spike From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Sun Jan 15 01:00:08 2006 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 09:00:08 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings References: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> <6b5e09390601140711r4f8879c3u99d68446c0e244b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001601c6196f$099f7ff0$04800d0a@JPAcer> ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Hayes >When words have baggage, it's hard to sling them around and make precise >points. Yes - and unfortunately, words do acquire semiotic content over time. One of the best essays on this topic is "Thick Description" by Clifford Geertz - I have no url for this but I believe it is vailable on the web if Googled... >I assume that there are no members of this list from within mainland China, >is that known as a fact? Actually, I live in mainland China, and have for almost the past 3 years - although I am from the UK originally. Jack Parkinson From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Sun Jan 15 01:10:47 2006 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 09:10:47 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings References: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> <7641ddc60601141501i6606452ap4f7357632ca89be1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001b01c61970$86fd8130$04800d0a@JPAcer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rafal Smigrodzki" > > Free speech needs the odd crackpot to reassure us all that the system is > working. ### You are right, Jack (strange we agree, isn't it?). The problem with wta-talk is that it was supposed to *apolitically* moderated, and it wasn't. Failing to expel an extreme communist (because Mr Medvedev is not even a mainstream communist anymore) after having silenced the opposite end of the political spectrum amounts to support for one of the positions. Rafal Good to see we have the occasional overlapping position! I can see how those postings amount to major embarrassment - but I still think that trying for a complete separation of politics from the issues the WTA discusses is something of a lost cause. Science/technology has ramifications for politics/sociology and vice -versa... Jack Parkinson From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Sun Jan 15 01:33:46 2006 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 09:33:46 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings References: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> <8A08D763-4889-4D11-B351-E8339C4742D7@mac.com> Message-ID: <002a01c61973$bbba4cc0$04800d0a@JPAcer> ----- Original Message ----- Samantha Atkins said: >Wholesale rewriting of history and denial of atrocities has nothing to do >with reason on informed >debate. Such denials are not debatable. Being an ostrich has nothing to do with reason or informed debate either. Everything is debatable. >The notion that all opinions no matter how absurd or evil are worthy of >defense and serious >consideration is shallow thinking. No, it is pragmatic acceptance of reality. Few things are ever decided for all eternity. Maybe nothing is. Remember Roe vs Wade? How long did it take for that heady feeling of victory to be replaced by the dull realization that this battle will need to be fought again - and probably again and again? >I do get to decide what I sanction and abhor. So do groups of people and >organizations. By >what they sanction and stand for they will be judged. >Debate is not limited. Having such an open >mind that your brains fall out >is not "debate" or respect for reality. Sanction is an interesting word - a 'contronym' - a word that means its own opposite. It has the dual sense of both allowing and restricting. In the second sense, sanction is no more than imposing your point of view and refusing to listen to the protests. Where is the logic or merit in that? >What does this "respect" of politics or religion mean? I take it to mean that everyone has the right to believe what they like. >Does it mean that we don't rigorously examine and criticize each other's >notions in these areas? No. And nor is this implied in my post. But it is the NOTION that ought to be the subject of criticism, not the person.... Jack Parkinson From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 01:46:09 2006 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:46:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings In-Reply-To: <002a01c61973$bbba4cc0$04800d0a@JPAcer> References: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> <8A08D763-4889-4D11-B351-E8339C4742D7@mac.com> <002a01c61973$bbba4cc0$04800d0a@JPAcer> Message-ID: <5844e22f0601141746u31211876nc5589f22fcea9af9@mail.gmail.com> On 1/14/06, Jack Parkinson wrote: > In the > second sense, sanction is no more than imposing your point of view and > refusing to listen to the protests. Where is the logic or merit in that? I offer to provide enough 'protests' to keep you reading/listening 24/7, 365.25 days a year. No lunch breaks, no sleep, no hobbies, no day job. Since there's never any logic or merit in "refusing to listen to the protests", you must of course agree wholeheartedly to spend all your time on whatever I choose to ramble at you about. Right? Right. Or perhaps the existence of limited resources entails we pick and choose just what positions we consider worth listening to or debating, and to what extent, with whom, and in what context. -- 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 transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sun Jan 15 03:35:52 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:35:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? Message-ID: <43C9C318.60302@goldenfuture.net> Setting aside for the moment the specifics of the recent spat within the WTA board of directors, one cannot help but notice that this is a recurring event. Almost like clockwork, one or more members of the Board become so frustrated that they feel compelled to resign (or are otherwise driven out), and much bad blood is generated, and good, active leaders leave the WTA. Almost invariably, the persons in question were in a conflict with Dr. Hughes. One or two times, you can ascribe to coincidence. But this has happened with at least four people thusfar to my knowledge. Can it really be their fault every time? Does it really make sense that Jose Cordeiro, Bruce Klein, Harvey Newstrom, and Elizier Yudkowski are each to blame, when each and every one of them ran afoul of James Hughes and left or were driven out subsequently? Not to mention all the other bitter arguments amongst the board, some quite heated, each and every one of which sees Dr. Hughes at its center (and I have had my share, I will fully admit, and I'm probably next on the list to be forced out). It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that it's "everyone else's fault". If that sounds like a swipe at Dr. Hughes, so be it; I ask it as a legitimate question. Four personal conflicts bad enough to drive away members of the Board (and countless others of lesser severity) and it's never his fault? I find it difficult to reasonably accept that poor set-upon James is an innocent player in all this. Joseph From megao at sasktel.net Sun Jan 15 04:19:40 2006 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:19:40 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] POLITIK IN THE WTA... symbolic of a fundamental human defect In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60601141449g785a9c25pc4a116c6c528bca4@mail.gmail.com> References: <40A08DE6-5D01-4DE1-8762-D4FC14CAEB7C@mac.com> <200601142001.k0EK1te08722@tick.javien.com> <22360fa10601141218s6c14a521w34dc2ed7b690e963@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60601141449g785a9c25pc4a116c6c528bca4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43C9CD5C.9000403@sasktel.net> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >I find that Jose didn't need to use invective against James. Calling >him a "scorpion" is unseemly. However drastically I disagree with his >worldview, and his way of running the WTA discussion lists, there is >no place for such words in civilized discourse. > > As human connectivity converges it will be interesting to see how philosophical differences can continue to co-exist. This may be the single biggest challenge of the singularity. How to allow for the co-existance of diverse world views. Virtualization of many radical and bizzare worldscapes might compartmentalize some, but who or how can it be determined what is to be discouraged and what is to be allowed to run unfettered in a segregated domain. Most humans might eventually want to experience all possible divergent and bizzare lifestyles conceivable if they can return to their own thoughtspace to reflect and continue forward, sort of like going to movies. As with ST type holodeck programs , which should be able to gain physical existance, and which should remain virtually imprisoned to the holodeck? Will posthumanity succeed in a social sense or will it be necessary to become like Vulcans to survive without a philisophical WAR of Minds the likes of which we can barely concieve of. Will we develop a symbiotic duality between a rational entity and a social entity. Might we relegate our social side to a holodeck world of experiences and only allow our rational entity to have a physical existance. Immortality might become our undoing if these issues are not properly dealt with before any singularity occurs. From metavalent at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 05:07:39 2006 From: metavalent at gmail.com (Metavalent Extropianism) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:07:39 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Shall we enhance?" In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060114153554.01c93108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060114153554.01c93108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4e674fa00601142107u3ff3d5c5sb7a170e69d04dc94@mail.gmail.com> Keep in mind that Deseret is code for "Mormon Church" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret so there is always a loving, but apparently jealous and somewhat insecure "Heavenly Father" out there -- whom one day, "we shall be like, for he was once as we" according to the cult's dogma -- dictating our boundaries. Of course, only specially selected humans who have played by the cult's bizarre rules are authorized to explain to the rest of us what Heavenly Father finds acceptable. All the leading religions are extremely scary on their own demerits, but the LDS wackos are especially frightening if you ask me. So, as is so often the case, one need only consider the source to get a pretty good sense of motives and rationale. On 1/14/06, Damien Broderick wrote: > Dear Ms. Jarvik > > You write: > "How smart should we be allowed to be? How tall? How happy?" > > These are among the strangest and most distressing questions I have ever > seen printed in a responsible journal, or indeed any outside totalitarian > societies. "Allowed" by whom? Implicitly, you condone the suggestion that > someone else has a moral right to reduce or limit my intelligence and > happiness, or that of my children. Extraordinary! > > Damien Broderick, PhD > University of Melbourne > Australia -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.47 Comment: Open Source Encryption for Everyone iD8DBQFDn7+GYAcVeu6D610RAgh5AJ9xxKV+dLvknuLo7QR2gA78DhI5FQCgsA8i XGmHxa5f0ozj2a8uXHGlDpk= =RAJu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Fingerprint: 2336 49B5 A73D 82BE ECE7 96EA 6007 157A EE83 EB5D From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jan 15 05:58:37 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:58:37 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Shall we enhance?" In-Reply-To: <4e674fa00601142107u3ff3d5c5sb7a170e69d04dc94@mail.gmail.co m> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20060114153554.01c93108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <4e674fa00601142107u3ff3d5c5sb7a170e69d04dc94@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060114235539.01e19710@pop-server.satx.rr.com> >Keep in mind that Deseret is code for "Mormon Church" Quite so. It would be revealing, however, if the journalist who wrote that biased piece provided just that justification ("God made me do it")--or, far more likely, evaded the issue with blustering. Damien Broderick From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jan 15 09:11:40 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:11:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... In-Reply-To: <200601142121.k0ELLne15897@tick.javien.com> References: <200601142121.k0ELLne15897@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <9A02A8BE-1F49-4EB6-9F98-7A70AE3B9D6C@mac.com> On Jan 14, 2006, at 1:21 PM, spike wrote: > > Jef your comment is right in line with my own thinking. This > cooperative framework that supports individual growth is a > corporation. > Team up with others, specialize to whatever > degree you are comfortable, then work like mad to devour the > other guys' lunch. Of course he is struggling to devour > yours. Seems to me that Linux and many Open Source/Free Software projects do fine without a corporation or being out to eat anyone else's lunch. Times and forms change. > But at the end of the day, the winning corporation wins, > and the consumer wins. The losing corporation, well, it is made > of individual consumers, so it wins in an indirect sort of > way. It's all about wealth creation as opposed to wealth > redistribution. What a system! Corporations and consumers eh? How like 20th century! Wealth is created all kinds of new oddball ways as more of us hook into the Web as full-fledged participants not so easily separated into producers and consumers or both and other. > > In modern times there is a new holy grail, far beyond > making the best trinkets for the least money. Today > we are standing on the threshold of a dream. On the > visible horizon is radical life extension, health improvement, > intelligence enhancement, wealth creation that boggles the > mind. May we all live to see it happen. Yes. And may we shed old forms and forge new ones as needed every step of the way. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jan 15 09:20:51 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:20:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics of the WTA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45450F7A-0F39-4DC6-9543-D13278C47966@mac.com> On Jan 14, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > The WTA is not socialist in any sense of the term, and, as was pointed > out, Max and Natasha are Honorary Vice-Chairs of the WTA, and Extropy > Institute is an affiliate of the WTA. > I am sorry but the WTA organization is heavily bent in the socialist direction and to assert otherwise is a damn lie. A straw poll of members hasn't anything to do with it. Neither does having Max and Natasha as *Honorary* Vice-Chairs. Your "umbrella" is no such thing. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jan 15 09:36:51 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:36:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 14, 2006, at 3:09 PM, Hughes, James J. wrote: > >> especially since >> Mr Medvedev was a WTA functionary. > > Mr. Medvedev is not a WTA functionary. He's not even a functionary of > the Russian Transhumanist Association. Currently he is barred from > posting on the WTA lists, and his posts have been moderated since the > Board originally debated the matter. After next week, he may not be a > member of the WTA since we will be voting on whether to expel him. > Ah. So now you take action. Good to see you changing your tune after all the mealy-mouthed platitudes and inaction. > > As to the need to moderate vituperative political debates on the WTA > lists, to which you objected in the past, I note that the same debate > about the appropriateness of political debate, and vituperation, has > also occurred here. > I was one of the libertarians ran off your list ages ago. You condoned those practices. I haven't forgotten. The vituperative energy was mostly on the other side but libertarians got to be the scapegoats. I have not believed that you are at all interested in "debate" or in being inclusive ever since. But the Medvedev tolerance you practiced for so long was beyond anything I would have believed if I had not seen it myself. I am glad you are now taking action but it is too late. Your colors have been seen. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jan 15 09:47:13 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:47:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60601141518k341b0d22t51dede2e562307b2@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060112051911.37750.qmail@web50511.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0601120218g6669207bya6f5168d015ee8ae@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0601141111w7fa08c8bu753281f358e0a600@mail.gmail.com> <669DC541-211F-4E62-95B0-F316FFB0585C@mac.com> <8d71341e0601141148p673f90b8mb994f2dd1dca63e8@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60601141518k341b0d22t51dede2e562307b2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 14, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On 1/14/06, Russell Wallace wrote: >> On 1/14/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 14, 2006, at 11:11 AM, Russell Wallace wrote: > >>> Out of curiosity, how close to the Singularity do you think we are? > >>> About one generation away if we don't do something stupid. >> >> I hope you're right! I think it's likely to take longer, even in >> the best >> case scenario; but if the Singularity does arrive in one >> generation, feel >> free to say "see, Russell, you were being unnecessarily grouchy and >> pessimistic" and I'll agree that this was indeed so :) >> Operationally, I'll >> keep trying to figure out how to prove myself wrong. >> >> > ### My 95% confidence interval for the SAI-driven Singularity is 2015 > to 2050, squarely within our generation's lifetimes. > > But I am not as pessimistic as Samantha about the US economy. Read > Arnold Kling - the fact is, the US is doing better than ever, even > despite the horrid stupidities that bedevil the system. How do you figure that? With massive public and private debt, huge foreign ownership, more dollars in foreign hands than in our own, little on-shore manufacturing capability, a government that eats 50% of everything and still is massively in debt, liberty and freedom largely forgotten by the people - exactly HOW can you possibly claim we are doing better than ever? If you claim it is because of our technology, well, that same technology is all over the East and much of the critical components are produced mainly there. So that isn't going to keep the US boat afloat. > > Samantha, about five years ago we discussed on ExI the same question - > you finished your last post in the thread by wondering whether maybe > the American society might be able to invent its way out of the > financial ruin brought about by government spending. Now I feel more > confident than ever that it will happen. How? Which companies and what areas? R&D financed how? > The dramatic improvements in > labor productivity produced by American capitalism will produce so > much wealth that even American politicians won't be able to destroy it > all (you can find the relevant analyses on TCS and on Econlog). No. That was largely a hoax. For "productivity" increase the government counts the difference in computer speed/strorage cost per dollar. But anyone working in computers (especially software) knows that raw machine power increases do not translate into real productivity gains like that, not even in direct computer related industries. If our productivity is really so good then why is China eating our lunch? - samantha From amara at amara.com Sun Jan 15 10:15:39 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:15:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Woo Hoo! Stardust Capsule Lands Safely!!! Message-ID: It deccelerated from the fastest manmade object to hit our Earth's atmosphere to ~ 10mph and landed safely in the north Utah desert!!! -- Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 10:21:03 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:21:03 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Woo Hoo! Stardust Capsule Lands Safely!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0601150221h5e0eeb2eha86723ab03166f37@mail.gmail.com> On 1/15/06, Amara Graps wrote: > > It deccelerated from the fastest manmade object to hit our > Earth's atmosphere to ~ 10mph and landed safely in the north > Utah desert!!! Great! Congratulations to everyone involved! - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 11:00:15 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:00:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics of the WTA In-Reply-To: <200601150005.k0F05Ie32100@tick.javien.com> References: <200601150005.k0F05Ie32100@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60601150300l70ce327bq78b8c79c52d72b2f@mail.gmail.com> On 1/14/06, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Hughes, James J. > > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Politics of the WTA > > > > > ### At the time I decided not post on wta lists it was > > > socialist in the sense of limiting expression of > > > non-socialist worldviews by selective moderation. > > > > If telling you to take your political fights off-line is socialist then > > I guess a lot of people on this list are socialist also. > > > > J. > > Ideally we could have their political discussions > without attacking each other. It has worked fairly well > since about last summer. > ### The special irony in this case is that J was telling me to "take your political fights off-line" referring to posts on the list *wta-politics*. Funny, ain't it? Rafal From amara at amara.com Sun Jan 15 14:08:48 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:08:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Stardust Capsule Return Press briefing Message-ID: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html Press briefing at 6:30am PST, 9:30amEST, 3:30CET on the Stardust sample return capsule recovery. I watched the return on NASA TV, and it was perfect! Apparently after losing the IR tracking, and hitting the ground gently, the capsule bounced a few times and landed on its side under the parachute, and the helicopters needed about an hour to find it in the dark on the Utah salt beds (they had the signal, and the IR helped, but it cooled rapidly upon landing). Now the capsule is in a temporary storage facility on the army base, to undergo some cleaning before being transferred to the long term dust samples storage in Houston (and some pieces will be sent to other laboratories all over the world for study). BTW, I think that Don Yeomans in the broadcast made some debatable and controversial statements about the role of comets in our lives.... Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From megao at sasktel.net Sun Jan 15 14:56:44 2006 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 08:56:44 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] HACCP as a tool to Integrate/Synchronize Disruptive Technologies Message-ID: <43CA62AC.60609@sasktel.net> Some thoughts about novel ways to deploy "next generation" HACCP high level management systems. One can deploy HACCP protocols to integrate and synchronize and optimize disruptive technologies Was reading a piece in "CIO Insight" -RFID article while watching Star Trek Enterprise- episode about "temporal management" with consideration of - food/nutriceutical/drug security-bioterrorism-agroterrorism HACCP applications article. HACCP for disruptive technology tools: RFID - transactional tool HACCP for Humans - lifespan/healthspan sentience optimization tool Carnivore/Internet et. al.- information and security managment tools GPS/GIS- logistical management tool Bio-Cyber-Nano HACCP- biomechanical management tool From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Sun Jan 15 15:21:46 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:21:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? Message-ID: > Jose Cordeiro, Bruce Klein, Harvey > Newstrom, and Elizier Yudkowski are each to blame, when each > and every one of them ran afoul of James Hughes Uh, for the record, Mr. Cordeiro just withdrew from running for re-election, Bruce Klein and Harvey Newstrom resigned from the Board, and Mr. Yudkowsky lost a re-relection. So I don't know how I can be blamed for 'driving out' Yudkowsky. And yes, the other three Board members and I had many disagreements. But neither I, nor any Board member, moved to have them removed from the Board. Subsequently I have collaborated on WTA and IEET projects with Mr. Klein and Mr. Newstrom, and I'm glad we have repaired those relationships. J. Hughes From megao at sasktel.net Sun Jan 15 15:52:08 2006 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 09:52:08 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: HACCP as a tool to Integrate/Synchronize Disruptive Technologies In-Reply-To: <43CA6ED3.10807@sasktel.net> References: <43CA62AC.60609@sasktel.net> <43CA6ED3.10807@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <43CA6FA8.7070506@sasktel.net> Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO wrote: > Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO wrote: > >> >> Some thoughts about novel ways to deploy "next generation" HACCP >> high level management systems. >> >> One can deploy HACCP protocols to integrate and synchronize and >> optimize disruptive technologies >> >> Was reading a piece in "CIO Insight" -RFID article while watching >> Star Trek Enterprise- episode about "temporal management" with >> consideration >> of - food/nutriceutical/drug security-bioterrorism-agroterrorism >> HACCP applications article. >> >> HACCP for disruptive technology tools: >> >> RFID - transactional tool >> HACCP for Humans - lifespan/healthspan sentience optimization tool >> Carnivore/Internet et. al.- information and security managment tools >> GPS/GIS- logistical management tool >> Bio-Cyber-Nano HACCP- biomechanical management tool >> >> >> > Think Tanks like Exi and Futuretag can work to deploy HACCP protocols > as a Singularity Managment Tool and do so as a commercial venture. > > It is my opinion that the gravitational eddys of the singularity have > been upon us since perhaps 1995 when the functional seamless global > internet > began to displace all other mediums of connectivity and facilitated > real-time access to knowledge of a broad spectrum of technological > change events while similtaneously corroding conventional barriers > to social interaction . > > An thus, such broad discussion as that below becomes a daily coffee > row instead of being sequestered in some obscure clique of techies. > > ******************************************************************************* > > Shall we enhance? > > Transhumanism says we're a species in flux > > By Elaine Jarvik > Deseret Morning News........................................... > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 15 16:43:00 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 08:43:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Woo Hoo! Stardust Capsule Lands Safely!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200601151643.k0FGh6e07285@tick.javien.com> Wooooohooooo! {8^D Cool! Looks like the Lockheeed boys managed to put the pyros in correctly this time. {8-] s > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 2:16 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org; wta-talk at transhumanism.