From riel at surriel.com Sat Jul 1 03:24:16 2006 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 23:24:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060628094458.03f96a10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060628094458.03f96a10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Someone asked me recently what the impulse behind transhumanism was. I > said survival. That's one reason. For me it is almost religious, silly as that may sound. As far as we know today, the universe started with a bang and chaos. Gravity and expansion/cooling helped form galaxies from the chaos, which led to stars and planets. Some order from the chaos, at a large scale. On planets (and other cold bodies), crystals formed and eventually life, which increased order. A few billion years later, intelligence sprung into existance. Who knows what will come next? I think we should spread life and intelligence throughout the universe, to trigger the next developments and find out. :) -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jul 1 03:36:25 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:36:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: Mail System Error - Forwarded from Keith Message-ID: <200607010353.k613r8aO003537@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Extros, Keith Henson is having a lot of bounces of his ExI posts. I can see no problem with his account, but Eugen is looking at it to see if we can do anything about it. Anyone else having trouble? In the mean time, I forward this from Keith. He will by laying out of this discussion for now, not for lack of interest but for technical failure of the com system. spike ... > >At 09:30 AM 6/30/2006 -0700, Jef wrote: > >snip > >>Keith, I agree with you that Maslow operated without the benefit of >>current thinking in evolutionary psychology (and it shows), but >>wouldn't you agree that his hierarchy of needs still generally holds >>and was intended to be descriptive while evolutionary psychology is >>intended to be explanatory? > >No. It does not hold, and if it is going to be considered science, >description and explanation have to be in harmony. > >I dislike being hard nosed about this, but there comes a time when you >just have to junk older models for better models. > >Contrast Maslow's "A Theory of Human Motivation (1943," with Azar Gat's >article: > >THE HUMAN MOTIVATIONAL COMPLEX: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AND THE CAUSES OF >HUNTER-GATHERER FIGHTING > >Azar Gat > >Part I: Primary Somatic and Reproductive Causes > >At the centre of this study is the age-old philosophical and psychological >inquiry into the nature of the basic human system of motivation. Numerous >lists of basic needs and desires have been put together over the >centuries, more or less casually or convincingly. The most recent ones >show little if any marked progress over the older, back to Thomas Hobbes's >Leviathan, 6 >(e.g. Maslow 1970 [1954]; Burton 1990). > >In the absence of an evolutionary perspective, these lists have always had >something arbitrary and trivial about them. They lacked a unifying >regulatory rationale that would suggest why the various needs and desires >came to be, or how they related to one another. > >Arguing that the human motivational system as a whole should be approached >from the evolutionary perspective, this study focuses on the causes of >fighting. It examines what can be meaningfully referred to as the 'human >state of nature', the 99.5 percent of the genus Homo's evolutionary >history in which humans lived as hunter-gatherers. > >In this 'state of nature' people's behaviour patterns are generally to be >considered as evolutionarily adaptive. They form the evolutionary >inheritance that we have carried with us throughout later history, when >this inheritance has constantly interacted and been interwoven with the >human staggering cultural development. > >snip > > > >http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf > >[Well worth reading--several times!] > >Maslow is just wrong in his analysis of human needs saying that ones >higher up the list will trump lower ones.. > >1. Physiological >2. Safety >3. Love/Belonging >4. Esteem >5. Actualization > >In order to save family members, particularly children, but other close >relatives according to Hamilton and Haldane's relatedness criteria, people >will ignore safety and even put themselves in places where they will be >killed (overriding 1 and 2 for 3). > >Likewise in attempting to gain status (#4) males particularly will ignore >their safety and even psychological needs. > >Maslow *did* recognize that status seeking was a human need, in that I >have to give him credit. But he had no idea of *why* or how it might >override others of his list. To understand that you must go to >evolutionary psychology and the hunter gatherer environment in which it >evolved and consider how genes for such behavior would have had a >selective advantage. > >You simply are not going to get anywhere trying to understand drug >addiction, Stockholm syndrome, suicide bombers or war with Maslow. And if >you don't understand a problem chances are better than 50-50 that actions >you take on the basis of the wrong model are going to make the problem >worse. I.e., D.A.R.E. > >There is a difference between honoring influential people of the past and >following their models that are now known to be incomplete or just wrong. > >Best wishes, > >Keith Henson > From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 05:52:00 2006 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:52:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] H+, autism, selection effects, biases In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060701055201.16060.qmail@web56513.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Hi, I just joined this list in response to George Dvorsky's suggestion that I do so. Hopefully it is OK if I simply jump in and comment on this particular issue, since it seems to have been the impetus for my being told about this discussion list. I cannot comment specifically on statistics of transhumanists on the autism spectrum -- but in my observation, those attracted to transhumanist ideas do at least tend to be somewhat prone to having intense (and often science-based) interests that began in childhood. I think that the larger question here is: what draws people to become interested in how things work and how they might be improved, and to even concern themselves with seeking meaning in existence? When I think carefully about it, I didn't become a transhumanist so much as realize I was one. Or at least, I evolved a particular set of philosophies, notions about the future, and ethical guidelines that turned out to be a good fit with transhumanism -- as I understand and interpret it. As a young child I often found myself asking lots of questions about why things were, and was always extremely dissatisfied with the answer, "Because that's the way it is", or, "Because that's the way society works". My father was a sci-fi fan, and had Star Trek on the TV back as far as I can remember. I grew up reading all his old books and eventually seeking more, in the realms of fact and scientific speculation as well as fiction. Childhood obsessions included time travel, "other dimensions", black holes, origins of the Universe, and things along those lines. I don't know what drew me to these things initially -- but it might have something to do with a congenital fascination with parts and mechanisms, and a desire to find out how far things could be reduced. My parents report that I was asking questions about what rocks and hair were made of in my toddler years, which definitely indicates a tendency toward this sort of thinking. So, though I don't believe in anything like "destiny", I definitely think that my development and childhood experiences sort of "optimized" me for transhumanism. Then, I underwent a massive existential crisis / restructuring at around the age of 20. This was correlated to some extent with being able to admit to myself and my family that I was an atheist. I found myself at first in a state wherein I had a glaring and overwhelming sense of my own fragility and mortality. It was uncomfortable, but at the same time, it felt like a "project" -- something I had to explore and find a solution to. In the beginning of this exploration, I studied some humanistic philosophies that sought to make death into something that was simply accepted and even welcomed eventually, as part of playing one's role as a conscious being. I tried to convince myself that since death was inevitable, I should just quit thinking about it and enjoy my life. But it didn't work. I tried going to a therapist. I tried meditation. I tried reading some material on Taoism. I tried just plan stopping my thoughts, or distracting myself. Nothing worked -- I ended up in a state where I only had access to what felt like 10% of my brain capacity for doing what I wanted to do, while the other 90% was constantly churning and calculating and reviewing data on the Death Problem. I began to wonder if I had OCD. But then, something clicked in my brain and I started asking myself questions like: WHY do people think death is inevitable? And because it's been inevitable in the past, does that HAVE to mean that it's always going to be that way? And am I the only one on the planet who thinks that aging and wasting away and finally having one's consciousness annihilated is an undeniable tragedy? And is anyone actually trying to DO anything about this problem? To the Internet I went. This was pre-Google (mid-late 90s), so I looked up "life extension" on AltaVista. To my exhilirated shock, I found that not only did companies already exist that would freeze a person for hopefully being awakened in the future, but that some people were actually of the same opinion as me regarding the supposed limits of human potential: for health, ability, and longevity. I discovered Roy Walford's caloric restriction work, as well as some of the very earliest transhumanist FAQs and such. At first I was convinced there had to be a catch somewhere, that soon I'd find something indicating that these "transhumanists" were indistinguishable from UFO fanatics and cryptozoologists and such, but that didn't happen. I read and read, and eventually had a massive internal paradigm shift wherein it occurred to me that *nothing* about indefinite life extension or cyborg bodies or whatnot actually violates any of the laws of physics. Just because something sounds wonderful, I realized, does not mean that it can never happen. And we would be fools to deny ourselves the opportunity to try to solve hard problems and explore previously unattainable areas of space and philosophy. There is no catch. Technology is real, and humans can accomplish and learn to understand a heck of a lot when we put our minds to it. When I look at myself in the mirror while wearing clothing, and eyeglasses, and carrying an iPod Nano filled with songs and talk radio files, and a cell phone clipped to my pocket, it is difficult to tell where I end and the technology begins. And I love this feeling -- this sense of a nearly seamless integration with innovation, with adaptations not borne of biological chance but deliberate volition. For the record: I am diagnosed with Asperger's (was first diagnosed with PDD-NOS -- Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified, but eventually this as "otherwise specified" to Asperger's, since I did develop speech at an early age, though it was mostly echolalic / scripted / repetitive questioning until I was in my teens). The only aspect of this neurology that has ever felt remotely "limiting" is that much of standard American culture is not "set up" for people like me. People who find it easy to adopt the basic assumptions of those around them tend to take their dependencies on default social structures and stimulus thresholds for granted, so they look at people like me and see us as somehow less functional, or more in need of "special" help and instruction. However, I've been able to become highly functional, by my estimation, through rigorous brainhacking. For instance, one of the issues that always distressed me (and my parents) when I was growing up was the fact that I tended to have fits and meltdowns when things happened that I didn't anticipate. Thinking about radical life extension actually compelled me to start anticipating not only possible events, but possible future subjective states -- that is, I have tried to imagine myself being very old and to pre-emptively relate my present self with my future self. This actually led to an improved ability to anticipate future emotional states, and to come up with alternative plans in the case of primary plans not working out. In many ways, transhumanism has been very good therapy! And it's enabled me to keep the aspects of my cognition and perception that I like, while at the same time allowing me to address the challenges associated with my neurology. I imagine part of the reason I was drawn to transhumanism was related to the fact that I've never tended to share basic assumptions with those around me. I had to sort of build my own "operating system" for living from the ground up. And this "operating system" ended up looking a whole lot like transhumanism! I apologize for the very long post but I figured this might comprise something of an introduction. - Anne --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transcend at extropica.com Sat Jul 1 06:14:56 2006 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 01:14:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: Mail System Error - Forwarded from Keith In-Reply-To: <200607010353.k613r8aO003537@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200607010712.k617Cvlj002814@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I usually get a bounce the first time I mail the list each day. I don't post much, but when I do I usually have to attempt it twice before it takes. Nothing else is wrong with my email config. Brandon -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:36 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: Mail System Error - Forwarded from Keith Extros, Keith Henson is having a lot of bounces of his ExI posts. I can see no problem with his account, but Eugen is looking at it to see if we can do anything about it. Anyone else having trouble? In the mean time, I forward this from Keith. He will by laying out of this discussion for now, not for lack of interest but for technical failure of the com system. spike ... > >At 09:30 AM 6/30/2006 -0700, Jef wrote: > >snip > >>Keith, I agree with you that Maslow operated without the benefit of >>current thinking in evolutionary psychology (and it shows), but >>wouldn't you agree that his hierarchy of needs still generally holds >>and was intended to be descriptive while evolutionary psychology is >>intended to be explanatory? > >No. It does not hold, and if it is going to be considered science, >description and explanation have to be in harmony. > >I dislike being hard nosed about this, but there comes a time when you >just have to junk older models for better models. > >Contrast Maslow's "A Theory of Human Motivation (1943," with Azar Gat's >article: > >THE HUMAN MOTIVATIONAL COMPLEX: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AND THE CAUSES OF >HUNTER-GATHERER FIGHTING > >Azar Gat > >Part I: Primary Somatic and Reproductive Causes > >At the centre of this study is the age-old philosophical and psychological >inquiry into the nature of the basic human system of motivation. Numerous >lists of basic needs and desires have been put together over the >centuries, more or less casually or convincingly. The most recent ones >show little if any marked progress over the older, back to Thomas Hobbes's >Leviathan, 6 >(e.g. Maslow 1970 [1954]; Burton 1990). > >In the absence of an evolutionary perspective, these lists have always had >something arbitrary and trivial about them. They lacked a unifying >regulatory rationale that would suggest why the various needs and desires >came to be, or how they related to one another. > >Arguing that the human motivational system as a whole should be approached >from the evolutionary perspective, this study focuses on the causes of >fighting. It examines what can be meaningfully referred to as the 'human >state of nature', the 99.5 percent of the genus Homo's evolutionary >history in which humans lived as hunter-gatherers. > >In this 'state of nature' people's behaviour patterns are generally to be >considered as evolutionarily adaptive. They form the evolutionary >inheritance that we have carried with us throughout later history, when >this inheritance has constantly interacted and been interwoven with the >human staggering cultural development. > >snip > > > >http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf > >[Well worth reading--several times!] > >Maslow is just wrong in his analysis of human needs saying that ones >higher up the list will trump lower ones.. > >1. Physiological >2. Safety >3. Love/Belonging >4. Esteem >5. Actualization > >In order to save family members, particularly children, but other close >relatives according to Hamilton and Haldane's relatedness criteria, people >will ignore safety and even put themselves in places where they will be >killed (overriding 1 and 2 for 3). > >Likewise in attempting to gain status (#4) males particularly will ignore >their safety and even psychological needs. > >Maslow *did* recognize that status seeking was a human need, in that I >have to give him credit. But he had no idea of *why* or how it might >override others of his list. To understand that you must go to >evolutionary psychology and the hunter gatherer environment in which it >evolved and consider how genes for such behavior would have had a >selective advantage. > >You simply are not going to get anywhere trying to understand drug >addiction, Stockholm syndrome, suicide bombers or war with Maslow. And if >you don't understand a problem chances are better than 50-50 that actions >you take on the basis of the wrong model are going to make the problem >worse. I.e., D.A.R.E. > >There is a difference between honoring influential people of the past and >following their models that are now known to be incomplete or just wrong. > >Best wishes, > >Keith Henson > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From amara at amara.com Sat Jul 1 07:23:33 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 09:23:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Extropy of Cooking Message-ID: "J. Andrew Rogers" : >That is a very good looking recipe, and well inline with my tastes. >I have all the vegetables and herbs listed growing out back and am >expecting them to be ready to harvest in abundance within the next >few weeks. I buy my fruit and vegetables from a man named Roberto who sells fruit and vegetables from his truck. Four times a week he drives down the street yelling from his bullhorn about the fruit and vegetables that he has for sale that morning [1]. Then he parks his vegetable truck next door to my apartment for several hours, while the apartment tenants from all of the nearby apartment buildings buy from him their several-days worth of garden delights. My weekly fresh fruit and vegetable bill -- about 15 euros. We've become reasonably good vegetable friends, Roberto and me. Besides us teaching each other Italian and English words for the vegetables that he sells from his truck (some of which I don't recognize), he often tells me how to prepare them and he notices when I'm away on travel ('where did you go this time?'). One morning a few months ago, I asked for one melanzane (eggplant), and he absent-mindedly reached into the melanzane box and pulled one out. http://www.amara.com/eggplant2_med.jpg One can't use the ID 'Argument From Banana' [2] to explain that one! Seeing the surprised look on his face when that particular eggplant appeared in his hand was almost worth the effort of moving to Italy. Amara [1] http://www.amara.com/vegetableman.mp3 (Turn volume on HIGH) Recorded 1 July 2006 from Amara's Terrace, setting her laptop on her apartment terrace and recording as the vegetable man drove his truck past. [2] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5479410612081345878 (jump ahead 3 1/2 minutes into the program) -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "My life has a superb cast but I can't figure out the plot." --Ashleigh Brilliant From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sat Jul 1 09:01:30 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 05:01:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] H+, autism, selection effects, biases In-Reply-To: <20060701055201.16060.qmail@web56513.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060701090130.14078.qmail@web35505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Anne Corwin wrote: >What draws people to become interested in how things work and how they >might be improved Anna replies:) Curiosity and knowledge. >and to even concern themselves with seeking meaning in existence? :) In my opinion, empathy. >As a young child I often found myself asking lots of questions about why things >were, and was always extremely dissatisfied with the answer, "Because that's >the way it is", or, "Because that's the way society works". :) Great anology. >It was uncomfortable, but at the same time, it felt like a "project" -- something >I had to explore and find a solution to. Wiki: A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product or service. :) Isn't that what's life all about? :)My problem with this; Before you said the word atheist=Asperger's syndrome, I was fascinated. After reading or Googling, I would feel like have a disease like syndrome:) From a general public point of view, being unique, original, different or particular, means being diseased and full of syndromes? It's not so much as the description but the definition of negativity it generates. Certain words judge meaning. In my opinion, if you had not mentioned disease, disorder or syndrome, I would have agreed at the definition stated by Wikipedia based on Aspergers. Anna:) That was a really great post, thanks. Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy. Aristotle Anne Corwin wrote: Hi, I just joined this list in response to George Dvorsky's suggestion that I do so. Hopefully it is OK if I simply jump in and comment on this particular issue, since it seems to have been the impetus for my being told about this discussion list. I cannot comment specifically on statistics of transhumanists on the autism spectrum -- but in my observation, those attracted to transhumanist ideas do at least tend to be somewhat prone to having intense (and often science-based) interests that began in childhood. I think that the larger question here is: what draws people to become interested in how things work and how they might be improved, and to even concern themselves with seeking meaning in existence? When I think carefully about it, I didn't become a transhumanist so much as realize I was one. Or at least, I evolved a particular set of philosophies, notions about the future, and ethical guidelines that turned out to be a good fit with transhumanism -- as I understand and interpret it. As a young child I often found myself asking lots of questions about why things were, and was always extremely dissatisfied with the answer, "Because that's the way it is", or, "Because that's the way society works". My father was a sci-fi fan, and had Star Trek on the TV back as far as I can remember. I grew up reading all his old books and eventually seeking more, in the realms of fact and scientific speculation as well as fiction. Childhood obsessions included time travel, "other dimensions", black holes, origins of the Universe, and things along those lines. I don't know what drew me to these things initially -- but it might have something to do with a congenital fascination with parts and mechanisms, and a desire to find out how far things could be reduced. My parents report that I was asking questions about what rocks and hair were made of in my toddler years, which definitely indicates a tendency toward this sort of thinking. So, though I don't believe in anything like "destiny", I definitely think that my development and childhood experiences sort of "optimized" me for transhumanism. Then, I underwent a massive existential crisis / restructuring at around the age of 20. This was correlated to some extent with being able to admit to myself and my family that I was an atheist. I found myself at first in a state wherein I had a glaring and overwhelming sense of my own fragility and mortality. It was uncomfortable, but at the same time, it felt like a "project" -- something I had to explore and find a solution to. In the beginning of this exploration, I studied some humanistic philosophies that sought to make death into something that was simply accepted and even welcomed eventually, as part of playing one's role as a conscious being. I tried to convince myself that since death was inevitable, I should just quit thinking about it and enjoy my life. But it didn't work. I tried going to a therapist. I tried meditation. I tried reading some material on Taoism. I tried just plan stopping my thoughts, or distracting myself. Nothing worked -- I ended up in a state where I only had access to what felt like 10% of my brain capacity for doing what I wanted to do, while the other 90% was constantly churning and calculating and reviewing data on the Death Problem. I began to wonder if I had OCD. But then, something clicked in my brain and I started asking myself questions like: WHY do people think death is inevitable? And because it's been inevitable in the past, does that HAVE to mean that it's always going to be that way? And am I the only one on the planet who thinks that aging and wasting away and finally having one's consciousness annihilated is an undeniable tragedy? And is anyone actually trying to DO anything about this problem? To the Internet I went. This was pre-Google (mid-late 90s), so I looked up "life extension" on AltaVista. To my exhilirated shock, I found that not only did companies already exist that would freeze a person for hopefully being awakened in the future, but that some people were actually of the same opinion as me regarding the supposed limits of human potential: for health, ability, and longevity. I discovered Roy Walford's caloric restriction work, as well as some of the very earliest transhumanist FAQs and such. At first I was convinced there had to be a catch somewhere, that soon I'd find something indicating that these "transhumanists" were indistinguishable from UFO fanatics and cryptozoologists and such, but that didn't happen. I read and read, and eventually had a massive internal paradigm shift wherein it occurred to me that *nothing* about indefinite life extension or cyborg bodies or whatnot actually violates any of the laws of physics. Just because something sounds wonderful, I realized, does not mean that it can never happen. And we would be fools to deny ourselves the opportunity to try to solve hard problems and explore previously unattainable areas of space and philosophy. There is no catch. Technology is real, and humans can accomplish and learn to understand a heck of a lot when we put our minds to it. When I look at myself in the mirror while wearing clothing, and eyeglasses, and carrying an iPod Nano filled with songs and talk radio files, and a cell phone clipped to my pocket, it is difficult to tell where I end and the technology begins. And I love this feeling -- this sense of a nearly seamless integration with innovation, with adaptations not borne of biological chance but deliberate volition. For the record: I am diagnosed with Asperger's (was first diagnosed with PDD-NOS -- Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified, but eventually this as "otherwise specified" to Asperger's, since I did develop speech at an early age, though it was mostly echolalic / scripted / repetitive questioning until I was in my teens). The only aspect of this neurology that has ever felt remotely "limiting" is that much of standard American culture is not "set up" for people like me. People who find it easy to adopt the basic assumptions of those around them tend to take their dependencies on default social structures and stimulus thresholds for granted, so they look at people like me and see us as somehow less functional, or more in need of "special" help and instruction. However, I've been able to become highly functional, by my estimation, through rigorous brainhacking. For instance, one of the issues that always distressed me (and my parents) when I was growing up was the fact that I tended to have fits and meltdowns when things happened that I didn't anticipate. Thinking about radical life extension actually compelled me to start anticipating not only possible events, but possible future subjective states -- that is, I have tried to imagine myself being very old and to pre-emptively relate my present self with my future self. This actually led to an improved ability to anticipate future emotional states, and to come up with alternative plans in the case of primary plans not working out. In many ways, transhumanism has been very good therapy! And it's enabled me to keep the aspects of my cognition and perception that I like, while at the same time allowing me to address the challenges associated with my neurology. I imagine part of the reason I was drawn to transhumanism was related to the fact that I've never tended to share basic assumptions with those around me. I had to sort of build my own "operating system" for living from the ground up. And this "operating system" ended up looking a whole lot like transhumanism! I apologize for the very long post but I figured this might comprise something of an introduction. - Anne --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta._______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- All new Yahoo! Mail --------------------------------- Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Jul 1 13:51:10 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 09:51:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Extropy of Cooking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46427.72.236.103.95.1151761870.squirrel@main.nc.us> > One morning a few months ago, I asked for one melanzane (eggplant), and > he absent-mindedly reached into the melanzane box and pulled one out. > > http://www.amara.com/eggplant2_med.jpg > :))) That's better than Mr. PotatoHead! :))) Regards, MB From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Jul 1 14:44:08 2006 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 09:44:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] LINK: Giant Fractal Pecan Pie, was Re: Extropy of Cooking Message-ID: <5366105b0607010744l12f92d19qcb1d560da77cb475@mail.gmail.com> Saturday, 01 July 2006 The aesthetics of cooking leave me bored, but this caught my eye! http://www.instructables.com/id/E5JZ3ILC4AEP2877E4/ "introgiant fractal pecan pie for thanksgiving 2k4 we opted to construct a very large pie. based on a prototype the previous year we were aware of a fundamental limitation of large pies, namely the crust to filling ratio. for traditional circular pies of radius R, the amount of filling scales as R2 while the crust only scales linearly so as the pie grows larger, the flaky crust is completely dominated by the creamy filling. our solution was to construct a pie pan in the shape of a koch snowflake (whose perimter obeys completely different scaling laws), fill it with delicious pecan pie and bake in a custom backyard oven." Instructables goes on to give illustrated directions for the pie. I know little about commericial baking, but do you suppose a market exists for optimal pans? Such items would balance baking, storage, shipping, sales, and manufacturing costs at the producer, retailer, and customer stages. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat Jul 1 18:21:51 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 11:21:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0606292258p45b18fd0le9ac46f2ba813f92@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell writes > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 10:59 PM > On 6/30/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > That's right. Consider boredom, for example. First, recall that it > > is not a "passive" phenomenon, but rather was specifically built-in > > to generate a certain kind of uneasiness in an organism. I think > > that the point of such has been a warning that its ancestors > > through trial and error found that lack of certain kinds of > > stimulation did not lead to sufficient procreation of viable > > offspring. > > Or as I like to put it: fatigue warns you to conserve energy, > boredom warns you to conserve time. Nice way to put it. > > Well... yes, if there were a /greatest possible happiness/. But > > there isn't. It must be an ongoing research project of how I > > may pass through humanly possible states of greater and greater > > joy, ecstasy, contentment, satisfaction, and pleasure (and every > > other pleasant state, such as Eugen's "") > So you'd program yourself to be maximally happy no matter what you > were doing, Yes, understanding that there is no *maximal* such state, (it being only just maximal for the moment in question till the tech is better) > and then also program yourself to spend all your time studying science > in order to make sure you would in fact do that even though you were no > happier with it than with staring at a wall? (Not a rhetorical question, > want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.) Correct. Why should my happiness be at all *diminished* by what I have happened to choose to do? > If so, well okay, though I'm not sure I see the point in thus reinventing > the wheel - why not leave things the way they are, and be happy studying > science using the existing emotional mechanisms, which seem quite adequate > for the purpose? THEY ARE NOT ADEQUATE FOR THE PURPOSE! OR FOR ANY PURPOSE! The most pleasant state imaginable to us now is sheer torture compared to what will be possible! > Granted there are times when I'd like to be able to flip a switch > and turn off the emotional content of exhaustion and despair, Well how can that be all? Surely there are many times when you ---as an intelligent conscious rational human---want to do A but B would confer more pleasure. (My god, what a rhetorical question!) > but the scenario you postulate would seem to be one where the > causes of such negative feelings are generally avoidable? Not without mood control they aren't. Often there is either very tedious work that must be done before I get to the good stuff, or as I say, often my lower, base instincts prevail over what *I* really want to do. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat Jul 1 18:39:14 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 11:39:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen wrote > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 3:57 AM > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 10:59:08PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > More seriously, I totally agree that we shouldn't over assume > > that our own values will predominate; indeed, Darwin has to > > remain the best guide. As an example, recall the SF stories > > and movies in which it was just *assumed* that more advanced > > creatures would be benevolent, would have "risen above" our > > It is almost always assumed that cruising aliens are super-advanced, > and super-intelligent. But just assuming a) relativistic flight > b) iterated selection over large distances it's pretty obvious > intelligence is not a trait selected for. But what if---as seems probable to me---humans come to dominate every last cubic centimeter of the solar system? Now many will disagree (they being too sentimental in my opinion), but why preserver trillions of ants, for God's sake, when surely the emulation of a few hundred should satisfy anyone's conscience? > The only traits selected for are short reproduction time and > expansiveness. That is simply untrue. In R/K theory (biology), circumstances and environments arise in which K predominates. > So while intelligence is necessary to produce expansive aliens, the > intelligence trait will be selected away over very large distances. Our Von Neumann probes should overtake any escaping silly software. (And for the moralists, let me add: if one country's don't then another country's---or another planet's---will.) > > And the answer need not be too bleak: after all, Earth's > > currently most advanced life form is rather altruistic. > > Er, not so altruistic towards the rest of them > http://www.well.com/~davidu/sixthextinction.html As I say, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, once you've seen 10^5 ants, you've seen 'em all. *Altruism* should be weighted by the complexity of who is on the receiving end. Is it altruistic for me to go through some trouble to kill a few houseflies so that my guest may be more comfortable? Of course it is! > From the point of a deity, we're plankton. From the point of > view of lesser lifeforms that are parasites, we're food. > Interesting nonlinearities appear soon in sexual selection > and host-parasite co-evolution. It is quite true that we may be insufficiently complex to be on the receiving end of anyone's altruism in the end. > I think intelligence is very interesting, but I'm not fooling > myself for a moment that bulk of postbiomass will be > intelligent. You can pack a lot of ops in a cubic micron, but > you can't put a lot of bits into it. I don't know what you mean. Is this your own idea? I ask, because I never heard of computronium being infested in the way that you suggest. Just what keeps the intelligent parts from cannibalizing the less intelligent parts. Looked at the growth curve of human protoplasm lately? Then think of what an AI might do to the solar system. > > In particular, for some radius r > 1 meter, *all* activity > > within a sphere of radius r will conform to the values of > > a ruling intelligence. > > You're a ruling intelligence. Do you control everything even > within your own body? Oh come on now. Only my lack of adequate technology prevents me from achieving TOTAL CONTROL over my property. And I will freely extend such control to the limits of the visible universe, staying within the limits of law, of course. > Do you control everything on your city block? Would you really > want to? Why not? If I own it, then I'm filling it up with people, or with computers. > Why are you letting coyotes roam the New York Central Park? Because I don't own the place. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat Jul 1 18:55:07 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 11:55:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Altruism (was What Human Minds Will Eventually Do) In-Reply-To: <22360fa10606300920g589b96fat31ff92293d0cb2b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jef Allbright writes > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 9:20 AM > On 6/29/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > But it's so *hard* to extrapolate from non-human viewpoints :-) > > At least for me (I'm less sure about you!) > > That's an interesting statement. On the surface it may seem obvious > and common-sensical but it seems to carry a hidden assumption. > Consider this alternate and ask whether anything substantial is > missing: "But it's so hard to extrapolate non-human behavior." All right. I'm sorry. I meant super-human, >H, okay? I thought it was clear from context. > for the sake of > clarity in this sort of discussion we might do well to abandon the > term "altruistic" as it is deeply tied to the irrational behavior of > an agent putting the good of others over its own (within a given > context.) Omigod. Jef, *you* can't be serious. Do you believe (after persuading me to read "The Moral Animal") that altruism is "irrational"??? (Okay, please for give me for mounting the soapbox here---and overreacting to one word---but I do want to lay down certain claims here, for the sake of clarity.) Rationality has nothing to do with it. It all depends on one's values. It is *not* one of my values to have the maximum number of children I can, nor is it one of my values to attain as much publicity as I can. I know that you don't consider *this* to be irrational..., so why is it necessarily irrational for me to sacrifice myself for my friends, or for the Socialist Workers movement, or whatever? Surely you just used the wrong word. > Altruism certainly does exist, in the form of evolved programming that > causes individuals to act to their local detriment for the good of > their larger group (or some proxy), but in our discussions on the > Extropy list we are more often interested in "enlightened self-interest", > dynamics of cooperation/synergy over increasing scope, or superrationality. Yes, we are indeed more often interested in the effects on "number one", but not always. When you speak of "local detriment", I do understand what you mean. That is so. But one simply may embrace a value system that puts what is good for oneself subordinate to other things. We sometimes discuss those things too. > > (It bears repeating that humans engage in violence far, far > > less per observed hour than does any other primate.) > > And it may bear repeating that this trend is not based on increasing > niceness or goodness, but rather on increasing awareness of > positive-sum behaviors that work over increasing scope. We're moving > away from focusing on ends (that person/tribe is our enemy) and toward > effective principles of growth (that person/tribe may eventually > become a McDonalds franchise.) Quite right. As Keith said in another thread, ev psych is the best theory going. You are right to emphasize that most of our behavior that appears altruistic really isn't: there is usually an element of enlightened self-interest. But that is *not* always the case, as you know. Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Jul 1 19:13:57 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 20:13:57 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0606292258p45b18fd0le9ac46f2ba813f92@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607011213x51fe15bdw2fed03d8eb198d6b@mail.gmail.com> On 7/1/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > THEY ARE NOT ADEQUATE FOR THE PURPOSE! OR FOR ANY PURPOSE! > > The most pleasant state imaginable to us now is sheer torture > compared to what will be possible! Heh, well that's clear enough then! I hope you get the chance to put some of this into practice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sat Jul 1 20:39:00 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 22:39:00 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: References: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 11:39:14AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > > It is almost always assumed that cruising aliens are super-advanced, > > and super-intelligent. But just assuming a) relativistic flight > > b) iterated selection over large distances it's pretty obvious > > intelligence is not a trait selected for. > > But what if---as seems probable to me---humans come to dominate > every last cubic centimeter of the solar system? Now many will It seems overwhelmingly improbable to me. Humans don't like microgravity. Humans don't like radiation. Humans don't like acceleration much beyond 1 g (and try accelerating a kT of stuff at 1 g, versus a kg at 30 g for a month). Humans require lots of habitat and life support. Humans take 100 W to run, and need some ~100 kg of matter for what a few grams and <<10 W would do. Let's face it, canned monkeys don't travel at all well in space. *Really* short shelf half life, they have. Even here selection effects already start. You don't see humans leaving the solar system. Machines did and do. Dumb machines travel lighter than super-smart machines. So when machines accelerate at 30 g to cruise speeds of almost c, where does that leave humans after a mere MLYr, or so? Data patterns take 30 ms to replicate, humans 30 years. > disagree (they being too sentimental in my opinion), but why > preserver trillions of ants, for God's sake, when surely the > emulation of a few hundred should satisfy anyone's conscience? Huh? Which ants? > > The only traits selected for are short reproduction time and > > expansiveness. > > That is simply untrue. In R/K theory (biology), circumstances > and environments arise in which K predominates. Biology doesn't deal with selection over very long distances. Your closest analogy is organism sequence in volcanic island colonization. Better, think of a 1 LYr worth of sterile rich medium, inoculated at one central point with vanilla E. coli. Which kind of critter will arrive after a (long) while on the other end? Sure as hell it won't be an E.coli, nor anything even vaguely resembling E. coli. > > So while intelligence is necessary to produce expansive aliens, the > > intelligence trait will be selected away over very large distances. > > Our Von Neumann probes should overtake any escaping silly software. Um, I am talking about selection effects in von Neumann probes over very large distances. Except, there's no point calling them von Neumann probes, or space chickens. They're postbiological life, hopping from star to star, and from one galaxy to another, from one cluster to another, from one supercluster to another. They're our gift to the universe which keeps on giving. > (And for the moralists, let me add: if one country's don't then > another country's---or another planet's---will.) How do you recall a chain letter? How does a 0.1 c probe catch a 0.9 c probe? How does a 0.9 c probe catch a 0.99 c probe? How does a 20-year replication probe catch a 2-month replication probe? How does a 5 LYr-hopping probe catch a 1 MLYr hopping probe? Notice that none of it is about smarts. If this spacetime doesn't allow you to punch traversible portals intelligence is just baggage on the long run. Just like in chromatography, the initial wavefront has zero diversity. It's pure solvent, all the cargo is trailing behind. The more complex, the slower. There are successor waves trailing the pioneer wavefront. Eventually, after many waves passing, you've got steady state. Except, it's roiling, at a very high level of fitness. There you've got viruses, and mice, and men, and deities. Maximum diversity. Not pioneers. Pioneers are specialists, and only exist in wavefronts across pristine acres of congealed star drek. If both such waves collide pioneers get wiped out, because their niche is gone. There's much less determinism in the following waves, and the omega state does not conserve the information about the origin, so it's degenerate. Regardless of the point of the origin the omega state behind the trailing waves looks all the same. > > Er, not so altruistic towards the rest of them > > http://www.well.com/~davidu/sixthextinction.html > > As I say, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, once you've seen 10^5 > ants, you've seen 'em all. *Altruism* should be weighted by > the complexity of who is on the receiving end. Is it altruistic I am God, destroyer of stellar systems. Once you've seen 10^5 human primates, you've seen 'em all. Altruism is only relevant if you rub shoulders with other powers. If you can prove me wrong, I'll open a case of champagne, and get wasted in celebrating. > for me to go through some trouble to kill a few houseflies so > that my guest may be more comfortable? Of course it is! Exactly. Why should we concern outselves with nasty biofilm contaminating the surface of our food? Yecch. Brzzt! See, the planet is all clean and ready to eat now. No more biofilm, all blasted into thin plasma. > > I think intelligence is very interesting, but I'm not fooling > > myself for a moment that bulk of postbiomass will be > > intelligent. You can pack a lot of ops in a cubic micron, but > > you can't put a lot of bits into it. > > I don't know what you mean. Is this your own idea? I ask, Most of these are my ideas. None of them are new, though I keep rerunning them every few months, just to see whether they stick. Most of them don't. But I understand others have put forward very similiar if not identical such here before, it must have been 1980s, or early 1990s. Some of it should be even in the online archives. > because I never heard of computronium being infested in the > way that you suggest. Computronium is just postbiology's brains, and habitats. After a diversity bottleneck, you *always* radiate and speciate. If you do that, you always got hosts and parasites. Whether these are regular honest-to-god graphene mites burrowing through god brains, or sneaky information patterns preying on resources occupied by their hosts, it doesn't matter. > Just what keeps the intelligent parts from cannibalizing the > less intelligent parts. Looked at the growth curve of human Just what keeps a species from radiating? You *can* strip biology by hopping onto new substrate (this is what causes the initial diversity bottleneck), but what keeps you coherent ever after? Nothing, so far as I can see. > protoplasm lately? Then think of what an AI might do to the > solar system. There is never the one AI. There's is always a 1) population of 2) imperfectly self-replicating systems 3) in a limited-resource context. There is never an isolated stellar system. There are huge islands of them. There are never isolated galaxies. They come in clusters. And these come in superclusters. And when you're there, probably everything blows up. Or the opposite. Or, there's leverage for life after all to make this never end, to lacking that, to be reborn and amplified somewhere and/or somewhen else. > > You're a ruling intelligence. Do you control everything even > > within your own body? > > Oh come on now. Only my lack of adequate technology prevents me If your technology is autonomous, who controls your technology? Do you know what your Roomba is doing now? Are you sure your computer is clean of malware? What about symbiotic programs, which come and go? What about the terrestrial and space networks of 2036? > from achieving TOTAL CONTROL over my property. And I will freely > extend such control to the limits of the visible universe, staying > within the limits of law, of course. What about 10^9 of other Lees which are doing just the same? What about those who're warped, malicious, or insane? Or, in neutral terms, are just sampling the behaviour space randomly? If I personally want to start devolving into a billion of different species, most of them about the complexity of bacteria and insects as a piece of performance art, will you stop me? More imprtantly, will you know, and will you be able to? > > Do you control everything on your city block? Would you really > > want to? > > Why not? If I own it, then I'm filling it up with people, or with > computers. Would you want to micromanage those people or those computers? If you *are* that city block, do you know what all your components are doing, right at this moment? > > Why are you letting coyotes roam the New York Central Park? > > Because I don't own the place. Okay, now you do. How do you keep them out now? How about the cockroaches? The stuff living in the sewers? How do you sterilize an entire city, and keep it sterile hereafter? And how do you manage the rather radical means of sterilization keep from getting frisky, growing feet and walking off somewhere else? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 1 23:41:15 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:41:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Walker's rant on string theory Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060701183903.02325500@satx.rr.com> http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2006-06/000708.html (ostensibly a review of Peter Woit's NOT EVEN WRONG) (and check out Woit's fascinating blog-- http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ ) From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Jul 1 23:58:12 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 00:58:12 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> References: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> On 7/1/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Notice that none of it is about smarts. If this > spacetime doesn't allow you to punch traversible > portals intelligence is just baggage on the long > run. Just like in chromatography, the initial wavefront > has zero diversity. It's pure solvent, all the cargo > is trailing behind. The more complex, the slower. > There are successor waves trailing the pioneer wavefront. > Eventually, after many waves passing, you've got steady state. > Except, it's roiling, at a very high level of fitness. There > you've got viruses, and mice, and men, and deities. Maximum > diversity. Not pioneers. Pioneers are specialists, and only > exist in wavefronts across pristine acres of congealed > star drek. If both such waves collide pioneers get > wiped out, because their niche is gone. There's much > less determinism in the following waves, and the omega > state does not conserve the information about the origin, > so it's degenerate. Regardless of the point of the > origin the omega state behind the trailing waves > looks all the same. Unless: Digital error checking extends the mean time between unwanted mutations to longer than the lifespan of the universe. Digital substrate maintenance (nanotechnology) and scanning (smart antivirus programs) eliminate local parasites. The observed tendency for cooperation on larger scales to beat disorganized swarms (cells to multicellular bodies to tribes to nations to multinational alliances) continues; oligopolies don't sample much of the search space, and are subject to very different dynamics than the biological ones you're drawing on. The end state retains a strong dependency on the origin state. A gram of smarts (enough for an entire upload civilization) in a hundred ton probe (you need the mass anyway for shielding and braking) is negligible baggage and more than pays for itself in ability to outthink and outfight a dumb probe that got there slightly before you did. The exponent in the rocket equation (and similar terms in non-rocket means of transport) means ultra high speed probes take a lot of resources to launch. Long-range colonization is done by big power blocs, not lichen-equivalents. Max feasible probe velocity is 0.2c, speed of Nicoll-Dyson laser fire is c. Probes that try to colonize without permission are vapor before they can finish braking. All colonization is done by negotiated partitioning of available space between power blocs. Ultimate-technology warfare is scorched-earth, defender's resources are consumed/destroyed (returned to the interstellar medium) along with some of the attacker's, so evolution selects against the tendency to start fights and real estate once secured doesn't change hands. I don't claim to know that any or all of the above _will_ be the case, only that it's at least as plausible a scenario as the one you outline. I am God, destroyer of stellar systems. Once you've seen 10^5 > human primates, you've seen 'em all. Altruism is only relevant > if you rub shoulders with other powers. Or if the 10^15 human primates in the stellar system you were about to destroy have built themselves a Nicoll-Dyson laser, and so have their allies in a hundred nearby star systems. Now it might still be perfectly safe to _think_ unaltruistic thoughts, but if you're not looking for a Darwin award you'd better _act_ like a nice well-behaved member of the pantheon. If you can prove me > wrong, I'll open a case of champagne, and get wasted in > celebrating. Only way to prove the future is wait and see what happens (a universe simple enough to be analytically predictable would be far too simple to evolve intelligence) but I think the above adequately demonstrates that there's no basis for believing your predictions will come true. Make it one bottle of champagne maybe? :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sun Jul 2 07:31:13 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:31:13 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] H+, autism, selection effects, biases Message-ID: From: "P.J. Manney & E. Gruendemann" : >I met Sky Marsen on the Caltech campus earlier this year, while she was >a visiting professor there. I had never visited Caltech before and I >had two interesting moments that support Spike's experience: [...] > but he was so >introverted, his entire physical and psychological demeanor had >collapsed in on himself like a black hole. He refused to establish >eye contact, but muttered just loud enough for me to hear, "Never turn >around... Never." He kept on walking past me, eyes glued to the >ground. Occasionally I've worked with people like this, my recent example was one man in my previous working group in Heidelberg who went to extremes to avoid all social contact with others in our working group as well as with our colleagues and people generally around. We have a collection of stories about this man, not out of ridicule, but because we were continually amazed at the efforts he went to in order to block himself from the society. This particular man and I shared an office in my first 6 months in Heidelberg with our desks 1/2 meter apart from each other. He used to pull out the drawers of his desk and leave them open in order to create the boundary for his private space. I didn't know the situation of his social fears until I bumped my chair a couple of times into his desk drawers and then noticed them always open. >2) Sky and I walked around the campus and we found a photocopied >announcement for a special seminar the next day on how to meet people, >talk to people and create and maintain relationships. [...] During the years I worked at JPL (1982-1984), the Caltech exit off of the 210 freeway had a bumper sticker: "Girls wanted. No experience necessary." It looks like Caltech's students have been grappling with this issue for a while. [1] Amara [1] from : http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/336/articles/Volume%205/04-21-05/guide.html "Students also sized up the social scene, with Caltech men described variously as "antisocial trolls" by one student, "annoyingly nerdy" by another. On Caltech women, one student provided this insight: "In too many relationships, women realize they have control of the situation and take advantage of it, developing a boy toy." Another student summed it up with, "The attractiveness of both sexes is below the norm."" 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/ ******************************************************************** "Looking up gives light, although at first it makes you dizzy." --Mevlana Rumi From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jul 2 08:14:15 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 16:14:15 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 7/2/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > A gram of smarts (enough for an entire upload civilization) in a hundred > ton probe (you need the mass anyway for shielding and braking) is > negligible baggage and more than pays for itself in ability to outthink and > outfight a dumb probe that got there slightly before you did. > > The exponent in the rocket equation (and similar terms in non-rocket means > of transport) means ultra high speed probes take a lot of resources to > launch. Long-range colonization is done by big power blocs, not > lichen-equivalents. > Wait, slow down a minute. If a gram of smarts is enough for an entire upload civilization, then we won't be moving much outside our solar system. Everyone can have their own virtual civilization to live and play in and do whatever turns them on. Maybe spread out a bit to find a quiet place for your gram, in case the sun goes red giant. Remember that once we get our own gram of civilization each, our motivations and knowledge are likely to greatly change. I doubt that doing a Star Trek, conquer the universe will seem very attractive. If you want to 'chat' to the other one gram civilizations (AIs) then you certainly won't be dashing off at some fraction of light speed. The loss of the network may well be much more painful than gaining a new solar system to sit your gram in. BillK From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jul 2 09:34:11 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 05:34:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: References: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 7/2/06, BillK wrote: > > > Remember that once we get our own gram of civilization each, our > motivations and knowledge are likely to greatly change. I doubt that > doing a Star Trek, conquer the universe will seem very attractive. If > you want to 'chat' to the other one gram civilizations (AIs) then you > certainly won't be dashing off at some fraction of light speed. The > loss of the network may well be much more painful than gaining a new > solar system to sit your gram in. Finally, somebody understands why Matrioshka Brains don't tend to colonize! The probability that any civilization that could colonize would reach this conclusion would tend to argue against the sending of seeds or very very small fractions of the MBrain to develop undeveloped solar systems. MBrains only replicate by fission as bacteria do where the complete set of resources is relatively equally divided between the two offspring. One can only do this with the information capacity of an MBrain when a developed star system comes into extremely close proximity to an undeveloped star system. The spread rate for advanced civilizations is not limited by some significant fraction of the speed of light or the energy costs that interstellar transport involves but the desire to avoid having to give up everything that huge information storage capacity and simulation capacity make available to them. Indeed one could view the idea of sending a sub-copy to a virginal, but unintelligent (empty) MBrain as being a form of cruel and unusal punishment that an ATC would choose to prohibit. As MBrain subsets (AIs, uploads, whatever) are used to time sharing they have very long time horizons and waiting a billion years until the ideal opportunity for splitting comes along isn't a big sacrifice. One could imagine that those strange entitites that want to engange in the development of a real infoscape (rather than a virtual one) may simply be put into suspend mode until the time comes along to drop off the Mayflower in a passing star system deemed unsuitable for 'normal' system replication activities. Robert Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Jul 2 10:56:12 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 12:56:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060702105612.GL26630@leitl.org> On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 12:58:12AM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > Digital error checking extends the mean time between unwanted mutations to > longer than the lifespan of the universe. How can you tell wanted from unwanted mutations, a priori? Do you realize that the mutation rate is a yet another fitness component in the evolutionary optimization process? Static critters are doomed, soon. Preemptively: I don't think Lamarck can trump Darwin. At best they'd coexist. > Digital substrate maintenance (nanotechnology) and scanning (smart antivirus > programs) eliminate local parasites. What is your diagnostics to tell the parasites from symbionts? What if by getting rid of the parasites you'll be outperformed by those who didn't? Do you know enough to substitute an ecology (a free market) by a central planning authority, which attempts to nanomanage everything? > The observed tendency for cooperation on larger scales to beat disorganized > swarms (cells to multicellular bodies to tribes to nations to multinational > alliances) continues; oligopolies don't sample much of the search space, and Ecosystem isn't a war. Both whales and algae coexist. > are subject to very different dynamics than the biological ones you're drawing > on. The end state retains a strong dependency on the origin state. My conjecture is that absolute fitness factors have a ceiling, which will be reached relatively soon by a solid-state culture. The spatial and temporal fluctuations hereafter will be solely due to own dynamics. > A gram of smarts (enough for an entire upload civilization) in a hundred ton > probe (you need the mass anyway for shielding and braking) is negligible > baggage and more than pays for itself in ability to outthink and outfight a > dumb probe that got there slightly before you did. You're describing the successor waves. The pioneers which came before you have moved on already. You're not coming in an enemy system. The first ecosystem wave predigested primitive local materials, and are food for your second and third waves. This isn't NASA or Dyson. > The exponent in the rocket equation (and similar terms in non-rocket means of > transport) means ultra high speed probes take a lot of resources to launch. > Long-range colonization is done by big power blocs, not lichen-equivalents. > > Max feasible probe velocity is 0.2c, speed of Nicoll-Dyson laser fire is c. Where did you pull that number from? The only bottleneck I see is limit to rebuild rate under high interstellar hydrogen luminosity, which is really close to c. > Probes that try to colonize without permission are vapor before they can finish > braking. All colonization is done by negotiated partitioning of available space I don't see how this physics would work out. From my current data you can push a small probe at about 3 g for many months, and then it's effectively out of reach. There are many other reasons why trying to recall the chain letter by shooting the postman is futile. > between power blocs. Do you see that already the first step from earth surface to solar system periphery is the first selection step? > Ultimate-technology warfare is scorched-earth, defender's resources are > consumed/destroyed (returned to the interstellar medium) along with some of the > attacker's, so evolution selects against the tendency to start fights and real > estate once secured doesn't change hands. Um, there's plenty of aggression in an ecosystem. There is no earth to scorch. Real estate (resources) change hands with the death of the individual. > I don't claim to know that any or all of the above _will_ be the case, only > that it's at least as plausible a scenario as the one you outline. I could actually run a number of simulations to prove my point, but unfortunately this is about at the bottom of the priority pile for me right now. > Or if the 10^15 human primates in the stellar system you were about to destroy > have built themselves a Nicoll-Dyson laser, and so have their allies in a The destruction thing was figurative. Don't get hung up on this. The point is that the Amish won't build a circumstellar structure, and if they tried by building it they'd cease to be Amish. They'd become a Power themselves. > hundred nearby star systems. Now it might still be perfectly safe to _think_ > unaltruistic thoughts, but if you're not looking for a Darwin award you'd > better _act_ like a nice well-behaved member of the pantheon. I don't know what Powers will do. I think I know what pioneers will do, and the rough shape of the fitness landscape dynamics in steady state. > If you can prove me > wrong, I'll open a case of champagne, and get wasted in > celebrating. > > Only way to prove the future is wait and see what happens (a universe simple > enough to be analytically predictable would be far too simple to evolve > intelligence) but I think the above adequately demonstrates that there's no > basis for believing your predictions will come true. Make it one bottle of > champagne maybe? :) I'd wish I was convinced. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Jul 2 11:49:19 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 12:49:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: References: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607020449k2508e0acv426c13d5c2d707b3@mail.gmail.com> On 7/2/06, BillK wrote: > > Wait, slow down a minute. > If a gram of smarts is enough for an entire upload civilization, then > we won't be moving much outside our solar system. (I should clarify, because numbers sometimes take on a life of their own, that the 1 gram for a civilization figure is for mass-optimized static storage in transit, not actually operating computronium, though this is an aside, not part of the current argument.) My answer is: I will. No matter how much you argue that we should value sitting at home shuffling bits over going out to convert the wasted mass/energy of the universe into people living worthwhile lives, the empirical fact is that I do place far higher value on the latter, and so do a lot of other people. If the means become available, we will go out to colonize other star systems. Of course there's no guarantee that the means will become available, but as long as there are people who want to do so, the lack of desire argument is null and void. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Jul 2 11:53:23 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 13:53:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: References: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060702115323.GN26630@leitl.org> On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 05:34:11AM -0400, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Remember that once we get our own gram of civilization each, our A gram is not all that much. Even encoded optimally, it's only part of a seed, not a civilization. Single individuals can easily range from cubic um to km^3 and beyond. A km^3 worth of computronium contains a lot of bits which are uncompressible. But of course blue whales grow just fine from fertilized ova, too, and redwoods from small seeds. > motivations and knowledge are likely to greatly change. I doubt that > doing a Star Trek, conquer the universe will seem very attractive. If The motivation of life never changes: spread out. People have no consensus, and self-replicating postbiology in deep space as native habitat are not people as we know them, and many dumb critters in the literal sense. > you want to 'chat' to the other one gram civilizations (AIs) then you Information and matter streams are not just common code, they're individuals. At the boundary there are no neighbours on one side by definition. Individuals wander off and colonize sterile patches. There are already a number of people on this list and elsewhere which would run far and wide, if given the slightest opportunity. Assuming, you know who these people are, would you want to keep them here against their will? Would you be able to? I notice we didn't choose to remain in Africa, as a species. Population and culture pressure drove Old World colonists across the Atlantic, and the Pacific. > certainly won't be dashing off at some fraction of light speed. The Never understimate the bandwidth and overestimate the latency of a wagonload of tape cartridges at 0.98 c. Relativistic pellet streams could easily be an optimal way to travel and communicate. How many parallel photon beams you could establish to the neighbour system depends on how collimated they are, and how large the spread of targets. NASA might want to get rid of huge antenna apertures by going LoS laser, but if you look inwards from Pluto Earth is just a pinprick. > loss of the network may well be much more painful than gaining a new > solar system to sit your gram in. > > Finally, somebody understands why Matrioshka Brains don't tend to colonize! All solid state cultures are alike on the really long run. > The probability that any civilization that could colonize would reach this > conclusion would tend to argue against the sending of seeds or very very small 'Conclusion' assumes intelligent thought. Postbiology doesn't need to be intelligent to exist. Phytoplankton never gets bored. > fractions of the MBrain to develop undeveloped solar systems. MBrains only > replicate by fission as bacteria do where the complete set of resources is > relatively equally divided between the two offspring. One can only do this You're postulating stellar-system sized, homogenous individuals. This strikes me as astronomically unlikely. Again: nonexpansive cultures are not observable. Probability of all individual of a culture population to be nonexpansive is arbitrarily close to zero. > with the information capacity of an MBrain when a developed star system comes > into extremely close proximity to an undeveloped star system. The spread rate Solar systems periphery goes on for lightdays, if not lightmonths. > for advanced civilizations is not limited by some significant fraction of the > speed of light or the energy costs that interstellar transport involves but the > desire to avoid having to give up everything that huge information storage > capacity and simulation capacity make available to them. Indeed one could view I don't understand you. Individuals follow their own motivations. No one knows nor cares what a particular critter riding an iceblock a couple lightmonths outwards does. > the idea of sending a sub-copy to a virginal, but unintelligent (empty) MBrain > as being a form of cruel and unusal punishment that an ATC would choose to > prohibit. As MBrain subsets (AIs, uploads, whatever) are used to time sharing If 80% of your information ecology by volume is nonsentient and out of control enforcement is futile. > they have very long time horizons and waiting a billion years until the ideal > opportunity for splitting comes along isn't a big sacrifice. One could Time-sharing doesn't make sense. Co-evolution optimizes for Ops/s, so if you'll get swapped out to lattice-defect encoded dumb storage you'll never get swapped in. Particularly, if somebody eats that dumb block of storage. Such static structures are only useful for seeds, and even then they need to be reprocessed constantly due to radiation background shooting holes into your crystal. > imagine that those strange entitites that want to engange in the development of > a real infoscape (rather than a virtual one) may simply be put into suspend If you've fallen into your own navel, and can't get out, then you're dead to the universe. You will never meet anybody on your own but expansive culture's pioneers. Given that we're an evolutionary system, and so far nobody has shown a plausible mechanism by which we will leave the evolutionary regime the burden of proof is on the side of those who postulate that a culture can become nonexpansive. > mode until the time comes along to drop off the Mayflower in a passing star > system deemed unsuitable for 'normal' system replication activities. Atoms are atoms everywhere. Either food or fuel, or both. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Jul 2 11:58:57 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 13:58:57 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607020449k2508e0acv426c13d5c2d707b3@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0607020449k2508e0acv426c13d5c2d707b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060702115857.GP26630@leitl.org> On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 12:49:19PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > (I should clarify, because numbers sometimes take on a life of their own, that > the 1 gram for a civilization figure is for mass-optimized static storage in > transit, not actually operating computronium, though this is an aside, not part > of the current argument.) The exact figure doesn't matter. Whether it's kg or Tg, it's all the same, given the resources of an entire stellar system. > My answer is: I will. No matter how much you argue that we should value sitting > at home shuffling bits over going out to convert the wasted mass/energy of the > universe into people living worthwhile lives, the empirical fact is that I do > place far higher value on the latter, and so do a lot of other people. If the You're not alone. > means become available, we will go out to colonize other star systems. Of > course there's no guarantee that the means will become available, but as long Once self-replicating systems are outside of this gravity well, the chain letter is on its way. > as there are people who want to do so, the lack of desire argument is null and > void. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Jul 2 12:09:17 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 13:09:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: <20060702105612.GL26630@leitl.org> References: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> <20060702105612.GL26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607020509h6dd7b220g636771dd2433c7c5@mail.gmail.com> On 7/2/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > How can you tell wanted from unwanted mutations, a priori? If you wanted it then it's wanted, otherwise it isn't :) Do you realize that the mutation rate is a yet another fitness > component in the evolutionary optimization process? Static > critters are doomed, soon. Preemptively: I don't think Lamarck > can trump Darwin. At best they'd coexist. Empirically, Lamarck has made quite nice use of Darwin over historical timescales - yes, memetic evolution is still differential survival of replicators, but the dynamics look quite different from those typical of biological evolution. What is your diagnostics to tell the parasites from symbionts? I'll design diagnostics when I've systems to design them for (unless, as is likely, someone else has already done the job for me). What > if by getting rid of the parasites you'll be outperformed by those > who didn't? What if you won't? My conjecture is that absolute fitness factors have a ceiling, which > will be reached relatively soon by a solid-state culture. And my conjecture is that there is no absolute fitness, it remains relative to what everyone else is doing (as has always been the case in genetic and memetic evolution on Earth), so there is no ceiling to reach. > A gram of smarts (enough for an entire upload civilization) in a hundred > ton > > probe (you need the mass anyway for shielding and braking) is negligible > > baggage and more than pays for itself in ability to outthink and > outfight a > > dumb probe that got there slightly before you did. > > You're describing the successor waves. The pioneers which came before you > have moved on already. No, I'm describing a smart probe arriving a few hours after a dumb probe. The dumb probe hasn't done much of anything at that stage. > Max feasible probe velocity is 0.2c, speed of Nicoll-Dyson laser fire is > c. > > Where did you pull that number from? Extensive discussions on places like rec.arts.sf.science based on analysis of the performance characteristics of every means of transport that anyone has come up with. The only bottleneck I see is limit to > rebuild rate under high interstellar hydrogen luminosity, which is really > close to c. What you're describing is the equivalent of using machine gun bullets as food while in the process of being shot with them, and hoping you can heal as fast as you get shot. This strikes me as highly implausible even for full nanotech. Leaving that aside, what means of propulsion are you proposing to use? (Remember you also have to decelerate at the far end.) I don't see how this physics would work out. From my current data you can > push a small probe at about 3 g for many months How? and then it's effectively > out of reach. No matter how fast the probe goes, a laser beam is faster. > between power blocs. > > Do you see that already the first step from earth surface to solar > system periphery is the first selection step? Yes. Do you see that the only entities to have even sent unmanned probes anywhere near the solar system periphery are the governments of superpowers? Um, there's plenty of aggression in an ecosystem. There is no earth to > scorch. > Real estate (resources) change hands with the death of the individual. You're getting confused between the ecosystems you're using for historical analogies and the sf scenarios we're discussing. That resources forcibly change hands today doesn't prove they will always do so; foxes convert rabbits into foxflesh, but rabbits don't have guns and bombs. I could actually run a number of simulations to prove my point, but > unfortunately this is about at the bottom of the priority pile for me > right now. Me too, but it doesn't matter: what you get out of simulations depends on the assumptions you put into them, and my point is that your assumptions are arbitrary (not to mention heavily biased by the sort of things us techies want to believe - I speak from experience, I used to envision the same scenarios you do until I realized they contained information only about my psychology, not about the actual future). The destruction thing was figurative. Don't get hung up on this. The point > is that the Amish won't build a circumstellar structure, and if they tried > by building it they'd cease to be Amish. They'd become a Power themselves. The literal Amish won't get out there in the first place without ceasing to be Amish (at least not under their own power), but biological H. sapiens is no stranger to building big guns. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sun Jul 2 12:38:03 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 14:38:03 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] iSpecies Message-ID: I learned from inkycircus (http://inkycircus.com/) about a very nice implementation of EO Wilson's iSpecies: http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/ispecies/ Their http://ispecies.blogspot.com/ link gives more background, including some wierdities with Google Scholar, of which I was previously unaware. I tried in iSpecies: "Amara Carabidae", which are herbivorous beetles used as weed control agents and sure enough! One of my namesakes (http://www.amara.com/name.html) appeared in all of its cockroach-squeamish glory. -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "If you don't get a good night kiss, you get Kafka dreams." -Hobbes From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Jul 2 13:11:41 2006 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:11:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] H+, autism, selection effects, biases In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <006a01c69dd9$15665590$74550318@ZANDRA2> The article also cited: >>When he saw doctors at the addiction centre at St George's Hospital, Tooting, south London, he was still using cannabis, >>and said he had previously taken solvents, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, LSD, cocaine, and heroin. How could any medical professional with any reasonable certainty make any conclusions as to which of these substance caused the long term problems. Just because he did the Ecstasy the most frequently? When solvents can be known to cause brain damage with a single prolonged use? Sound to me like these doctors were on or fishing for one of George Dubyah's anti drug PR research grants. To me the combination of substances totally discredits any valid research findings. And smacks of the worst kind of science for financial and political gain. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Martin Striz Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 5:06 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] H+, autism, selection effects, biases On 6/30/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > I've found that empathogens (MDMA/MDA) can extract enjoyable > experiences from encounters that otherwise wouldn't be worthwhile. > Unfortunately, this isn't something you can do very often in life, > without fearing consequences. > > Apropos of nothing, do we have any deprenyl (selegiline) users here? > Any cautionary tales of low (5 mg/week or so, for 40 yo) regimes, > long-term? I've tried 5 mg/d for several weeks without much effect, although there may have been confounds. I'm always a little worried about the possibility of a link between dopaminergics and parkinsonism or shizophrenism, although that's probably only true for hardcore pharmacons like amphetamines which enter the axon terminal. Parkinson's results from a reduction in dopaminergic neurons, and amphetamines have measurable toxicity on these fibers, but paradoxically some claim that selegiline is neuroprotective on dopaminergic neurons. MDMA/MDA are ring-substituted amphetamines with a completely different pharmacological profile and more potent neurotoxicity, although it's unclear whether that toxicity translates to longterm cognitive deficits (probably not for anyone who keeps their dosage below 200 mg/month). Significant re-arborization of the axon terminals occurs by the fourth administration of MDx compounds, although lots of people use it hundreds of times without noticeable longterm effects (inversely proportional to age). Then there's this guy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4874938.stm It's unlikely that he actually took 40,000 hits. That would be an average of 12 a day (~1200 mg), every day, for the entire 9 year period. Since he has poor memory by his own admission, his report is questionable. But even if he only took 10,000 that should be a lesson. Don't take 10,000 of anything. Not that we need to be told that. Martin _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Jul 2 14:23:23 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 10:23:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do x In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060702075249.04bc0898@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 04:14 PM 7/2/2006 +0800, you wrote: >On 7/2/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > > A gram of smarts (enough for an entire upload civilization) in a hundred > > ton probe (you need the mass anyway for shielding and braking) is > > negligible baggage and more than pays for itself in ability to outthink and > > outfight a dumb probe that got there slightly before you did. > > > > The exponent in the rocket equation (and similar terms in non-rocket means > > of transport) means ultra high speed probes take a lot of resources to > > launch. Long-range colonization is done by big power blocs, not > > lichen-equivalents. > > > >Wait, slow down a minute. >If a gram of smarts is enough for an entire upload civilization, then >we won't be moving much outside our solar system. > >Everyone can have their own virtual civilization to live and play in >and do whatever turns them on. Maybe spread out a bit to find a quiet >place for your gram, in case the sun goes red giant. > >Remember that once we get our own gram of civilization each, our >motivations and knowledge are likely to greatly change. I doubt that >doing a Star Trek, conquer the universe will seem very attractive. If >you want to 'chat' to the other one gram civilizations (AIs) then you >certainly won't be dashing off at some fraction of light speed. The >loss of the network may well be much more painful than gaining a new >solar system to sit your gram in. Plus the fact that uploading into faster hardware makes the stars effectively further apart. At a million to one speed up (Drexler's expectation) travel time to the nearest star is millions of years. Even planetary dimensions become a serious communication delay. One way this could "go to completion" is for an uploaded civilization to "collapse" to one or a few physically small structures deep in the ocean (to get rid of waste heat). Under such a situation the red giant stage of the sun is a *long* way off. This is one of the possible answers to Fermi's question. Keith Henson Keith Henson From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jul 2 16:00:36 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 17:00:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: <20060702115323.GN26630@leitl.org> References: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> <20060702115323.GN26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 7/2/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > The motivation of life never changes: spread out. People have no consensus, > and self-replicating postbiology in deep space as native habitat are not > people as we know them, and many dumb critters in the literal sense. That's the point! When posthuman intelligence lives in solid state computronium we are not talking about 'people'. Our present wishes and desires will no longer apply. > > Information and matter streams are not just common code, they're > individuals. At the boundary there are no neighbours on one > side by definition. Individuals wander off and colonize sterile > patches. There are already a number of people on this list and > elsewhere which would run far and wide, if given the slightest > opportunity. Assuming, you know who these people are, would you > want to keep them here against their will? Would you be able to? > I notice we didn't choose to remain in Africa, as a species. > Population and culture pressure drove Old World colonists > across the Atlantic, and the Pacific. > I doubt if there will be 'people' or 'individuals' (in our present meaning of such terms) in the computronium state. Pioneers, colonists or explorers tend to be misfits of some kind in their society. As soon as humans can control / design their intelligence such misfits won't exist any more. Probably before uploading to solid state arrives. > > You're postulating stellar-system sized, homogenous individuals. Yes! That's the future. Big, yes. Stellar sized? Probably not. Depends on how good computronium gets. > This strikes > me as astronomically unlikely. Again: nonexpansive cultures are not observable. > Probability of all individual of a culture population to be nonexpansive is > arbitrarily close to zero. > Seems very likely to me. And we don't observe any expanding cultures. No stars going dark, no unusual engineering. Just your average very strange universe. And we don't have individuals any more in this future culture, remember? > > I don't understand you. Individuals follow their own motivations. No one > knows nor cares what a particular critter riding an iceblock a couple lightmonths > outwards does. > > Time-sharing doesn't make sense. Co-evolution optimizes for Ops/s, > so if you'll get swapped out to lattice-defect encoded dumb storage > you'll never get swapped in. Particularly, if somebody eats that dumb > block of storage. Such static structures are only useful for > seeds, and even then they need to be reprocessed constantly due > to radiation background shooting holes into your crystal. Intelligence living in computronium doesn't mean no physical manipulators. There could be little AIs buzzing about all over the place picking up the litter, repairing defensive shields, getting in the harvest, whatever needs doing. As long as a large sphere of computronium has to exist in this physical universe, then it must maintain and defend its environment, even if it is in deep space. > > If you've fallen into your own navel, and can't get out, then you're > dead to the universe. You will never meet anybody on your own but > expansive culture's pioneers. Correct. There aren't any expansive culture pioneers with the intelligence and resources to cross light years in an expanding universe. The growth of intelligence stops them. By definition, if they are expanding across light years then they are not intelligent. More like a virus or at least a psychotic intelligence. An M brain would either ignore them or use them for some nefarious purpose. Might even fix their intelligence so they don't want to be pioneers any more. ;) > > Given that we're an evolutionary system, and so far nobody has shown > a plausible mechanism by which we will leave the evolutionary regime > the burden of proof is on the side of those who postulate that a > culture can become nonexpansive. > > Atoms are atoms everywhere. Either food or fuel, or both. AI evolves so fast that human evolution is effectively stopped. BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Jul 2 16:30:13 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 17:30:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: References: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> <20060702115323.GN26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607020930j7b95c364rcd94b6db2136bd4a@mail.gmail.com> On 7/2/06, BillK wrote: > > I doubt if there will be 'people' or 'individuals' (in our present > meaning of such terms) in the computronium state. Pioneers, colonists > or explorers tend to be misfits of some kind in their society. As soon > as humans can control / design their intelligence such misfits won't > exist any more. Probably before uploading to solid state arrives. Obviously "society chooses to exterminate all individuality" is a thriving subset of dystopian-future fiction; and we've no way of knowing whether such a scenario will come about in the future - but that is a very different claim from the one that such a state of affairs is rational, let alone the only rational option. Do you want such a scenario to occur? If not, who do you think does want it? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Mon Jul 3 02:38:05 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 19:38:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Libertarian paternalism Message-ID: <20060703023804.GA10033@ofb.net> http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/richard.thaler/research/LIbpatLaw.pdf Cass Sunsteina and Richard Thaler defend what they call libertarian paternalism, on grounds of bounded rationality. Abstract: The idea of libertarian paternalism might seem to be an oxymoron, but it is both possible and desirable for private and public institutions to influence behavior while also respecting freedom of choice. Often people's preferences are unclear and ill-formed, and their choices will inevitably be influenced by default rules, framing effects, and starting points. In these circumstances, a form of paternalism cannot be avoided. Equipped with an understanding of behavioral findings of bounded rationality and bounded self-control, libertarian paternalists should attempt to steer people's choices in welfare-promoting directions without eliminating freedom of choice. It is also possible to show how a libertarian paternalist might select among the possible options and to assess how much choice to offer. Examples are given from many areas, including savings behavior, labor law, and consumer protection. It's a 44 page PDF, but the first few pages will give an idea of how they're thinking. -xx- Damien X-) From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Jul 3 07:10:00 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:10:00 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] IEET presentation in Second Life, June 30 Message-ID: <470a3c520607030010l3e0f6924td2ed4f3c94ad209e@mail.gmail.com> http://uvvy.com/index.php/Report300606 It was a very interesting event, and a demonstration that soon we will be able to use MMOGs for real events, like conferences where everyone on the planet can go regardless of distance. The potential of the Metaverse for such events is huge. From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jul 3 16:36:48 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:36:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <200606271832.k5RIW03X027300@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200606271832.k5RIW03X027300@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Jun 27, 2006, at 11:20 AM, spike wrote: > > In Taxifornia, most native English speakers pick up basic Spanish > by seeing > signs posted in both languages. Everywhere in the maternity hospital, > everything had Spanish. But I saw something I had never seen in > America: a > sign posted in Spanish only. > I think this is a travesty. The "melting pot" is no longer maintained or seen as a good thing. We the people splinter. We don't talk so much any more about what is good for America or Americans. We talk instead about what is good for this or that racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexuality, or other subgroup. It is as if we have absorbed the old Marxist teaching of lack of common truth and believe only in our separate subgroup truth. With heavy identity with one's "tribe" individuality is lost. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jul 3 17:20:20 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:20:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism? In-Reply-To: <380-22006632823544203@M2W142.mail2web.com> References: <380-22006632823544203@M2W142.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <263340F6-EBC8-4889-9F83-4E8304198A04@mac.com> On Jun 28, 2006, at 4:54 PM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > From: Russell Wallace > >>> Someone asked me recently what the impulse behind transhumanism >>> was. I >>> said survival. > >> I agree completely. > > I'd like to take this a step further. Can you find parallels in > society in > which a movement was developed for the sake of survival? I am not sure that survival is where the roots are. Humanity seems to have a deep yearning to overcome various limitations and forms of suffering. That yearning is seen is religions, in philosophy, in art, in various idealistic notions and systems, and in transhumanism. Transhumanism seems to be a manifestation of that ancient drive made aware of science and technological possibilities. So I think the impulse behind transhumanism goes beyond survival or at least that 'survival' misses important nuances. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jul 3 17:30:40 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:30:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0606281727k40c1e0a0xbd12e053ff0fee@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-22006632823544203@M2W142.mail2web.com> <8d71341e0606281727k40c1e0a0xbd12e053ff0fee@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <934FAEC4-48C1-47B9-9CE6-D9B764AF393E@mac.com> On Jun 28, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 6/29/06, nvitamore at austin.rr.com > wrote: > I'd like to take this a step further. Can you find parallels in > society in > which a movement was developed for the sake of survival? > > Well, that's a good question... "for the sake of" is a tricky one. > > For example, if you look at the historical aspect of the events > described in the Old Testament, it's clear that the Jewish religion > helped the Israelite tribe survive in that harsh and hostile > environment. But did the founders of that religion have that in > mind? Did they think "we should start believing this because it > will give our tribe the cohesion it needs to survive"? That's not > so clear; perhaps they just believed for quite different reasons > that God had given them certain directions, and the outcome is > recorded as a result of a selection filter. > > Mind you, perhaps the same applies to transhumanism: Did its > founders think "we need to throw all our efforts behind this idea > because humanity has a finite window of time in which to ascend or > pass on"? Or did they have different motives such as freedom and > self-actualization? I am not sure the question is one of the motivation of "the founders" so much as it is a question of what motivates each of us. Both of the above are part of what motivates me. Mere survival does not say much about the development of transhumanism or most ideologies. Humans in large numbers have sacrificed even survival to their ideologies. So it seems clear that 'survival' is a poor candidate by itself. It also leaves open a question or two such as "survival as what and on what terms"? If we say transhumanism is about survival others will cry out that their survival as themselves and the survival of what they care most about requires them to utterly oppose us. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jul 3 17:53:07 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 18:53:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism? In-Reply-To: <934FAEC4-48C1-47B9-9CE6-D9B764AF393E@mac.com> References: <380-22006632823544203@M2W142.mail2web.com> <8d71341e0606281727k40c1e0a0xbd12e053ff0fee@mail.gmail.com> <934FAEC4-48C1-47B9-9CE6-D9B764AF393E@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607031053t1783a8d1gf38a03379ce7183@mail.gmail.com> On 7/3/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > I am not sure the question is one of the motivation of "the founders" so > much as it is a question of what motivates each of us. > *nods* The latter is the more important question, I agree. Both of the above are part of what motivates me. > Fair enough - I'm something of a pessimist, to me the higher-end stuff falls into the category of "well, it'll be nice if we can get that too". But the world needs optimists as well as pessimists. Mere survival does not say much about the development of transhumanism or > most ideologies. Humans in large numbers have sacrificed even survival to > their ideologies. So it seems clear that 'survival' is a poor candidate by > itself. It also leaves open a question or two such as "survival as what and > on what terms"? If we say transhumanism is about survival others will cry > out that their survival as themselves and the survival of what they care > most about requires them to utterly oppose us. > My answer to that has two elements: 1) I've been trying to deflate some of the fantasies like "grey goo will eat the biosphere", "AI will conquer the world and turn us all into Borgs" etc. 2) I've also been trying to point out that survival _requires_ progress. Life doesn't come with a pause button; we have to keep ascending, or die like any animal species whose evolved environment is long gone. But again, being a pessimist I'm better at communicating dour warnings than inspiring visions - such as the excellent one you wrote awhile ago. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Jul 3 18:48:33 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 14:48:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism? Message-ID: <380-22006713184833960@M2W030.mail2web.com> From: Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com >I am not sure that survival is where the roots are. Humanity seems >to have a deep yearning to overcome various limitations and forms of >suffering. That yearning is seen is religions, in philosophy, in >art, in various idealistic notions and systems, and in >transhumanism. Transhumanism seems to be a manifestation of that >ancient drive made aware of science and technological >possibilities. So I think the impulse behind transhumanism goes >beyond survival or at least that 'survival' misses important nuances. What motivates the desire to overcoming limitations, if not a need to survive the limitations? Are religious practices and rituals a means to help people survive current conditions, both mental and physical? Is art a means to overcome (survive) mundacity or a repetitious-constant-state of life by creating alterative ways of seeing the world? Is that ancient drive you refer to motivated by a need to survive? Was the first technology (tool) built to protect or kill in order to survive? What is the impulse behind survival? Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Jul 3 19:45:33 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 15:45:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism? Message-ID: <380-22006713194533254@M2W029.mail2web.com> From: Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com >Mere survival does not say much about the development of >transhumanism or most ideologies. Humans in large numbers have >sacrificed even survival to their ideologies. For these people, survival means their ideology survives, not themselves. Survival does have a different impacts and meanings and is not necessarily synonymous with overcoming physical death. For many the body is just a vehicle and the spirit survives the body. > So it seems clear that >'survival' is a poor candidate by itself. It also leaves open a >question or two such as "survival as what and on what terms"? For transhumanists survival is based on the motivation to overcome death. >If we say transhumanism is about survival others will cry out that their >survival as themselves and the survival of what they care most about >requires them to utterly oppose us. I don?t think transhumanism is interested in interfering with other's beliefs as long as those beliefs do not impinge on transhumanism. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jul 3 19:54:03 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 12:54:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200607031954.k63JsBge021103@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins ... > > Everywhere in the maternity hospital, > > everything had Spanish. But I saw something I had never seen in > > America: a sign posted in Spanish only. > > > > I think this is a travesty. The "melting pot" is no longer > maintained or seen as a good thing... With heavy identity with one's > "tribe" individuality is lost. > > - samantha Since then I have given this some thought. In all the English and Spanish signs, the message is simple enough that most Taxifornians already know the message even if they offer no Inglese equivalent. For instance we all know that Cuidado caliente is Caution, hot. But this Spanish-only sign in the hospital started with Cuidado, then had a bunch of Espaniol I didn't recognize and couldn't easily decipher, so I didn't comprehende for what they were cuidadoing me, but it was a mucho big sign that cuidadoed me, muy grande. So I asked la nurse: que pasa senorita, oye como na? The Taxifornia maternity patients are majority habla Spanish now. If an expectant madre has sufficient pesos in Mexico, it makes a lot of sense to take a muy poco vacation in the Norte, visit relatives and friends for a few weeks, in about the ochoeth month of pregnancy. No visa is required, no verde card, nada, only a passport, since the madre is not actually getting a job here. The doctor bills will be picked up by la hospital, the baby has dual US and Mexican citizenship forever, as will all of the baby's offspring, so her options are many. All this can be bought for the price of an airline ticket. There is one other wild card here. Spanish is a far easier second language for Asians to learn than Inglese. The Japanese guy that runs the local sushi bar commented that he is far more fluent in Spanish than English, even tho he wasn't really trying to learn it. He worked at English, but absorbed the Espaniol. Spanish might become the defacto favored second language for the melting pot that is Taxifornia. spike-o From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jul 3 20:04:37 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:04:37 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <200607031954.k63JsBge021103@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200607031954.k63JsBge021103@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060703200437.GL26630@leitl.org> On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 12:54:03PM -0700, spike wrote: > Spanish might become the defacto favored second language for > the melting pot that is Taxifornia. What's the recent trend in the fraction of techies that is Hispanic? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Jul 3 21:32:01 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 17:32:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism? In-Reply-To: <200606302333.k5UNXoMt010712@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060630112322.04994760@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200606302333.k5UNXoMt010712@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <47570.72.236.102.125.1151962321.squirrel@main.nc.us> > Therefore modern babies will tend to scream their heads off when it gets > too > still and quiet. > > Thank you very freaking much, evolution. {8-[ > > So put a radio or CD player in his room and play something. :) Personally I'd choose really fine music in an effort to avoid whatever random cr*p might come through on any radio program. Or a loud ticking clock, like they use for orphaned puppies. The kid has had 9 months of intense unavoidable internal noises: heartbeat, digestion, conversation, etc. Silence must be quite shocking. A rocking chair is good, and lullabys are good. Being a parent is fun. Everybody says so. It's an experience like no other. And utterly exhausting. You can rejoice that you have a healthy screaming baby: he's developing his lungs and getting plenty of exercise. Of course you aren't getting any sleep, but nobody cares about how the parents feel, once the baby is there! :))) Best regards, MB From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jul 3 22:27:15 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 15:27:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism? In-Reply-To: <47570.72.236.102.125.1151962321.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <200607032227.k63MRNCN009525@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of MB > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fwd: SURVIVAL: An impulse behin transhumanism? > > > > Therefore modern babies will tend to scream their heads off when it gets > > too still and quiet. > > > > Thank you very freaking much, evolution. {8-[ > > > > > > So put a radio or CD player in his room and play something...MB ... We have done this. During gestation, we played music to Isaac. Our reasoning was that if we played the same discs often enough, he would learn these, consequently having them played for him after his birth would remind him of the womb. For that reason, we carefully chose music that we could play at night. We have a CD player that hangs on his crib. We played for him Shaker music with hammered dulcimer and english horn, called Simple Gifts by Coulter and Phillips. Now at bedtime he tends to calm down if the Shaker music is on. I don't like music playing at night, but the exhaustion level overpowers the disturbance. This particular music is most acceptable. Check out the MP3 samples: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000005C2H/ref=cm_lm_fullview_prod_8/102-18 97910-4806545?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=5174 spike From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jul 3 22:28:16 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 15:28:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <20060703200437.GL26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200607032228.k63MSO2t009313@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure > > spike wrote: > > > Spanish might become the defacto favored second language for > > the melting pot that is Taxifornia. > > What's the recent trend in the fraction of techies that is Hispanic? Low and dropping. spike From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Jul 3 23:23:07 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 19:23:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism? In-Reply-To: <200607032227.k63MRNCN009525@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <47570.72.236.102.125.1151962321.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607032227.k63MRNCN009525@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <47671.72.236.103.207.1151968987.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > We have done this. During gestation, we played music to Isaac. Our > reasoning was that if we played the same discs often enough, he would > learn > these, consequently having them played for him after his birth would > remind > him of the womb. For that reason, we carefully chose music that we could > play at night. We have a CD player that hangs on his crib. We played for > him Shaker music with hammered dulcimer and english horn, called Simple > Gifts by Coulter and Phillips. [...] Very nice selection, IMHO! :) I agree about music at night. I do not like music when I'm going to sleep, but my family does, so I've gotten rather better at going to sleep to it. Be assured that likely "this too shall pass". Most things are not worth getting really bent out of shape over and that is one *huge* lesson of parenthood that I found. It is a tough one to learn though. Best. MB From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jul 4 02:42:17 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 19:42:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0606271634k4ed9b58fpbe64c68f9173f0ed@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0606272251p5fc5bc55jd85d27c7901e4ad3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0B8741A1-1292-4652-A022-60BABA40A9D7@mac.com> On Jun 29, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Acy Stapp wrote: > I think the only successful choice will be to be happy when you are > enhancing your fitness in the future competitive environment. You > would feel pain and suffering when you are doing or having done to you > actions which impair your fitness. Any other choice will be result in > the evolution of other Minds leaving you behind. > This answer assumes that the future is pretty much like the present. It assumes relative scarcity and "fitness" based competition. There is a problem here. Nothing that was once biological is going to out- compete strong AI once it arrives on the scene. So we had best hope that these assumption are not long term actualities. - samantha From amara at amara.com Tue Jul 4 04:37:45 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 06:37:45 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Music for little transhumans (was: SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism?) Message-ID: spike: >We have a CD player that hangs on his crib. We played for >him Shaker music with hammered dulcimer and english horn, called Simple >Gifts by Coulter and Phillips. My father used to sing this ditty to us (my sisters and I) when I was little. If you want, I can sing it to Isaac: http://www.amara.com/aboutme/ugunskurs.au the words are here (Latvian) http://www.amara.com/aboutme/latdidley.html The Latvian words might confuse him, but the Latvians have been singing [1,2] for a few thousand years, through wars, multiple occupations and 50 years of forced communism. Singing was vital to keeping their culture intact through all of that, so I figure they are on to something. I found a site recently of Latvian folk songs for my colleague to perform with his folk band on period instruments. Very simple songs, but the songs might help Isaac settle too: ftp://folklora.lv/pub/mp3/ Amara [1] http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-January/012477.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dainas (Google 'Latvian Dainas' for more) -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** Information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, wisdom is not truth, truth is not love, love is not beauty, beauty is not music, music is the best." -- Frank Zappa From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Jul 4 04:55:44 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 00:55:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Human evolution was " what Human Minds Will Eventually Do" Message-ID: <20060704045544.67288.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Bill K wrote: >AI evolves so fast that human evolution is >effectively stopped. I don't understand. Human evolution, in my opinion, hasn't ever stopped. I believe, that life as we know it, will be changed, but how? I'm not sure:) What I believe: AI will be an advanced replica of a post human. Somebody that is interested in good, compassion, helping, empathy; not someone; that establishes their own goal system but someone that analizes the group effort to want to create something significante and worthwhile for humanity. Is this wishfull thinking? >Lee said, Singularity will change the course of >humanity just the same as other technological >experiences. Do I believe him? No. I think their will be "a moment" that will generate big impact (such a religious awakening, world war, natural cause, technological creation...). I just wouldn't be comfortable giving a specific time and event to when it will occur. How do I know? I don't. I have nothing to quote:) It's just what I believe. People, time and space, have produced, at a certain times, some significances, that lead to singular behavior or events. Recognizing particular behaviors, or events, is essential to understanding the evolution of human experience. Anna:) --------------------------------- Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Jul 4 05:59:53 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 01:59:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Pretty sure about music Message-ID: <20060704055953.59936.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Spike wrote: >We have done this. During gestation, we played music to Isaac. Our >reasoning was that if we played the same discs often enough, he would learn >these, consequently having them played for him after his birth would remind >him of the womb. For that reason, we carefully chose music that we could >play at night. We have a CD player that hangs on his crib. We played for >him Shaker music with hammered dulcimer and english horn, called Simple >Gifts by Coulter and Phillips. Now at bedtime he tends to calm down if the >Shaker music is on. I don't like music playing at night, but the exhaustion >level overpowers the disturbance. Anna Replies:) In my opinion, with having no particular experience to elaborate on:) I would think, that Isaac, likes Shaker. (I don't know Shaker:) If you want him to sleep to music, then, find music that helps him be relaxed. It might not be what relaxes you and your wife:) But, it will relax him:) Anna Amara wrote: >My father used to sing this ditty to us (my sisters and I) when I >was little. >If you want, I can sing it to Isaac: >http://www.amara.com/aboutme/ugunskurs.au Anna Replies:) Using the word "singing" in this instance: Preaching is an analogy. Singing requires discipline in that domain. Don't try to sing an analogy when you don't know the domain, just preach. Anna:) --------------------------------- Make free worldwide PC-to-PC calls. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger with Voice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hornung at wanadoo.fr Tue Jul 4 08:43:41 2006 From: hornung at wanadoo.fr (hornung) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 10:43:41 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] PARADISE Message-ID: <44AA2A3D.6FDAEFE9@wanadoo.fr> If Adam and Eve were chinese we would still be in paradise. Because they would have ignored the apple and eaten the snake. From amara at amara.com Tue Jul 4 10:16:39 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 12:16:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Morford: Crazy Healers Enter the World Message-ID: This is not a typical Morford column, slamming something with eloquence and flair. Instead he is full of hope (with eloquence and flair :-) ): http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/06/23/notes062306.DTL Amara From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jul 4 13:35:42 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:35:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <200607031954.k63JsBge021103@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200607031954.k63JsBge021103@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 7/3/06, spike wrote: > There is one other wild card here. Spanish is a far easier second language > for Asians to learn than Inglese. The Japanese guy that runs the local > sushi bar commented that he is far more fluent in Spanish than English, even > tho he wasn't really trying to learn it. He worked at English, but absorbed > the Espaniol. Spanish might become the defacto favored second language for > the melting pot that is Taxifornia. Hispanics are already the majority in California, so if they organise their voting power, Spanish will be the first language in California. :) has the detailed reports. An interesting news article: Quotes: 49 percent of recent population growth (births and immigration) has been Hispanic. Only 18 percent of recent population growth has been among non-Hispanic white people, while blacks account for 14 percent, Asians for 14 percent and American Indians for 4 percent. About 1 percent of the recent population growth has been among people of mixed racial background. The nation's population profile has dramatically transformed. In Johnson's day, only 9.7 million residents were foreign-born, or about 1 in every 20. Today there are 36 million foreign-born, or nearly 1 in every 8. Non-Hispanic whites are now a minority in California and Texas, the nation's two most populous states. ----------------------- A point not directly made in this article is that the Hispanics are mostly very concentrated in the southern states. Most (88 percent) of the nation's population growth between 2000 and 2030 would occur in the South and West, which would be home to the 10 fastest-growing states over the period. ---------------- The other implication is that the southern states will be where the young people are. (Except for the Florida retirement communities). The white northerners will be a rapidly aging, reducing percentage of the population. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jul 4 14:40:50 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 16:40:50 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607020509h6dd7b220g636771dd2433c7c5@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> <20060702105612.GL26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607020509h6dd7b220g636771dd2433c7c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060704144050.GL26630@leitl.org> On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 01:09:17PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 7/2/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > How can you tell wanted from unwanted mutations, a priori? > > If you wanted it then it's wanted, otherwise it isn't :) You don't know this until the mutation happened. Computing phenotype fitness from mutation is not feasible in principle, given that you don't know what the others do. A major fraction of the fitness is relative to others, with lots of maneuvers in the dark. > Do you realize that the mutation rate is a yet another fitness > component in the evolutionary optimization process? Static > critters are doomed, soon. Preemptively: I don't think Lamarck > can trump Darwin. At best they'd coexist. > > Empirically, Lamarck has made quite nice use of Darwin over historical > timescales - yes, memetic evolution is still differential survival of > replicators, but the dynamics look quite different from those typical of > biological evolution. We're talking about measuring neck length, and producing the gene adaptively, while playing against Darwin. > What is your diagnostics to tell the parasites from symbionts? > > I'll design diagnostics when I've systems to design them for (unless, as is > likely, someone else has already done the job for me). My point is that it's not feasible to diagnose parasites from symbionts. Especially, long-term. Look at your gut flora. What is safe to nuke, and what is not? > What > if by getting rid of the parasites you'll be outperformed by those > who didn't? > > What if you won't? Bzzt. Wrong answer. You have to focus on the branch with the outcome that is bad for you. Everything else takes care of itself nicely. > My conjecture is that absolute fitness factors have a ceiling, which > will be reached relatively soon by a solid-state culture. > > And my conjecture is that there is no absolute fitness, it remains relative to > what everyone else is doing (as has always been the case in genetic and memetic > evolution on Earth), so there is no ceiling to reach. The absolute components in fitness are functionality concentration/volume and Joules/function. They're not relative to everyone else. Once you reach what's feasible with physics, no more advances are possible. The relative fitness component continue to develop of course, producing all manners of nonlinearities and oscillations. > > A gram of smarts (enough for an entire upload civilization) in a > hundred ton > > probe (you need the mass anyway for shielding and braking) is > negligible > > baggage and more than pays for itself in ability to outthink and > outfight a > > dumb probe that got there slightly before you did. > > You're describing the successor waves. The pioneers which came before > you > have moved on already. > > No, I'm describing a smart probe arriving a few hours after a dumb probe. The Where did 'hours' come from, kemo sabe? Try months. In MLYr jumps, try kiloyears. I recommend you start forming the commitee for rogue probe recall now. And you better infilitrate all the colonists, because they're not going to phone home for a permit. > dumb probe hasn't done much of anything at that stage. Again, you're looking at the cases which are not interesting. There is always a number of duds in a minefield. If you use your logic, a minefield is safe to cross. Unfortunately, it takes one functional mine to prove you wrong. Pointing out existance of duds is worse than just wasting our time. > > Max feasible probe velocity is 0.2c, speed of Nicoll-Dyson laser > fire is c. > > Where did you pull that number from? > > Extensive discussions on places like rec.arts.sf.science based on analysis of > the performance characteristics of every means of transport that anyone has > come up with. I've seen data on microwave-irradiated carbon trus cloth sails being accelerable at 3 g. Phased-array microwave radiators with ~lighthour to ~lightday aperture could track this with enough luminosity (some 2 kK sail operation temperature) for months. Don't ask me for the math, do it yourself. > The only bottleneck I see is limit to > rebuild rate under high interstellar hydrogen luminosity, which is > really > close to c. > > What you're describing is the equivalent of using machine gun bullets as food > while in the process of being shot with them, and hoping you can heal as fast No, I know what I'm describing. It's not what you're describing. > as you get shot. This strikes me as highly implausible even for full nanotech. This does strike me as highly plausible. D. radiodurans does it for biology. Redundant encoding, diagnostics and constant rebuild in the background plus redudant probes results in effectively unkillable high-velocity probes. Your worst problems are dust grains (take out one probe) and heavy ion tracks. Notice that the microwave beam will spontaneously push a clean tunnel through the interstellar medium clearing the path ahead of you, and magnetic fields (perhaps frozen with a plasma shield) can deflect ionized particles sufficiently that it doesn't hit your payload with. > Leaving that aside, what means of propulsion are you proposing to use? The solar output, redistributed via a circumstellar cloud acting as a phased-array radiator. > (Remember you also have to decelerate at the far end.) I don't think whether the sacrificial sail approach would work. Antimatter-catalyzed fusion drive and antimatter drive would work. > I don't see how this physics would work out. From my current data you > can > push a small probe at about 3 g for many months > > How? Gray sails, heated to white incandescense, microwave-driven. > and then it's effectively > out of reach. > > No matter how fast the probe goes, a laser beam is faster. Again you're assuming the probe is painted (you know where it is) and you can illuminate it with critical luminosity, and that the probe will make no attempts to shield. See mine field above. You *can't* kill all the postmen, long-term. The chain letter will get out. Trust me. You better make your plans based on that reality branch. > > between power blocs. > > Do you see that already the first step from earth surface to solar > system periphery is the first selection step? > > Yes. Do you see that the only entities to have even sent unmanned probes > anywhere near the solar system periphery are the governments of superpowers? Do you realize that we're witnessing a breakdown in federal capabilities, with a strong resurgence in private enterprise? Many private people could afford a launch to LEO right now. Plasma drives are not unobtanium. With machine-phase the payload needs to be tiny, which shrinks the rocket size. Again, with machine-phase any person could build a rocket, making fuel from ambient resources. > Um, there's plenty of aggression in an ecosystem. There is no earth > to scorch. > Real estate (resources) change hands with the death of the > individual. > > You're getting confused between the ecosystems you're using for historical > analogies and the sf scenarios we're discussing. That resources forcibly change No, I'm not. You, however, are being condescending *and* breezy. This is not a good mix. > hands today doesn't prove they will always do so; foxes convert rabbits into > foxflesh, but rabbits don't have guns and bombs. Viruses don't have bombs, yet kill people just fine. Guns and bombs don't wipe stellar systems; nukes are largely useless in space. Stealth and backstabbing work fine, guns and bombs, or no. Starvation works fine. Just because you're no longer scheduled to die it doesn't mean you can't die. > I could actually run a number of simulations to prove my point, but > unfortunately this is about at the bottom of the priority pile for me > > right now. > > Me too, but it doesn't matter: what you get out of simulations depends on the > assumptions you put into them, and my point is that your assumptions are > arbitrary (not to mention heavily biased by the sort of things us techies want They're not arbitrary at all. I've found several folks who've arrived at exactly the same conclusions in isolation. Your assumptions are not only arbitrary, they're unrealistic. You're always looking at the possibility branches which are nice. Civilian planes can't be abducted, by a couple of guys with box cutters. Civilian planes can't be flown into a building. If they do, they don't causee buildings to collapse. Etc. > to believe - I speak from experience, I used to envision the same scenarios you > do until I realized they contained information only about my psychology, not > about the actual future). What precisely do you think is fishy with machine-phase? On the one hand, you seem to assume it's possible. On the other hand, you have a very selective view on the capabilities. > The destruction thing was figurative. Don't get hung up on this. The > point > is that the Amish won't build a circumstellar structure, and if they > tried > by building it they'd cease to be Amish. They'd become a Power > themselves. > > The literal Amish won't get out there in the first place without ceasing to be Precisely. By trying to beat the enemy, you're becoming it. > Amish (at least not under their own power), but biological H. sapiens is no > stranger to building big guns. If you're trying to recall a chain letter, big guns are worse than useless. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Jul 4 14:51:05 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 10:51:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Who would you save? Message-ID: I woke up today asking myself whether I should spend the 4th with my family. This got intermixed in with my recent viewing of "Deep Impact" [1] and questions I am nearly always running through my mind about hazard functions, paths forward, costs vs. benefits, etc. What popped out was: "Who would I save?" (This is of course interacts with the subplot in the movie involving not saving anyone over 50, saving the "essential" people, and then distributing the remaining survivor slots by lottery). I'm probably somewhat more "disconnected" than the average Extropian (remember I seem to have a high Asperger's quotient) but I was fairly surprised that immediate family members didn't rate a slot near the top of my list. There are those family members who are merely "waiting to die" and those whose priorities and perspective is doing little to benefit humanity now and for whom the various futures discussed among extropians would require a *major* mental shifts (perhaps shifts they would not like to or could not make) [2]. There are subtle and not-so-subtle filters that one might apply to answering this question, e.g. a) Are you selecting for past brilliance? b) Are you selecting for demonstrated commitment to moving us forward? c) Are you selecting for probable future potential? d) Are you selecting for "throw weight" (with the possible complication that "throw weight" may not survive the singularity)? e) Are you selecting for genetic ties, emotional ties, shared experiences, etc.? It was interesting that for me I found myself placing Robert Freitas, Ralph Merkle, Eric Drexler and Josh Hall in the top ten. Folowing them were a couple of close personal friends and several list members. These questions relate to work I am considering doing with Dave Kekich and the Maximum Life Foundation which involves getting people to shift classical perspectives of "need more money now" to some which might be more contrarian (& extropic), e.g. "need to save my own ass in the long term", "need to save the asses of those who are really important", "need to save the asses of those I care the most about", etc. This is based on the observation that the *reality* that people generally operate in is that their asses cannot be saved. I.e. "make more money now" is only "real" choice since robust lifespan extension, or robust MNT [3], are fantasies. So, the question I would pose, is "Who would you save?", and if you care to elaborate, "Why?". I'm probably more interested in the Why than the Who as that would help me refine the filter set. Note that the criteria/filters bear on a related question (that we don't need to answer for a few decades), "When the MBrain hits the resource limits, who (or what) gets the greatest share of the run time?" I wish everyone a happy 4th of July. Please remember there are people who gave their lives so we can enjoy the fireworks. Robert 1. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120647/ 2. I view the mental shift problem as one of the major problems facing Extropians/Transhumanists -- billions of people are not waiting in long lines for an opportunity to completely rewrite their meme set. 3. I'd probably put robust lifespan extension & robust MNT as #1 and #2 on the realities I would most like to see manifested in the world. Your mileage may vary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Jul 4 16:07:45 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 09:07:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Morford: Crazy Healers Enter the World References: Message-ID: <2b6401c69f83$fdff7fb0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Amara Graps" > This is not a typical Morford column, slamming something with eloquence > and flair. Instead he is full of hope (with eloquence and flair :-) ): > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/06/23/notes062306.DTL Yes, but ... IMO this is one Morford *should* have been slamming. (Is his hope for more "trappings?") Bastyr - along with naturopathy - exist in the realm of pseudoscience: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/471156 http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/naturopathy.html Olga From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Jul 4 16:33:20 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 12:33:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] String Theory: Not Even Wrong... In-Reply-To: <20060624190840.78971.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060624190840.78971.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The NY Times is picking up on the problems with physics today [1]. It points out how supersymmetry isn't exactly knocking down the doors and the only "new" thing appears to be "inflation" (the acceleration of the expansion of the universe) which doesn't fit into the "standard" model [2]. Also how disappointed everyone will be if only the Higgs boson pops out of the work at the spiffy new collider in CERN in the next couple of years. Robert 1. "Physics Awaits New Options as Standard Model Idles" Dennis Overbye (4 Jul 2006) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/science/04phys.html?pagewanted=print 2. Of course if the universe is filled with ATC then all theories derived from assumptions that the universe is dead are on the table for discussion. [But since we have already been there recently lets not go there again...] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Tue Jul 4 17:36:55 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 19:36:55 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Morford: Crazy Healers Enter the World Message-ID: Olga: >Yes, but ... IMO this is one Morford *should* have been slamming. (Is his >hope for more "trappings?") Bastyr - along with naturopathy - exist in the >realm of pseudoscience: Dear Olga, If you read the article carefully, you'll read about the doctors' rigorous medical training and that when they graduate, the doctors produced are those that care about the whole person: lifestyle, etc. I read nothing negative. The fact that I don't give any credence to naturopathy didn't detract me from the rest of the article because Morford was describing the larger field of whole body healing; of which there are dozens of techniques and approaches from biofeedback to feldenkrais to osteopathy to massage therapy to accupuncture to diet and sleep and exercise and psychology and more. The mind and body are an intricate system which western approaches usually don't know how to handle together, especially for injuries that involve the whole body. I have my two years of RSI injury comparing with what the 'western' doctors offered (cut and slash and medicate), versus what the 'eastern' doctors offered (whole body everything with me an active participant). If I followed what the western doctors offered to me during those years that I was healing myself, then I would be minus several tendons in both wrists, would be having ongoing pain in the upper half of my body and severe disability for daily tasks, and I wouldn't be typing this message today. http://www.amara.com/aboutme/rsi.html (that's my hand) 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/ ******************************************************************** "Looking up gives light, although at first it makes you dizzy." --Mevlana Rumi From amara at amara.com Tue Jul 4 18:01:21 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:01:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Walker's rant on string theory Message-ID: Damien B: The discussion on cosmicvariance (including Lee Smolin and Peter Woit and John Baez and others) has continued since I mentioned it here about ~2 weeks ago. 'The String Theory Backlash' http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/06/19/the-string-theory-backlash/ Amara From sm at vreedom.com Tue Jul 4 16:43:30 2006 From: sm at vreedom.com (sm at vreedom.com) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 18:43:30 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Extropy of Cooking Message-ID: <1152031410.44aa9ab2500c5@www.config-server.de> Amara, >Melanzane alla Parmigiana (Eggplant Parmigiana) I finally had the chance to check this out. Delicious. It also works out very nice if prepared with goat-cheese . . . Best wishes Stephan ____________________________________________________________________ Stephan Magnus Change for the future http://www.vreedom.com Podcast "Das Abenteuer Zukunft": www.dasabenteuerleben.de Future-Blog: www.germanblogs.de ____________________________________________________________________ "Consciousness is to run your own brain!" (Richard Bandler) From lcorbin at tsoft.com Tue Jul 4 18:36:26 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 11:36:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? Message-ID: This is a continuation of the July 1 / July 2 discussion under the subject line "What Human Minds Will Eventually Do". There are two reasons for changing the subject line. One, the term "Human" created confusion; sometimes Eugen and Russell and the others would mean the (more interesting) metaphorical sense of us and our mind children or inheritors, even though when I initiated the thread I meant to be talking only about *human* activities in the far future as t --> infinity (e.g. previous primitive versions of the ruling >H types). The second reason: we began a wonderful discussion of the ultimate colonization of the universe (or "engulfing" of the universe, as Barrow and Tipler put it in 1986) by life---or by intelligence, however you want to phrase it. Those two days---July 1 and July 2---saw the best posts on this topic I have ever seen on this list, or anywhere. Finally all my stupid posts provoked ideas and prognostications that have never occurred to me, and perhaps never would have. Whew! A third reason to change the subject line is that the fundamental assumptions that Eugen makes differs from those that Russell and I make in a key area: just exactly how much can---or will, or should we expect---superhuman *intelligence* to completely dominate and completely control some finite volume of space? Eugen takes the ecosystem view, and adduces the historical successes of free markets and other "out of control" systems. Russell and I take the "good housekeeping" view, if I might phrase it that way, that a powerful intelligence keeps her area as clean as a Dutch housewife does hers. This too has historical precedents (e.g. some ecosystems are not very complicated, having fallen under control of one species, or even the Dutch housewife herself). I do not believe that Eugen has yet made an adequate case for the "ecosystem" view. We know that for some radius R (limited by light speed) an intelligence is really a single- willed entity capable of laying down complete governing rules, conventions and laws regarding its own space. So what is your (or anyone's, of course) rejoinder to that? (After all, unless you're a lot crazier that I think :-) your intelligence dominates your two hemispheres without much competition!?) For example, the surface of the Earth could fragment into ninety competing "individuals" each thinking a million times faster than humans do now. Since light travels a about one foot per nanosecond, it takes a second(!) to tell another part of your brain on your periphery (a couple of blocks away) just what the rest of you is thinking. Already an "individual" is at hazard just as much as was the Roman Empire without telegraphy. Maybe Eugen will suggest that between such boundaries there will be symbionts? I just don't know! (This is so great!) Or the parameters could be vastly different, and an "individual" might occupy a solar system. If so, then the only way such an "individual" could occupy two adjacent solar systems would be if the flow of algorithms from one continued over time to dominate the other. (The Tiwanaku of South America used to dominate their "empire" not by force, but by this exact mechanism.) That's what I've always supposed since about 1992 or so in my "The Wind from Earth" scenario. Also I have to keep putting "intelligence" in quotes because as BillK points out, we should be very careful about using our intuitions haphazardly here. Those entities will actually be non-human, superhuman to the extent that we would recognize them no more than a fetus would recognize an old man he becomes. It's even possible (though I doubt it) that such "individuals" would form some kind of voluntary collective, just as the Soviets strived for. Well, back to studying the Eugen/Russell exchange of 7-1/7-2. Lee P.S. Apologies to those whose posts I have not got to yet. From lcorbin at tsoft.com Tue Jul 4 19:06:44 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 12:06:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell wrote > [Eugen wrote] > > There are successor waves trailing the pioneer wavefront. > > Eventually, after many waves passing, you've got steady state. > > Except, it's roiling, at a very high level of fitness. There > > you've got viruses, and mice, and men, and deities. Maximum > > diversity. Not pioneers. Pioneers are specialists, and only > > exist in wavefronts across pristine acres of congealed > > star drek. If both such waves collide pioneers get > > wiped out, because their niche is gone. There's much > > less determinism in the following waves, and the omega > > state does not conserve the information about the origin, > > so it's degenerate. Regardless of the point of the > > origin the omega state behind the trailing waves > > looks all the same. > Unless: ... A gram of smarts (enough for an entire upload civilization) in > a hundred ton probe (you need the mass anyway for shielding and braking) is > negligible baggage and more than pays for itself in ability to outthink and > outfight a dumb probe that got there slightly before you did. Well, *slightly* before you did---that's true. Are you saying that there will be a continuous stream of pellets arriving? If so, I have always though that they must colonize by persuasion (The Wind from Earth), because very soon the pellets that have taken over a planet have the resources to destroy incoming pellets no matter how smart they are. > Max feasible probe velocity is 0.2c, speed of Nicoll-Dyson laser fire > is c. Probes that try to colonize without permission are vapor before > they can finish braking. All colonization is done by negotiated > partitioning of available space between power blocs. Exactly! Except that you are describing a scenario that I was explaining a few weeks ago in person to Spike, Eliezer, and Anders (to get in a little name-dropping, and some witnesses). Namely, that the steady-state, when it is reached, exhibits the above relationship between existing empires. In particular: suppose that empire A (even if it is only a few blocks big on Earth, though I had in mind star-cluster sized entities) got going according to the galactic clock a few thousand years before empire B. Then A is larger, i.e. more extensive, than B. But the key location is where A's boundary encounters B's. Is there fighting? First, even though at the center of their empires, A is a thousand years more advanced than B, at the boundaries their technologies are equal. This is because of the very limited speeds at which they spread initially. So A really has no advantage in the frontier fighting. But will there be war? I don't think so because if you graph the conflicts between France and England---just to take two examples--- you'll notice a strong secular change from 1200 (e.g. the Hundred Years War) to 1815. In the beginning of that period they warred almost constantly (as did practically everyone else in history). One reason is very simple: at earlier stages of technology it is easier to gain wealth by seizing your neighbor's than by developing it yourself. But later, in the 18th and 19th century, war actually impoverishes everyone. Today war between the major powers is very unlikely because there are no winners. (Replies to just this should go into a new thread, please.) > Ultimate-technology warfare is scorched-earth, defender's resources > are consumed/destroyed (returned to the interstellar medium) along > with some of the attacker's, so evolution selects against the > tendency to start fights and real estate once secured doesn't > change hands. Exactly! I hope that everyone understood your terse statements; though (thankfully) not as terse as Eugen's amazing pronouncements. :-) Lee From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Jul 4 19:07:03 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 12:07:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Morford: Crazy Healers Enter the World References: Message-ID: <102f01c69f9d$09bbeaf0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Amara Graps" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 10:36 AM >>Yes, but ... IMO this is one Morford *should* have been slamming. (Is his >>hope for more "trappings?") Bastyr - along with naturopathy - exist in >>the realm of pseudoscience: > Dear Olga, > If you read the article carefully, you'll read about the doctors' rigorous > medical training and that when they graduate, the doctors produced are > those that care about the whole person: lifestyle, etc. I read nothing > negative. The fact that I don't give any credence to naturopathy didn't > detract me from the rest of the article because Morford was describing the > larger field of whole body healing... Hi Amara, I did read the article carefully, and what's a negative about the article IMO is that promoting naturopathy is promoting a scam. And evidence-based medicine (what we call "Western medicine" - although, it's not like it's not practiced in the "East" - because it is) is not opposed to caring about the whole person (but, truly, sometimes it's simply not relevant - and they usually let one out of the hospital ... in one's "whole body"). I guess I still don't understand the "western" v. "eastern" medicine schism. We don't, for example, have "eastern" v. "western" math. Science is science, and evidence is evidence. If, after testing, "alternative medicine" yields corroborated results - it's science. Until then ... it's not. (And, yes, the scientific method is also a technique used to test those corroborated results - relying more on objective, repeatable evidence than anecdotal or statistically insignificant "evidence".) >; of which there are dozens of techniques and approaches from biofeedback >to feldenkrais to osteopathy to massage therapy to accupuncture to diet and >sleep and exercise and psychology and more. The mind and body are an >intricate system which western approaches usually don't know how to handle >together, especially for injuries that involve the whole body. Feldenkrais is listed here (along with feng shui and firewalking): http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/dictionary/mdfg.html And acupuncture: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000324.html And massage therapy: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0528-08.htm http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/massage.html Massage (used in physical rehabilitation and the like) is not wholly woo-woo but, unfortunately, the kinds of schools to which a lot of "massage therapists" go to nowadays practice a lot of pseudoscience. There is also a stigma associated with some forms of massage = prostitution, but at least that's something useful and beneficial to the patrons (the way I look at it, "sexual healing" is way better than woo-woo). And as for psychology ... I have trouble believing in *a discipline(?)* for which there are *so many* schools (way beyond, even, of "western" v. "eastern"). I think it's good to talk to people about one's concerns and problems ... but I've yet to see any evidence that talking to a bartender or a good friend may not yield the same if not better results - as far as "talk therapy" goes - as from talking to a psychologist or psychiatrist (the latter may help procure certain helpful drugs, however). > I have my two years of RSI injury comparing with what the 'western' > doctors offered (cut and slash and medicate), versus what the 'eastern' > doctors offered (whole body everything with me an active participant). "Western" doctors are not always right ... and "western" doctors don't always come to the same conclusion. One can always seek a second opinion, and to "shop around" for a good doctor to our liking (who may care to spend more time with their patients, if that's the patient's preference). > If I followed what the western doctors offered to me during those years > that I was healing myself, then I would be minus several tendons in both > wrists, would be having ongoing pain in the upper half of my body and > severe disability for daily tasks, and I wouldn't be typing this message > today. Incidents like yours happen, to be sure. But what's important to observe is the whole scheme of results of "western" v. "eastern" medicine (and not anecdotal results here and there like yours). Ahhh, but we have physicians on this list who may want to weigh in on this ... "weighty" issue. I'd be interested to hear what they have to say. (Needless to say, I don't consider naturopaths or chiropractors "physicians" of the sort I mean - but, hey, would like to hear from them, too, if they're here.) Olga From lcorbin at tsoft.com Tue Jul 4 19:24:51 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 12:24:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060704143520.02439d58@gmu.edu> Message-ID: Robin writes (reducing me to exigeses in many cases) > At 02:36 PM 7/4/2006, Lee Corbin wrote: > > just exactly how much can---or will, or > > should we expect---superhuman *intelligence* to completely > > dominate and completely control some finite volume of space? > > Eugen takes the ecosystem view, and adduces the historical > > successes of free markets and other "out of control" systems. > > Russell and I take the "good housekeeping" view, if I might > > phrase it that way, that a powerful intelligence keeps her > > area as clean as a Dutch housewife does hers. ... for some > > radius R (limited by light speed) an intelligence is really a single- > > willed entity capable of laying down complete governing rules, > > conventions and laws regarding its own space. > > I would ask the question as: what kinds of choices are coordinated > over what scales? An "intelligence" over some region is not aware > of everything going on in that region, but for some choices made in > that region coordination is important enough and feasible enough > that the intelligence is conscious of those choices and attempts to > coordinate them with each other and with other closely relevant > choices. I'll try to understand exactly what you mean through some examples. Example one: A Dutch housewife only controls the macro human-visible elements of her house, giving spiders and rodents no chance whatsoever for sharing the residence. But she cannot (until the 20th century) attempt to eliminate all microbes, and even then she does not succeed. Example two: In modern hi-tech clean near but not absolute success is achieved. Did you have this example in mind also when you made your statement? An AI may be able to keep its mind as "clean" as this. Example three: A human mind (i.e. program) currently runs on hardware over which it is still pretty ignorant and has very little control. One may die of a brain aneurysm at any moment. (See Robin's discussion of this below.) Example four: An AI has converted Earth to computronium but is still not running so fast that any part of itself is more than 1/7 of a light-second away (it is still an "individual"). But it contests, at least in the realm of ideas, with the Martian and Venusian similar intelligence, and all subscribe as closely as they dare to Jupiter's algorithm blog. But how can you be so sure that the Earth AI, for example, doesn't command every atom on Earth? > To address this question, we want to identify for various candidate > choices the relevant values to coordination, and the costs of > coordination. We might then expect coordination only when the > value of coordination exceeds its costs. As, for example, I suppose > Humans on Earth attempt to coordinate some choices at the scale > of the Earth, such as through the United Nations. At the other > extreme, parts of my mind make many choices that they do not > coordinate much with other parts of my mind, and which I am not > conscious of. Yes---so I suppose that another application of what you have written here might be: two adjacent intelligences, even if separated by non-trivial light speed vs. computation times, may amount to one more-or-less whole individual, such as we fancy our own hemispheres. Lee From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Jul 4 18:47:04 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:47:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060704143520.02439d58@gmu.edu> At 02:36 PM 7/4/2006, Lee Corbin wrote: >just exactly how much can---or will, or >should we expect---superhuman *intelligence* to completely >dominate and completely control some finite volume of space? >Eugen takes the ecosystem view, and adduces the historical >successes of free markets and other "out of control" systems. >Russell and I take the "good housekeeping" view, if I might >phrase it that way, that a powerful intelligence keeps her >area as clean as a Dutch housewife does hers. ... for some >radius R (limited by light speed) an intelligence is really a single- >willed entity capable of laying down complete governing rules, >conventions and laws regarding its own space. I would ask the question as: what kinds of choices are coordinated over what scales? An "intelligence" over some region is not aware of everything going on in that region, but for some choices made in that region coordination is important enough and feasible enough that the intelligence is conscious of those choices and attempts to coordinate them with each other and with other closely relevant choices. To address this question, we want to identify for various candidate choices the relevant values to coordination, and the costs of coordination. We might then expect coordination only when the value of coordination exceeds its costs. Humans on Earth attempt to coordinate some choices at the scale of the Earth, such as through the United Nations. At the other extreme, parts of my mind make many choices that they do not coordinate much with other parts of my mind, and which I am not conscious of. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From mark at permanentend.org Tue Jul 4 19:45:28 2006 From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:45:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Would You Enjoy Knitting? References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060627080003.02434d08@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <15a401c69fa2$6913a010$9a00a8c0@old> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Hanson" < > > It is not clear to me which will be more important: what people now > want, or what they now want to want. > > People now do seem to have preferences they want to have, that differ > from the preferences they do have. Many religious people, for > example, want to be more committed to their religion. Many married > people want to be less tempted to betray their marriage. Many > somewhat ambitious people would like to be more devoted to their > ambitions. Many somewhat altruistic people would like to be more > truly altruistic. Many soldiers would like to be more courageous in > battle. And so on. > > In general humans want to be more "ideal" than they are, and this is > due to a generic self-deception whereby people believe they are more > ideal than they are, in order to convince others to admire and > affiliate with them. "Be careful what you wish for" is apt here - > many bad things will happen when people get their wish to be more > ideal. And because deep down people know they really don't want to > be as ideal as they say they do, many people will find excuses to > back away from their professed ideals. If I understand you Robin you are saying that self-deception is the root cause of us wanting to be more ideal. The idea is that I might deceive myself about how good looking I am, and since this is a matter of self-deception at some level (however one describes the cognitive states of self-deception) I realize that I am not what I claim to be. But I am not sure how this helps. Is the idea that if say I am objectively a 5 out of 10 on the good looking scale but deceive myself that I am a 7 then wanting to be ideal is a way of letting my beliefs track the truth. If this is the case then shouldn't my goal to be a 7 objectively so that now my beliefs and the truth dovetail? How do you explain my wanting to be a 10 if I don't deceive myself as being a 10? Is the idea that there would be an iteration of the problem until I reached perfection? If so, it looks like I would have to have some pretty sophisticated beliefs to explain all of this. Second, you say that many people would find a way to back away from their ideal if they were given some (easier) way of achieving it. Someone might predict the same thing if they thought that people are sometimes mistaken about what they want: as the old saw you mention reminds us. I wonder how we could experimentally differentiate these two explanations. Suppose people could take a pill that would allow them to speed up them to control their desire for food, e.g., imagine being able to dial in how many calories in a day before you feel full and losing the desire for more food. I predict that an overwhelming percentage, say over 75%, who take the pill would be pleased that they could approach their ideal weight in such an easy fashion. Some might miss the satisfaction of dieting the old-fashion way, but most who take the pill I think would not regret what they wished for. Does your prediction (if that is what it is) of "many" conflict with this? Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Jul 4 19:59:14 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 12:59:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Music for little transhumans (was: SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200607042009.k64K9iBv000666@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps ... > > My father used to sing this ditty to us (my sisters and I) when I was > little. If you want, I can sing it to Isaac: > > http://www.amara.com/aboutme/ugunskurs.au ... > > Amara Thanks Amara! You are very talented. Consider the English words to your Latvian melody: Campfire glows in the dark Sparks rise into the air The night is dark, no one's around Here is our parting... This reminds me of Mt. Rainier, after which Isaac Rainier was named. His mother and I have hiked and camped on Rainier's Wonderland Trail many times. It always amazes me how few people use this trail, considering the stunning beauty of the place, the "no one's around..." part is especially fitting. Last summer, the third day of hiking, we saw more bears than humans: 8 bears, 6 humans, all day. I don't understand why more people don't go there. I am not complaining, of course, just puzzled. Every time I go on that trail I see new things. This is my favorite place on the planet. If we get to upload, I want to try to create a thousand simulations of places like it. These guys put together an excellent photo journal of the trail: http://rainier.gameworkshop.com/index.html spike From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jul 4 20:25:11 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 13:25:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> References: <20060627102655.GS28956@leitl.org> <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Jun 30, 2006, at 3:57 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 10:59:08PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> More seriously, I totally agree that we shouldn't over assume >> that our own values will predominate; indeed, Darwin has to >> remain the best guide. As an example, recall the SF stories >> and movies in which it was just *assumed* that more advanced >> creatures would be benevolent, would have "risen above" our > > It is almost always assumed that cruising aliens are super-advanced, > and super-intelligent. But just assuming a) relativistic flight > b) iterated selection over large distances it's pretty obvious > intelligence is not a trait selected for. Hmm? The "selection" is largely controllable by that advanced a species. Presumably there would no small value is having a goodly amount of intelligence included in probes out exploring the galaxy. > The only traits selected > for are short reproduction time and expansiveness. Apparently you are assuming some competition to claim all the reachable resources. But claiming and defending resources requires no small intelligence. Negotiations with other species possibly encountered also takes intelligence. Even waging war on sight or deciding whether that is a rash proposition takes a bit more brain power than you seem to be positing. Pioneers need to be as ready for *anything* as they can be while still being economical enough to be pioneering. I do not see how intelligence is "not selected for". - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jul 4 20:36:45 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 13:36:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: References: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jul 2, 2006, at 2:34 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 7/2/06, BillK wrote: > > Remember that once we get our own gram of civilization each, our > motivations and knowledge are likely to greatly change. I doubt that > doing a Star Trek, conquer the universe will seem very attractive. If > you want to 'chat' to the other one gram civilizations (AIs) then you > certainly won't be dashing off at some fraction of light speed. The > loss of the network may well be much more painful than gaining a new > solar system to sit your gram in. > > Finally, somebody understands why Matrioshka Brains don't tend to > colonize! > The probability that any civilization that could colonize would > reach this conclusion would tend to argue against the sending of > seeds or very very small fractions of the MBrain to develop > undeveloped solar systems. MBrains only replicate by fission as > bacteria do where the complete set of resources is relatively > equally divided between the two offspring. One can only do this > with the information capacity of an MBrain when a developed star > system comes into extremely close proximity to an undeveloped star > system. The spread rate for advanced civilizations is not limited > by some significant fraction of the speed of light or the energy > costs that interstellar transport involves but the desire to avoid > having to give up everything that huge information storage capacity > and simulation capacity make available to them. Indeed one could > view the idea of sending a sub-copy to a virginal, but > unintelligent (empty) MBrain as being a form of cruel and unusal > punishment that an ATC would choose to prohibit. As MBrain subsets > (AIs, uploads, whatever) are used to time sharing they have very > long time horizons and waiting a billion years until the ideal > opportunity for splitting comes along isn't a big sacrifice. One > could imagine that those strange entitites that want to engange in > the development of a real infoscape (rather than a virtual one) may > simply be put into suspend mode until the time comes along to drop > off the Mayflower in a passing star system deemed unsuitable for > 'normal' system replication activities. As long as there are individuals within even an MBrain there will be some individuals with wanderlust, desire to explore, desire to perhaps organize things a bit differently. If these and similar desires are strong enough then giving up some back home abilities to mount and expedition will seem attractive. Also the MBrain is likely to want to send probes out to better insure its relative safety. It is not unlikely that the MBrain would seek more energy and resources eventually and mount expeditions to secure them. It is doubtful it would patiently wait for another star to happen by. All of our speculation will someday no doubt be very amusing to actual posthumans. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jul 4 20:54:22 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 13:54:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: <20060702115323.GN26630@leitl.org> References: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> <20060702115323.GN26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7C63B123-6214-42BE-821C-4E19836D1DBD@mac.com> On Jul 2, 2006, at 4:53 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 05:34:11AM -0400, Robert Bradbury wrote: > >> Remember that once we get our own gram of civilization each, our > > A gram is not all that much. Even encoded optimally, it's only part > of a seed, not a civilization. Single individuals can easily range > from cubic um to km^3 and beyond. A km^3 worth of computronium > contains a lot of bits which are uncompressible. But of course > blue whales grow just fine from fertilized ova, too, and redwoods > from small seeds. > >> motivations and knowledge are likely to greatly change. I >> doubt that >> doing a Star Trek, conquer the universe will seem very >> attractive. If > > The motivation of life never changes: spread out. People have no > consensus, > and self-replicating postbiology in deep space as native habitat > are not > people as we know them, and many dumb critters in the literal sense. Actually this is only one of the motivations of life. The point is rather moot anyway as we sit here on the verge of being able to decide our working motivations. > >> loss of the network may well be much more painful than >> gaining a new >> solar system to sit your gram in. >> >> Finally, somebody understands why Matrioshka Brains don't tend to >> colonize! > > All solid state cultures are alike on the really long run. > >> The probability that any civilization that could colonize would >> reach this >> conclusion would tend to argue against the sending of seeds or >> very very small > > 'Conclusion' assumes intelligent thought. Postbiology doesn't need to > be intelligent to exist. Phytoplankton never gets bored. > What is your point here? Unintelligent post-biology is not capable of sending out seeds unless specifically designed to do so by intelligence and or tolerated by such intelligences as may come in contact with it in the future. >> fractions of the MBrain to develop undeveloped solar systems. >> MBrains only >> replicate by fission as bacteria do where the complete set of >> resources is >> relatively equally divided between the two offspring. One can >> only do this > > You're postulating stellar-system sized, homogenous individuals. > This strikes > me as astronomically unlikely. Again: nonexpansive cultures are not > observable. > Probability of all individual of a culture population to be > nonexpansive is > arbitrarily close to zero. > I am not at all sure how individual individuals will be a bit down the pike but I have already taken your point. > > > Given that we're an evolutionary system, and so far nobody has shown > a plausible mechanism by which we will leave the evolutionary regime > the burden of proof is on the side of those who postulate that a > culture can become nonexpansive. > This is not a dichotomy. A lot depends on what you mean by "evolution"? Clearly we stand ready to form in large part our own notions of how we evolve/develop from this point onward. We will to some significant degree define our own selection criteria and shape our own change mechanisms. A culture or ecosystem generally reaches some balance between expansionist pressures and those forces countering expansion. For intelligent beings those pressures in both directions are largely conceptual and intellectualized. It is quite possible a large number of individuals, even enough to sway a civilization, will at some point decide the opportunities are so rich and life so good "at home" that there is relatively little desire to expand further for some time. There is no "burden of proof" in such speculations as I suspect you well know. - samantha From amara at amara.com Tue Jul 4 21:03:45 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 23:03:45 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Morford: Crazy Healers Enter the World Message-ID: Olga, Western doctors don't typically spend time learning about all factors of your life to find the physio/psychologico/etc. to help you heal. You have minutes in their office while they prescribe something for the symptom in the wrist, completely missing that the source is located in another part of your body (just an example). Science certainly can explain how biofeedback works, massage therapy works, better nutrition works, good posture works, better sleep works, etc. etc, but I never met a normal western doctor that could put all of that together for their patient. I was embedded in the injured community of hundreds of RSI people for about 5 years to I know what the typical doctors were telling all of those injured people (and how little they helped, and more often made the injury worse). I don't want to spend typing.. my rsi page explains enough and Italy and Germany are just went into overtime.... Ciao, Amara From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jul 4 21:10:02 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:10:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060630095927.043f62d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060628094458.03f96a10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <200606300558.k5U5wMtT025895@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20060630095927.043f62d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <347FA7D3-3AEE-4F7A-BADF-D7BE1B4D638F@mac.com> On Jun 30, 2006, at 8:04 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > At 12:58 AM 6/30/2006, Brandon wrote: >> > Someone asked me recently what the impulse behind transhumanism >> was. I said survival. >> >> Transhumanists seek not just to survive, but to transcend and to >> become something more than merely human. > > Yes, although I am looking at the "impulse" that motivates the > desires. Improving the human condition is what transhumanism is > actively seeking to accomplish. Why if it is not driven by the > impulse to survive? Since you have posited that survival is the underlying motivator, you need to answer a similar question. The "impulse" to thrive, to have life, yes, but to have it more abundantly is an extremely strong driver. It is what brought me to transhumanism. It was only much latter that the argument that we must significantly change or perish came into focus for me. Most people discount motivation from purported threats to survival until the evidence is overwhelming. Witness global warming. When people are motivated by survival fears they often do not do their best and certainly not their most compassionate thinking. Witness the "war on terror". - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Jul 4 21:12:23 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:12:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060704211223.GA3729@ofb.net> On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 11:36:26AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Eugen takes the ecosystem view, and adduces the historical > successes of free markets and other "out of control" systems. > Russell and I take the "good housekeeping" view, if I might > phrase it that way, that a powerful intelligence keeps her > area as clean as a Dutch housewife does hers. This too has > historical precedents (e.g. some ecosystems are not very > complicated, having fallen under control of one species, > or even the Dutch housewife herself). The area controlled by a Dutch housewife is not an ecosystem. It is a small area embedded within a much larger ecosystem, without which the housewife would be dead. Organisms (try to) keep themselves clean of other organisms (no bacteria in our bloodstream, please); "good housekeeping" can exist within eco-diversity (lots of bacteria in our gut, and we need them.) > (limited by light speed) an intelligence is really a single- > willed entity capable of laying down complete governing rules, > conventions and laws regarding its own space. So what is your > (or anyone's, of course) rejoinder to that? (After all, unless > you're a lot crazier that I think :-) your intelligence > dominates your two hemispheres without much competition!?) I think it's more like that our inteligence is made up of a lot of competition, between and within the hemispheres. There's a common fate constraining all the cognitive processes -- all in one body (unless you include memes escaping) -- so a strong pressure to get along, but a single will imposing rules doesn't strike me as the only or even the best way of describing what goes on. More like the Dutch government, a feedback process coordinating lots of other processes, sometimes for the common good. -xx- Damien X-) From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jul 4 21:17:10 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:17:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: References: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> <20060702115323.GN26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <0013FA0F-6DB6-45EE-A912-5BAEAF1C6137@mac.com> On Jul 2, 2006, at 9:00 AM, BillK wrote: > On 7/2/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> The motivation of life never changes: spread out. People have no >> consensus, >> and self-replicating postbiology in deep space as native habitat >> are not >> people as we know them, and many dumb critters in the literal sense. > > That's the point! > When posthuman intelligence lives in solid state computronium we are > not talking about 'people'. Our present wishes and desires will no > longer apply. > Actually we have no way whatsoever to meaningfully make such statements. > >> >> Information and matter streams are not just common code, they're >> individuals. At the boundary there are no neighbours on one >> side by definition. Individuals wander off and colonize sterile >> patches. There are already a number of people on this list and >> elsewhere which would run far and wide, if given the slightest >> opportunity. Assuming, you know who these people are, would you >> want to keep them here against their will? Would you be able to? >> I notice we didn't choose to remain in Africa, as a species. >> Population and culture pressure drove Old World colonists >> across the Atlantic, and the Pacific. >> > > I doubt if there will be 'people' or 'individuals' (in our present > meaning of such terms) in the computronium state. Pioneers, colonists > or explorers tend to be misfits of some kind in their society. As soon > as humans can control / design their intelligence such misfits won't > exist any more. Probably before uploading to solid state arrives. > It is unlikely that outliers in any society that wished to avoid stagnation would much less should be eliminated. Whether the "individuals" are as we think of them is another question. They might be more like largely autonomous POV clusters. > >> >> You're postulating stellar-system sized, homogenous individuals. > > Yes! That's the future. You have no way of being certain of this. >> >> If you've fallen into your own navel, and can't get out, then you're >> dead to the universe. You will never meet anybody on your own but >> expansive culture's pioneers. > > > Correct. There aren't any expansive culture pioneers with the > intelligence and resources to cross light years in an expanding > universe. The growth of intelligence stops them. By definition, if > they are expanding across light years then they are not intelligent. > More like a virus or at least a psychotic intelligence. An M brain > would either ignore them or use them for some nefarious purpose. > Might even fix their intelligence so they don't want to be pioneers > any more. ;) > Such a universe is one you personally want to inhabit and help set up? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jul 4 21:24:49 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:24:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Libertarian paternalism In-Reply-To: <20060703023804.GA10033@ofb.net> References: <20060703023804.GA10033@ofb.net> Message-ID: On Jul 2, 2006, at 7:38 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/richard.thaler/research/LIbpatLaw.pdf > > Cass Sunsteina and Richard Thaler defend what they call libertarian > paternalism, on grounds of bounded rationality. Ha! If they put those two words together in one phrase one may be quite sure that their rationality is [very] bounded indeed. Such steering of choice amounts to a likely imposition of force incompatible with libertarianism. It also to some degree derails feedback from reality on the micro level of individual choices. It would require superior relatively all wise "parents" capable of mapping decisions and consequences better than local actors. We have seen just how well such centralized "benevolence" works in practice. For humans to be acting as the "parents" also has well known temptations and tendencies to major corruption and eventual oppression. - samantha From amara at amara.com Tue Jul 4 21:33:21 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 23:33:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Morford: Crazy Healers Enter the World Message-ID: >and Italy and Germany are just went into overtime.... Woo hoo! INCREDIBLE game.. Italy just scored twice in five minutes after 2 hours of no scoring, multiple attempts by both sides and the finest soccer playing I've ever seen. You wouldn't believe the noise here. Horns and firecrackers and fireworks. My apartment building is vibrating. There will be a huge party all over Italy tonight, if my corner of my sleepy little village is an example. This isn't about patriotism, it is about a show of incredible skill and flair and heart. WOW. From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jul 4 21:39:37 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:39:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism? In-Reply-To: <380-22006713184833960@M2W030.mail2web.com> References: <380-22006713184833960@M2W030.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On Jul 3, 2006, at 11:48 AM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > From: Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com > >> I am not sure that survival is where the roots are. Humanity seems >> to have a deep yearning to overcome various limitations and forms of >> suffering. That yearning is seen is religions, in philosophy, in >> art, in various idealistic notions and systems, and in >> transhumanism. Transhumanism seems to be a manifestation of that >> ancient drive made aware of science and technological >> possibilities. So I think the impulse behind transhumanism goes >> beyond survival or at least that 'survival' misses important nuances. > > What motivates the desire to overcoming limitations, if not a need to > survive the limitations? To have life more abundantly. > > Are religious practices and rituals a means to help people survive > current > conditions, both mental and physical? This is only part of what they are though. There is a strong "impulse" to imagining a radically better world. There is an "impulse" to self/world transformation in the direction that is perceived as better. It does not appear to me that all of this is subsumed under mere survival. > Is art a means to overcome (survive) > mundacity or a repetitious-constant-state of life by creating > alterative > ways of seeing the world? Is that ancient drive you refer to > motivated by > a need to survive? Was the first technology (tool) built to > protect or > kill in order to survive? > > What is the impulse behind survival? This does not seem to me to be the question or part of the question you originally asked. - samantha From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Jul 4 21:40:02 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 17:40:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Morford: Crazy Healers Enter the World In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060704173626.023afc70@gmu.edu> At 05:33 PM 7/4/2006, Amara Graps wrote: > >and Italy and Germany are just went into overtime.... > >Woo hoo! INCREDIBLE game.. Italy just scored twice in >five minutes after 2 hours of no scoring, multiple attempts >by both sides and the finest soccer playing I've ever seen. >You wouldn't believe the noise here. Horns and firecrackers and >fireworks. My apartment building is vibrating. There will be a >huge party all over Italy tonight, if my corner of my sleepy >little village is an example. >This isn't about patriotism, it is about a show of incredible >skill and flair and heart. WOW. I might believe you if Germany is partying just as hard as Italy, or if Italy would be partying just has hard had they lost. But you don't believe either of those claims do you? Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Jul 4 21:41:51 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 22:41:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: <20060704144050.GL26630@leitl.org> References: <20060630105711.GN26630@leitl.org> <20060701203900.GC26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> <20060702105612.GL26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607020509h6dd7b220g636771dd2433c7c5@mail.gmail.com> <20060704144050.GL26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607041441yf01d707n9963f6a0e966e9b7@mail.gmail.com> On 7/4/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > You don't know this until the mutation happened. Computing > phenotype fitness from mutation is not feasible in principle, > given that you don't know what the others do. Perhaps not in principle, but in practice people do it all the time - it's called art and engineering. Yes it's still differential survival of replicators, but - as a matter of empirical data, not just theory - the dynamics are quite different from those of biology. Where did 'hours' come from, kemo sabe? A gram of smarts on a hundred ton probe (i.e. very little slowdown) over an interstellar-range jump, check the maths yourself. This is actually an unrealistically bad scenario, since in reality a probe with a payload people think is valuable will have far more resources available for its acceleration than one with a payload that's of no value to anyone except itself. I've seen data on microwave-irradiated carbon trus cloth sails being > accelerable > at 3 g. Phased-array microwave radiators with ~lighthour to ~lightday > aperture could > track this with enough luminosity (some 2 kK sail operation temperature) > for > months. Don't ask me for the math, do it yourself. Oh, Starwisp. I did: It requires huge, expensive infrastructure for launch, something that would be the product of a mature civilization, not a lichen-equivalent dumb pioneer (let alone a parasite-infested one!) Starwisp dies to collision with hydrogen atoms long before it clears the solar system let alone travels interstellar distances. Even if you postulate unobtainium shielding, it decelerates due to said collisions before it gets very far (mean free path of interstellar atoms is something like a few light-hours, you need to go light-years). Even if it somehow reaches its destination, it just flies past because it has no way to brake (the above deceleration doesn't slow it down enough). This does strike me as highly plausible. D. radiodurans does it for biology. > Redundant encoding, diagnostics and constant rebuild in the background > plus > redudant probes results in effectively unkillable high-velocity probes. > Your worst problems are dust grains (take out one probe) and heavy ion > tracks. Notice that the microwave beam will spontaneously push a clean > tunnel through the interstellar medium clearing the path ahead of you, > and magnetic fields (perhaps frozen with a plasma shield) can deflect > ionized particles sufficiently that it doesn't hit your payload with. D. radiodurans can take a few megarad before it dies, that's not within orders of magnitude of good enough for relativistic cruising without heavy shielding. Plus you'll be losing atoms all the time to erosion, eventually you'll just plain run out. I don't know whether microwaves will push stuff out of the way, but even if so, they have long wavelength so the beam diffracts away well short of the destination. Magnetic field generators of that power level are massive. (Scaling laws are not your friends if you want to use magnetic fields on a small scale.) I don't think whether the sacrificial sail approach would work. Even if it would, that means a long-term commitment to maintain and operate Dyson sphere sized infrastructure at home. Again you're talking about a mature civilization, not dumb r-strategist pioneers. Antimatter-catalyzed > fusion drive and antimatter drive would work. Maybe. If so, you're talking about - again - huge investment and a massive probe. (Again, scaling laws are not your friends if you want to use engines like that on other than a very large scale.) And numerical analyses put the maximum delta-v of such drives, even making very optimistic feasibility assumptions, at no more than a few tenths of c. Again you're assuming the probe is painted (you know where it is) The acceleration beam will do that very nicely indeed. and you can illuminate it with critical luminosity, and that the > probe will make no attempts to shield. *laughs* A Nicoll-Dyson laser could boil a planet to vapor at a hundred million light years range, and no, that is not a typo. (See rec.arts.sf.science for discussion and calculations.) Somehow the ability of such a weapon to kill a minimum-mass ship (let alone a Starwisp!) is not one of the things I lack confidence in :) Viruses don't have bombs, yet kill people just fine. Guns and bombs don't > wipe stellar systems; nukes are largely useless in space. Stealth and > backstabbing > work fine, guns and bombs, or no. Starvation works fine. Just because > you're > no longer scheduled to die it doesn't mean you can't die. Numerical analyses indicate (again see rec.arts.sf.science) that stealth is completely hopeless in space but nukes and lasers will work fine, so you'll be looking at ranged combat where one side (along with some fraction of the other side) will be vapor (and blow away on the solar wind) before tooth-and-claw distance is reached. They're not arbitrary at all. I've found several folks who've arrived at > exactly the same conclusions in isolation. Yes, I used to be one of them. What precisely do you think is fishy with machine-phase? On the one hand, > you seem to assume it's possible. On the other hand, you have a very > selective view on the capabilities. I think like nuclear energy, space travel and digital computers it will turn out that it's possible and can do interesting things but isn't the magic fairy dust its early proponents and detractors both portrayed it as. Bzzt. Wrong answer. You have to focus on the branch with the outcome that is > bad for you. Everything else takes care of itself nicely. Oh well if _that's_ what you're looking for, I can certainly oblige. I did mention I'm a pessimist, right? :) Here's my prediction: We die long before getting anywhere near the tech level required to make any of this anything other than pure science fiction. The road is too long, life - the lives of men, the life of Man - too short. As far as I can reckon, that's the most probable outcome. It's not certain, though. The fat lady hasn't sung yet; we still have a chance. _If_ we keep moving forward. If progress meant certain extinction then people might as well die at home as anywhere else, and if you convince them of that then that's precisely what they'll do. The reality, though, is that life is inherently unpredictable. I can't predict the future of life, nor can you, nor can anyone else. If we live we'll have problems, and we'll just have to deal with them as they arise. I can, however, predict the future of death, and decide to try to avoid it; and that is all of my purpose here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jul 4 21:48:12 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:48:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism? In-Reply-To: <380-22006713194533254@M2W029.mail2web.com> References: <380-22006713194533254@M2W029.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On Jul 3, 2006, at 12:45 PM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > From: Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com > >> Mere survival does not say much about the development of >> transhumanism or most ideologies. Humans in large numbers have >> sacrificed even survival to their ideologies. > > For these people, survival means their ideology survives, not > themselves. > Survival does have a different impacts and meanings and is not > necessarily > synonymous with overcoming physical death. For many the body is > just a > vehicle and the spirit survives the body. You seem to be working hard for the survival as defining impulse behind transhumanism to survive. :-) Having a vision of what is possible in one's art, work, world etc. that becomes by choice the meaning of one's life is one view on the multi-varied purposes and impulses that drive us. Saying that having such a purpose is still just survival seems to me to miss much too much. > >> So it seems clear that >> 'survival' is a poor candidate by itself. It also leaves open a >> question or two such as "survival as what and on what terms"? > > For transhumanists survival is based on the motivation to overcome > death. > For most transhumanists I know much more than merely overcoming their personal death is at stake and drives their being transhumanist. >> If we say transhumanism is about survival others will cry out that >> their >> survival as themselves and the survival of what they care most about >> requires them to utterly oppose us. > > I don?t think transhumanism is interested in interfering with other's > beliefs as long as those beliefs do not impinge on transhumanism. My point there is that mere survival is not very motivating to a lot of people (including transhumanists) without much more being said about the shape that survival will/may likely take. Would I say choose survival in some virtual hell realm? No, I would not. - samantha From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Jul 4 21:37:50 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:37:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] carver In-Reply-To: <2b6401c69f83$fdff7fb0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200607042151.k64LpMGJ028510@andromeda.ziaspace.com> In the debates over alternate motor fuels such as alcohol, the factor I often see neglected is the enormous capacity to downsize the typical ape hauler. Perhaps we get in this trap because there is a definite limit to how short and how narrow a four wheeler can go while maintaining a modicum of stability. But a design like this one has a lot of potential to be way downsized: http://www.carver-worldwide.com/SubItem/SubItem.asp?S_ID=33 The Dutch have a great idea here. I thought so when I first saw it at a motorcycle show nearly 15 years ago. The Carver is a much larger version of the vehicle I have in mind. Go over some of the specs, you will see that it weighs only a little less than my 86 Honda Accord, and gets only a little better fuel economy. But a pivoting frame three-wheeler can be downsized more than any four wheel or rigid frame three wheel design. The front wheel need not carry a side load, so the assembly can be made lighter, while allowing a round profile lower rolling resistance tire like motorcycle wheels. The frame can be made lighter since it needs to carry lower torsion loads. The Carver is a hotrod, but we can imagine something far more modest, such as a twin cylinder ~100cc internal combustion engine turning a generator with electric direct drive on both rear wheels for a true series hybrid. This configuration allows excellent weight loss, if we are willing to accept the very leisurely acceleration and pokey top speeds this design would yield. I can imagine configurations that would offer double the fuel economy of this Carver, if we accept performance numbers far below those to which we have grown so fondly accustomed. spike From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jul 4 21:57:56 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:57:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <200607031954.k63JsBge021103@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200607031954.k63JsBge021103@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <337246D8-1881-4878-A7D8-F21FA2FCC65A@mac.com> On Jul 3, 2006, at 12:54 PM, spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > ... > >>> Everywhere in the maternity hospital, >>> everything had Spanish. But I saw something I had never seen in >>> America: a sign posted in Spanish only. >>> >> >> I think this is a travesty. The "melting pot" is no longer >> maintained or seen as a good thing... With heavy identity with >> one's >> "tribe" individuality is lost. >> >> - samantha > > Since then I have given this some thought. In all the English and > Spanish > signs, the message is simple enough that most Taxifornians already > know the > message even if they offer no Inglese equivalent. For instance we > all know > that Cuidado caliente is Caution, hot. But this Spanish-only sign > in the > hospital started with Cuidado, then had a bunch of Espaniol I didn't > recognize and couldn't easily decipher, so I didn't comprehende for > what > they were cuidadoing me, but it was a mucho big sign that cuidadoed > me, muy > grande. So I asked la nurse: que pasa senorita, oye como na? > > The Taxifornia maternity patients are majority habla Spanish now. > If an > expectant madre has sufficient pesos in Mexico, it makes a lot of > sense to > take a muy poco vacation in the Norte, visit relatives and friends > for a few > weeks, in about the ochoeth month of pregnancy. No visa is > required, no > verde card, nada, only a passport, since the madre is not actually > getting a > job here. The doctor bills will be picked up by la hospital, the > baby has > dual US and Mexican citizenship forever, as will all of the baby's > offspring, so her options are many. All this can be bought for the > price of > an airline ticket. > > There is one other wild card here. Spanish is a far easier second > language > for Asians to learn than Inglese. The Japanese guy that runs the > local > sushi bar commented that he is far more fluent in Spanish than > English, even > tho he wasn't really trying to learn it. He worked at English, but > absorbed > the Espaniol. Spanish might become the defacto favored second > language for > the melting pot that is Taxifornia. I do not believe that such an official second language policy is generally a good idea. It is a fine idea to have signs in locations such as hospital be multi-lingual. But I do not feel comfortable with an assumption that some other language should always be available much less given equal or greater footing in the US or parts of the US. An influx of immigrants generally has not led to this in the past. There are communities where other languages are common and small communities where even the signs are in other languages. But I believe it is important to resist much more than that and insist immigrants learn the one official language if they wish to be successful in this country. Other issues of our notions of "multiculturalism" are more problematic. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jul 4 22:00:16 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:00:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <20060703200437.GL26630@leitl.org> References: <200607031954.k63JsBge021103@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060703200437.GL26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1D5F26B7-0EAF-4B5D-86AC-4FE7AB528CDE@mac.com> On Jul 3, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 12:54:03PM -0700, spike wrote: > >> Spanish might become the defacto favored second language for >> the melting pot that is Taxifornia. > > What's the recent trend in the fraction of techies that is Hispanic? On the ground in my limited exposure as a techie I see a lot of Asians and [east] Indians but very few Hispanics. The ones I do see have excellent English. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jul 4 22:02:43 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:02:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism? In-Reply-To: <47570.72.236.102.125.1151962321.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060630112322.04994760@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200606302333.k5UNXoMt010712@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <47570.72.236.102.125.1151962321.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: On Jul 3, 2006, at 2:32 PM, MB wrote: > >> Therefore modern babies will tend to scream their heads off when >> it gets >> too >> still and quiet. >> >> Thank you very freaking much, evolution. {8-[ >> >> > > So put a radio or CD player in his room and play something. :) > Personally > I'd choose really fine music in an effort to avoid whatever random > cr*p > might come through on any radio program. Or a loud ticking clock, like > they use for orphaned puppies. The kid has had 9 months of intense > unavoidable internal noises: heartbeat, digestion, conversation, etc. > Silence must be quite shocking. A while back there were claims that playing classical music to babies and toddlers greatly aided the flowering of their intelligence. - samantha From amara at amara.com Tue Jul 4 22:10:10 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 00:10:10 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Morford: Crazy Healers Enter the World Message-ID: Robin: >I might believe you if Germany is partying just as hard as Italy, >or if Italy would be partying just has hard had they lost. But >you don't believe either of those claims do you? Personally, I don't care. It was an AMAZING display of skills on both sides, so I'm thrilled either way. However, I saw the camera on some Germans, who were crying, and I have not experienced my neighbors this excited before, so I suspect that many others don't think like me. And the costumes were COOL.. did you see all of the multicolored hair? :-) Amara From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Jul 4 22:11:39 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:11:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extinctions In-Reply-To: <35842.86.143.246.157.1149947443.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <20060608175858.BCD5E57FD1@finney.org> <200606090218.k592Ib90027862@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <34951.86.143.246.157.1149904526.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060610053239.GA7494@ofb.net> <35842.86.143.246.157.1149947443.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060704221139.GA13912@ofb.net> On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 03:50:43PM +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Damien Sullivan wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 03:55:26AM +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > > >> Besides, have anybody calculated how we rate compared to K/T and Perm? I > >> think we still are within the normal noise rate of species/megayear? > > More like 100-10,000 times the normal rate. Possibly comparable to K/T, > > especially if things go on. http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/07/unchecked_globa.html "Jim Hansen predicts that unchecked global warming would push at least 50% of the worlds' species out of their survival zones." -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue Jul 4 22:12:56 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:12:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Libertarian paternalism In-Reply-To: References: <20060703023804.GA10033@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060704221256.GB13912@ofb.net> On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 02:24:49PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > On Jul 2, 2006, at 7:38 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > > http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/richard.thaler/research/LIbpatLaw.pdf > > > > Cass Sunsteina and Richard Thaler defend what they call libertarian > > paternalism, on grounds of bounded rationality. > > Ha! If they put those two words together in one phrase one may be > quite sure that their rationality is [very] bounded indeed. Such > steering of choice amounts to a likely imposition of force > incompatible with libertarianism. It also to some degree derails Did you actually read the paper? Any of it? -xx- Damien X-) From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Jul 4 22:29:51 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 23:29:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0607011658p750c2524tce758dbd0809983a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607041529l5e75aa60tad064e3f60c7aef4@mail.gmail.com> On 7/4/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Well, *slightly* before you did---that's true. Are you saying that there > will be a continuous stream of pellets arriving? If so, I have always > though that they must colonize by persuasion (The Wind from Earth), > because very soon the pellets that have taken over a planet have the > resources to destroy incoming pellets no matter how smart they are. My guess would be that a newly colonized and initially mostly empty star system may be receptive to further immigrants, but as it fills up it will start putting up "migrants please move on to the next empty star system" signs. (Historical analogies would be the recolonization of Krakatoa by plants and animals after the eruption, and European immigration to the colonies in America and Australia - in each case as niches are filled the barriers to further immigration become higher.) In particular: suppose that empire A (even if it is only a few blocks big > on Earth, though I had in mind star-cluster sized entities) got going > according to the galactic clock a few thousand years before empire B. > Then A is larger, i.e. more extensive, than B. > > But the key location is where A's boundary encounters B's. Is there > fighting? First, even though at the center of their empires, A is > a thousand years more advanced than B, at the boundaries their > technologies are equal. This is because of the very limited speeds > at which they spread initially. So A really has no advantage in > the frontier fighting. > > But will there be war? I don't think so because if you graph the > conflicts between France and England---just to take two examples--- > you'll notice a strong secular change from 1200 (e.g. the Hundred > Years War) to 1815. In the beginning of that period they warred > almost constantly (as did practically everyone else in history). > One reason is very simple: at earlier stages of technology it is > easier to gain wealth by seizing your neighbor's than by developing > it yourself. But later, in the 18th and 19th century, war actually > impoverishes everyone. Yes, my guess is that the same will be true in a high-tech future: resources will mostly be apportioned by negotiation rather than fighting, because war impoverishes both sides. Exactly! I hope that everyone understood your terse statements; > though (thankfully) not as terse as Eugen's amazing pronouncements. :-) ^.^ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Jul 4 22:14:04 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:14:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200607042232.k64MWZoE017475@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 1:37 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do On Jul 2, 2006, at 2:34 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: On 7/2/06, BillK wrote: Remember that once we get our own gram of civilization each, our motivations and knowledge are likely to greatly change. I doubt that doing a Star Trek, conquer the universe will seem very attractive... Finally, somebody understands why Matrioshka Brains don't tend to colonize! ... Robert All of our speculation will someday no doubt be very amusing to actual posthumans. - samantha Our speculations are very amusing to actual humans now. Recall we had a thread on this topic about 5 years ago that Robert started. It was about the value of future thought vs present thought. That lead me to derive a mathematical model of sorts, from which I became convinced that it wouldn't be worth the energy and matter for an M-brain to bother communicating with another nearby M-brain. We see something analogous to this situation can be seen with seasoned veteran internet users vs new guys. When someone uses a peculiar term (such as M-brain) the newby will ask what is an M-brain. The vet will google on it. The new guy has to wait hours for a response, the vet will invest a modicum of effort and find the answer in a couple minutes. Similarly, an M-brain may find it much more energy and time efficient to actually calculate the answer M-self than to send a signal across space and wait for an answer. Can anyone locate that thread from way back? spike Hey, M-self, that's clever. I trademark that term. Then I donate it to the memesphere. From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jul 4 22:41:33 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:41:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Libertarian paternalism In-Reply-To: <20060704221256.GB13912@ofb.net> References: <20060703023804.GA10033@ofb.net> <20060704221256.GB13912@ofb.net> Message-ID: <61323B76-F993-4780-A106-B86363405291@mac.com> On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:12 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > Did you actually read the paper? Any of it? > I deeply apologize. I had not read the paper when I wrote those off the cuff comments. The long weekend is being used in part to catch up with the recent wonderful bounty of postings on the list. In the process I shorted this quite excellent piece that I largely support and agree with. Thank you for posting about it here. I find it very valuable and of help resolving some of my own conflicting ideals. - samantha From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Jul 4 21:56:09 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 16:56:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism? In-Reply-To: References: <380-22006713184833960@M2W030.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060704165014.02d86f08@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 04:39 PM 7/4/2006, Samantha wrote: > > What motivates the desire to overcoming limitations, if not a need to > > survive the limitations? > >To have life more abundantly. > > > Are religious practices and rituals a means to help people survive > > current > > conditions, both mental and physical? > >This is only part of what they are though. There is a strong >"impulse" to imagining a radically better world. There is an >"impulse" to self/world transformation in the direction that is >perceived as better. It does not appear to me that all of this is >subsumed under mere survival. I have stretched the definition of survival. After stating that survival was the impulse, days later (05/25/06) I wrote to the person and stated that survival was not the impulse: "I was incorrect when I stated that the impulse behind transhumanism is 'survival.' Survival is necessary in achieving extended life spans; however, it is only one of many desired outcomes of this transnational cultural movement. "More accurately, the impulse behind transhumanism is the desire to "improve" the human condition through the beneficial use of technology. This aspiration includes, on an individual scope, increased cognitive capacity, amplified sensory ability, heightened awareness, and enhanced physical attributes. On the larger span of humanity, developing an 'improved' human condition would be the designing and implementing of systematic methods to explore/investigate the socio-political-economic domains which affect and are affected by the scientific-technological-arts-environmental domains." Then, after reading Spencer, I resumed my original thought that survival is the key impulse. The other impulses are secondary. > > Is art a means to overcome (survive) > > mundacity or a repetitious-constant-state of life by creating > > alterative > > ways of seeing the world? Is that ancient drive you refer to > > motivated by > > a need to survive? Was the first technology (tool) built to > > protect or > > kill in order to survive? > > > > What is the impulse behind survival? > >This does not seem to me to be the question or part of the question >you originally asked. Questions lead to more questions and different literary tracks. It's the only way to discover. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Jul 5 00:07:50 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 17:07:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <337246D8-1881-4878-A7D8-F21FA2FCC65A@mac.com> Message-ID: <200607050007.k6507wnH024498@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins ... > insist immigrants learn the one official language if they wish to be > successful in this country. > > Other issues of our notions of "multiculturalism" are more problematic. > > - samantha I agree wholeheartedly, but there is a problem with that notion. The reconquistas have pointed out that it will not take so very many years before Spanish becomes the predominant language of California, regardless of immigration policy. The native Spanish speakers would theoretically have the voting power to make that the official language of the state, at which time Taxamento would be insisting that you and I learn Spanish in order to be successful in this country. Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi points out that no one need wage jihad in Europe, for simple linear extrapolation based on birthrates show that European nations will have Muslim majorities in the foreseeable future, regardless of immigration policy. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1626249/posts Those who follow US politics could scarcely fail to notice that conservatives are breeding way faster than liberals. The maternity ward is reshaping our world faster than any other factor it would seem. spike From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 00:47:49 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 17:47:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Libertarian paternalism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060705004749.96921.qmail@web52614.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/richard.thaler/research/LIbpatLaw.pdf > > > > Cass Sunsteina and Richard Thaler defend what they > call libertarian paternalism > > Such steering of choice amounts to a likely > imposition of force incompatible with > libertarianism. It also to some degree derails > feedback from reality on the micro level of > individual choices. It would require superior > relatively all wise "parents" capable of mapping > decisions and consequences better than local > actors. We have seen just how well such > centralized "benevolence" works in > practice. Sunsteina and Thaler dismiss the libertarian view that individuals plan best for themselves with the analogy: "Suppose that a chess novice were to play against an experienced player. Predictably the novice would lose precisely because he made inferior choices?choices that could easily be improved by some helpful hints. [..] So long as people are not choosing perfectly, it is at least possible that some policy could make them better off by improving their decisions." But of course virtually nobody, even a central planner, has perfect knowledge. The analogy looks like a red herring. They also express the libertarian view in question as holding "that almost all people, almost all of the time, make choices that are in their best interest or at the very least are better, by their own lights, than the choices that would be made by third parties." That looks like a straw man; notice that saying "almost all people, almost all of the time" looks set up to fail. In my opinion, the libertarian view is not that almost everyone always makes the best possible choice toward their goals. It is instead that more often than not, x million free and consensual actors (bounded only by private property, contract law, and tort liability) will by their own free choices optimize the allocation of resources towards their net maximal happiness better than any set of central planners. That more accurate representation of the view is also testable, and I believe is shown to be true at least most often if not almost always. ~Ian http://IanGoddard.net "A proposition is a model of reality as we imagine it." - Wittgenstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Jul 5 03:22:21 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 23:22:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] carver In-Reply-To: <200607042151.k64LpMGJ028510@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <2b6401c69f83$fdff7fb0$6600a8c0@brainiac> <200607042151.k64LpMGJ028510@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 7/4/06, spike wrote: > > In the debates over alternate motor fuels such as alcohol, the factor I > often see neglected is the enormous capacity to downsize the typical ape > hauler. [snip] Spike, I suspect that glucose might be the alternate fuel with the best mileage. See [1,2] for a discussion of using this approach. Robert 1. http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2005/images/Thursday/fredThurs.jpg 2. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/03/1846203 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Wed Jul 5 03:44:59 2006 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 23:44:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Libertarian paternalism In-Reply-To: <20060705004749.96921.qmail@web52614.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060705004749.96921.qmail@web52614.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f0607042044k2722a1b9ge2c3b2b33ed7e0f3@mail.gmail.com> On 7/4/06, Ian Goddard wrote: > In my opinion, the libertarian view is [...] > That more accurate representation of the view is also > testable, and I believe is shown to be true at least > most often if not almost always. ~Ian References, please? Thanks, -- Jeff Medina new site - http://jeff.medina.googlepages.com/ (http://painfullyclear.com/ servers having technical issues, apparently) Associate 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 spike66 at comcast.net Wed Jul 5 04:09:26 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:09:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] carver In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200607050409.k6549b0A010451@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Robert Bradbury Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] carver On 7/4/06, spike wrote: ... enormous capacity to downsize the typical ape hauler. [snip] Spike, I suspect that glucose might be the alternate fuel with the best mileage. See [1,2] for a discussion of using this approach.? Robert 1. http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2005/images/Thursday/fredThurs.jp g 2. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/03/1846203 Robert you may recall I ride a recumbent bicycle. They make a lot of sense from an engineering point of view: some weight penalty, better for decreased wind resistance. On the road they are harder for motorists to see being closer to the ground. spike From moulton at moulton.com Wed Jul 5 08:30:30 2006 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 01:30:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: References: <200607031954.k63JsBge021103@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1152088231.17186.998.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 14:35 +0100, BillK wrote: > Hispanics are already the majority in California, so if they organise > their voting power, Spanish will be the first language in California. > :) Everyone needs to take a deep breath and get a grip; this is supposed to be a list for Extropians; you know those people who try to do some detailed research and analysis. Maybe we should practice these skills before we all go rushing out for our Jupiter sized brains. First according to the 2000 census figures on the web from the state of California Hispanics are not the majority http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/SDC/documents/table4.xls. Actually what has happened in the past few years is that California has joined Hawaii and New Mexico as a state without a majority when you split Hispanic out as separate from Non-Hispanic White. At some point in the future it is possible that one or more states may have a majority of people who classify themselves as Hispanic. Of course this is complicated by the question of exactly what is meant by Hispanic and other terms and what about persons of multi-racial ancestry? For example how do you classify someone who ancestors were Black slaves brought from Africa to Brazil and now that person speaks Portuguese and now a US citizen; is this person Hispanic? What if this persons ancestors can been taken to Mexico instead of Brazil and this person now is a US citizen who speaks Spanish? And do not forget that being able to speak Portuguese or Spanish does not mean that you can not also speak English. I also see not reason to expect intermarriage of persons who consider themselves Hispanic with persons who consider themselves Non- Hispanic to vanish so this leads to even more complications for those who want to classify their biological children. Second remember that just because someone is classified as Hispanic does not mean that they speak Spanish to the exclusion of English in fact they might not speak Spanish at all. Third please consider some history. According to the original Constitution of the State of California: Article XL Sec. 21. All laws, decrees, regulations, and provisions, which from their nature require publication, shall be published in English and Spanish. There seemed to have been more Spanish speakers than English speakers in 1849 and both languages were given equal status. In the 1870s when English speakers were more numerous a revised constitution was adopted that dropped the dual role of Spanish and English. In the 1980s there were further changes; now the California Constitution says "English is the official language of the State of California." See Article 3 Section 6 for this and other similar entries. So far in California the group that historically has been forced one language over another has been the English speakers not the Spanish speakers. Of course that was over 100 years ago and perhaps things are different now but unless some one can demonstrate that the ideas of the "reconquistas" representative of an overwhelming proportion of persons labeled as Hispanic then I find a lot this rhetoric as deficient. Of course if I ever became fluent is Spanish it would make my Eighth grade Spanish teacher happy since I was not a star pupil when I first tackled Spanish. Fred From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jul 5 10:45:48 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 18:45:48 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <1152088231.17186.998.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200607031954.k63JsBge021103@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1152088231.17186.998.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On 7/5/06, Fred C. Moulton wrote: > Everyone needs to take a deep breath and get a grip; this is supposed to > be a list for Extropians; you know those people who try to do some > detailed research and analysis. Maybe we should practice these skills > before we all go rushing out for our Jupiter sized brains. > > First according to the 2000 census figures on the web from the state of > California Hispanics are not the majority > http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/SDC/documents/table4.xls. The 2000 census figures are six years out-of-date. Obviously! :) California issued these estimates in 2004: Quotes: Although still the largest race/ethnic group, Whites were, by 2004, 44.6 percent of the population, down from 47.2 percent in 2000. In the same period Hispanics grew by 2.3 percent to almost 35 percent of the total. Asians grew from 11 percent to 11.6 percent of the total, and Blacks dropped to 6 percent from 6.5 percent. Multirace persons held the next largest share, 2 percent, with the two smallest groups, American Indians and Pacific Islanders, holding 0.58 percent and 0.35 percent shares, respectively. These rates of growth and decline resulted from very different patterns in the components of change (births, deaths and migration) by race/ethnicity. In fact, three fourths of the population growth of California by 2004 was Hispanic. It is projected in a separate report that Hispanics will become the largest race/ethnic group in the state by 2011. --------------------------------- So you are correct that Hispanics are not yet the largest single ethnic group in California. But in total, whites were in the minority in 2000, a smaller minority in 2004, and expected to continue reducing as a percentage of the California population. You point out the problem of classifying the ethnic origin. The census bureau has discussed this at length, and agrees that the statistics could be misleading, or double-counted for people of more than one ethnic origin. I think what *really* worries people is the illegal immigration which may never appear in the official statistics. People believe that the situation is much worse than stated despite the reassuring noises made by government. BillK From amara at amara.com Wed Jul 5 16:41:26 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 18:41:26 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Music for little transhumans Message-ID: spike: >Consider the English words to your >Latvian melody: >Campfire glows in the dark >Sparks rise into the air >The night is dark, no one's around >Here is our parting... >This reminds me of Mt. Rainier, after which Isaac Rainier was named. His >mother and I have hiked and camped on Rainier's Wonderland Trail many times. That ditty also helped me climb some of my hardest bicycle climbs in California and Germany (singing to myself). My Heidelberg colleague had a very cool backpack he used for his baby when he went on day hikes with us. He bought it in the US, but I don't remember the brand name. Please consider taking Isaac Rainier on the trails one of your next times. Fresh air and good for the family. Also, you might try bicycle touring together in the not too-distant future too: http://gorp.away.com/gorp/publishers/menasha/bik_kids.htm http://www.bicycletouring101.com/GagnonFamily.htm http://www.cycletote.com/ http://www.ibike.org/education/infant.htm 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/ ******************************************************************** "Looking up gives light, although at first it makes you dizzy." --Mevlana Rumi From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 18:05:37 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 11:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Libertarian paternalism In-Reply-To: <5844e22f0607042044k2722a1b9ge2c3b2b33ed7e0f3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060705180537.68489.qmail@web52610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jeff Medina wrote: > On 7/4/06, Ian Goddard wrote: > > In my opinion, the libertarian view is [...] > > That more accurate representation of the view is > > also testable, and I believe is shown to be true > > at least most often if not almost always. ~Ian > > References, please? My statements do reference their cited source... my opinion. If you disagree, feel free say so or cite some contrary data. The empirical substrates of my opinion include the systematic failure of centrally planned economies to meet consumer demands and survive. Communist countries, most of which are extinct, are examples of pure central planning. Whatever one may argue wrt to mixed economies (as most are), we have in those cases clear and consistent examples that pure central planning appears to systematically fail to both meet consumer demands and foster economic growth versus freer economies. Secondly, trends in immigration should be a good measure of societies that best meet the needs of people. Based on my own informal observations I believe the general trend is for people to leave less free economies and move to freer economies. Certainly, by itself, the history of immigration into the United States stands as a prima facie example of mass movements of people into freer economies. So again, I believe such movement is a good example of what forms of economic organization best meet the needs of people, and I believe the general trend is for people to move to freer economies. ~Ian http://IanGoddard.net "A proposition is a model of reality as we imagine it." - Wittgenstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 18:27:40 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 11:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hey guys, I've been struggling with an issue for a few months now, ever since I first learned about the Singularity and its myriad implications. My dilemma is that I'm not sure that I should try to inform and educate my friends and loved ones about the Singularity. I'm concerned that this knowledge of the Singularity may have a net negative impact on their lives. I am not ashamed to confess to you all that the Singularity meme has personally caused me a not-insignificant amount of fear and anxiety. To be totally 100% honest, sometimes I wish that I had never learned about the Singularity and instead had just been just as surprised as the other 99% are going to be. But the Singularity is NOT something one can learn about and then just forget. ;-) Because I cannot step outside myself, it is extremely difficult for me to judge whether or not this level of fear is justified or not. Perhaps I am just fearful and pessimistic by nature, and perhaps this fear is irrational. But, then again, perhaps not. If the Singularity goes very badly, and humanity is wiped out, then how will the foreknowledge of the Singularity have benefited my friends? In this particular case, it would seem to be a detriment to their quality of life, over the short-term. What do y'all think? Should I attempt to inform my friends? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Jul 5 22:08:27 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 18:08:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 7/5/06, A B wrote: > If the Singularity goes very badly, and humanity is wiped out, then how > will the foreknowledge of the Singularity have benefited my friends? > First, it might be good to recognize that humanity is *continually* being "wiped out". There is no human alive today that was alive ~120 years ago [1]. Given the amount that is known about the possibilities for possible bad scenarios I would predict people would probably work to prevent them. Is that completely possible? Probably not. But there is a relatively high probability that worst case scenarios will not develop. Are we on a course for the best case scenarios (there are multiple variants). Absolutely not. For example I can make a very good case that the war in Iraq will in retrospect end up having cost millions, perhaps tens of millions of lives (due to the fact that that money that will be unavailable for nanomedical related developments that would significantly extend the lifespan of millions of people). In this particular case, it would seem to be a detriment to their quality of > life, over the short-term. What do y'all think? > Should you educate them. Yes. You should however do so carefully. Throwing the complete vision on them will most likely result in rejection. "Everyone on the planet, living in a mansion like Bill Gates, for free, are you NUTS!" [2] My suggestion would be that you should never hand people the conclusions unless you can explain reasonably well how one gets there. And getting people to the point where they even understand molecular nanotechnology alone really requires reading entire textbooks. But if people can see the good and the bad side by side they can begin to consider how to develop paths where the good is significantly favored over the bad. For example the "grey goo" scenario has already been analysed in depth and been found to be a situation that can be avoided. Should I attempt to inform my friends? > Start them off slow with something like "Unbounding the Future" and then maybe "The Spike" and/or "The Last Mortal Generation". Then let them ask questions. Let them connect the dots. Humanity ultimately has choices to make about where it wants to go and the costs it is willing to endure (suffer?) in order to get there -- but getting people to the point where they can see that is hard -- very hard. Robert 1. The extended longevity part of the singularity vision significantly extends natural human longevity in the direction of multi-thousand year "natural" human lifespans. So that part of it *significantly* reduces the fraction of humanity that is "wiped out" on an annual basis. 