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] Woo Hoo! Stardust Capsule Lands Safely!!! > > It deccelerated from the fastest manmade object to hit our > Earth's atmosphere to ~ 10mph and landed safely in the north > Utah desert!!! > > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD > Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) > Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), > Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, > Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From megao at sasktel.net Sun Jan 15 15:48:35 2006 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 09:48:35 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: HACCP as a tool to Integrate/Synchronize Disruptive Technologies In-Reply-To: <43CA62AC.60609@sasktel.net> References: <43CA62AC.60609@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <43CA6ED3.10807@sasktel.net> Lifespan Pharma/Morris Johnson CTO wrote: > > Some thoughts about novel ways to deploy "next generation" HACCP > high level management systems. > > One can deploy HACCP protocols to integrate and synchronize and > optimize disruptive technologies > > Was reading a piece in "CIO Insight" -RFID article while watching > Star Trek Enterprise- episode about "temporal management" with > consideration > of - food/nutriceutical/drug security-bioterrorism-agroterrorism > HACCP applications article. > > HACCP for disruptive technology tools: > > RFID - transactional tool > HACCP for Humans - lifespan/healthspan sentience optimization tool > Carnivore/Internet et. al.- information and security managment tools > GPS/GIS- logistical management tool > Bio-Cyber-Nano HACCP- biomechanical management tool > > > Think Tanks like Exi and Futuretag can work to deploy HACCP protocols as a Singularity Managment Tool and do so as a commercial venture. It is my opinion that the gravitational eddys of the singularity have been upon us since perhaps 1995 when the functional seamless global internet began to displace all other mediums of connectivity and facilitated real-time access to knowledge of a broad spectrum of technological change events while similtaneously corroding conventional barriers to social interaction . An thus, such broad discussion as that below becomes a daily coffee row instead of being sequestered in some obscure clique of techies. ******************************************************************************* Shall we enhance? Transhumanism says we're a species in flux By Elaine Jarvik Deseret Morning News Stupidity and sadness, cancer and bad golf scores. In the world according to transhumanism, these and other human frailties will eventually go the way of scurvy. Also on the horizon: immortality. Photo Jessica Berry, Deseret Morning News The possibilities are either tantalizing or terrifying, depending on your point of view. Transhumanists embrace a future in which everyone has the right to live a life beyond current biological limitations. Their detractors argue that all these radical enhancements will make us less human. That depends on what you mean by "human," say transhumanists, whose very name suggests a species in flux. As the World Transhumanist Association notes on its Web site, transhumanism is based on the premise that "the human species in its current form does not represent the end of our development but rather a comparatively early phase." Eventually, say transhumanists, we may indeed become "posthuman" -- such an amalgamation of nanotechnology and neuropharmaceuticals, so changed by our interface with microchips and nanorobots, so much smarter, happier and healthier, that we hardly would be recognizable to early 21st century eyes. It's science fiction based on science fact, a trajectory that begins with emerging technologies like cyberkinetic chips and gene therapy, says James Hughes, president of the World Transhumanist Association and author of "Citizen Cyborg." Actually, says Hughes, that trajectory began as soon as our Paleolithic ancestors started taking care of everyone who was toothless, a point at which we first transcended natural selection, he says. We have relied on technologies of one sort or another for millennia -- from eye glasses to antibiotics -- to continually make ourselves better than we naturally are. But where do we draw the line? Or should we draw a line at all? How smart should we be allowed to be? How tall? How happy? If we can make depressed people less depressed, should we make happy people more happy? If we can make our children healthier and smarter, if we can eliminate much of the suffering in the world through technology, do we have a moral responsibility to do so? Or do we have a moral responsibility to speak out against it? These questions and hundreds of others will face humanity in the decades to come. There will likely come a time in the not-so-distant future when we will look back on simpler issues -- steroid use by baseball players, for example -- with a certain nostalgia for simpler times. Jeremy Jones, a University of Utah senior majoring in philosophy, is writing his honors thesis on the fuzzy distinction between treatment and enhancement. A treatment, for example, would be a drug to help Alzheimer's patients improve their failing memories. "Of course we would say 'Let's let Grandpa use it, to bring him back so he can be a functioning part of society,' " Jones says. But what if the same drug could help a college student, as Jones says, "catch an edge"? At what point is the drug the mental equivalent of muscle-building steroids? "These conditions exist on a continuum," he says. "That's why it's so hard to draw the line." The same dilemma will exist when we figure out how to give people a genetic tweak so they won't ever get dementia," says "Citizen Cyborg" author Hughes. On the one hand, it's a medical therapy. On the other, it's a way of fiddling with the natural aging process. "Bio-Luddites" is what Hughes calls people who want to ban the technologies and drugs that would help humans live beyond their current potential. "There are people who are mobilizing to ban these technologies; we would do well not to underestimate them," says Hughes, who also teaches health policy at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. "Bioconservatives are very attached to four score and six, and the IQ, as definitions of what it means to be human," he says. "But what it means to be human is to push all those boundaries." Just look how far we've come from our agricultural ancestors, who "were flea-bitten and had short lives," he adds. Critics of pushing boundaries come from both the political right and left, he says, pointing to conservatives such as Francis Fukuyama of the President's Council on Bioethics (which in 2003 published a critical report called "Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness") and liberal activists such as Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's R. Albert Mohler Jr. is another vocal opponent of radical enhancements. It's one thing, he says, to try to give a person with bad eyesight 20/20 vision, and it's another to try to create humans whose eyesight is superhuman. The latter, he says, uses science "to redefine the species." "From a Christian worldview perspective," he says, "there are two problems with this. First, you have the normative definition of what it means to be a human being made in the image of God." To try to exceed normal human capacities, he says, "is to open, quite literally, a Pandora's Box of moral problems." The second problem, Mohler says, is the transhumanist desire to prolong life beyond normal aging. "The tranhumanists increasingly see death as an oddity that is to be overcome. Christians certainly do not embrace death as a good in itself, but we understand that death is a part of what it means to be human, and that, indeed, the effort to forever forestall death is itself an act of defiance that will be both unworkable and morally suspect." Richard Sherlock takes a different view. Sherlock is a philosophy professor at Utah State University, one of only several Utah members of the World Transhumanist Association -- and also a practicing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "We ought to be able to look at the future as an opportunity, not a threat," says Sherlock, who is also a board member of the Journal of Evolution and Technology. "I don't think you can say God has said 'this, but no more.' All these technologies are ways in which we become more like our Creator," he adds. In fact, he says, the idea of a continually advancing human "fits better within a Mormon context that sees humanity as a developing structure, aspiring to be more like God." Not that technology doesn't present potential challenges, he says. But "we can't put our head in the sand and hope they go away. They need careful thought in light of the moral and religious traditions of the West." "The really important question that transhumanists themselves worry about," he adds, "is how to make the future equitable." What happens, for example, if the rich have access to nanorobots that can rid the body of cancer cells, but the poor don't? What happens if only developed countries can provide their citizens, or maybe just their wealthiest citizens, the latest in gene therapy? Hughes calls the solution "democratic transhumanism." "Our agenda is not just 'rahrah technology,' " he says, "but the creation of a society that is egalitarian in the use of those technologies." But even in that best of all worlds, the potential dilemmas are staggering. Take the case of Parker Jensen -- the Utah boy whose parents were charged with kidnapping when they refused to let their son undergo chemotherapy -- and think about what happens if a hospital decides that an unborn baby must undergo genetic engineering so he won't ever get cancer in the first place. What happens when parents decide they want their children to be genetically altered to be tall? Will shortness become a disability when buildings and furniture and cars all are redesigned for the burgeoning population of tall people? Will governments decide that tallness is not in the community's best interest, since tall people take up more room? Will tallness no longer be an asset, anyway, if everyone is the same height? And these are the easy questions. What about the scenario Hughes presents in "Citizen Cyborg": the fictitious case of a woman named Grace? The hypothetical Grace has an auto accident that destroys the right half of her brain, at which time her remaining brain is suffused with nanoelectrodes hooked up to a computer that has the same power as the human brain. At the same time, a bath of neural growth factors and cloned neural stem cells stimulate her remaining brain cells to grow new connections to the brain prosthesis. As time goes by, the brain prosthesis assumes an increasing role in Grace's head. In her 80s, though, Grace is diagnosed with an incurable form of neurological deterioration, which makes her organic brain slowly shut down. No problem, though, since Grace's computer self has kept her mentally sharp, and has preserved her memories, emotions and personality via computer-- a process known as uploading. As her organic brain deteriorates, Grace asks to have her computer self removed from her dying body and attached to the World Wide Web, or whatever the Web has morphed into by then. She builds herself a virtual body "with virtual simulations of neurochemistry, hormonal ebbs and flows, and a sense of embodiment," writes Hughes. "She edits her body image back to a vigorous 20-year-old, and jacks up her self-confidence and becomes a successful politician campaigning for cheaper electricity and cyborg rights." Is Grace still human? "So long as we continue to talk with her and we feel the presence of another mind with which we can empathize, we are compelled to grant her the rights and responsibilities of membership in society regardless of whether she is still 'human,' " says Hughes. And what about machine minds that aren't uploads of human brains? Do they have rights? And what about creatures that are part animal, part human? "There is no intrinsic value in being human, just as there is no intrinsic value in being a rock, a frog or a posthuman," say the founding documents of the World Transhumanist Association. "The value resides in who we are as individuals and what we do with our lives." "Bio-Luddites," Hughes argues, "advocate human-racism." Instead he focuses on what he calls "personhood." All of which makes U. student Jones understand people who say "Whoa!" to technological progress. But the good news, he says, is that "we're not there yet . . . . We have a little bit of time to figure it out." We shouldn't try to institutionalize restrictions on enhancement technologies yet, he says, "or try to create a society that doesn't stop to think about the ethics. We can't let the capitalist market rule or the conservative drive to restrict everything." The solution, likely, is somewhere in the middle. "We just don't know now what it is." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ E-mail: jarvik at desnews.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: e010706trans.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 23202 bytes Desc: not available URL: From l4point at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 19:19:55 2006 From: l4point at gmail.com (Mike Hayes) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 13:19:55 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6b5e09390601151119x2b3b6711k61434b3e166470e2@mail.gmail.com> To the context of much chatter about what should and should not be allowed on lists, with constraints being mentioned having to do with list decorum and relationships to the primary Subject Matter: 1. I have removed my name from the WTA list due to bullshit far in excess of any reasonable person's expectations of what should be allowed in their INBOX. 2. I respect various persons who use the organizational capabilities of their human cognitive facilities to attempt to connect the dots between what should and should not be allowed within a list. 3. However, WTA bullshit is now spilling over in the this list, which in turn finds its way to my inbox. 4. This list in turn must be terminated. That is to say, it must be made to cease to exist within the confines of the universe of my Inbox. Failure consists, in essence, of some number of persons in a closed room chattering about subjects, and some larger number of persons leaving that room than those, hearing the chatter, choosing to go into it. 5. I believe that this list represents a sort of first generation mail list protocal, indeed it predates the Internet and it's general format, as I recall, was floating in Arpanet. It is obselete. 6. If and when the members of this Extropy chat list determine methods to, in the course of conversations, assign reputation and interesting/non interesting factors to members, and thus in turn for a subscriber to filter to an acceptable level incoming communications, while at the same time providing negative feedback to loudmouth jerks who are free to clog the bandwidth, please at that time, send me a note so that I may resubscribe. 7. Factors such as described in #6 are already in place in the web based communication systems of teenagers, from whom, perhaps there is much to learn. 8. Have a nice day. Mike Hayes On 1/15/06, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > > > Jose Cordeiro, Bruce Klein, Harvey > > Newstrom, and Elizier Yudkowski are each to blame, when each > > and every one of them ran afoul of James Hughes > > Uh, for the record, Mr. Cordeiro just withdrew from running for > re-election, Bruce Klein and Harvey Newstrom resigned from the Board, > and Mr. Yudkowsky lost a re-relection. > > So I don't know how I can be blamed for 'driving out' Yudkowsky. And > yes, the other three Board members and I had many disagreements. But > neither I, nor any Board member, moved to have them removed from the > Board. > > Subsequently I have collaborated on WTA and IEET projects with Mr. Klein > and Mr. Newstrom, and I'm glad we have repaired those relationships. > > J. Hughes > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Sun Jan 15 20:14:41 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:14:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43CAAD31.2070400@pobox.com> Hughes, James J. wrote: > >>Jose Cordeiro, Bruce Klein, Harvey >>Newstrom, and Eliezer Yudkowsky are each to blame, when each >>and every one of them ran afoul of James Hughes > > Uh, for the record, Mr. Cordeiro just withdrew from running for > re-election, Bruce Klein and Harvey Newstrom resigned from the Board, > and Mr. Yudkowsky lost a re-relection. > > So I don't know how I can be blamed for 'driving out' Yudkowsky. And > yes, the other three Board members and I had many disagreements. But > neither I, nor any Board member, moved to have them removed from the > Board. For the record, James Hughes did drive me out of the WTA. First, about the election. When the WTA first formed, the five founding directors who received the largest number of votes - that is, the five most popular directors - were all lumped together into the even-numbered years. As a result, I was routinely running for re-election against the likes of Nick Bostrom. So at one point I was bumped out of the Top Five group (by Harvey Newstrom). However, I certainly would have run for re-election in the subsequent odd-numbered year, since an umbrella organization for transhumanist groups (which is how the WTA was proposed to the founding Directors) should surely represent Singularitarians and the Singularity Institute; I liked the work WTA was doing, and my presence on the Board would continue to attract Singularitarians to the WTA. Except that I'd just spent the entire preceding two years using my own reputational capital to try and patch relations with transhumanist groups Hughes had offended, and objecting to the sly spins and digs that Hughes would slip into WTA publications. I wanted to make sure transhumanism didn't end up polarized. Hughes's own agenda was, and appears to still be, to create and drive a wedge between transhumanists of different political orientations. I presume this is because Hughes wants to be the big fish of a leftist transhumanism, even if that means splitting off a smaller pond. And if Hughes picks a fight, why, you'll have to pick sides, and once you pick Hughes's side he can get away with anything because he's on *your* side; an old, old, trick. I am still strongly opposed to this, but I have more important things to do with my life than fighting Hughes. It's *tiring*. I could be re-elected to the Board any time I wish, I'm pretty sure; I left the WTA because I just didn't have the energy anymore. That, too, is an old, old, trick. I can't back Jose Cordeiro on the accusations he made against any of the WTA Directors who were present during my own tenure. It is implausible that so many bad apples would end up on the WTA Board. One may well suspect that Cordeiro himself is also at fault. I never had trouble with anyone except Hughes. From time to time, I find it necessary to say nasty things about someone, for example, James Hughes. When I do, I am forthright about the fact that I am doing it, and I present my reasons for doing so. I don't blink cutely and say "Who, me?" James Hughes seems to think he can say nasty things about SIAI or drive Directors off the Board, and then stand around with an innocent look on his face. Maybe Hughes has, by repeating it often enough, convinced even himself that he is the offended party. So let's be clear about this: Hughes is systematically offending other transhumanist organizations and he cannot possibly be doing it by accident. If you call Natasha Vita-More a "wife", or Yudkowsky a millennarian apocalyptic, you know full well they'll be offended; no one is that stupid. If the WTA kicked out Hughes, the WTA would probably fall apart because Hughes is doing all the volunteer work. Good luck solving that one; it's up to you. I've served my time in the barrel. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Sun Jan 15 20:46:15 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:46:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? Message-ID: > So at one point I was bumped out of the Top > Five group (by Harvey Newstrom). As you say, you were not re-elected and decided not to run again. You are welcome to do so in January 2007. In regards the role of the WTA vis-a-vis other transhumanist organizations, there is a necessary tension between building an awareness of transhumanism in the media, policy arena and academia, and maintaining perfect sync with our very small and relatively unknown group of organizations. We value both goals, but they are sometimes in tension. J. From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun Jan 15 20:56:17 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:56:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity and Religion Message-ID: <20060115205617.48355.qmail@web35515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'm interested in finding good articles that deal with the impact on religion if Singularity should occur. If anybody has any information it would be much appreciated. Thanks Anna --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 23:37:19 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:37:19 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... In-Reply-To: <40A08DE6-5D01-4DE1-8762-D4FC14CAEB7C@mac.com> References: <20060114110215.63683.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4902d9990601140331k79a4e461ka0131080469b5eb2@mail.gmail.com> <40A08DE6-5D01-4DE1-8762-D4FC14CAEB7C@mac.com> Message-ID: On 1/14/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > In my experience the WTA has largely put forward the notion than > transhumanism requires socialism and that those who disagree are not > very welcome. The WTA has put on this mantle of socialism and it > will experience some consequences from doing so. > > I can certainly confirm some of what Jose says, since I was personally squeezed out of the WTA for expressing opinions that Hughes did not like. He also fabricated blatant untruths about me and my beliefs. While I have in the past crossed swords (and angry words) with Jose, I cannot say that he is anything but upfront and honest as far as I'm concerned. He is not a Hughes. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 23:40:23 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:40:23 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] REAL POLITIK IN THE WTA... and so long... In-Reply-To: <200601142139.k0ELdSe17416@tick.javien.com> References: <200601142001.k0EK1te08722@tick.javien.com> <200601142139.k0ELdSe17416@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 1/14/06, spike wrote: > > BillK wrote: > > >Oh, Spike, you are naughty! :) > >You said that bad word - 'socialism'. :) > > > Ja, but I want to make like that president we had > in the 70s and make one thing perfectly clear. In > my earlier comment, I meant I would accept as fact > that WTA puts forward the notion that transhumanism > requires socialism, not that *I* think that > transhumanism requires socialism. > > I was expecting someone from WTA to come in any > time now and explain that WTA does not really > promote socialism. But thanks for the link BillK, > I will read that over. I met Nick Bostrom at > Extro5, and found him to be a most delightful > good guy. > > I recognize that I am carrying a lot of memetic > baggage that is disdainful of socialism. Taking that > prejudice into account and multiplying thru by the > appropriate scale factor, I find the whole notion > of socialism most distasteful. As for communism, > I prefer to abstain from discussing it in > polite company. > > The problem is not the WTA, nor socialism. It is Hughes pushing his personal partisan politics (party as well as petty) at the expense of the WTA. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike99 at lascruces.com Sun Jan 15 23:48:02 2006 From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:48:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? In-Reply-To: <43C9C318.60302@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: The impression has been given that all fingers of blame for trouble on the WTA Board point to James Hughes. How did that impression come about? Well, if you look at those pointing fingers, you will see that the first one belonged to Jose Cordeiro, who began attacking James Hughes at the WTA Board meeting in Oxford, UK in April 2004. I was there and, at the time, wondered why Jose kept needling James, taunting him, and -- when we were all sitting in the bar -- trying to pick a fight with him. James kept refusing to take Jose's flame bait. But it was quite clear that Jose despised James' democratic socialist politics and wanted to argue about it. There is nothing wrong with a good political argument. But Jose went beyond that into outright character assassination. Not all Board members attended the Oxford meeting. Interestingly, the ones who did not attend -- Bruce Klein and Harvey Newstrom -- were the ones who eventually joined Jose's crusade against James. Why? Because Jose moved swiftly to make his case against James, both on the WTA Board listserv and in many, many private messages. As you will have read in Jose's most recent -- and allegedly final -- screed against the WTA Board, Jose is extremely emotional, vindictive, highly selective in his choice of facts, and not above tarring his self-chosen enemies while always denying that he himself has ever made a single mistake. I am still amazed at Jose's ability to misremember and mischaracterize his flouting of the Board's votes. Jose refused to request that the Venezuelan embassy issue visas for the Indian delegates to TransVision05 the Board had chosen -- which included an elected member of the Board! Jose had a personal vendetta against that Board member. And not being one to let democracy trump his personal pet peeves, Jose simply refused to accept the democratic process. (I can't help but notice that this is also his approach to the elected government of his native Venezuela.) Jose's transparently self-serving denial of his culpability in acting in a fashion that he himself should recognize as being STALINIST should tell you everything you need to know about his capacity for hypocrisy. (And Jose, if you are reading this, you know that I've already pointed this out to you privately more than once.) Jose's propaganda campaign against James in 2004 turned out to be very effective. It prompted Bruce Klein to resign from the Board, much to our regret, since Bruce is a talented, dedicated and very hard-working transhumanist. His Immortality Institute has done fine work and continues to do so. More power to him. Harvey Newstrom, who is also quite intelligent and adept, was encouraged by Jose to question everything...endlessly. Questioning is good. But like the child who asks an endless series of "Why?" questions, responding to every proffered answer with yet another "Why?" Harvey only managed to bring the work of the Board to a grinding halt. In an elected legislature, this is called tying up the house in procedural motions. That's what Harvey did. Finally, the Board had had enough and asked him to leave. The claim has been made (and I see in another message, already corrected) that Eliezer Yudkowsky was forced off the Board. This is another of Jose's fabrications. Eliezer, although brilliant and a great transhumanist figure, did not win re-election to the WTA Board. But he continues to due extremely valuable work through his Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. More power to him. At one time, Jose could probably have been elected Executive Director of the WTA. At one time, I would have voted for him. But, strangely, he always declined to run. And now he has so tarnished his reputation that he could not even be re-elected to the Board, much less get a majority of the Board to elect him Executive Director. Jose and I have a love-hate relationship. I am willing to risk besmirching my own reputation by mud wresting with my friend Jose about his statements and behavior. But I have to do that. As a Zen Buddhist priest, I have taken a vow to work toward the end of suffering for all sentient beings. And I do not intend to leave Jose behind. If this means I have to boost him out of the mud while I sink deeper into it, so be it. That's what bodhisattvas are supposed to do. Regards, Michael LaTorra mike99 at lascruces.com mlatorra at nmsu.edu English Dept., New Mexico State University "For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with open eyes towards slavery." -- Jacob Bronowski "Experiences only look special from the inside of the system." -- Eugen Leitl "Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman: a rope across an abyss - a dangerous going across, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking back, a dangerous shuddering and staying still." -- Friedrich Nietzsche Member: Board of Directors, World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org Board of Directors, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies: http://ieet.org/ Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org Society for Universal Immortalism: www.universalimmortalism.org President, Zen Center of Las Cruces: www.zencenteroflascruces.orgwww.zencenteroflascruces.org > -----Original Message----- > From: wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org > [mailto:wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org]On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch > Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:36 PM > To: World Transhumanist Association Discussion List; ExI chat list > Subject: [wta-talk] What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? > > > Setting aside for the moment the specifics of the recent spat within the > WTA board of directors, one cannot help but notice that this is a > recurring event. > > Almost like clockwork, one or more members of the Board become so > frustrated that they feel compelled to resign (or are otherwise driven > out), and much bad blood is generated, and good, active leaders leave > the WTA. Almost invariably, the persons in question were in a conflict > with Dr. Hughes. > > One or two times, you can ascribe to coincidence. But this has happened > with at least four people thusfar to my knowledge. Can it really be > their fault every time? Does it really make sense that Jose Cordeiro, > Bruce Klein, Harvey Newstrom, and Elizier Yudkowski are each to blame, > when each and every one of them ran afoul of James Hughes and left or > were driven out subsequently? Not to mention all the other bitter > arguments amongst the board, some quite heated, each and every one of > which sees Dr. Hughes at its center (and I have had my share, I will > fully admit, and I'm probably next on the list to be forced out). > > It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that it's "everyone else's fault". > If that sounds like a swipe at Dr. Hughes, so be it; I ask it as a > legitimate question. Four personal conflicts bad enough to drive away > members of the Board (and countless others of lesser severity) and it's > never his fault? I find it difficult to reasonably accept that poor > set-upon James is an innocent player in all this. > > Joseph > _______________________________________________ > wta-talk mailing list > wta-talk at transhumanism.org > http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk > From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 23:51:07 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:51:07 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1/15/06, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > > > Jose Cordeiro, Bruce Klein, Harvey > > Newstrom, and Elizier Yudkowski are each to blame, when each > > and every one of them ran afoul of James Hughes > > Uh, for the record, Mr. Cordeiro just withdrew from running for > re-election, Bruce Klein and Harvey Newstrom resigned from the Board, > and Mr. Yudkowsky lost a re-relection. > > So I don't know how I can be blamed for 'driving out' Yudkowsky. And > yes, the other three Board members and I had many disagreements. But > neither I, nor any Board member, moved to have them removed from the > Board. > > Subsequently I have collaborated on WTA and IEET projects with Mr. Klein > and Mr. Newstrom, and I'm glad we have repaired those relationships. > > The technical term is "constructive dismissal" Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 23:56:24 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:56:24 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? In-Reply-To: <6b5e09390601151119x2b3b6711k61434b3e166470e2@mail.gmail.com> References: <6b5e09390601151119x2b3b6711k61434b3e166470e2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/15/06, Mike Hayes wrote: > > > 3. However, WTA bullshit is now spilling over in the this list, which in > turn finds its way to my inbox. > > Probably because the WTA list is not a free and open medium, given its 'moderator'. Also, the internal workings of the WTA are legitimate and very much on topic for any Transhumanist list. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 00:08:04 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:08:04 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0601141111w7fa08c8bu753281f358e0a600@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060112051911.37750.qmail@web50511.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0601120218g6669207bya6f5168d015ee8ae@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0601141111w7fa08c8bu753281f358e0a600@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/14/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 1/14/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > I read this article. Not to put too fine a point on it, I found it > > laughable. Religious faith is not going to save the West and secularism > > sure as hell isn't dooming it. As much as I think welfare statism is evil > > and dangerous I can't in honesty lay the blame there except as a large > > contributory drain on the economy and on the character of the people. The > > notion that we must reproduce more this close to Singularity is the biggest > > laugh of all. > > > > Out of curiosity, how close to the Singularity do you think we are? > > In the 1980s I estimated not sooner than 2010 and not later than 2050, with the most likely date around 2030. I still believe that. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jan 16 00:10:11 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:10:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity and Religion In-Reply-To: <20060115205617.48355.qmail@web35515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200601160010.k0G0ADe18803@tick.javien.com> I'm interested in finding good articles that deal with the impact on religion if Singularity should occur. If anybody has any information it would be much appreciated. Thanks Anna The singularity is difficult to understand by its nature. What will happen afterward is anyone's guess. For what it's worth, I was a witness to a fundy religion just before the first moon landing. Several Baptist preachers and maaaany of the congregants firmly believed that the mission would fail, because Mr. Damn would not allow sin to expand beyond this fallen planet. The fire that took Grissom, Chaffee and White was considered a warning. After the successful landing, everything went on as before. Never heard a word mentioned about it. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jan 16 00:28:01 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:28:01 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200601160028.k0G0S8e20087@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of mike99 ... > Jose and I have a love-hate relationship. I am willing to risk besmirching > my own reputation by mud wresting with my friend Jose about his statements > and behavior. But I have to do that... Regards, Michael LaTorra... As a ExI-chat moderator, it is unclear to me what to do about all this, but my inclination is to stand by for a while and let everyone concerned have their say. If anyone has comments, encouragement, complaints or suggestions on this policy, feel free to discuss it with me offlist. In the mean time, WTA-ers go ahead and post your discussion. The rancor has been is within tolerance limits so far. {8-] Others who see their friends being jumped, feel free to not leap to their defense. These are all big boys, they can defend themselves. spike From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Mon Jan 16 00:29:21 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:29:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? In-Reply-To: References: <6b5e09390601151119x2b3b6711k61434b3e166470e2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43CAE8E1.9020503@goldenfuture.net> Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 1/15/06, *Mike Hayes* > wrote: > > > 3. However, WTA bullshit is now spilling over in the this list, > which in turn finds its way to my inbox. > > > Probably because the WTA list is not a free and open medium, given its > 'moderator'. > Also, the internal workings of the WTA are legitimate and very much on > topic for any Transhumanist list. For those who are interested, it is because of precisely this sort of thing that I set up the Transhumanist_General list. If Extropian folks want to see the WTA threads moved there, I most certainly have no objection (although I obviously cannot compel compliance). All parties are welcome to post (unlike me, ironically, whose latest post on this subject on WTA-Talk was held in moderated limbo for about six hours or so). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Transhumanist_general/ Joseph From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 00:29:28 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:29:28 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1/14/06, BillK wrote: > > On 1/14/06, Amara Graps wrote: > > scusi', wrong attribute, Russell Wallace said this. > > >And frankly, when someone starts praising mass murderers, that's a > pretty > > >damned reasonable criterion for saying enough is enough. > > > > > No problem - I agree anyway. :) > > If you mean killfile them, I agree. If you mean expel/censor them then I don't. I believe in freedom of speech. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 00:29:49 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:29:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity and Religion In-Reply-To: <20060115205617.48355.qmail@web35515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060115205617.48355.qmail@web35515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Anna, You should be *very* careful about putting "The Singularity" label onto various independent technology development paths (most prominently infotech, biotech and nanotech). Continual progress on the biotech path will allow significant lifespan extensions. One does not need to include infotech or nanotech, though nanotech will significantly enhance the lifespan extension vector. (Non-aging biological systems have longevities of 1000-2000+ years given current accident rates. Nanotech based enhancements to those systems enable ~10,000+ year lifespans. Uploading, either that based on advanced info-biotech or info-nanotech pushes lifespans to millions if not trillions of years (if people are willing to adapt/evolve themselves -- as it requires uploading and converting to a distributed replicated intelligence). The concept of "The Singularity" is in large part based upon the idea that the rate of change is going to continue to increase. That is *not* necessary for the clash to take place between "rational thought" and "religion". As Harris has pointed out if one looks at religious texts, esp. the Bible and the Koran, many simply do not hold water from a rational standpoint. The progress of technology is going to gradually remove the legs that at least some religions stand upon. Lifespan extension removes religion's lock on "life" vs. "death". Nanotechnology (as in Jesus was a nanoenhanced extraterrestrial among other possibilities) kills off many of the so-called "miracles". The entire "God created the universe" is under significant fire from the hard core physics camp. Reality as we perceive it may be getting a significant rewrite from serious academics (e.g. Rees, Freitas, Bostrom, etc.) that reality may all be a simulation (ala the Matrix). So conventional religions are under fire from a number of quite different angles. As there are relatively few people outside of the Extropy/Transhumanist community which are aware of all of these vectors I seriously doubt that you will find articles exploring them. However it is difficult to have a rational discussion in this area as many "religious" people are operating on "faith" which cannot be reasoned with. Robert On 1/15/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > I'm interested in finding good articles that deal with > the impact on religion if Singularity should occur. If anybody > has any information it would be much appreciated. > Thanks > Anna > > ------------------------------ > Find your next car at *Yahoo! Canada Autos* > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 01:42:15 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:42:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I don't need an umbrella Message-ID: <7641ddc60601151742r5750ed9cycded56f77ffc799@mail.gmail.com> I feel a bit uncomfortable about ExI being described as an "affiliated organization" under the "umbrella" of WTA. This gives a certain hint of dominance and inferiority, as if ExI were a vassal of WTA. Clearly, WTA is not an umbrella organization, since it is actively pursuing its own agenda rather than acting as a clearinghouse for collaboration between various transhumanist groups. And, from a number of recent posts I gather that it does not have an equitable relationship with SIAI, ImInst, and ExI, not to mention the Transtopians. I wonder if ExI should more explicitly disavow being a sub-group under WTA 's aegis. Rafal From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Mon Jan 16 01:56:53 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:56:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Kurzweil on C-SPAN2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43CAFD65.6080900@goldenfuture.net> Two points: 1) This wonderful interview (I'm watching as I type this) will be repeated tomorrow at 4 PM ET, so them's as missed some or all of it can hopefully catch the whole thing. 2) There is an email list set up explicitly for these sorts of announcements. See http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/TransTelevision/ Joseph Martin Striz wrote: >I don't remember anybody mentioning this, but Ray Kurzweil is on >C-SPAN2 (BookTV) talking about his book "The Singularity is Near" >RIGHT NOW, 8 pm EST, until 9. > >Martin > >_______________________________________________ >wta-talk mailing list >wta-talk at transhumanism.org >http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk > > > > From starman2100 at cableone.net Mon Jan 16 03:13:39 2006 From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:13:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Deseret News & LDS Church Message-ID: <1137381219_6309@S2.cableone.net> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From brent.allsop at comcast.net Mon Jan 16 02:50:44 2006 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (brent.allsop at comcast.net) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 02:50:44 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity and Religion Message-ID: <011620060250.14303.43CB0A020008C795000037DF22058864429F019C04040ED29B020A9D0D@comcast.net> Anna, I'm very interrested in this also! Have seen nothing of quality on this topic. Let me know if you find anything! Thanks Brent -------------- Original message -------------- From: Anne-Marie Taylor I'm interested in finding good articles that deal with the impact on religion if Singularity should occur. If anybody has any information it would be much appreciated. Thanks Anna Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Anne-Marie Taylor Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity and Religion Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:56:49 +0000 Size: 679 URL: From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Mon Jan 16 04:48:57 2006 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:48:57 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings References: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> <8A08D763-4889-4D11-B351-E8339C4742D7@mac.com> <002a01c61973$bbba4cc0$04800d0a@JPAcer> <5844e22f0601141746u31211876nc5589f22fcea9af9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000d01c61a58$2b8d42c0$0901a8c0@EF02jack> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Medina" To: "Jack Parkinson" ; "ExI chat list" Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings On 1/14/06, Jack Parkinson wrote: > In the > second sense, sanction is no more than imposing your point of view and > refusing to listen to the protests. Where is the logic or merit in that? I offer to provide enough 'protests' to keep you reading/listening 24/7, 365.25 days a year. No lunch breaks, no sleep, no hobbies, no day job. Since there's never any logic or merit in "refusing to listen to the protests", you must of course agree wholeheartedly to spend all your time on whatever I choose to ramble at you about. Right? Right. Or perhaps the existence of limited resources entails we pick and choose just what positions we consider worth listening to or debating, and to what extent, with whom, and in what context. Jeff Medina *** The objection above is only superficially valid. It reads commonsensically - albeit exaggeratedly - but it is predicated on the assumption there is no differentiation between 'signal' and 'noise' in the protests offered. My previous post does make it clear that rants, raves and rubbish can - and should be mercilessly trashed. Just lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Jack Parkinson From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Mon Jan 16 09:10:41 2006 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 04:10:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <126a75a572fc0cac4345c878fa1817ce@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Jan 15, 2006, at 6:48 PM, mike99 wrote: > Not all Board members attended the Oxford meeting. Interestingly, the > ones > who did not attend -- Bruce Klein and Harvey Newstrom -- were the ones > who > eventually joined Jose's crusade against James. This is unfair, Mike. You didn't think it was a crusade at the time. You quoted James as admitting that there was never a specific vote in Oxford and that a vote would be a good idea. You yourself made a motion for such a vote, saying that a resolution was needed that would be accepted by the entire board. It was only when that vote failed that you guys decided that a vote was an unnecessary crusade against James. (See your own e-mail below to refresh your memory.) -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP On May 21, 2004, at 3:08 PM, mike99 wrote, > What James has written here about our decision at Oxford as previously > stated in the minutes and adopted by the Board is exactly as I > remember. We > voted for James as Executive Director. Later, after Oxford, the open > question about serving simultaneously as ED and a Board member was > clarified > as a matter of law in the applicable jurisdiction. > > I am not questioning these decisions. In fact, I am in favor of James > as ED > and as a member of the Board. There seems to be some confusion among > some > Board members about this situation, which is why I moved for another > vote. > > If I am out of order in moving to vote again on issues already > settled, then > I request that we find some other means to confirm the decisions so > that all > members of the Board will accept them. As things stand now, there > seems to > be some confusion. My motion was intended as a clarification, not a > change. > > Giulio, can you suggest another way that we might clarify these issues > to > everyone's satisfaction? > > > Michael LaTorra > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: wtaboard-bounces at transhumanism.org >> [mailto:wtaboard-bounces at transhumanism.org]On Behalf Of Hughes, James >> J. >> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 12:45 PM >> To: WTA Board of Directors List >> Subject: RE: [wtaboard] Re: Mike's motions >> >> >>> Can you clarify this for me? I missed the Oxford meeting >> >> It seemed a clear decision of the Oxford meeting that I would become >> ED >> effective immediately, with a salary and travel budget >> to-be-determined >> once we had actual money. >> >> However there was never a specific vote to that effect, and I think >> one >> would be a good idea. >> >> I raised the question at the time about whether I would need to step >> down from the Board in order to become ED, and said I would get back >> to >> the Board about it. >> >> I believe I reported back to the Board after Oxford that there were no >> restrictions on the ED being a Board member in the US or CT law, and >> you >> may remember that we then created wtaboard2004 at yahoogroups.com in >> order >> to discuss matters relating to my employment "in my absence". >> >> I subsequently reported in the minutes from Oxford that the Board had >> appointed me ED, which seemed both in Oxford and on the list once we >> briefed Harvey and BJ, to be a decision my acclaim. >> >> The minutes were then adopted, and I have proceeded to sign my email >> messages and refer to myself as ED on the website and in every >> official >> communication as the ED. The Board's decision to fund my trip to >> Foresight was in the context of it being the first step toward my >> having >> an ED travel budget. >> >> However, as we are all now chastened about trusting to decisions by >> acclaim, I have no objections to a vote and urge you to put it to a >> formal vote, as I take Harvey and Jose now want to do. >> >> Since Giulio is of the opinion that the decision was made between >> Oxford >> and the adopting of the minutes, I suppose that it now would require a >> vote to challenge the ruling of the chair. >> >> However, I do think you need to decide first whether anyone feels that >> the ED cannot be a member of the Board. >> >> As I said, I am no longer willing to resign from the Board to take the >> post of ED. >> >> ------------------------ >> James Hughes Ph.D. >> Executive Director >> World Transhumanist Association >> http://transhumanism.org >> Box 128, Willington CT 06279 USA >> (office) 860-297-2376 >> secretary at transhumanism.org >> _______________________________________________ >> wtaboard mailing list >> wtaboard at transhumanism.org >> http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wtaboard >> > > > _______________________________________________ > wtaboard mailing list > wtaboard at transhumanism.org > http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wtaboard From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Mon Jan 16 09:56:28 2006 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 04:56:28 -0500 Subject: [wta-talk] RE: [extropy-chat] What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 15, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Hughes, James J. wrote: > Uh, for the record, Mr. Cordeiro just withdrew from running for > re-election, Bruce Klein and Harvey Newstrom resigned from the Board, > and Mr. Yudkowsky lost a re-relection. > > So I don't know how I can be blamed for 'driving out' Yudkowsky. And > yes, the other three Board members and I had many disagreements. But > neither I, nor any Board member, moved to have them removed from the > Board. James thinks I resigned, even though I have always denied it. On Jan 15, 2006, at 6:48 PM, mike99 wrote: > Harvey Newstrom, who is also quite intelligent and adept, was > encouraged by > Jose to question everything...endlessly. Questioning is good. But like > the > child who asks an endless series of "Why?" questions, responding to > every > proffered answer with yet another "Why?" Harvey only managed to bring > the > work of the Board to a grinding halt. In an elected legislature, this > is > called tying up the house in procedural motions. That's what Harvey > did. > Finally, the Board had had enough and asked him to leave. Mike thinks the board asked me to leave, even though James has always denied it. This is why I ask endless questions. Different board members still disagree about whether the board did or did not take some official action. How can they not remember or agree on what happened on the board? How can the records be of no help in answering these questions? How can there be no minutes or disputed minutes? How can we tell which claimed official actions are real and which ones aren't. When board members violently disagree on basic truths, how can members determine the truth? And how can these same questions be unanswered year after year? -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From jay.dugger at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 11:58:52 2006 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 06:58:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] LINK: Nick Szabo Calls for Comments on "History and the Security of Property" Message-ID: <5366105b0601160358le30c027q687284725602610c@mail.gmail.com> Monday, 16 January 2006 Hello all: NIck Szabo's has a draft paper, "History and the Security of Property," at this link. http://szabo.best.vwh.net/history.html He asks for comments on the paper in his blog Unenumerated on 07 January 2006. -- Jay Dugger Please donate to a charity you like. From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 15:06:56 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:06:56 +0100 Subject: [wta-talk] RE: [extropy-chat] What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c520601160706k62fe0c6dr4d526a725ced9807@mail.gmail.com> Pleeeeease my friends, not again! First, I wish to remind everyone that all WTA members can access the WTA Board archives which, as I just checked, go back to August 2003. Just write to me or to Marcelo for a password. Second, I see that these pointless discussions are spilling over to the Extropy list, where perhaps people prefer discussing other things and do not wish to see their mailboxes flooded with endless repetitions of the same old stories. If I were Natasha, I would consider issuing a warning to all WTA members on the Extropy list to please discuss internal WTA problems at home, refrain from taking them to the Extropy list, and not assume that everyone is interested in petty disputes. I could do it myself as I am also a list deputy on the Extropy list, but in this case I prefer leaving it to Natasha. Third, I can see that some people are using the old and recent discussions in the WTA to create tension between the ExI, the WTA and other transhumanist associations. If you are one of those, and you will know if you are one, I wish to ask you to consider focusing your energy to more productive activities. There is a lot to do to move towards the future we wish to see and I think we can not waste our time like that. G. On 1/16/06, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > On Jan 15, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Hughes, James J. wrote: > > > Uh, for the record, Mr. Cordeiro just withdrew from running for > > re-election, Bruce Klein and Harvey Newstrom resigned from the Board, > > and Mr. Yudkowsky lost a re-relection. > > > > So I don't know how I can be blamed for 'driving out' Yudkowsky. And > > yes, the other three Board members and I had many disagreements. But > > neither I, nor any Board member, moved to have them removed from the > > Board. > > James thinks I resigned, even though I have always denied it. > > On Jan 15, 2006, at 6:48 PM, mike99 wrote: > > > Harvey Newstrom, who is also quite intelligent and adept, was > > encouraged by > > Jose to question everything...endlessly. Questioning is good. But like > > the > > child who asks an endless series of "Why?" questions, responding to > > every > > proffered answer with yet another "Why?" Harvey only managed to bring > > the > > work of the Board to a grinding halt. In an elected legislature, this > > is > > called tying up the house in procedural motions. That's what Harvey > > did. > > Finally, the Board had had enough and asked him to leave. > > Mike thinks the board asked me to leave, even though James has always > denied it. > > This is why I ask endless questions. Different board members still > disagree about whether the board did or did not take some official > action. How can they not remember or agree on what happened on the > board? How can the records be of no help in answering these questions? > How can there be no minutes or disputed minutes? How can we tell > which claimed official actions are real and which ones aren't. When > board members violently disagree on basic truths, how can members > determine the truth? And how can these same questions be unanswered > year after year? > > -- > Harvey Newstrom > CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 16 16:32:24 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:32:24 -0600 Subject: [total] RE: [extropy-chat] What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? In-Reply-To: <470a3c520601160706k62fe0c6dr4d526a725ced9807@mail.gmail.co m> References: <470a3c520601160706k62fe0c6dr4d526a725ced9807@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060116101202.041bb738@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 09:06 AM 1/16/2006, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >If I were Natasha, I would >consider issuing a warning to all WTA members on the Extropy list to >please discuss internal WTA problems at home, refrain from taking them >to the Extropy list, and not assume that everyone is interested in >petty disputes. I could do it myself as I am also a list deputy on the >Extropy list, but in this case I prefer leaving it to Natasha. Spike, the lead list moderator, is watching the posts; albeit I appreciate your post and concerns. To prevent any negative subject lines about the WTA, ExI has asked that all thread subject lines not use any negative language re WTA. Spike is monitoring this. >Third, I can see that some people are using the old and recent >discussions in the WTA to create tension between the ExI, the WTA and >other transhumanist associations. The only post that I read that was intentionally written to aggravate ExI and WTA was made by Marino Buble on WTA's list. ExI's chair Max More responded to this calmly and cogently. Regarding posts on ExI's List: Jose's post was inflammatory. He did state that he would not post again for a couple of months. Harve's and Eli's posts have not been inflammatory, they have been level-headed expressions of their thoughts and feelings. Regarding all other postings, Spike is very careful in watching for ad hominem attacks and posts that are written to cause conflicts. Thank you for your concerns, and I will share with you that I hope people can air their thoughts and feelings with civility and work toward solving problems. Best wishes, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Mon Jan 16 17:30:19 2006 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:30:19 -0500 Subject: [wta-talk] RE: [extropy-chat] What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? In-Reply-To: <470a3c520601160706k62fe0c6dr4d526a725ced9807@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520601160706k62fe0c6dr4d526a725ced9807@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <766342b3ec3815570e6f82d12ef7d468@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Jan 16, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > If I were Natasha, I would > consider issuing a warning to all WTA members on the Extropy list to > please discuss internal WTA problems at home, refrain from taking them > to the Extropy list, and not assume that everyone is interested in > petty disputes. Two points should be made here: 1. Take a look at the posters discussing WTA Board politics on the ExI-chat list: James Hughes, Mike Treader, Michael LaTorra, Giulio Prisco, Joseph Bloch, Jose Cordiero, Harvey Newstrom, Eliezer Yudkowski, etc. Six WTA Board members and two former WTA Board members. This is not some discussion of WTA board matters by non board members. This is the WTA board fighting among itself in public again. 2. The two former Board members were not involved in this discussion until WTA Board members made claims about them by name. We both posted to set the record straight about ourselves. Max and Natasha likewise stayed out of this discussion until they were invoked by name. You yourself posted what Natasha should do to stop this discussion, forcing her to respond to your statements in her name. These people aren't causing problems for the WTA Board. The WTA Board is causing problems for us. If you want the conversations stopped, WTA Board members need to solve their problems themselves. Asking people to ignore the problem and not talk about it isn't the solution. (Goodbye again, until I am invoked again by name.) -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 17:57:22 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:57:22 +0100 Subject: [wta-talk] RE: [extropy-chat] What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? In-Reply-To: <766342b3ec3815570e6f82d12ef7d468@HarveyNewstrom.com> References: <470a3c520601160706k62fe0c6dr4d526a725ced9807@mail.gmail.com> <766342b3ec3815570e6f82d12ef7d468@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520601160957p7953a868q969850e3724f8d2d@mail.gmail.com> Harvey, I think the sequence of things and who wrote what to whom and when can be seen very clearly in the archives of the exi-chat (open to all list members), wta-talk (open to all list members), and wtahall (open to all WTA paying members). I won't repeat what is on the archives for everyone to see. It is not the WTA board fighting among itself in public again, it is two Board members who decided to take the debate to the exi-chat list, forcing the others to respond. Can we just stop this? Please? btw I did not tell Natasha what she should do I told her what I would consider doing if I were in her place it is not the same thing. G. On 1/16/06, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > > If I were Natasha, I would > > consider issuing a warning to all WTA members on the Extropy list to > > please discuss internal WTA problems at home, refrain from taking them > > to the Extropy list, and not assume that everyone is interested in > > petty disputes. > > Two points should be made here: > > 1. Take a look at the posters discussing WTA Board politics on the > ExI-chat list: James Hughes, Mike Treader, Michael LaTorra, Giulio > Prisco, Joseph Bloch, Jose Cordiero, Harvey Newstrom, Eliezer > Yudkowski, etc. Six WTA Board members and two former WTA Board > members. This is not some discussion of WTA board matters by non board > members. This is the WTA board fighting among itself in public again. > > 2. The two former Board members were not involved in this discussion > until WTA Board members made claims about them by name. We both posted > to set the record straight about ourselves. Max and Natasha likewise > stayed out of this discussion until they were invoked by name. You > yourself posted what Natasha should do to stop this discussion, forcing > her to respond to your statements in her name. These people aren't > causing problems for the WTA Board. The WTA Board is causing problems > for us. If you want the conversations stopped, WTA Board members need > to solve their problems themselves. Asking people to ignore the > problem and not talk about it isn't the solution. > > (Goodbye again, until I am invoked again by name.) > > -- > Harvey Newstrom > CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 16 18:07:34 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:07:34 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI: Think-Tank Team for Strategic Plan Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060116114932.02f12210@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Dear Extropes and other Transhumanists, Futurists, Life Extension Activists: Extropy Institute's New Strategic Plan, written over the summer of 2005, has been put into action. The plan was developed by ExI's Board of Directors with the outside collaboration of Dr. Peter Bishop (Futurist and Professor of Studies of the Future) and Dr. Donald Emery (Business Consultant and on the Board of numerous non-profit educational organizations). In realizing our new Plan, Extropy Institute welcomes Kerry Rameriz of the United Space Alliance and Graduate student at the University of Houston, who is our new Research Assistant. ExI needs an extended think-tank team for putting the Strategic Plan's initiatives into action. We are currently looking for: 1. Resource Director for an upcoming Library of Transhumanism; 2. Public Relations Specialist for promoting The Proactionary Principle 3. Multidisciplinary Thinkers to creatively work with the Strategic Plan Initiatives production; including a new enterprise focused on The Proactionary Principle and education. If you want to work with us, and we hope you do, please email me at your earliest convenience. I look forward to working with you all! ProAct! Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer Future Studies, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Honorary Vice-Chair, World Transhumanist Association Senior Associate, Foresight Institute Advisor, Alcor Life Extension Foundation If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 00:26:09 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:26:09 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings In-Reply-To: <8A08D763-4889-4D11-B351-E8339C4742D7@mac.com> References: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> <8A08D763-4889-4D11-B351-E8339C4742D7@mac.com> Message-ID: On 1/14/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > On Jan 14, 2006, at 6:54 AM, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > The fairly recent acrimonious political debate in this forum and the > airing of the WTA 'dirty laundry' has made me wonder a little about the > reliability of the 'gut-feeling' as an arbiter of what intelligent life > ought to be listening and paying attention to. > > In the case of Danila Medvedev: To be sure, I am no apologist for Stalin: > But - I do believe in free speech. I see no benefits whatsoever in sweeping > unpalatable political facts - or even unpalatable political fictions and > delusions - beneath some metaphorical carpet. We are reasonable people (or > should be) and able to engage/reject a topic with reason and informed > debate. > > > > Wholesale rewriting of history and denial of atrocities has nothing to do > with reason on informed debate. Such denials are not debatable. > ie some things are beyond debate because we all know them to be true/false... Doesn't sound very Extropian to me. So I was somewhat taken aback some time ago when I mildly remonstrated > against the ad-hominem attacks Danila Medvedev was being subjected to on the > WTA list and was promptly denounced as a 'commie' and an admirer of Hitler > and Pol-Pot. Almost immediately the signal to noise ratio made further > discussion impossible. Pity - because something important was lost. Reasoned > response was sacrificed (eventually moderated out) because a few individuals > persisted in their pejorative attacks - making it clear that their > sacrosanct world view was not to be threatened on THEIR list... > > > The notion that all opinions no matter how absurd or evil are worthy of > defense and serious consideration is shallow thinking. > That has no bearing on whether someone who holds one of those 'absurd or evil' beliefs should be allowed to make a case. This list, this group, and the values it generally shares (values which some > members sometimes seek to ferociously protect) has no comfortable sanction > on what will and will not be a part of our extropian future. We each have > our subjective reality. All the things that this group (or some elements of > it) might seek to exclude will continue to be factors influencing the future > regardless of your willingness to admit them or not. So what is the point of > limiting debate? The truth is - there is no point - if you admit that > reality is more important than the maintenance of some fictional > comfort-zone. > > > I do get to decide what I sanction and abhor. So do groups of people and > organizations. By what they sanction and stand for they will be judged. > Debate is not limited. Having such an open mind that your brains fall out > is not "debate" or respect for reality. > You have just decided that some things are *not* to be debated - not just by you but everyone here. Just my opinion: But moderation might be (could be): > > 1. Anything goes - provided it has an extropian angle. > > mostly the way things are here. > > > 1. > 2. Politics, religion and sexual preference are exclusively the > preserve and prerogative of the writer. Respect them. > > > What does this "respect" of politics or religion mean? Does it mean that > we don't rigorously examine and criticize each other's notions in these > areas? If so then I am not interested. > I'm not big on the US definitions of 'tolerance' and 'respect' . Too often they mean unquestioning quasi-acceptance. In reality what they mean is that we allow freedom of expression for all parties, pro and con, and we respect the right of a person to hold 'absurd or evil' beliefs. > 1. Although you may seriously doubt the mental health of the > poster - you may attack the concept/proposition as outlined in the post ONLY > on reasoned, rational grounds. Under NO circumstances will you > resort to pejorative labelling: ie, telling the author s/he is > crazy/commie/anarchist/etc etc, or otherwise attempt to discredit the person > rather than the argument. If you do so - you will get moderated out > of the discussion forthwith. > > > Yes, again part of this list. > I think this whole storm is pointing to the need for there to be a *true* umbrella org. And that means one where Transhumanists are not thrown out because of their political beliefs (or debating/expressing them), be they Stalinists, Libertarians, Socialists, Nazis, Raelians or Prometheans. When someone seriously puts together such an org I will consider joining. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From starman2100 at cableone.net Mon Jan 16 01:07:56 2006 From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:07:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desert News Article & LDS church Message-ID: <1137373676_6181@S4.cableone.net> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 20:42:56 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:42:56 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) In-Reply-To: References: <20060112051911.37750.qmail@web50511.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0601120218g6669207bya6f5168d015ee8ae@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0601141111w7fa08c8bu753281f358e0a600@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0601161242t6145dc38u783253e8bfa4ea8b@mail.gmail.com> On 1/16/06, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > On 1/14/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > > > > > Out of curiosity, how close to the Singularity do you think we are? > > > > > In the 1980s I estimated not sooner than 2010 and not later than 2050, > with the most likely date around 2030. > I still believe that. In the 1980s, I reckoned it might happen by 2000 :) Now I think 2030-2050 might be a possibility if a great many things go well - let's try and prove you optimists right! - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Mon Jan 16 20:54:43 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:54:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I don't need an umbrella Message-ID: > I feel a bit uncomfortable about ExI being described as an > "affiliated organization" under the "umbrella" of WTA. Indeed - our relations are as affiliates, a fraternal relationship, not a hierarchical one. The reference to "umbrella" comes from two sources. First, the first consitution we adopted in 2002 allowed for organizations to be members of the WTA with voting rights alongside individuals. ExI was a formal member of the WTA at that time. That was a dumb idea (like mushing together the UN and the House of Representatives), and we dropped it in favor of the fraternal "affiliation" acknowledgement. We are not accountable to one another, and only to our memberships. Disaffiliation is a possibility at any time. Second, the WTA is consciously attempting to include and represent all transhumanists. ExI has always made clear that extropianism is one flavor or type of transhumanism, and that there are others. However you define those flavors - politically, by values or by organizational affiliation - the WTA is an organization that includes extropians along with singularitarians, religious transhumanists, independents, democratic transhumanists, technoprogressives and so on. So we are an umbrella in terms of inclusion. -------------------------------------------- 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 mehranraeli at comcast.net Mon Jan 16 22:07:54 2006 From: mehranraeli at comcast.net (Mehran) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:07:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity and Religion In-Reply-To: <200601162033.k0GKXLe26333@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <003d01c61ae9$5619a060$799f6041@DBX6XT21> Singularity will be a boost for science-based religions in particular those that have a detailed vision of the future based on technological advances. See for example RAEL's Yes to Human Cloning and his other books, highly transhumanist texts available online: rael.org LOVE Mehran www.rael.org Without love for each other there will be no future! ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:56:17 -0500 (EST) From: Anne-Marie Taylor Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity and Religion To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Message-ID: <20060115205617.48355.qmail at web35515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I'm interested in finding good articles that deal with the impact on religion if Singularity should occur. If anybody has any information it would be much appreciated. Thanks Anna From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 16 22:27:42 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:27:42 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity and Religion In-Reply-To: <003d01c61ae9$5619a060$799f6041@DBX6XT21> References: <200601162033.k0GKXLe26333@tick.javien.com> <003d01c61ae9$5619a060$799f6041@DBX6XT21> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060116162602.01ce4eb8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> >See for example RAEL's Yes to Human Cloning and his other books, highly >transhumanist texts available online: rael.org > >LOVE >Mehran >www.rael.org > >Without love for each other there will be no future! without brainless bullshit scams there'll be a far better future. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 22:34:33 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:34:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Kurzweil on C-SPAN2 In-Reply-To: <43CAFD65.6080900@goldenfuture.net> References: <43CAFD65.6080900@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: I only caught the tail end of this. It seems to be an old show (perhaps taped 11/30/2005). I'm also not sure about how "wonderful" it was. Ray clearly got the answer to the question about solving the energy problem wrong (citing the need for solar power applications of nanotechnology coming online in 15-20 years as the solution when biotechnology and "whole genome engineering" could probably solve it in less than 5 years (IMO) . He did nothing more than add some estimation of the arrival dates of a technology predicted by Drexler in EOC in 1986 (20 years ago!) [1]. It also seemed to me that many of his answers to questions from the audience did not really address their questions directly. Robert 1. http://www.foresight.org/EOC/EOC_Chapter_8.html (search for solar power) On 1/15/06, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > Two points: > > 1) This wonderful interview (I'm watching as I type this) will be > repeated tomorrow at 4 PM ET, so them's as missed some or all of it can > hopefully catch the whole thing. > > 2) There is an email list set up explicitly for these sorts of > announcements. See http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/TransTelevision/ > > Joseph > > Martin Striz wrote: > > >I don't remember anybody mentioning this, but Ray Kurzweil is on > >C-SPAN2 (BookTV) talking about his book "The Singularity is Near" > >RIGHT NOW, 8 pm EST, until 9. > > > >Martin > > > >_______________________________________________ > >wta-talk mailing list > >wta-talk at transhumanism.org > >http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 22:42:09 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:42:09 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity and Religion In-Reply-To: <003d01c61ae9$5619a060$799f6041@DBX6XT21> References: <200601162033.k0GKXLe26333@tick.javien.com> <003d01c61ae9$5619a060$799f6041@DBX6XT21> Message-ID: On 1/16/06, Mehran wrote: > > Singularity will be a boost for science-based religions in particular > those > that have a detailed vision of the future based on technological advances. > See for example RAEL's Yes to Human Cloning and his other books, highly > transhumanist texts available online: rael.org > > That's like chimps speculating on what Human Level Intelligence would do for them coming up with the idea of 'bigger bananas'. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon Jan 16 23:51:19 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:51:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Magnetic field shoves heat sideways & Massless ghosts of the nanoworld Message-ID: <43CC3177.1050907@mindspring.com> Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss < http://www.science-frontiers.com > SCIENCE FRONTIERS, No. 163, Jan-Feb 2006, p. 4 PHYSICS No. 1 Magnetic field shoves heat sideways Here is an anomaly only a physicist could love. Normally, when one applies heat to the edge of a flat plate, the heat flows directly across to the opposite cold edge of the plate. It's elementary physics. But if the experimenter also applies a magnetic field through the plate--- top to bottom---it gives the heat a sideways push toward one of the edges. But the plate here is electrically *nonconducting*. This effect is analogous to the well-known Hall effect in which a similarly applied magnetic field makes electrons flowing in a *conducting* plate swerve sidewards. Since magnetic fields are admitted to affect the motion of electrons, the Hall effect is nonanomalous. But the heat in the *nonconducting* plate is transported by phonons (quantum vibrations) rather than electrons. The phonons being uncharged electrically should not be affected by the applied magnetic field. So an anomaly is born. (Cho, Adrian; "Magnetic Fields Give Heat a Curious Sideways Shove," *Science*, 310:420, 2005) No. 2 Massless ghosts of the nanoworld In the realm of the very small---the nanoworld---weird phenomena occur often. Most of these weird events cannot [be] termed "anomalous" because quantum mechanics explains them handily. (Of course, understanding quantum mechanics is another matter.) Anyway, a most interesting effect happens in carbon sheets only one atom thick. Electrons moving in this ultrathin sheet move as if they possess *no* mass! They zip along at speeds much faster than they do in semiconductor sheets of comparable thickness. In the quantum-mechanical explanation the apparent loss of mass occurs when the quantum waves of the confined electrons meet and cancel one another out. Now, technologists foresee thin carbon sheets---conducting high-speed electrons in electronic devices---as potentially increasing their operating frequencies a thousandfold. (Weiss, P.; "Ghostly Electrons," *Science News*, 168:309, 2005) SCIENCE FRONTIERS is a bimonthly collection of scientific anomalies in the current literature. Published by the Sourcebook Project, P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD 21057 USA. Annual subscription: $8.00. -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 17 00:00:57 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:00:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings In-Reply-To: References: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> <8A08D763-4889-4D11-B351-E8339C4742D7@mac.com> Message-ID: On Jan 15, 2006, at 4:26 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 1/14/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Jan 14, 2006, at 6:54 AM, Jack Parkinson wrote: > >> The fairly recent acrimonious political debate in this forum and >> the airing of the WTA 'dirty laundry' has made me wonder a little >> about the reliability of the 'gut-feeling' as an arbiter of what >> intelligent life ought to be listening and paying attention to. >> >> In the case of Danila Medvedev: To be sure, I am no apologist for >> Stalin: But - I do believe in free speech. I see no benefits >> whatsoever in sweeping unpalatable political facts - or even >> unpalatable political fictions and delusions - beneath some >> metaphorical carpet. We are reasonable people (or should be) and >> able to engage/reject a topic with reason and informed debate. >> > > Wholesale rewriting of history and denial of atrocities has nothing > to do with reason on informed debate. Such denials are not debatable. > > ie some things are beyond debate because we all know them to be > true/false... > Doesn't sound very Extropian to me. > Only to a complete subjectivist I dare say. >> So I was somewhat taken aback some time ago when I mildly >> remonstrated against the ad-hominem attacks Danila Medvedev was >> being subjected to on the WTA list and was promptly denounced as a >> 'commie' and an admirer of Hitler and Pol-Pot. Almost immediately >> the signal to noise ratio made further discussion impossible. Pity >> - because something important was lost. Reasoned response was >> sacrificed (eventually moderated out) because a few individuals >> persisted in their pejorative attacks - making it clear that their >> sacrosanct world view was not to be threatened on THEIR list... >> > > The notion that all opinions no matter how absurd or evil are > worthy of defense and serious consideration is shallow thinking. > > That has no bearing on whether someone who holds one of those > 'absurd or evil' beliefs should be allowed to make a case. > In what context? Free speech does not mean any particular venue has to make itself open to everything any member may say or write. >> This list, this group, and the values it generally shares (values >> which some members sometimes seek to ferociously protect) has no >> comfortable sanction on what will and will not be a part of our >> extropian future. We each have our subjective reality. All the >> things that this group (or some elements of it) might seek to >> exclude will continue to be factors influencing the future >> regardless of your willingness to admit them or not. So what is >> the point of limiting debate? The truth is - there is no point - >> if you admit that reality is more important than the maintenance >> of some fictional comfort-zone. >> > > I do get to decide what I sanction and abhor. So do groups of > people and organizations. By what they sanction and stand for they > will be judged. Debate is not limited. Having such an open mind > that your brains fall out is not "debate" or respect for reality. > > You have just decided that some things are *not* to be debated - > not just by you but everyone here. Groups have charters. They are not open to everything and anything. People have standards. Are you saying it is wrong that this is so? > > I'm not big on the US definitions of 'tolerance' and 'respect' . > Too often they mean unquestioning quasi-acceptance. > In reality what they mean is that we allow freedom of expression > for all parties, pro and con, and we respect the right of a person > to hold 'absurd or evil' beliefs. > I accept everyone's right to believe whatever they wish. That doesn't mean I won't campaign to limit what they share of their beliefs in particular venues. I also have the right to judge them based on their beliefs ad the apparent quality of their reasoning and understanding. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 17 00:03:49 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:03:49 -0800 Subject: [wta-talk] RE: [extropy-chat] What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? In-Reply-To: <470a3c520601160706k62fe0c6dr4d526a725ced9807@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520601160706k62fe0c6dr4d526a725ced9807@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0170CC27-33B6-40B0-949B-10FD351853B2@mac.com> I do not consider this pointless. I am interested. Why would you presume to speak for other people or limit what they read here? People are quite able to speak for themselves. - s On Jan 16, 2006, at 7:06 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Pleeeeease my friends, not again! > First, I wish to remind everyone that all WTA members can access the > WTA Board archives which, as I just checked, go back to August 2003. > Just write to me or to Marcelo for a password. > Second, I see that these pointless discussions are spilling over to > the Extropy list, where perhaps people prefer discussing other things > and do not wish to see their mailboxes flooded with endless > repetitions of the same old stories. If I were Natasha, I would > consider issuing a warning to all WTA members on the Extropy list to > please discuss internal WTA problems at home, refrain from taking them > to the Extropy list, and not assume that everyone is interested in > petty disputes. I could do it myself as I am also a list deputy on the > Extropy list, but in this case I prefer leaving it to Natasha. > Third, I can see that some people are using the old and recent > discussions in the WTA to create tension between the ExI, the WTA and > other transhumanist associations. If you are one of those, and you > will know if you are one, I wish to ask you to consider focusing your > energy to more productive activities. There is a lot to do to move > towards the future we wish to see and I think we can not waste our > time like that. > G. > > On 1/16/06, Harvey Newstrom wrote: >> >> On Jan 15, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Hughes, James J. wrote: >> >>> Uh, for the record, Mr. Cordeiro just withdrew from running for >>> re-election, Bruce Klein and Harvey Newstrom resigned from the >>> Board, >>> and Mr. Yudkowsky lost a re-relection. >>> >>> So I don't know how I can be blamed for 'driving out' Yudkowsky. And >>> yes, the other three Board members and I had many disagreements. But >>> neither I, nor any Board member, moved to have them removed from the >>> Board. >> >> James thinks I resigned, even though I have always denied it. >> >> On Jan 15, 2006, at 6:48 PM, mike99 wrote: >> >>> Harvey Newstrom, who is also quite intelligent and adept, was >>> encouraged by >>> Jose to question everything...endlessly. Questioning is good. But >>> like >>> the >>> child who asks an endless series of "Why?" questions, responding to >>> every >>> proffered answer with yet another "Why?" Harvey only managed to >>> bring >>> the >>> work of the Board to a grinding halt. In an elected legislature, >>> this >>> is >>> called tying up the house in procedural motions. That's what Harvey >>> did. >>> Finally, the Board had had enough and asked him to leave. >> >> Mike thinks the board asked me to leave, even though James has always >> denied it. >> >> This is why I ask endless questions. Different board members still >> disagree about whether the board did or did not take some official >> action. How can they not remember or agree on what happened on the >> board? How can the records be of no help in answering these >> questions? >> How can there be no minutes or disputed minutes? How can we tell >> which claimed official actions are real and which ones aren't. When >> board members violently disagree on basic truths, how can members >> determine the truth? And how can these same questions be unanswered >> year after year? >> >> -- >> Harvey Newstrom >> CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 00:16:43 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:16:43 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] On Gut Feelings In-Reply-To: References: <002501c6191a$79cb2b80$04800d0a@JPAcer> <8A08D763-4889-4D11-B351-E8339C4742D7@mac.com> Message-ID: On 1/17/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > On Jan 15, 2006, at 4:26 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > On 1/14/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 14, 2006, at 6:54 AM, Jack Parkinson wrote: > > > > The fairly recent acrimonious political debate in this forum and the > > airing of the WTA 'dirty laundry' has made me wonder a little about the > > reliability of the 'gut-feeling' as an arbiter of what intelligent life > > ought to be listening and paying attention to. > > > > In the case of Danila Medvedev: To be sure, I am no apologist for > > Stalin: But - I do believe in free speech. I see no benefits whatsoever in > > sweeping unpalatable political facts - or even unpalatable political > > fictions and delusions - beneath some metaphorical carpet. We are reasonable > > people (or should be) and able to engage/reject a topic with reason and > > informed debate. > > > > > > > > Wholesale rewriting of history and denial of atrocities has nothing to > > do with reason on informed debate. Such denials are not debatable. > > > > ie some things are beyond debate because we all know them to be > true/false... > Doesn't sound very Extropian to me. > > > Only to a complete subjectivist I dare say. > So, who decides what is 'obvious' and hence cannot be discussed? So I was somewhat taken aback some time ago when I mildly remonstrated > > against the ad-hominem attacks Danila Medvedev was being subjected to on the > > WTA list and was promptly denounced as a 'commie' and an admirer of Hitler > > and Pol-Pot. Almost immediately the signal to noise ratio made further > > discussion impossible. Pity - because something important was lost. Reasoned > > response was sacrificed (eventually moderated out) because a few individuals > > persisted in their pejorative attacks - making it clear that their > > sacrosanct world view was not to be threatened on THEIR list... > > > > > > The notion that all opinions no matter how absurd or evil are worthy of > > defense and serious consideration is shallow thinking. > > > > That has no bearing on whether someone who holds one of those 'absurd or > evil' beliefs should be allowed to make a case. > > > In what context? Free speech does not mean any particular venue has to > make itself open to everything any member may say or write. > Well, in this context it would have to have a bearing on Transhumanism. And offhand I can think of at least 3 topics that would get most people banned by the WTA and probably by ExI that are Transhuman related. This list, this group, and the values it generally shares (values which some > > members sometimes seek to ferociously protect) has no comfortable sanction > > on what will and will not be a part of our extropian future. We each have > > our subjective reality. All the things that this group (or some elements of > > it) might seek to exclude will continue to be factors influencing the future > > regardless of your willingness to admit them or not. So what is the point of > > limiting debate? The truth is - there is no point - if you admit that > > reality is more important than the maintenance of some fictional > > comfort-zone. > > > > > > I do get to decide what I sanction and abhor. So do groups of people > > and organizations. By what they sanction and stand for they will be > > judged. Debate is not limited. Having such an open mind that your brains > > fall out is not "debate" or respect for reality. > > > > You have just decided that some things are *not* to be debated - not just > by you but everyone here. > > > Groups have charters. They are not open to everything and anything. > People have standards. Are you saying it is wrong that this is so? > No. I'm saying that a charter for my ideal Transhumanist org should not specify peoples politics, nor limit discussion of such politics if they have Transhumanist implications. Clearly resurgent Stalinism in Russia and National Socialism/Fascism in China *do* have major implications, and I personally would not ban one side of such a discussion/argument as to whether they are desirable or effective/detrimental to Transhumanist goals. I'm not big on the US definitions of 'tolerance' and 'respect' . Too often > they mean unquestioning quasi-acceptance. > In reality what they mean is that we allow freedom of expression for all > parties, pro and con, and we respect the right of a person to hold 'absurd > or evil' beliefs. > > > I accept everyone's right to believe whatever they wish. That doesn't > mean I won't campaign to limit what they share of their beliefs in > particular venues. I also have the right to judge them based on their > beliefs ad the apparent quality of their reasoning and understanding. > > You may certainly judge them. But only on your own behalf - not mine. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Tue Jan 17 00:28:09 2006 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:28:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: What _is_ it with the WTA board, anyway? In-Reply-To: <470a3c520601160957p7953a868q969850e3724f8d2d@mail.gmail.co m> References: <470a3c520601160706k62fe0c6dr4d526a725ced9807@mail.gmail.com> <766342b3ec3815570e6f82d12ef7d468@HarveyNewstrom.com> <470a3c520601160957p7953a868q969850e3724f8d2d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060116182217.08703010@unreasonable.com> Giu1i0 wrote: >It is not the WTA board fighting among itself in public again, it is >two Board members who decided to take the debate to the exi-chat list, >forcing the others to respond. >Can we just stop this? >Please? As someone only negligibly involved with WTA, I appreciate this thread. The goings-on in a publicly visible organization in the same meme space as ExI are pertinent and appropriate for exi-chat. The players involved include friends, people I know and respect, and those with whom I might work in the future. If there are serious issues of their behavior or treatment, I want to hear about it. Beyond the thread / BOD participants, many on the list are or have been involved with WTA. Since one of the issues raised is alleged censorship on the WTA lists, it makes sense to discuss it off a WTA list. Criticizing the behavior of a list member is not ad hominem in this case, since their behavior is central to the thread topic. I would hope, however, that the criticism not be needlessly vulgar. "X is a liar" -- yes; "X is a lying turd" -- no. -- David. From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 17 00:40:36 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:40:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] setting us up for war against Iran? Message-ID: Apparently this didn't get through when I sent it earlier. This is an excellent piece on the ways we may be being marched toward military action against Iran. I hope we do not let ourselves be led blindly into such a conflict. http://www.sovereignlife.com/essays/16-01-06.html The Power of The Lie Remember the movie "Groundhog Day"? It was the story of a man (Bill Murray) who was forced to continuously relive the worst day of his life, until he learned to become a better person. As we launch into 2006, it already has the feeling of deja vu, of a groundhog day in the making. I recall my intense scepticism when pressure was being put on Iraq, in the first stages of that relentless momentum to a pre-planned goal - war. I also recall joining tens of thousands of people in a street protest against the impending war. That was a first for me - as I'm not a "protest" sort of person. But I was so angry that I took the only option available to me to voice such anger. Not that it did any good of course! Now we know that all that hoopla was a fabrication, that there were no WMD in Iraq, and no impending attack from that country. Doesn't matter, Saddam was a bad man, and the world is better off with one less bad man - so the revised story goes. You'd think that experience would cause our leaders to tread more carefully in future - to at least learn from past mistakes. But this appears not to be the case. Right now, a new campaign is under way - the first steps in another relentless drive to full military confrontation with that other Middle East country, Iran. As with Iraq, the military option is being played down, and our leaders claim to be seeking a "diplomatic" solution. Listen not to words however, but observe actions. You can witness this momentum building each passing day, as the phrase, "Iran is seeking to build a nuclear weapon" passes into the common consciousness. It's not even necessary to state it as a fact (as the American administration does). All that's required is to massage these words in different ways, and present them with various shades of meaning - like how Iran is "suspected" of building a nuclear weapon, or how Iran has the "potential" to build such a weapon in the near future. Or even simply, the US administration "believes" Iran has a secret plan to build a nuclear weapon. Each headline, each newspaper editorial, and each political utterance has the mesmerising effect of slowly, but surely, imprinting in the public's mind the belief that this surely must be the case - that Iran is either planning to build, or has built, a nuclear weapon. For its part, Iran states that it is not building or thinking of building a nuclear weapon - and is prepared to allow full IAEA inspections to prove its point. It also stands firm and asserts its right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful means - i.e. electricity generation - a right it is granted as a signatory to the NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty). But all of this counts for nought in the face of a persistent, relentless lie. It seems as if the human psyche is programmed to believe a repeated lie - when uttered by authority figures. It's a form of crude brainwashing, which politicians learn to use early on in their careers. Think back to Saddam Hussein again - when he was accused of harbouring WMD. Our leaders asserted he did have them. He asserted he did not. Who was telling the truth then? The best way to get a handle on this whole issue is to make an attempt to stand in another's shoes - Iran's shoes in this case. Just imagine yourself as an Iranian and consider your options. You live in a hostile environment. Your foes, Israel and the USA, are armed to the teeth and Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. It regularly threatens to attack you, and in fact has done so in the past. You ponder on the inconsistencies of this world - a world where other nations are allowed to develop nuclear power and nuclear weapons. A world where other countries regularly use force to achieve their objectives. And a world where such countries assume the right to tell your country what it can and cannot do. You are outraged. You believe that if it's good enough for other countries to develop their nuclear technology, to meet their energy needs, then it's good enough for Iran to do likewise. If pressed, you may even assert that even though your country has no intention of building nukes - you have the right to do so for self-defence, especially when facing aggressive, nuclear-armed foes. From your viewpoint, the growing world opinion against your country is a form of mass hypocrisy. Who decided that certain nations can browbeat and bully others into submission - to conform to standards which they themselves do not observe? Who decided who should or should not be able to develop nuclear power, or even a nuclear deterrent? Are you not a member of a sovereign nation - a country with certain rights, just like other countries? You look at America and you cannot understand it. While it builds its case against your country, it continues to support other nations which already have nuclear weapons, which are not signatories to the NPT, and which are often not even democracies. You revert to your religion to explain all this - and perhaps you're right. Perhaps the west really IS at war with Islam! Right now we've reached phase one of the strategy to militarily confront Iran - with the threat of sanctions and of it being referred to the United Nations Security Council. All this happened to Iraq as well. We've been there, done that. In this case, the US and its EU allies face some opposition - most likely from China and possibly Russia. China has an ongoing and friendly relationship with Iran - not to mention important economic and energy-related business dealings. China has the power to veto any UN Security Council resolution - and is now the focus of intense diplomatic pressure from the USA, in an attempt to bring them on board with the growing "consensus". We will hear a lot about this "consensus" in coming weeks and months. The next stage will likely involve the "uncovering" of new intelligence, which will "prove" that Iran is indeed operating a secret nuclear weapons programme. This will sway any doubters and lingering dissidents - and pull world opinion into line. The clincher may come with information obtained from certain Iranians themselves - perhaps defectors from the regime. Shades of Iraq all over again. The major media - Fox News, BBC, New York Times, The Washington Post and TV and newsprint media in general, will parrot the official line, and confirm our worst fears - that Iran really does have the capacity to threaten us, and is very likely to attack us in the future. We will be told this situation is NOT like Iraq, that it is a different ball game. And most will believe it. The only medium to offer any counter to the official line will, of course, be the internet - that damn, uncontrollable cyberspace! But when it comes to impact, the internet is still not capable of truly shaping world opinion. Yes, it's a haven for dissidents and independent thinkers - but they are still the minority, and a "fly in the ointment" as far as the campaign for total global information control is concerned. You and I will have no means of verifying this type of military intelligence of course, and will be faced with the choice of either accepting or rejecting it. But I know one thing, most people will accept it as true - simply because it is asserted by their rulers. It will be believed because it is stated by those in power - those who MUST be believed. God knows why, but that's the way it is. Each stage of this strategy will move the western powers ever closer to the final goal - that of attacking Iran. Any attack will likely not be the same as the war waged on Iraq, as that has been a disaster. Besides, the USA simply does not have the manpower to wage that type of ground war all over again. No, what is more likely is an attack on strategic and/or nuclear sites - a targeted aerial bombardment to "neutralise" Iran's nascent nuclear industry. The world will cheer. Another potential threat to world peace will have been taken out. Another victory in the war on terror! Or ... it could be a fatal conceit. It could trigger a war between Israel and Iran. It could be the beginning of a general Middle East conflagration. It could cause Iran to "trigger" its support base in Iraq, and lead to a general uprising against US forces in that region. It could lead to the world's first nuclear war. It could be the Armageddon that so may fundamentalist Christians believe is the essential precursor to a better world. And it could also be the catalyst that sends the global economy into a tailspin - and impacts on the entire world. Take your pick. But for the serious freedom seeker, war is an anathema. War is never a cause for celebration. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state". War always benefits the state and its apparatus of control. Every war has strengthened the state's hand in public affairs and private life. And an ever-more powerful state is NEVER in the interest of the freedom seeker. So, in 2006, keep your wits about you. Keep your eyes open. Don't believe every word you read or are told. Seek alternative sources of information to at least provide a "second opinion". And most of all, remember that politicians DO lie. They've been caught out time and time again. Lying is the name of their game. There is simply no reason to have faith in them - and even less reason to follow them blindly into the abyss. The only possible cause for long range optimism in all this, is that making the same mistake over and over again, and reliving (as in Groundhog Day) the "worst" day in our collective lives - in mayhem and war - could lead us to seek a "better" form of social order in the future. It could lead to a significant number of the world's people rejecting the warfare state as the optimum organisational model for a modern, progressive, free and peaceful world. I live in hope. Yours in freedom David MacGregor ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- David MacGregor operates an information service which is designed for all those who seek more practical and financial freedom in their lives. http://www.sovereignlife.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: _clear.gif Type: image/gif Size: 42 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: _clear.gif Type: image/gif Size: 42 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: _clear.gif Type: image/gif Size: 42 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Jan 17 00:54:28 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:54:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] setting us up for war against Iran? Message-ID: <380-22006121705428750@M2W110.mail2web.com> From: Samantha >Apparently this didn't get through when I sent it earlier. This is >an excellent piece on the ways we may be being marched toward >military action against Iran. I hope we do not let ourselves be led >blindly into such a conflict. >http://www.sovereignlife.com/essays/16-01-06.html Tears come to my eyes every time I hear about another person being killed through hatred. Or another person being hurt through mean-spirited actions. If we are to stop anything, let it be unnecessary emotions that cause hatred and vile actions intended to hurt others. I am so tired, so very tired of it all - Natasha The Power of The Lie Remember the movie "Groundhog Day"? It was the story of a man (Bill Murray) who was forced to continuously relive the worst day of his life, until he learned to become a better person. As we launch into 2006, it already has the feeling of deja vu, of a groundhog day in the making. I recall my intense scepticism when pressure was being put on Iraq, in the first stages of that relentless momentum to a pre-planned goal - war. I also recall joining tens of thousands of people in a street protest against the impending war. That was a first for me - as I'm not a "protest" sort of person. But I was so angry that I took the only option available to me to voice such anger. Not that it did any good of course! Now we know that all that hoopla was a fabrication, that there were no WMD in Iraq, and no impending attack from that country. Doesn't matter, Saddam was a bad man, and the world is better off with one less bad man - so the revised story goes. You'd think that experience would cause our leaders to tread more carefully in future - to at least learn from past mistakes. But this appears not to be the case. Right now, a new campaign is under way - the first steps in another relentless drive to full military confrontation with that other Middle East country, Iran. As with Iraq, the military option is being played down, and our leaders claim to be seeking a "diplomatic" solution. Listen not to words however, but observe actions. You can witness this momentum building each passing day, as the phrase, "Iran is seeking to build a nuclear weapon" passes into the common consciousness. It's not even necessary to state it as a fact (as the American administration does). All that's required is to massage these words in different ways, and present them with various shades of meaning - like how Iran is "suspected" of building a nuclear weapon, or how Iran has the "potential" to build such a weapon in the near future. Or even simply, the US administration "believes" Iran has a secret plan to build a nuclear weapon. Each headline, each newspaper editorial, and each political utterance has the mesmerising effect of slowly, but surely, imprinting in the public's mind the belief that this surely must be the case - that Iran is either planning to build, or has built, a nuclear weapon. For its part, Iran states that it is not building or thinking of building a nuclear weapon - and is prepared to allow full IAEA inspections to prove its point. It also stands firm and asserts its right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful means - i.e. electricity generation - a right it is granted as a signatory to the NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty). But all of this counts for nought in the face of a persistent, relentless lie. It seems as if the human psyche is programmed to believe a repeated lie - when uttered by authority figures. It's a form of crude brainwashing, which politicians learn to use early on in their careers. Think back to Saddam Hussein again - when he was accused of harbouring WMD. Our leaders asserted he did have them. He asserted he did not. Who was telling the truth then? The best way to get a handle on this whole issue is to make an attempt to stand in another's shoes - Iran's shoes in this case. Just imagine yourself as an Iranian and consider your options. You live in a hostile environment. Your foes, Israel and the USA, are armed to the teeth and Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. It regularly threatens to attack you, and in fact has done so in the past. You ponder on the inconsistencies of this world - a world where other nations are allowed to develop nuclear power and nuclear weapons. A world where other countries regularly use force to achieve their objectives. And a world where such countries assume the right to tell your country what it can and cannot do. You are outraged. You believe that if it's good enough for other countries to develop their nuclear technology, to meet their energy needs, then it's good enough for Iran to do likewise. If pressed, you may even assert that even though your country has no intention of building nukes - you have the right to do so for self-defence, especially when facing aggressive, nuclear-armed foes. From your viewpoint, the growing world opinion against your country is a form of mass hypocrisy. Who decided that certain nations can browbeat and bully others into submission - to conform to standards which they themselves do not observe? Who decided who should or should not be able to develop nuclear power, or even a nuclear deterrent? Are you not a member of a sovereign nation - a country with certain rights, just like other countries? You look at America and you cannot understand it. While it builds its case against your country, it continues to support other nations which already have nuclear weapons, which are not signatories to the NPT, and which are often not even democracies. You revert to your religion to explain all this - and perhaps you're right. Perhaps the west really IS at war with Islam! Right now we've reached phase one of the strategy to militarily confront Iran - with the threat of sanctions and of it being referred to the United Nations Security Council. All this happened to Iraq as well. We've been there, done that. In this case, the US and its EU allies face some opposition - most likely from China and possibly Russia. China has an ongoing and friendly relationship with Iran - not to mention important economic and energy-related business dealings. China has the power to veto any UN Security Council resolution - and is now the focus of intense diplomatic pressure from the USA, in an attempt to bring them on board with the growing "consensus". We will hear a lot about this "consensus" in coming weeks and months. The next stage will likely involve the "uncovering" of new intelligence, which will "prove" that Iran is indeed operating a secret nuclear weapons programme. This will sway any doubters and lingering dissidents - and pull world opinion into line. The clincher may come with information obtained from certain Iranians themselves - perhaps defectors from the regime. Shades of Iraq all over again. The major media - Fox News, BBC, New York Times, The Washington Post and TV and newsprint media in general, will parrot the official line, and confirm our worst fears - that Iran really does have the capacity to threaten us, and is very likely to attack us in the future. We will be told this situation is NOT like Iraq, that it is a different ball game. And most will believe it. The only medium to offer any counter to the official line will, of course, be the internet - that damn, uncontrollable cyberspace! But when it comes to impact, the internet is still not capable of truly shaping world opinion. Yes, it's a haven for dissidents and independent thinkers - but they are still the minority, and a "fly in the ointment" as far as the campaign for total global information control is concerned. You and I will have no means of verifying this type of military intelligence of course, and will be faced with the choice of either accepting or rejecting it. But I know one thing, most people will accept it as true - simply because it is asserted by their rulers. It will be believed because it is stated by those in power - those who MUST be believed. God knows why, but that's the way it is. Each stage of this strategy will move the western powers ever closer to the final goal - that of attacking Iran. Any attack will likely not be the same as the war waged on Iraq, as that has been a disaster. Besides, the USA simply does not have the manpower to wage that type of ground war all over again. No, what is more likely is an attack on strategic and/or nuclear sites - a targeted aerial bombardment to "neutralise" Iran's nascent nuclear industry. The world will cheer. Another potential threat to world peace will have been taken out. Another victory in the war on terror! Or ... it could be a fatal conceit. It could trigger a war between Israel and Iran. It could be the beginning of a general Middle East conflagration. It could cause Iran to "trigger" its support base in Iraq, and lead to a general uprising against US forces in that region. It could lead to the world's first nuclear war. It could be the Armageddon that so may fundamentalist Christians believe is the essential precursor to a better world. And it could also be the catalyst that sends the global economy into a tailspin - and impacts on the entire world. Take your pick. But for the serious freedom seeker, war is an anathema. War is never a cause for celebration. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state". War always benefits the state and its apparatus of control. Every war has strengthened the state's hand in public affairs and private life. And an ever-more powerful state is NEVER in the interest of the freedom seeker. So, in 2006, keep your wits about you. Keep your eyes open. Don't believe every word you read or are told. Seek alternative sources of information to at least provide a "second opinion". And most of all, remember that politicians DO lie. They've been caught out time and time again. Lying is the name of their game. There is simply no reason to have faith in them - and even less reason to follow them blindly into the abyss. The only possible cause for long range optimism in all this, is that making the same mistake over and over again, and reliving (as in Groundhog Day) the "worst" day in our collective lives - in mayhem and war - could lead us to seek a "better" form of social order in the future. It could lead to a significant number of the world's people rejecting the warfare state as the optimum organisational model for a modern, progressive, free and peaceful world. I live in hope. Yours in freedom David MacGregor ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- David MacGregor operates an information service which is designed for all those who seek more practical and financial freedom in their lives. http://www.sovereignlife.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ??? ??? ??? -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 01:36:57 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:36:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I don't need an umbrella In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7641ddc60601161736m4e7f4fbw8881ddc52ac9b476@mail.gmail.com> On 1/16/06, Hughes, James J. wrote: WTA is an organization that includes extropians along > with singularitarians, religious transhumanists, independents, > democratic transhumanists, technoprogressives and so on. So we are an > umbrella in terms of inclusion. ### As the preceding discussion has abundantly shown, this is not the case, in at least two meanings. Firstly, "umbrella" implies being on top or above, if only by reference to the common accessory of that name, and its usage does imply something more that being ecumenical. Secondly, WTA is only ecumenical in its charter but not in its daily practice, since it practices political discrimination among its members. I note your choice of analogy, "like mushing together the UN and the House of Representatives". These are not separate but equal entities which again gives a glimpse of the true intended meaning of "umbrella", and explains the basis for WTA's pretense to represent the transhumanist community as a whole. I'd rather say that conflating ExI and WTA is like mushing together the House of Representatives and the Duma. Rafal From user at dhp.com Tue Jan 17 05:55:26 2006 From: user at dhp.com (user) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:55:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? Message-ID: Lost in a lot of the Iran nuke coverage was an overture by the Russian government to essentially co-locate the Iranian refinement centers inside of Russia. It would allow Iran to do the work they are purporting to do, while keeping the refinement (and potential weapons) out of their hands. All well and good. I am curious though ... if the world truly is moving away from fossil fuels and (perhaps) towards more and more technologically advanced forms of nuclear power ... what does that mean for the balance of energy haves and have nots when the major industrialized nations, under the guise of the UN and IAEA, etc., can limit the use of those technologies ? Is it perhaps an unintended consequence of nuclear non-proliferation that only rich, developed countries will have access to modern forms of energy production ? Is it perhaps _not_ an unintended consequence ? Do the US and EU dream of selling electricity to arabs for petrodollars ? From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 11:52:50 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:52:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1/17/06, user wrote: > > ... what does that mean for the balance of energy haves > and have nots when the major industrialized nations, under the guise of > the UN and IAEA, etc., can limit the use of those technologies ? Actually, as the article recently cited by Samantha points out, signing the NPT gives nations the freedom to perform uranium enrichment for peaceful applications (such as as power production). Iran has signed the treaty. Israel, India and Pakistan have not. Iran at this point seems to have the designs and parts for the centrifuges required to perform uranium enrichment. The problem comes down to the fact that it is a relatively small step from enriching uranium for generating electricity to producing highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. Generally speaking until Iran runs out of oil it seems to make little economic sense for it to be building nuclear power reactors. Is it perhaps an unintended consequence of nuclear non-proliferation that > only rich, developed countries will have access to modern forms of energy > production ? Actually, if you look at the maps at [1] you can see that there are nuclear reactors all around the world including some countries that could be considered "less" developed. Is it perhaps _not_ an unintended consequence ? Do the US and EU dream > of selling electricity to arabs for petrodollars ? Electricity doesn't transport well over long distances due to the transmission line losses. It is also true that countries are unlikely to rely foreign sources for a critical resource such as electricity. One can too easily end up with situations similar to the U.S. 1970s oil shortages or the recent Ukraine/EU situation with Russian natural gas supplies. Robert 1. http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Tue Jan 17 14:52:55 2006 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:52:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It is possible to have nuke plants without weapons refining capability. I don't think it's the nuclear power that US/EU is freakng out about. It's Iran having the ability to create weapans grade plutonium along with nuclear power. BAL >From: user >Reply-To: ExI chat list >To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? >Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:55:26 -0500 (EST) > > >Lost in a lot of the Iran nuke coverage was an overture by the Russian >government to essentially co-locate the Iranian refinement centers inside >of Russia. It would allow Iran to do the work they are purporting to do, >while keeping the refinement (and potential weapons) out of their hands. > >All well and good. > >I am curious though ... if the world truly is moving away from fossil >fuels and (perhaps) towards more and more technologically advanced forms >of nuclear power ... what does that mean for the balance of energy haves >and have nots when the major industrialized nations, under the guise of >the UN and IAEA, etc., can limit the use of those technologies ? > >Is it perhaps an unintended consequence of nuclear non-proliferation that >only rich, developed countries will have access to modern forms of energy >production ? > >Is it perhaps _not_ an unintended consequence ? Do the US and EU dream >of selling electricity to arabs for petrodollars ? > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 15:19:19 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:19:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1/17/06, Brian Lee wrote: > > It is possible to have nuke plants without weapons refining capability. I > don't think it's the nuclear power that US/EU is freakng out about. It's > Iran having the ability to create weapans grade plutonium along with > nuclear > power. Actually, I don't think plutonium is the main concern. For that you not only need a nuclear reactor but a fuel reprocessing plant (such as the PUREX plant which used to operate at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington). I believe the last information I read indicated that the Iranian's didn't have an operational nuclear reactor and the Russians were running behind on helping them finish it. (Not that it made much sense to do so without any fuel unless one were puchasing it from a nuclear capable nation, most probably Russia or China). Though plutonium can be used to make relatively small nuclear weapons, it is difficult to work with. It requires more highly enriched uranium (HEU) to make a weapon but to produce that all you have to do is take the normal enrichment process for reactor grade fuel (that is what the centrifuges are for) and just run the cycle somewhat longer to get a higher enrichment level (at least that is my understanding). It would presumably require a very intrusive monitoring process to guarantee that the Iranian's were not siphoning off enriched uranium and turning it into HEU for weapons given their history of hidden/underground nuclear facilities. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Tue Jan 17 16:00:20 2006 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:00:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The last plan I saw was that the EU/US wanted to provide the enriched uranium to fuel Iran's future reactors. Iran was against that and so we're at where we are today. So I guess there's no solution that gives Iran the capability to make nuclear fuel without the capability to make weapons grade material. BAL >From: Robert Bradbury >Reply-To: ExI chat list >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? >Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:19:19 -0500 > >On 1/17/06, Brian Lee wrote: > > > > It is possible to have nuke plants without weapons refining capability. >I > > don't think it's the nuclear power that US/EU is freakng out about. It's > > Iran having the ability to create weapans grade plutonium along with > > nuclear > > power. > > >Actually, I don't think plutonium is the main concern. For that you not >only need a nuclear reactor but a fuel reprocessing plant (such as the >PUREX plant which used to operate at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in >Washington). I believe the last information I read indicated that the >Iranian's didn't have an operational nuclear reactor and the Russians were >running behind on helping them finish it. (Not that it made much sense to >do so without any fuel unless one were puchasing it from a nuclear capable >nation, most probably Russia or China). > >Though plutonium can be used to make relatively small nuclear weapons, it >is >difficult to work with. It requires more highly enriched uranium (HEU) to >make a weapon but to produce that all you have to do is take the normal >enrichment process for reactor grade fuel (that is what the centrifuges are >for) and just run the cycle somewhat longer to get a higher enrichment >level >(at least that is my understanding). It would presumably require a very >intrusive monitoring process to guarantee that the Iranian's were not >siphoning off enriched uranium and turning it into HEU for weapons given >their history of hidden/underground nuclear facilities. > >Robert >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From user at dhp.com Tue Jan 17 16:23:40 2006 From: user at dhp.com (user) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:23:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Actually, as the article recently cited by Samantha points out, signing the > NPT gives nations the freedom to perform uranium enrichment for peaceful > applications (such as as power production). Iran has signed the treaty. > Israel, India and Pakistan have not. Iran at this point seems to have the > designs and parts for the centrifuges required to perform uranium > enrichment. The problem comes down to the fact that it is a relatively > small step from enriching uranium for generating electricity to producing > highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. > > Generally speaking until Iran runs out of oil it seems to make little > economic sense for it to be building nuclear power reactors. Yes, this is what has confused me. So they have signed the treaty, and they are attempting actions that fall within the treaty ... So two things: 1. We are keeping nuclear energy development away from people we don't like, regardless of whether they are playing by _our_ rules or not. 2. Is it really true that signatories can pursue modern nuclear power generation ? Can they develop modern pebble bed nukes, etc. ? Or does that fall outside of what is allowed. Again, my previous analysis may not apply to Iran, but it sure looks like we are trying to keep nuclear power generation (or at least modern forms of it - see #2 above) out of peoples hands, regardless of the weapons implications. From user at dhp.com Tue Jan 17 16:25:36 2006 From: user at dhp.com (user) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:25:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Brian Lee wrote: > The last plan I saw was that the EU/US wanted to provide the enriched > uranium to fuel Iran's future reactors. Iran was against that and so we're > at where we are today. So I guess there's no solution that gives Iran the > capability to make nuclear fuel without the capability to make weapons grade > material. Which seems sensible from a "we're scared of brown people" standpoint, but from Irans standpoint ... I would reject that plan as well. If they really were (a big if) interested in modern electrical power infrastructure to tie their developing country to, why shackle yourself to the goodwill of others to provide the necessary fuel ? Again, it seems like a perfect role reversal, and if I were Iran I would balk too... From amara at amara.com Tue Jan 17 16:53:45 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:53:45 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready Message-ID: The spacecraft is on the launch pad, the launch is presently scheduled to be in about one hour. You can see the NASA broadcast here: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/ (*) Pluto New Horizons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Horizons Amara From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Jan 17 18:03:46 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:03:46 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready References: Message-ID: <00fc01c61b90$5cf52c90$640fa8c0@kevin> We should launch more of these..... 9 hours to the moon? 1 yr to Jupiter? That's just too cool! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Amara Graps" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:53 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready > The spacecraft is on the launch pad, the launch > is presently scheduled to be in about one hour. > > You can see the NASA broadcast here: > http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/ > > (*) Pluto New Horizons > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Horizons > > > Amara > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 18:15:46 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:15:46 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1/17/06, Brian Lee wrote: > > It is possible to have nuke plants without weapons refining capability. I > don't think it's the nuclear power that US/EU is freakng out about. It's > Iran having the ability to create weapans grade plutonium along with > nuclear > power. > > Of course it is. They'd be stupid not to take this opportunity to get nukes. The US is bogged down with the Iraq invasion and unlikely to risk anything substantial in the near future. They have also seen that having nukes is the only guarantee of *not* being invaded. See N Korea for details. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Tue Jan 17 18:26:12 2006 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:26:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I don't think Iran's race has anything to do with it (re: the "brown people" comment). It has more to do with their terrorist nation status. Maybe it's just me, but Iran having nuclear weapons scares me. Nuclear power doesn't. I think it's smart for Iran to pursue nuclear power as it may take 20 years to really get serious power output and they need to start now if they want to be ready when the oil is gone. But I don't think Iran has shown itself responsible enough to have nuclear weapons. BAL >From: user >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? >Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:25:36 -0500 (EST) > > > >On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Brian Lee wrote: > > > The last plan I saw was that the EU/US wanted to provide the enriched > > uranium to fuel Iran's future reactors. Iran was against that and so >we're > > at where we are today. So I guess there's no solution that gives Iran >the > > capability to make nuclear fuel without the capability to make weapons >grade > > material. > > >Which seems sensible from a "we're scared of brown people" standpoint, but >from Irans standpoint ... I would reject that plan as well. If they >really were (a big if) interested in modern electrical power >infrastructure to tie their developing country to, why shackle yourself to >the goodwill of others to provide the necessary fuel ? > >Again, it seems like a perfect role reversal, and if I were Iran I would >balk too... > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 18:30:42 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:30:42 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1/17/06, Brian Lee wrote: > > I don't think Iran's race has anything to do with it (re: the "brown > people" > comment). It has more to do with their terrorist nation status. Maybe it's > just me, but Iran having nuclear weapons scares me. Nuclear power doesn't. > I > think it's smart for Iran to pursue nuclear power as it may take 20 years > to > really get serious power output and they need to start now if they want to > be ready when the oil is gone. But I don't think Iran has shown itself > responsible enough to have nuclear weapons. > > Well, Iraq is a very 'in-your-face' demo of what can happen if you *don't* have WMDs Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Jan 17 18:39:40 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:39:40 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pluto New Horizons launch -getting ready References: <00fc01c61b90$5cf52c90$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <013101c61b95$60d27480$640fa8c0@kevin> The launch was delayed until 1:45 EST. That's about 10 minutes from now. I have it on my bigscreen with my surround sound on and I began to wonder........why aren't they broadcasting something as cool as a launch in surround sound? You would think someone like McDonald's would pay for the surround ability and broadcast in exchange for a logo on the side of the rocket. > > > The spacecraft is on the launch pad, the launch > > is presently scheduled to be in about one hour. > > > > You can see the NASA broadcast here: > > http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/ > > > > (*) Pluto New Horizons > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Horizons > > > > > > Amara > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Tue Jan 17 18:58:51 2006 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:58:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Exactly, that's why the US and Europe want to stop Iran from getting nukes. BAL >From: Dirk Bruere >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? >Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:30:42 +0000 > >On 1/17/06, Brian Lee wrote: > > > > I don't think Iran's race has anything to do with it (re: the "brown > > people" > > comment). It has more to do with their terrorist nation status. Maybe >it's > > just me, but Iran having nuclear weapons scares me. Nuclear power >doesn't. > > I > > think it's smart for Iran to pursue nuclear power as it may take 20 >years > > to > > really get serious power output and they need to start now if they want >to > > be ready when the oil is gone. But I don't think Iran has shown itself > > responsible enough to have nuclear weapons. > > > > >Well, Iraq is a very 'in-your-face' demo of what can happen if you *don't* >have WMDs > >Dirk >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 17 19:03:32 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:03:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8DA079EC-0957-43A1-9DBB-E12047278FBF@mac.com> On Jan 17, 2006, at 3:52 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 1/17/06, user wrote: > ... what does that mean for the balance of energy haves > and have nots when the major industrialized nations, under the > guise of > the UN and IAEA, etc., can limit the use of those technologies ? > > Actually, as the article recently cited by Samantha points out, > signing the NPT gives nations the freedom to perform uranium > enrichment for peaceful applications (such as as power > production). Iran has signed the treaty. Israel, India and > Pakistan have not. Iran at this point seems to have the designs > and parts for the centrifuges required to perform uranium > enrichment. The problem comes down to the fact that it is a > relatively small step from enriching uranium for generating > electricity to producing highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. > According to other recent articles Iran will not be in a position to buid its own nukes, if it wants to, until 2009 at minimum. That "small step" takes considerable time and dedication. Any half decent oversight and inspection would make it much more difficult if not impossible. So it is a bit early to scare folks with an Iranian nuclear bomb wielding Iranian bogey man. It would be very misguided if we set policy on the supposed immediacy of such fears. > Generally speaking until Iran runs out of oil it seems to make > little economic sense for it to be building nuclear power reactors. On the contrary, nuclear is cleaner and oil sells to others really well. Bottom line is that a sovereign country does not have to explain its energy decisions. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 17 19:06:02 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:06:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <167B1C1F-B426-4042-BAF8-CD8204F116AA@mac.com> The freaking out is more likely to be about Iranian plans to create a Euro dominated oil market (bourse) in March. At least that is likely to be a source of the US freaking out. Any major move to oil no longer being sold in terms of US currency would be very destabilizing for the dollar. - s On Jan 17, 2006, at 6:52 AM, Brian Lee wrote: > It is possible to have nuke plants without weapons refining > capability. I don't think it's the nuclear power that US/EU is > freakng out about. It's Iran having the ability to create weapans > grade plutonium along with nuclear power. > > BAL > >> From: user >> Reply-To: ExI chat list >> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy >> strategy ? >> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:55:26 -0500 (EST) >> >> >> Lost in a lot of the Iran nuke coverage was an overture by the >> Russian >> government to essentially co-locate the Iranian refinement centers >> inside >> of Russia. It would allow Iran to do the work they are purporting >> to do, >> while keeping the refinement (and potential weapons) out of their >> hands. >> >> All well and good. >> >> I am curious though ... if the world truly is moving away from fossil >> fuels and (perhaps) towards more and more technologically advanced >> forms >> of nuclear power ... what does that mean for the balance of energy >> haves >> and have nots when the major industrialized nations, under the >> guise of >> the UN and IAEA, etc., can limit the use of those technologies ? >> >> Is it perhaps an unintended consequence of nuclear non- >> proliferation that >> only rich, developed countries will have access to modern forms of >> energy >> production ? >> >> Is it perhaps _not_ an unintended consequence ? Do the US and EU >> dream >> of selling electricity to arabs for petrodollars ? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 17 19:35:43 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:35:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We slap a label on a country and expect the normal rules not to apply. Very neat. A much scarier country that already has nukes is Pakistan. But they are our good buds. Israel is a major international outlaw by the number and scope of UN resolutions they have violated but they have had nukes since at least the sixties and are one of the most heavily militarized countries per capita on the planet. All secular folks in Israel are bound by law to support a huge and growing religious caste. The religious caste has tremendous power. Israel is arguably not a secular State in practice. Yet they are certainly our good friends. So the issue does not seem to come down to a State being in good repute or being in its government cleanly secular. State involved in terrorism? Saudi Arabia is heavily involved in terrorism. Most of the 911 hijackers were Saudi. But they are also our buds. We even edited out the parts of the 911 commission report that might have made them look bad. So tell me again why Iran having nuclear power and maybe some day being able to produce nuclear bombs is a major crisis. - samantha On Jan 17, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Brian Lee wrote: > I don't think Iran's race has anything to do with it (re: the > "brown people" comment). It has more to do with their terrorist > nation status. Maybe it's just me, but Iran having nuclear weapons > scares me. Nuclear power doesn't. I think it's smart for Iran to > pursue nuclear power as it may take 20 years to really get serious > power output and they need to start now if they want to be ready > when the oil is gone. But I don't think Iran has shown itself > responsible enough to have nuclear weapons. > > BAL > >> From: user >> To: ExI chat list >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy >> strategy ? >> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:25:36 -0500 (EST) >> >> >> >> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Brian Lee wrote: >> >> > The last plan I saw was that the EU/US wanted to provide the >> enriched >> > uranium to fuel Iran's future reactors. Iran was against that >> and so we're >> > at where we are today. So I guess there's no solution that gives >> Iran the >> > capability to make nuclear fuel without the capability to make >> weapons grade >> > material. >> >> >> Which seems sensible from a "we're scared of brown people" >> standpoint, but >> from Irans standpoint ... I would reject that plan as well. If they >> really were (a big if) interested in modern electrical power >> infrastructure to tie their developing country to, why shackle >> yourself to >> the goodwill of others to provide the necessary fuel ? >> >> Again, it seems like a perfect role reversal, and if I were Iran I >> would >> balk too... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 17 19:56:57 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:56:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] 'The Revenge of Gaia' by James Lovelock Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060117135625.01e4b298@pop-server.satx.rr.com> 'We Are Past the Point of No Return': James Lovelock MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Environment Editor - The Independent (U.K.) Thirty years ago, the scientist James Lovelock worked out that the Earth possessed a planetary-scale control system which kept the environment fit for life. He called it Gaia, and the theory has become widely accepted. Now, he believes mankind's abuse of the environment is making that mechanism work against us. His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already insoluble, and life on Earth will never be the same again. The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to James Lovelock, the scientist and green guru who conceived the idea of Gaia - the Earth which keeps itself fit for life. In a profoundly pessimistic new assessment, published in today's Independent, Professor Lovelock suggests that efforts to counter global warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late. The world and human society face disaster to a worse extent, and on a faster timescale, than almost anybody realises, he believes. He writes: " Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable." In making such a statement, far gloomier than any yet made by a scientist of comparable international standing, Professor Lovelock accepts he is going out on a limb. But as the man who conceived the first wholly new way of looking at life on Earth since Charles Darwin, he feels his own analysis of what is happening leaves him no choice. He believes that it is the self-regulating mechanism of Gaia itself - increasingly accepted by other scientists worldwide, although they prefer to term it the Earth System - which, perversely, will ensure that the warming cannot be mastered. This is because the system contains myriad feedback mechanisms which in the past have acted in concert to keep the Earth much cooler than it otherwise would be. Now, however, they will come together to amplify the warming being caused by human activities such as transport and industry through huge emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ). It means that the harmful consequences of human beings damaging the living planet's ancient regulatory system will be non-linear - in other words, likely to accelerate uncontrollably. He terms this phenomenon "The Revenge of Gaia" and examines it in detail in a new book with that title, to be published next month. The uniqueness of the Lovelock viewpoint is that it is holistic, rather than reductionist. Although he is a committed supporter of current research into climate change, especially at Britain's Hadley Centre, he is not looking at individual facets of how the climate behaves, as other scientists inevitably are. Rather, he is looking at how the whole control system of the Earth behaves when put under stress. Professor Lovelock, who conceived the idea of Gaia in the 1970s while examining the possibility of life on Mars for Nasa in the US, has been warning of the dangers of climate change since major concerns about it first began nearly 20 years ago. He was one of a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on global warming to Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April 1989. His concerns have increased steadily since then, as evidence of a warming climate has mounted. For example, he shared the alarm of many scientists at the news last September that the ice covering the Arctic Ocean is now melting so fast that in 2005 it reached a historic low point. Two years ago he sparked a major controversy with an article in The Independent calling on environmentalists to drop their long-standing opposition to nuclear power, which does not produce the greenhouses gases of conventional power stations. Global warming was proceeding so fast that only a major expansion of nuclear power could bring it under control, he said. Most of the Green movement roundly rejected his call, and does so still. Now his concerns have reached a peak - and have a new emphasis. Rather than calling for further ways of countering climate change, he is calling on governments in Britain and elsewhere to begin large-scale preparations for surviving what he now sees as inevitable - in his own phrase today, "a hell of a climate", likely to be in Europe up to 8C hotter than it is today. In his book's concluding chapter, he writes: "What should a sensible European government be doing now? I think we have little option but to prepare for the worst, and assume that we have passed the threshold." And in today's Independent he writes: "We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of [CO2] emissions. The worst will happen ..." He goes on: "We have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act, and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can." He believes that the world's governments should plan to secure energy and food supplies in the global hothouse, and defences against the expected rise in sea levels. The scientist's vision of what human society may ultimately be reduced to through climate change is " a broken rabble led by brutal warlords." Professor Lovelock draws attention to one aspect of the warming threat in particular, which is that the expected temperature rise is currently being held back artificially by a global aerosol - a layer of dust in the atmosphere right around the planet's northern hemisphere - which is the product of the world's industry. This shields us from some of the sun's radiation in a phenomenon which is known as "global dimming" and is thought to be holding the global temperature down by several degrees. But with a severe industrial downturn, the aerosol could fall out of the atmosphere in a very short time, and the global temperature could take a sudden enormous leap upwards. One of the most striking ideas in his book is that of "a guidebook for global warming survivors" aimed at the humans who would still be struggling to exist after a total societal collapse. Written, not in electronic form, but "on durable paper with long-lasting print", it would contain the basic accumulated scientific knowledge of humanity, much of it utterly taken for granted by us now, but originally won only after a hard struggle - such as our place in the solar system, or the fact that bacteria and viruses cause infectious diseases. Rough guide to a planet in jeopardy Global warming, caused principally by the large-scale emissions of industrial gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), is almost certainly the greatest threat that mankind has ever faced, because it puts a question mark over the very habitability of the Earth. Over the coming decades soaring temperatures will mean agriculture may become unviable over huge areas of the world where people are already poor and hungry; water supplies for millions or even billions may fail. Rising sea levels will destroy substantial coastal areas in low-lying countries such as Bangladesh, at the very moment when their populations are mushrooming. Numberless environmental refugees will overwhelm the capacity of any agency, or indeed any country, to cope, while modern urban infrastructure will face devastation from powerful extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Katrina which hit New Orleans last summer. The international community accepts the reality of global warming, supported by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In its last report, in 2001, the IPCC said global average temperatures were likely to rise by up to 5.8C by 2100. In high latitudes, such as Britain, the rise is likely to be much higher, perhaps 8C. The warming seems to be proceeding faster than anticipated and in the IPCC's next report, 2007, the timescale may be shortened. Yet there still remains an assumption that climate change is controllable, if CO2 emissions can be curbed. Lovelock is warning: think again. 'The Revenge of Gaia' by James Lovelock is published by Penguin on 2 February, price ?16.99 From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Jan 17 20:14:11 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:14:11 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Looking for examples of naturally evolved X-ray vision? Message-ID: <018b01c61ba2$94ebc890$640fa8c0@kevin> I was helping my daughter come up with some ideas for a school science project and I stumbled onto a couple unknowns. Animals have evolved a wide variety of abilities to seek food and avoid predators. Echo-location, color vision, and compound eyes are just a few. All provide important information regarding the immediate surroundings. My daughter asked me why the visible light spectrum IS the visible light spectrum. After all, animals hear at a wide range of frequencies that humans cannot, so why not have the same thing occurring in vision? Are there animals with X-ray vision? My first reaction was to say "no". After all, once you leave the visible spectrum, light becomes considerable less usefull to the purposes of survival. For example, what good is an X-ray if you see right through the animal that is hunting you? I guess a predator that was invisible to visible light but detectable by X-rays would do the trick, but such a thing is impossible (except for some high-tech cloaking and imaging system). I could think of no reason that X-ray vision would be selected for. Of course, there is random chance, but eyes and the brain's ability to interpret what it is seeing are tough developments to attribute to chance. So I started to look for information on this. According to a small atricle in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgen_Rays), Brandes and Roentgen discovered that X-rays ARE visible to the dark adapted human naked eye. I really did not know this although I am sure some of you were aware of it. Now I am wondering if anyone knows any examples of a natural biological organism that has developed and improved upon the abillity to see X-rays. Google has turned up nearly blank. And if the ability is there, how could it be built upon and used as we take evolution into our own hands? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 20:30:23 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:30:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > 1. We are keeping nuclear energy development away from people we don't > like, regardless of whether they are playing by _our_ rules or not. You have to be specific about what you mean when you say "nuclear energy development" (see below). 2. Is it really true that signatories can pursue modern nuclear power > generation ? Can they develop modern pebble bed nukes, etc. ? Or does > that fall outside of what is allowed. Power generation certainly. Its the fuel cycle -- uranium enrichment and used fuel rod reprocessing that people become concerned with because they give you the raw materials (HEU and plutonium respectively) from which weapons can be constructed. Again, my previous analysis may not apply to Iran, but it sure looks like > we are trying to keep nuclear power generation (or at least modern forms > of it - see #2 above) out of peoples hands, regardless of the weapons > implications. I don't think that is true. As Russia is advising on (building?) their nuclear reactor you can't really make that claim. I also think there was an understanding by the U.S. & E.U. that Russia would supply the fuel and handle the fuel rod reprocessing. If they wanted to block power generation they would either have blocked the reactor (they tried unsuccessfully to do that when Congress passed the law that the U.S. would not buy Russian "products" such as Soyuz flights to the ISS) or they might have blocked the sale of any raw uranium to Iran at all. I do not believe that Iran is particularly "rich" in uranium though a quick google suggests that it has 3-10 uranium mines. Most of its uranium is being bought from the Chinese I believe. I don't think you have to look for "sinister"motives involved. The concerns are pretty much the same with Iran as they were/are with North Korea. Once you allow "irrational" people to develop nuclear weapons, one can potentially be held hostage by them. It is reasonably clear that North Korea is effectively holding South Korea hostage and indirectly Japan and the U.S. Now whether you believe Iran could and would accomplish something similar is a matter of debate (though I'm not sure that this list would be the proper forum). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 21:10:39 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:10:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Looking for examples of naturally evolved X-ray vision? In-Reply-To: <018b01c61ba2$94ebc890$640fa8c0@kevin> References: <018b01c61ba2$94ebc890$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <4902d9990601171310k86adc07of26ccda4bad9003@mail.gmail.com> On 1/17/06, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > My first reaction was to say "no". After all, once you leave the visible > spectrum, light becomes considerable less usefull to the purposes of > survival. Good infrared vision (in the body temperature range) would be quite valuable for both nocturnal predators and prey. Since they don't have it, my hypothesis is that the tecnological obstacles to build a good infrared biological camera are too big to be overcome by evolution. Liquid nitrogen-cooled eyes anyone? The same could be said about X-rays, with the difference that the fancy high-energy nature of those rays could be exploited by a number of side effects on ordinary, yellow-and-green-sensing eyes. The Wikipedia article names a few. Alfio From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 21:15:26 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:15:26 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Looking for examples of naturally evolved X-ray vision? In-Reply-To: <018b01c61ba2$94ebc890$640fa8c0@kevin> References: <018b01c61ba2$94ebc890$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On 1/17/06, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > I was helping my daughter come up with some ideas for a school science > project and I stumbled onto a couple unknowns. > > Animals have evolved a wide variety of abilities to seek food and avoid > predators. Echo-location, color vision, and compound eyes are just a few. > All provide important information regarding the immediate surroundings. My > daughter asked me why the visible light spectrum IS the visible light > spectrum. After all, animals hear at a wide range of frequencies that humans > cannot, so why not have the same thing occurring in vision? Are there > animals with X-ray vision? > You need to read up on 'Evolution of Eyes'. Try: Read a few more as well, to get other opinions. Basically, he says: Why Do We See What We See? All eyes are sensitive to a common, rather narrow range of wavelengths within the broad spectrum of energy produced by the sun. Why is this? Why can't we see more of this spectrum? The most likely explanation is that eyes first evolved in animals living in water, and, water, due to its fundamental nature, filters out all but two quite narrow ranges of electromagnetic (EM) radiation. As shown in figure 1, the range of EM radiation 'visible' for most organisms is a narrow, sharply defined band, ranging from the very short wavelengths we think of as having a blue color to longer wavelengths we identify as red. It is particularly narrow when compared with the full range of EM radiation produced by the sun. In our language, we divide this narrow range of perceived wavelengths into seven names (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet), also called spectral colors. As is clear from the figure, in this very narrow band, EM radiation penetrates water better than the adjacent wavelengths by about 6 orders of magnitude. So, since our ultimate ancestors existed in a watery slime, the only radiation to penetrate water must have been the primary selective force. As we see now, this early selection for the narrow spectrum ultimately drove the evolution of biochemical mechanisms sensitive to these colors of light. This is true both for perception of light by animals and for photosynthesis by plants. Now, five billion years later, though many animal species have moved onto land where the sun's full spectrum is available, eyes remain sensitive only to this narrow region. That limit comes now, not from the filtering properties of water but rather from the biochemical mechanisms that evolved in response to the limited wavelengths penetrating the original slime. *Once selection started organisms down that path, mechanisms that evolved limited future options.* *(My emphasis)* It is true that many insect species as well as some species of fish and birds can 'see' in the ultraviolet, or very short wavelength end of the visible spectrum. However, they do so with slight modifications of the same biochemical system that the rest of us use to see, not with new mechanisms. BillK From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 21:16:14 2006 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:16:14 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Looking for examples of naturally evolved X-ray vision? In-Reply-To: <4902d9990601171310k86adc07of26ccda4bad9003@mail.gmail.com> References: <018b01c61ba2$94ebc890$640fa8c0@kevin> <4902d9990601171310k86adc07of26ccda4bad9003@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/17/06, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > > On 1/17/06, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > > > My first reaction was to say "no". After all, once you leave the visible > > spectrum, light becomes considerable less usefull to the purposes of > > survival. > > Good infrared vision (in the body temperature range) would be quite > valuable for both nocturnal predators and prey. Since they don't have > it, my hypothesis is that the tecnological obstacles to build a good > infrared biological camera are too big to be overcome by evolution. > Liquid nitrogen-cooled eyes anyone? Rattle Snakes http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/rattlesnakes.html "Rattlesnakes and other pit vipers have remarkable heat-sensing pits. Located behind each nostril, below a straight line that would directly connect the nostril to the eye, is a loreal pit (called this because it is a depression in the loreal scale). These pits are highly effective in detecting differences in temperature even several yards away. At short ranges within a foot or so, minute differences (of perhaps fractions of a degree) may be perceived." Maybe evolution has not been working long enough. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 21:35:31 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:35:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Looking for examples of naturally evolved X-ray vision? In-Reply-To: <018b01c61ba2$94ebc890$640fa8c0@kevin> References: <018b01c61ba2$94ebc890$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: You can sense IR photons (as heat) if there are sufficient numbers of them. But one problem with photons in the UV-thru-X-ray range is that the photons are energetic enough to break atomic bonds. This is particularly true for UV-B and UV-C. [1] So the sensing systems for these wavelengths *are* going to decay over time and would require expensive repair or replacement. X-rays in fact are so energetic that they break the bonds in the water molecules and produce multiple free radicals which cause extensive DNA damage. This is why X-ray exposure must be limited. There is a problem of producing large numbers of photons with these energies. Other than the stars, supernovas, neutron star collisions, etc. there *aren't* a lot of natural processes that can generate the high energy photons. UV-lamps typically require high temperatures or high voltages and X-rays require very high voltages. One might be able to have biological systems construct "capacitors" to store charges (an electric eel comes to mind) but the voltages one usually finds in biological systems are measured in millivolts (neuron voltages are usually < 100 mv) while one is talking significantly higher voltages to start playing with significant numbers of UV & X-ray photons. This is particularly a problem in biological systems based on salt water. Salt water is a good conductor -- so its probably difficult to build up very large voltages in biological systems. (Neurons use lipid membranes to maintain charge separation but high voltages would punch through those.) Since there aren't any biological systems producing photons at those wavelengths it doesn't make much sense to evolve sensors for them. The exception might be reflected UV light from the sun. I believe that bees are capable of sensing UV light. The only systems I can think of where one may moving towards generating higher amounts of energy is deep sea fish that can produce their own light (presumably to attract or recognize prey). As an aside, CCD arrays are quite good at reading UV & X-rays at certain frequencies and are used in various UV & X-ray astronomy cameras as well as CAT scanners I believe. There are also CCD array like detectors that can detect IR but they are usually based on structures with elements like Hg+Te+Cd or Pb+Se which aren't exactly abundant in biological systems. Robert 1. See UV photon energy in Nanosystems Table 6.2 (pg 151) and the Bond Dissociation energies om Table 3.8 (pg 52). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 21:37:49 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:37:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Looking for examples of naturally evolved X-ray vision? In-Reply-To: References: <018b01c61ba2$94ebc890$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <4902d9990601171337g32e46ef3vbbb346834083b5b0@mail.gmail.com> On 1/17/06, BillK wrote: > You need to read up on 'Evolution of Eyes'. Try: > > Read a few more as well, to get other opinions. > > Basically, he says: > > Why Do We See What We See? > >[...] > Now, five billion years later, more like five hundred millions years later. Dry land wasn't highly priced in the real estate market before then. > though many animal species have moved onto land where > the sun's full spectrum is available, eyes > remain sensitive only to this narrow region. This is incorrect. The full spectrum emitted by the Sun is not available this side of the atmosphere. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_electromagnetic_transmittance_or_opacity.jpg for a pretty drawing of atmospheric opacity. Basically, ultraviolet is quickly absorbed, while infrared fares a bit better. Alfio From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 21:49:09 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:49:09 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Looking for examples of naturally evolved X-ray vision? In-Reply-To: <4902d9990601171337g32e46ef3vbbb346834083b5b0@mail.gmail.com> References: <018b01c61ba2$94ebc890$640fa8c0@kevin> <4902d9990601171337g32e46ef3vbbb346834083b5b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/17/06, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > On 1/17/06, BillK wrote: > > though many animal species have moved onto land where > > the sun's full spectrum is available, eyes > > remain sensitive only to this narrow region. > > This is incorrect. The full spectrum emitted by the Sun is not > available this side of the atmosphere. See > In context, I think that by 'full'' he meant 'our normal daily range of spectrum' as opposed to the small part of the spectrum that you could see under water. Poetic licence. ;) BillK From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Jan 17 22:29:43 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Looking for examples of naturally evolved X-ray vision? In-Reply-To: References: <018b01c61ba2$94ebc890$640fa8c0@kevin> <4902d9990601171310k86adc07of26ccda4bad9003@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <35370.72.236.102.71.1137536983.squirrel@main.nc.us> > Rattle Snakes > http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/rattlesnakes.html > > "Rattlesnakes and other pit vipers have remarkable heat-sensing pits. > Located behind each nostril, below a straight line that would directly > connect the nostril to the eye, is a loreal pit (called this because it is > a > depression in the loreal scale). These pits are highly effective in > detecting differences in temperature even several yards away. At short > ranges within a foot or so, minute differences (of perhaps fractions of a > degree) may be perceived." > > Maybe evolution has not been working long enough. > Pythons also have heat pits. You can clearly see the three pink heat pits here: http://buncombe.main.nc.us/~mbbweb/snakes/pantera/pantera3.jpg Ball pythons are night hunters. Regards, MB From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 17 22:37:24 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:37:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Who needs a CAT scan when you have a well trained dog? (was: naturally evolved X-ray vision) In-Reply-To: <018b01c61ba2$94ebc890$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20060117223724.45804.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Not exactly X-ray *vision* but seemingly able to take the place of mammograms and CT scans in our fight against cancer. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8549 Surely the dog IS man's best friend. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ." - Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 17 23:06:33 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:06:33 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Looking for examples of naturally evolved X-ray vision? In-Reply-To: References: <018b01c61ba2$94ebc890$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060117170052.03553e78@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 04:35 PM 1/17/2006 -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: >You can sense IR photons (as heat) if there are sufficient numbers of >them.... X-rays in fact are so energetic that they break the bonds in the >water molecules and produce multiple free radicals which cause extensive >DNA damage. This is why X-ray exposure must be limited. Superman's eyes, as everyone knows, emitted copious quantities of infrared photons, as well as streams of X-rays (although how he used the latter to see with has never been clear to me, since the whole point is that they mostly pass through objects rather than bouncing off them). But it's noticeable that he hasn't been in the news lately; I happen to know that he's lying very low, trying to evade the tremendously expensive class actions from families of all the people he killed with his X-rays, most heartbreakingly his radiation poisoned foster parents and the cancer-riddled Lana Lang and Lois Lane. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 17 23:32:10 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:32:10 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Looking for examples of naturally evolved X-ray vision? In-Reply-To: <4902d9990601171337g32e46ef3vbbb346834083b5b0@mail.gmail.co m> References: <018b01c61ba2$94ebc890$640fa8c0@kevin> <4902d9990601171337g32e46ef3vbbb346834083b5b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060117172559.034a6b38@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 10:37 PM 1/17/2006 +0100, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > > Now, five billion years later, > >more like five hundred millions years later. Dry land wasn't highly >priced in the real estate market before then. An interesting book on this topic is: Parker, Andrew In the Blink of an Eye: The Cause of the Most Dramatic Event in the History of Life, London: The Free Press, 2003. Here's a chunk from my own book FEROCIOUS MINDS: ...................................................................... It is slightly shocking that for nearly four billion years our planet?s most complicated creatures were bacteria, algae, single-celled primitive creatures: bland, living on sunlight like plants but unable to see by its illumination. For most of the tenure of life on earth, long before insects and dinosaurs and rats and us, the light was on?but nobody interesting was at home. Life changed and diversified, but at an excruciatingly slow pace. A little more than half a billion years ago, everything accelerated, in an extraordinary burst of evolutionary inventiveness. That surge in novelty, when complicated life galloped into existence, is known as the Cambrian explosion. We don't have much instinct for these sorts of numbers. Yes, half a billion years is a tremendous span, equivalent to ten million pre-industrial human lifetimes strung out one after the other, and for all our antiquity humans have only been here for a thousand generations. If an average lifespan today represents the history of life on the planet, a human would be a very strange monster indeed. For the first 68 years or so, you would remain a single celled embryo, patient and mindless in your mother's womb. Abruptly, in a single month, you would start developing in earnest. Clumsy speech and dexterity would be delayed until the closing days of your 80th year, and true intelligence would not blossom until the final few hours. Self-preening, we stress that final burst into brilliant intellect, and disregard a tormenting question: why the extreme delay at the starting line? How is it that almost nothing happened for the first seven-eighths of life's history? What kept the brakes locked down on evolution, and what released them at long last, permitting an explosive flowering from just four basic kinds of very ancient inner and outer body design into 10 times as many, giving rise to everything we see and much that is already extinct, like the dinosaurs? The Cambrian explosion took place between about 543 and 538 million years ago. Into those five million years were crammed all this rococo fabrication of complex life's ground rules. Why so fast, and why so long to get started? It would be neat and satisfying to resolve both questions with one answer. Zoologist Andrew Parker, a Royal Society research fellow at Oxford University, deemed by the Times one of the three most important young scientists in the world, took an interesting shot at the task seven years ago. His popular account is readily accessible to non-scientists. Possibly too accessible, since he leaves out any pointers to other research, except for some names mentioned in passing, which makes it hard to follow up claims hotly contested by other experts. Still, his book is richly crowded with altogether fascinating details, the very stuff of polymathy: how our planet was frozen for hundreds of millions of years under kilometers of ice, stopping life in its tracks; why the working insides of animals vary more than their defensive shells; exactly what causes the shimmering opalescence and iridescence of a pearl or a beetle's wing. For Parker, the key to the Cambrian event was the long delay before vision evolved. For vast stretches of time, creatures navigated and sought prey (or evaded the hungry) using touch, smell, taste, magnetic sensing: intimate and blurred. The world lay in fog. Then light-sensitive patches on the skin evolved with striking swiftness into true eyes, conscripting from other purposes the nerve wiring needed to turn images into a map of the world. Parker calls the epoch when sight came into useful focus the `Light Switch'. Once its switch was thrown, you could see others across a crowded room (or pool, or paddock) and they could see you. Under that spur, that naked transparency, natural selection was ruthless and quick, testing and conserving a vast number of sighted creatures such as trilobites, Parker's favorite candidate for the first eyed animal. It seems he is wrong, though, since trilobites (as Cambridge zoologist Simon Conway Morris argues) appeared as the Cambrian explosion was subsiding, not igniting. Well, details, details. Parker's key idea is fresh and fertile and fun. In the luminous shallows of Australia?s Great Barrier Reef, he ran into a dark brown cloud of cuttlefish ink. As it cleared, he faced thirty of the animals, forming `an exact arc around me, tentacles to face, eye to eye. Their brown bodies instantaneously bleached as I moved toward them... [then] displayed a wave of color changes. Brown and white synchronized undulations... suddenly a `loud' red...a calming green as I retreated... their eyes remained silver, like mirrors' (4). This is deliciously vivid, exactly capturing how crucial the sense of sight has become since the first clear-lensed eye opened half a billion years ago.[1] Even if eyes were the crucial breakthrough to explosive diversity, why did they take so long to arrive? My guess, reading toward the end of this detective story, was that air or water had perhaps long been murky, and cleared with a change in the environment. Either that, or the great slow orbit of the solar system into the dusty arms of the galaxy and out again might have modified the intensity of the Sun's light. Parker tries all these notions, and more, but fails to find a totally satisfying culprit. Still, his theory insists that there must be one, and so provokes a new and exciting scientific quest. [1] In his efforts to be lucid as well as engaging, Parker does sometimes slip into unintended comedy. `Chemical detectors,' he explains carefully, `detect chemicals' (282). From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Jan 18 00:13:08 2006 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:13:08 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am Ioffered? References: <20051220013537.9B4F757F5B@finney.org> Message-ID: <03bf01c61bc3$f604a4f0$1283e03c@homepc> Hal Finney wrote: > Brett writes: >> If I was to say that I have US$1000 of real money that >> says that President George W Bush will be impeached >> what odds would serious minded people like to offer me >> I wonder? > > There is a related claim at the FX game, > http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=BuImp > > : Claim BuImp - Bush impeached or resigns > : > : This claim will be true if a majority of the US house votes to impeach > : George Bush--or Bush resigns from office. It may be judged when another > : US president is inaugurated or George Bush out of office. > : > : Note: it is not necessary for the Senate to convict Bush for this claim > : to be true. > > Since its creation in September, the claim has traded very stably at > about 20, implying a roughly 20% chance of coming true. This counts > both resignation and impeachment, so the odds of just impeachment would > be somewhat lower, but I don't know how much. I don't know exactly how much lower either but it would be significantly lower I'd think, as suggested by Nixon who resigned in the face of impeachment articles against him having been prepared by the House Judiciary Committee. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm Faced with the fact of articles of impeachment having been prepared and the US people and its representatives being ready to impeach him it seems likely to me at a gutcheck level that Bush would find or be persuaded perhaps by other Republicans to find resignation to be the better option. Without doing a lot of analysis and what might amount to little better than guessing even then I don't know that I could work out the probability of X given Y, but I'd think X given Y would probably still be greater than not X given Y, where Y is articles of impeachment having been prepared and X is impeachment. > So I'd be willing to offer 4 to 1 odds against, and feel like I had a > modest profit expectation. And yes, I'd be willing to cover the > $1000 bet (putting up my $4000 against that). If Bush were to 'do a Nixon', and resign after articles of impeachment were prepared by the House Judiciary Committee, then he would not be impeached as he would not be President and impeachment would not be necessary, but he *would* have been held somewhat to account. What I am actually interested in is whether the US voters through their elected representatives and the US system will hold this US President to account. Let's say I agree to take your odds Hal, are there any UK based extropes that you would be willing to have hold our stakes? Or alternatively, how would you propose to proceed? Reply offlist if you prefer. Brett Paatsch From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Wed Jan 18 00:41:23 2006 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:41:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is why Iran is a bigger problem than Pakistan or Israel: Iran supports terrorism and makes threats about annihilating other countries (specifically US and Israel). Their president is a raving lunatic who denies the Holocaust and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map. If we could go back in time, we should have stopped Pakistan and Israel from developing nuclear weapons but we can't, so they have nukes. Additionally, Pakistan "playing ball" with the US and cooperating goes a long way toward them not being a threat. The 911 hijackers being Saudi does not mean the Saudi government supports terrorism. To suggest this link is misguided. BAL >From: Samantha Atkins >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? >Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:35:43 -0800 > >We slap a label on a country and expect the normal rules not to apply. >Very neat. A much scarier country that already has nukes is Pakistan. >But they are our good buds. Israel is a major international outlaw by the >number and scope of UN resolutions they have violated but they have had >nukes since at least the sixties and are one of the most heavily >militarized countries per capita on the planet. All secular folks in >Israel are bound by law to support a huge and growing religious caste. >The religious caste has tremendous power. Israel is arguably not a >secular State in practice. Yet they are certainly our good friends. So >the issue does not seem to come down to a State being in good repute or >being in its government cleanly secular. State involved in terrorism? >Saudi Arabia is heavily involved in terrorism. Most of the 911 hijackers >were Saudi. But they are also our buds. We even edited out the parts of >the 911 commission report that might have made them look bad. So tell me >again why Iran having nuclear power and maybe some day being able to >produce nuclear bombs is a major crisis. > >- samantha > > >On Jan 17, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Brian Lee wrote: > >>I don't think Iran's race has anything to do with it (re: the "brown >>people" comment). It has more to do with their terrorist nation status. >>Maybe it's just me, but Iran having nuclear weapons scares me. Nuclear >>power doesn't. I think it's smart for Iran to pursue nuclear power as it >>may take 20 years to really get serious power output and they need to >>start now if they want to be ready when the oil is gone. But I don't >>think Iran has shown itself responsible enough to have nuclear weapons. >> >>BAL >> >>>From: user >>>To: ExI chat list >>>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy >>>? >>>Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:25:36 -0500 (EST) >>> >>> >>> >>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Brian Lee wrote: >>> >>> > The last plan I saw was that the EU/US wanted to provide the enriched >>> > uranium to fuel Iran's future reactors. Iran was against that and so >>>we're >>> > at where we are today. So I guess there's no solution that gives Iran >>>the >>> > capability to make nuclear fuel without the capability to make >>>weapons grade >>> > material. >>> >>> >>>Which seems sensible from a "we're scared of brown people" standpoint, >>>but >>>from Irans standpoint ... I would reject that plan as well. If they >>>really were (a big if) interested in modern electrical power >>>infrastructure to tie their developing country to, why shackle yourself >>>to >>>the goodwill of others to provide the necessary fuel ? >>> >>>Again, it seems like a perfect role reversal, and if I were Iran I would >>>balk too... >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>extropy-chat mailing list >>>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>extropy-chat mailing list >>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From HerbM at learnquick.com Wed Jan 18 02:27:06 2006 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:27:06 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > From: Samantha Atkins > > We slap a label on a country and expect the normal rules not to > apply. Very neat. A much scarier country that already has nukes is > Pakistan. But they are our good buds. Israel is a major > international outlaw by the number and scope of UN resolutions they > have violated but they have had nukes since at least the sixties and > are one of the most heavily militarized countries per capita on the > planet. The above is either sophomoric or dishonest since Israel is NOT a frequent violator of BINDING UN resolutions, nor a signatory to the NPT The petty dictatorships that make up the bulk of the UN member states can vote anything they please, sensible or not, but all of that is NON-BINDING on member nations. The Israelis are militarized because ALL of their neighbors (and secondary neighbors) want to, or have wanted to, throw them into the sea or MURDER them. Iran has signed nuclear non-proliferation agreements benefited from those agreements. Pakistan and India, along with Israel have always refused to sign. It would have been better had both Pakistan and India been PREVENTED from developing and deploying such weapons but the opportunity to do so was lost due to Cold War concerns between the US and the USSR (and to some extent PRC.) And remember that "mobilization" has long been considered an act of war -- development of nuclear weapons by a state which did not have them can certainly be considered to constitute mobilization. Bottom line: Iran and North Korea cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons and if they can be removed they should be removed. Funny that largely the same people that would allow nuclear weapons to such states are typically the same people that would argue against the individual right of human beings to keep and bear arms. -- Herb Martin From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jan 18 03:37:55 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:37:55 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060117213543.01ce49d0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:27 PM 1/17/2006 -0600, Herb Martin wrote: >Funny that largely the same people that would allow >nuclear weapons to such states are typically the >same people that would argue against the individual >right of human beings to keep and bear arms. I don't know if that's true, but if so might it also be the case that it's Funny that largely the same people that would deny nuclear weapons to such states are typically the same people that would argue for the individual right of human beings to keep and bear arms? Damien Broderick From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Jan 18 03:46:02 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:46:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 17, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Brian Lee wrote: > This is why Iran is a bigger problem than Pakistan or Israel: Iran > supports terrorism and makes threats about annihilating other > countries (specifically US and Israel). Laughable threats against the US and rather unlikely ones against Israel for the next few years at least. I am really shaking. > Their president is a raving lunatic who denies the Holocaust and > calls for Israel to be wiped off the map. That sort of rhetoric is not exactly unique. > If we could go back in time, we should have stopped Pakistan and > Israel from developing nuclear weapons but we can't, so they have > nukes. Additionally, Pakistan "playing ball" with the US and > cooperating goes a long way toward them not being a threat. Only a matter of internal regime change for Pakistan to be a very nasty threat in the region. Of course they currently are sensible enough to realize that any real nastiness would mean their annihilation. > > The 911 hijackers being Saudi does not mean the Saudi government > supports terrorism. To suggest this link is misguided. > I don't think so. The Saudi government gives strong support to very radical Islamic groups. If there is no smoke here then why the deletions from the report? A leader running off at the mouth doesn't mean Iran has or is about to have adequate means to be a real threat or that there is good reason to attack Iran or Iranian targets at this time. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Jan 18 04:29:27 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:29:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C0C7DB2-04AF-4678-87E2-0630A10CF2C5@mac.com> On Jan 17, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Herb Martin wrote: >> From: Samantha Atkins >> >> We slap a label on a country and expect the normal rules not to >> apply. Very neat. A much scarier country that already has nukes is >> Pakistan. But they are our good buds. Israel is a major >> international outlaw by the number and scope of UN resolutions they >> have violated but they have had nukes since at least the sixties and >> are one of the most heavily militarized countries per capita on the >> planet. > > The above is either sophomoric or dishonest > since Israel is NOT a frequent violator of > BINDING UN resolutions, nor a signatory to the > NPT > Watch out expunging my motives or using denigration toward me of any kind. I will not stand for it. If you are talking of a Security Council resolution as "binding" it should be pointed out that although the US would very likely veto any such resolution that was too onerous there have in fact been quite some number of Security Council resolutions that Israel has violated or is in violation of until this very day. From 1967 to 1988 the Security Council passed 88 resolutions directly against Israel and Israel was condemned 49 times. That looks a little significant to me. Check out wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_242 also: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5aa254a1c8f8b1cb852560e50075d7d5? OpenDocument Israel violated the following Security Council resolutions: Resolution 252 (1968) Israel Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon. 262 (1968) Israel Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport. 267 (1969) Israel Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem. 271 (1969) Israel Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers. 298 (1971) Israel Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem. 446 (1979) Israel Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories." 452 (1979) Israel Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. 465 (1980) Israel Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy. 471 (1980) Israel Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention. 484 (1980) Israel Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention. 487 (1981) Israel Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency. 497 (1981) Israel Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region. 541 (1983) Turkey Reiterates the need for compliance with prior resolutions and demands that the declaration of an independent Turkish Cypriot state be withdrawn. 550 (1984) Turkey Reiterates UNSC resolution 541 and insists that member states may "not to facilitate or in any way assist" the secessionist entity. 573 (1985) Israel Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations. 592 (1986) Israel Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 605 (1987) Israel "Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention." 607 (1986) Israel Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories. 608 (1988) Israel Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations. 636 (1989) Israel Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations. 641 (1989) Israel Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations. 694 (1991) Israel Reiterates that Israel "must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported." etc. You may wish to quibble about what "is" is or what is "binding" but it was certainly not at all dishonest or "sophomoric" to point out that Israel violates UN resolutions. > The petty dictatorships that make up the bulk > of the UN member states can vote anything they > please, sensible or not, but all of that is > NON-BINDING on member nations. This is more than a bit of over-simplification on your part. > > The Israelis are militarized because ALL of their > neighbors (and secondary neighbors) want to, > or have wanted to, throw them into the sea or > MURDER them. > > The Israelis have done more than their share of murdering and invading their neighbors. Do you concede this or do I need to lay it out for you? > Iran has signed nuclear non-proliferation agreements > benefited from those agreements. > And this is supposed to be worse than Israel not even being a signatory how? > > And remember that "mobilization" has long been > considered an act of war -- development of nuclear > weapons by a state which did not have them can > certainly be considered to constitute mobilization. No it can't. > > Bottom line: Iran and North Korea cannot be trusted > with nuclear weapons and if they can be removed they > should be removed. > Even if you plunge the world into the abyss to do so? Even if Iran can be easily prevented from building its own nuclear weapons without a shot fired? (as if that was remotely what the saber rattling was really about) > Funny that largely the same people that would allow > nuclear weapons to such states are typically the > same people that would argue against the individual > right of human beings to keep and bear arms. > You really have no friggin' idea who I am do you? I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate and I have enough hardware to prove that that is not simply a paper position. What I am tired of is supposed defenders of freedom and enlightenment who seem to never meet an excuse to pour money and lives out anywhere in the world while taking away what paltry freedoms we still have at home that they don't applaud. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Jan 18 05:42:29 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:42:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ? In-Reply-To: <2C0C7DB2-04AF-4678-87E2-0630A10CF2C5@mac.com> References: <2C0C7DB2-04AF-4678-87E2-0630A10CF2C5@mac.com> Message-ID: On Jan 17, 2006, at 8:29 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Herb Martin wrote: > >>> From: Samantha Atkins >>> >>> We slap a label on a country and expect the normal rules not to >>> apply. Very neat. A much scarier country that already has nukes is >>> Pakistan. But they are our good buds. Israel is a major >>> international outlaw by the number and scope of UN resolutions they >>> have violated but they have had nukes since at least the sixties and >>> are one of the most heavily militarized countries per capita on the >>> planet. >> >> The above is either sophomoric or dishonest >> since Israel is NOT a frequent violator of >> BINDING UN resolutions, nor a signatory to the >> NPT >> > > Watch out expunging my motives or using denigration toward me of > any kind. I will not stand for it. Err, "impugning" even. Dyslexia is a bitch but aging biological minds hardly need excuses. :-( -s From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Wed Jan 18 06:28:24 2006 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:28:24 +1100 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] On difficult choices (was: Books: Harris; Religion and Reason) Message-ID: <20060118062824.17244.qmail@web50504.mail.yahoo.com> >### My 95% confidence interval for the SAI-driven Singularity is 2015 to 2050, squarely within our generation's lifetimes. You can't give a confidence interval as high as 95% but yes, I do agree with your date range. I can't see the Singularity taking longer than 2050 if it's possible at all, and I give it a 50-50 chance of happening before 2030. I don't see seed-AI as being likely to be created by any of the well known groups however (for instance Sing Inst). It's been a terrible shock to me to see so many brilliant thinkers on the transhumanist lists (in the sense of having really high IQ's) who are actually quite limited in their thinking (in the sense of lacking imagination, empathy and rationality). Take Eliezer for instance. Here you have this really brilliant fellow gifted with a high IQ, but who is really quite narrow minded in his thinking. It's very sad. I tried to lecture people out of their ignorance which was a really *really* big mistake I see now, since I've totally alienated nearly every-one on the transhumanist lists :-( You can't lecture people out of their ignorance. You can only help them to grow. Please understand my extreme impatience for getting to the Singularity and my horror at seeing even brilliant people going astray. Please understand my frustration. I lost my head. This doesn't excuse my behaviour on the lists, but it does I hope, help to explain it. I lost my head. I'm sorry. There will never be true general intelligence without sentience or emotions. An AI without sentience or emotions will only be a limited AI and will not be able to initiate a Singularity. Should the design being purused by the Singularity Institute work at all, it will at best be a human-level intelligence, not a recursively self-improving one. Someday the Sing Inst folks will understand this. I urge every-one to carefully read the abstract summary of my *Mathematico-Cognition Reality Theory* published here: http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1338 Cheers! "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!? Take your Mail with you - get Yahoo! Mail on your mobile http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mweb/index.html From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Jan 18 07:27:43 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:27:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [Skeptic] Re: Looking for examples of naturally evolved X-ray vision? Message-ID: <43CDEDEF.8050803@mindspring.com> On Jan 17, 2006, at 8:10 PM, Terry W. Colvin fnarded: > I was helping my daughter come up with some ideas for a school > science project and I stumbled onto a couple unknowns. > > Animals have evolved a wide variety of abilities to seek food and > avoid predators. Echo