2. That is the net conclusion one reaches if you ponder my Sapphire Mansions paper for very long -- of course that is just the nanorobot/replicator aspect of the Singularity vision. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Wed Jul 5 21:58:09 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:58:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44AC35F1.5020304@posthuman.com> I think you should also consider whether or when the "public" will become increasingly aware of this possibility. It requires something jolting for that to happen, perhaps if a large chunk of "white collar" workers start to get automated out of their jobs by rapidly improving hardware/software. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jul 5 22:58:34 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 23:58:34 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 7/5/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > First, it might be good to recognize that humanity is *continually* being > "wiped out". There is no human alive today that was alive ~120 years ago > [1]. Given the amount that is known about the possibilities for possible > bad scenarios I would predict people would probably work to prevent them. > Is that completely possible? Probably not. But there is a relatively high > probability that worst case scenarios will not develop. Are we on a course > for the best case scenarios (there are multiple variants). Absolutely not. > For example I can make a very good case that the war in Iraq will in > retrospect end up having cost millions, perhaps tens of millions of lives > (due to the fact that that money that will be unavailable for nanomedical > related developments that would significantly extend the lifespan of > millions of people). > You could also make a case that the war in Iraq will save millions of lives by driving the Singularity technology forward. Research on robotic vehicles, robot bomb investigators, robots to go into tunnels, robot flying vehicles, new weaponry, new medical facilities, new bionic limbs, new armor technology, new radars, nano technology, computer systems, ..... the list goes on. There is a vast amount being invested in pushing research on as fast as possible to support the war in Iraq. BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Jul 5 23:28:39 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 00:28:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607051628s45dc6ea5g4987475d06ad6c55@mail.gmail.com> On 7/5/06, A B wrote: > I've been struggling with an issue for a few months now, ever since I > first learned about the Singularity and its myriad implications. My dilemma > is that I'm not sure that I should try to inform and educate my friends and > loved ones about the Singularity. > I think "tell the truth and shame the devil" is a good guideline. I also think, however, that the truth is that the more extreme Singularitarian predictions are about the human predilection to believe in doomsday/nirvana scenarios rather than the actual future. So I wouldn't say "nanotech is going to create magic utility fog that'll give everyone godlike powers" or "AI is going to take over the world and upload everyone into paradise". I would say "nanomedicine has the potential to repair bodily deterioration rather than just patch over the symptoms, so we can be enjoying life at age 90 rather than drooling down our chins in nursing homes", "molecular manufacturing has the potential to make it economically feasible to switch from an energy economy based on fossil fuels to one based on solar power" and "AI has the potential to create smart computer systems that can help us deal with the flood of information today's dumb computers are helping us create". Not just because the latter statements are less scary than the former, but more importantly because they have a far better chance of being true. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Jul 5 23:52:07 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 19:52:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 7/5/06, BillK wrote: > > You could also make a case that the war in Iraq will save millions of > lives by driving the Singularity technology forward. Research on > robotic vehicles, robot bomb investigators, robots to go into tunnels, > robot flying vehicles, new weaponry, new medical facilities, new > bionic limbs, new armor technology, new radars, nano technology, > computer systems, ..... the list goes on. The point might be that most of these technologies are all about developing better ways to minimize the threats posed by individuals with weapons directed against people who would not be targets if they were not explicitly put into harms way. Usually these technologies are directed at wounding or killing other people. I've yet to see plans for a robot that can disarm a human without causing them serious injury. (We tried that to some extent with nerve agents). More importantly -- there is *little* crossover between technologies developed to disable humans and technologies developed to prevent or eliminate the possibility of their disablement (from natural causes). You might be able to stretch things by arguing that technologies developed to repair injuries from bombs are not too distant from those involved in dealing with automobile accidents. But automobile accidents only kill ~50,000 people/year in the U.S. while aging related diseases kill several million/yr. I would also guess that the fraction of war financing that is going into R&D is on the order between 1-5% not 10-20% and an even smaller fraction of that is going into medically useful R&D from a lifespan extension perspective. The bottom line in my book is that total NIH funding is significantly less than $50B/yr while the war funding is pushing $500B over several years. You do the math. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu Jul 6 00:05:49 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 17:05:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: <20060704211223.GA3729@ofb.net> Message-ID: Damien S. writes > Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 2:12 PM > > On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 11:36:26AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Eugen takes the ecosystem view, and adduces the historical > > successes of free markets and other "out of control" systems. > > Russell and I take the "good housekeeping" view, if I might > > phrase it that way, that a powerful intelligence keeps her > > area as clean as a Dutch housewife does hers. This too has > > historical precedents (e.g. some ecosystems are not very > > complicated, having fallen under control of one species, > > or even the Dutch housewife herself). > > The area controlled by a Dutch housewife is not an ecosystem. It is a > small area embedded within a much larger ecosystem, without which the > housewife would be dead. > > Organisms (try to) keep themselves clean of other organisms (no bacteria > in our bloodstream, please); "good housekeeping" can exist within > eco-diversity (lots of bacteria in our gut, and we need them.) Yes, that's true: up until now, all life that we know of is immersed in an ecosystem (with the possible exception of certain very deep creatures who live off of little but heat). Yet humankind is probably not so far away from being able to subsist in deep space near a star such as the sun, having figured out how to directly synthesize food directly from energy. So if *we* are not that far from doing it, I suppose that an advanced AI should be able to. Why not? > I think it's more like that our intelligence is made up of a lot of > competition, between and within the hemispheres. There's a common fate > constraining all the cognitive processes -- all in one body (unless you > include memes escaping) -- so a strong pressure to get along, but a > single will imposing rules doesn't strike me as the only or even the > best way of describing what goes on. More like the Dutch government, a > feedback process coordinating lots of other processes, sometimes for the > common good. I mostly agree! Yes, it seems that either by Dennett's "multiple drafts" or by other evolutionary competitive processes, intelligence will be and is most effectively fueled by sets of competing hypotheses, implemented one way or another. However, the point that seems to be remaining here between what you have written and what I wrote is a question of integrity: just how much wholeness is (or are!) an entity to be supposed to consist of? Consider again a housewife: yes, her intelligence is also composed (we surmise) of competing tendencies and hypotheses, but it is proper to regard her as a single entity. That's the way I think that it will be within some specified physical radius r. All matter inside radius r will be controlled by a single will (no matter how its internal architecture works). Sometimes today we speak of nations in this way. Either the nation goes to war against another, or it does not. That at least is the model of nationalism. (Yes, in some cases like the U.S. in Iraq, it's hardly the case that "the nation" really is a unified entity. But it is supposed to be, for example, as a single member of the United Nations.) Thus, it's a continuum. I think that an AI will exert its control through nanotechnology throughout such a local sphere, and down to every last molecule. You (and Eugen, perhaps) evidently believe more in a dominant symbiosis. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu Jul 6 00:14:55 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 17:14:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607041529l5e75aa60tad064e3f60c7aef4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell writes > My guess would be that a newly colonized and initially mostly > empty star system may be receptive to further immigrants, but > as it fills up it will start putting up "migrants please move > on to the next empty star system" signs. (Historical analogies > would be the recolonization of Krakatoa by plants and animals > after the eruption, and European immigration to the colonies > in America and Australia - in each case as niches are filled > the barriers to further immigration become higher.) My guess goes quite contrary: moments after a Von Neumann type probe lands on a planet---a probe incidentally which was designed and sent by a vast superhuman intelligence---it rather quickly takes over the entire surface of the planet. It also rather quickly bootstraps itself up to being able to receive the latest algorithms from home, including, especially importantly, the very "soul" of its originator. In that way, the initiating intelligence gets a copy of itself going in almost no time. No further pellets are either welcome or necessary. Within hours, they themselves (any incoming pellets) are hopelessly far behind the technology ruling the planet's surface. Soon, as the planet begins to think for itself (assuming my postulated radius "r of entity integrity" is that large), one of the main question on its mind is what to do about incoming *signals* from the home world. Those distant worlds survive in a certain evolutionary sense if they are receptive only to incoming algorithmic EM that does not threaten their already established identity. Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Jul 6 00:29:21 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 01:29:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0607041529l5e75aa60tad064e3f60c7aef4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607051729y4685067fm912db75654cec0e9@mail.gmail.com> On 7/6/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > In that way, the initiating intelligence gets a copy of itself > going in almost no time. No further pellets are either welcome > or necessary. Within hours, they themselves (any incoming pellets) > are hopelessly far behind the technology ruling the planet's > surface. > Hours? While we can't predict the details of future technology, we do have some estimates for things like replication speed of advanced nanosystems; those estimates put the time to go from a single lander to covering an entire planet as orders of magnitude longer than that, with filling an entire star system taking considerably longer still. Unless you were postulating something else? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Jul 6 00:52:02 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 17:52:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0607041529l5e75aa60tad064e3f60c7aef4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060706005202.GA4127@ofb.net> On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 05:14:55PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > My guess goes quite contrary: moments after a Von Neumann type > probe lands on a planet---a probe incidentally which was designed > and sent by a vast superhuman intelligence---it rather quickly > takes over the entire surface of the planet. It also rather > In that way, the initiating intelligence gets a copy of itself > going in almost no time. No further pellets are either welcome > or necessary. Within hours, they themselves (any incoming pellets) What Russell said. And more specifically, what's the energy supply, vs. the energy demand? I don't think solar power is going to let you sweep a planet in hours. Also, even with nanotech, you have to *find* the right atoms. Which will be harder the smaller your seed is (low mobility). -xx- Damien X-) From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jul 6 01:48:00 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 18:48:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200607060200.k6620RnU025002@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 3:46 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure > > On 7/5/06, Fred C. Moulton wrote: > > Everyone needs to take a deep breath and get a grip; this is supposed to > > be a list for Extropians; you know those people who try to do some > > detailed research and analysis... > > > So you are correct that Hispanics are not yet the largest single > ethnic group in California. But in total, whites were in the minority > in 2000, a smaller minority in 2004, and expected to continue reducing > as a percentage of the California population... BillK This discussion went off in a direction other than what I had in mind. We are getting caught up in ethnic origin too much as evidenced by the terms Hispanics and whites. The focus is on the primary language spoken in the home, regardless of the genetics. On the US west coast, we have a lot of immigration from Asia. Mandarin and schezwan speakers are able to pick up Spanish much more easily than English I am told. If it came to a vote, many may choose Spanish as a language of choice, for good reason. As a native English speaker, even I can see that Spanish is relatively easy to learn. It has a far smaller vocabulary, it is more consistent, the spelling mostly phonetic, fewer ambiguous words, easier to learn by osmosis. spike From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Jul 6 02:24:26 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 03:24:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <200607060200.k6620RnU025002@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200607060200.k6620RnU025002@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607051924y2a6ea593r455d9327d0c282f6@mail.gmail.com> On 7/6/06, spike wrote: > > This discussion went off in a direction other than what I had in mind. We > are getting caught up in ethnic origin too much as evidenced by the terms > Hispanics and whites. The focus is on the primary language spoken in the > home, regardless of the genetics. > > On the US west coast, we have a lot of immigration from Asia. Mandarin > and > schezwan speakers are able to pick up Spanish much more easily than > English > I am told. If it came to a vote, many may choose Spanish as a language of > choice, for good reason. As a native English speaker, even I can see that > Spanish is relatively easy to learn. It has a far smaller vocabulary, it > is > more consistent, the spelling mostly phonetic, fewer ambiguous words, > easier > to learn by osmosis. > It seems to me that what matters most is neither genetics nor language per se, but continued progress. From what people have said here (which is consistent with what I've seen from other sources), it seems scientific and technological work is mainly done by non-Hispanic whites and Asians (in the latter case, would I be correct in guessing that it doesn't greatly matter whether they primarily speak Spanish or English?), who are comprising a small and diminishing fraction of the next generation; that doesn't make for a good prognosis. Possible ways to improve matters, in no particular order, might be: Persuade whites and Asians to have more children. Obtain more immigrants from e.g. China. (A net win for humanity if the immigrants have more opportunities to contribute in America or Europe than they would have back home.) Persuade other ethnic groups such as Hispanics to be more interested in science and technology. I'm not sure which of the above is the lowest-hanging fruit. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jul 6 02:40:30 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 19:40:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Music for little transhumans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200607060240.k662eYK9015936@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Subject: [extropy-chat] Music for little transhumans > ... > >Campfire glows in the dark > >Sparks rise into the air > >The night is dark, no one's around > >Here is our parting... > > >This reminds me of Mt. Rainier, after which Isaac Rainier was named. His > >mother and I have hiked and camped on Rainier's Wonderland Trail many > >times. > > My Heidelberg colleague had a very cool backpack he used for his > baby when he went on day hikes with us... > > Also, you might try bicycle touring together in the not too-distant > future too: > > http://gorp.away.com/gorp/publishers/menasha/bik_kids.htm > http://www.bicycletouring101.com/GagnonFamily.htm > http://www.cycletote.com/ > http://www.ibike.org/education/infant.htm > > Amara Amara we have the backpack larva carrier and I adapted the recumbent bike to haul a kid carrier. We have not bought the bicycle kid carrier yet, but might do it soon. Thanks for the suggestions. {8-] I am amazed at how satisfying we have found it just walking around the neighborhood. It is my own version of inloading. {8-] spike From eugen at leitl.org Thu Jul 6 09:14:01 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:14:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060706091401.GV26630@leitl.org> On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 11:58:34PM +0100, BillK wrote: > You could also make a case that the war in Iraq will save millions of > lives by driving the Singularity technology forward. Research on > robotic vehicles, robot bomb investigators, robots to go into tunnels, > robot flying vehicles, new weaponry, new medical facilities, new > bionic limbs, new armor technology, new radars, nano technology, > computer systems, ..... the list goes on. There is a vast amount being > invested in pushing research on as fast as possible to support the war > in Iraq. I find vindicating technical progress by killing people and destroying infrastructure morally abhorrent. Besides, the motivations and capabilities of intelligent technologies to come out of military lab are most likely to produce a Singularity a la SkyNet. I'm not sure "saving millions of lives" would be the result... -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jul 6 10:13:57 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:13:57 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: <20060706091401.GV26630@leitl.org> References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060706091401.GV26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 7/6/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > I find vindicating technical progress by killing people and destroying > infrastructure morally abhorrent. > > Besides, the motivations and capabilities of intelligent technologies > to come out of military lab are most likely to produce a Singularity > a la SkyNet. I'm not sure "saving millions of lives" would be the result... > 'Morally abhorrent' is irrelevant. (But nice to know). All the wonderful stuff that we now take for granted came out of the huge WWII R&D projects. It would all probably have arrived eventually at a much more leisurely pace, but the frantic wartime effort produced it all within about a decade. I am in no way supporting or trying to justify the Iraq war. Just pointing out that the heat of this wartime development will have more wonders available to us in five or ten years. We will, of course, once again take these wonders for granted at the same time as regretting all the wartime death and injuries. We regret the 40,000 road deaths every year in USA, but it doesn't stop us taking advantage of cars without trying to severely control or restrict them so as to minimise road deaths and injuries. BillK From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Jul 6 10:32:54 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 06:32:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] For young extropians... was Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <200607060200.k6620RnU025002@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200607060200.k6620RnU025002@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <48473.72.236.103.74.1152181974.squirrel@main.nc.us> Spike, it might be interesting to play high quality music (singing) from all over the world, different languages. IIUC babies learn sounds in infancy and they're always able to make them. Unlike we adults who sometimes *never* can make the proper sounds for some languages. Not as bedtime music necessarily, just as background noise. F'rinstance, when I coached our local Vietnamese refugee family I *could not* say the name of the town they were from. I tried, it sounded good to me, but I have no clue what I actually said. The wife bent double trying not to laugh in my face. And she could not make some of our English/American sounds. I'm not sure she could actually "hear" them... for sure I couldn't "hear" the pronunciation nuances of her language. Regards, MB From eugen at leitl.org Thu Jul 6 10:36:38 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 12:36:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060706091401.GV26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060706103637.GA26630@leitl.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 06:13:57PM +0800, BillK wrote: > 'Morally abhorrent' is irrelevant. (But nice to know). Last time something was found morally abhorrent has resulted in a world war, culminating in deployment of two nuclear weapons. On a smaller scale, people commiting morally abhorrent acts are locked up for life, or executed. Are you really sure that doing something 'morally abhorrent' is a good idea? > All the wonderful stuff that we now take for granted came out of the > huge WWII R&D projects. It would all probably have arrived eventually Stuff and nonsense. I'm surprised you're buying into such tripe. What next, NASA gave us the teflon pan? > at a much more leisurely pace, but the frantic wartime effort produced > it all within about a decade. I would like to see a list of "it all". > I am in no way supporting or trying to justify the Iraq war. Just > pointing out that the heat of this wartime development will have more > wonders available to us in five or ten years. We will, of course, once Do you realize the monetary cost of a war? Do you realize the infrastructure disruption costs, and secondary costs to the the society? What kind of "wonders" will this campaign bring, such as remote warfare, autonomous armor, and UAV surveillance of civilian airspace? > again take these wonders for granted at the same time as regretting > all the wartime death and injuries. > > We regret the 40,000 road deaths every year in USA, but it doesn't Are you really comparing something unavoidable (what are the costs of drowning? Why don't you cease breathing?) with a frivolous campaign, to the great detriment of the masses and the cynical profit of precious few? > stop us taking advantage of cars without trying to severely control or > restrict them so as to minimise road deaths and injuries. If I gave you a terabuck, don't you think you could do something to minimize that? Or do something about the fossil habit of ours? Or invest into SENS, or nano, or AI, instead of blowing up shit? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 10:52:01 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 03:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Libertarian paternalism In-Reply-To: <20060705180537.68489.qmail@web52610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060706105201.27143.qmail@web52606.mail.yahoo.com> --- Ian Goddard wrote: > Secondly, trends in immigration should be a good > measure of societies that best meet the needs of > people. Based on my own informal observations I > believe the general trend is for people to leave > less free economies and move to freer economies. > Certainly, by itself, the history of immigration > into the United States stands as a prima facie > example of mass movements of people into freer > economies. While most would consider the Heratage Foundation to be a biased source, in describing the contents of their "2006 Index of Economic Freedom" they say: "Do large disparities in economic freedom contribute to illegal immigration? You bet they do. Take a look at the Index and you'll see for yourself that the vast majority of illegal immigrants journey from countries with less economic freedom to those with more." http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/downloads/BusinessUserGuide.pdf But a study by John Ashby of immigration into different states within the USA points to another attractor, welfare, along with ecomonic freedom: http://www.be.wvu.edu/divecon/econ/nashby/Research/Economic%20Freedom%20and%20Migration%20Flows%201-06.pdf I've heard that welfare is an attractor affecting migration to Europe. But I'd suggest that even when welfare is a factor, economic freedom is still the default attractor since generally speaking, only countries with sufficient economic freedom will generate enough resources to redistribute to welfare recipients. Certainly migration to the USA was massive prior to the advent of the welfare state such that the immigrants weren't looking for hand outs but for an economic opportunity/freedom. Hong Kong (at least prior to the Chinese take over) has also been a scene of massive immigration even as it offered little if any welfare, but total economic freedom. Again, where people want to be is a good measure of what economic systems best meet people's needs. I believe that the full body of evidence would show that economic freedom (and thus less central planning) is the overall attractor in that regards (even when welfare is sought as per comments above). http://IanGoddard.net "A proposition is a model of reality as we imagine it." - Wittgenstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jul 6 11:54:17 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 19:54:17 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: <20060706103637.GA26630@leitl.org> References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060706091401.GV26630@leitl.org> <20060706103637.GA26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 7/6/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Stuff and nonsense. I'm surprised you're buying into such tripe. > What next, NASA gave us the teflon pan? > I would like to see a list of "it all". For once, Eugen, you're not thinking. You must have gone all emotional on us. ;) No need to Google. Wikipedia is enough. Quote: While nearly all types of technology was converted to participation or assistance in the war efforts of the participating nations, the most important items were those actually employed in the war. The main areas of technology which saw major developments were: * Weaponry; including ships, vehicles, aircraft, hand-held weapons, artillery, rocketry, and bio-chemical/atomic weapons. * Logistical Support; including vehicles necessary for transporting soldiers and supplies, such as trains, trucks, and aircraft. * Communications and Intelligence; including devices used for navigation, communication, and espionage. * Medical; including surgical innovations, chemical drugs, and techniques * Industrial; including the technologies employed at factories and production/distribution centers. -------------------------------------- Items included: Radio, radar, aerial photography, advanced use of cryptography and cryptanalysis, jet aircraft, rockets, atomic power, sonar, early computers. microwaves, synthetic rubber, penicillin, nylon, the field of operational research,.......... enough? All designed and in production in about six years. > Do you realize the monetary cost of a war? Do you realize the infrastructure > disruption costs, and secondary costs to the the society? Sure, war costs are enormous and cause death and destruction. No argument there. > What kind of "wonders" will this campaign bring, such as remote warfare, > autonomous armor, and UAV surveillance of civilian airspace? You want me to list future wonders? Better polish up my crystal ball. How about: robot driverless vehicles, robot home devices, bionic limbs better than flesh and bone, lightweight body armor for all, emergency medical improvements, headset electronics for communication and web access, command and control systems for business and police. > > If I gave you a terabuck, don't you think you could do something to > minimize that? Or do something about the fossil habit of ours? > Or invest into SENS, or nano, or AI, instead of blowing up shit? > Sure, I could. But spending on wars is done at national level. Peacetime research is done a very leisurely pace compared to wartime R&D. To date, people as a whole choose road deaths in preference to car driving restrictions. All I'm pointing out is that out of all the horrendous wartime spending on death and destruction, there are new technologies produced quicker than they would be in peacetime, which cause an almost instant leap forward in technology. BillK From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Jul 6 12:20:29 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:20:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060704143520.02439d58@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706081652.0238a680@gmu.edu> At 03:24 PM 7/4/2006, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Russell and I take the "good housekeeping" view, if I might > > > phrase it that way, that a powerful intelligence keeps her > > > area as clean as a Dutch housewife does hers. > > > > I would ask the question as: what kinds of choices are coordinated > > over what scales? An "intelligence" over some region is not aware > > of everything going on in that region, but for some choices made in > > that region coordination is important enough and feasible enough > > that the intelligence is conscious of those choices and attempts to > > coordinate them with each other and with other closely relevant > > choices. > >I'll try to understand exactly what you mean through some examples. > >Example one: A Dutch housewife only controls the macro human-visible >elements of her house, giving spiders and rodents no chance whatsoever >for sharing the residence. But she cannot (until the 20th century) >attempt to eliminate all microbes, and even then she does not succeed. > >Example two: In modern hi-tech clean near but not absolute success >is achieved. Did you have this example in mind also when you made >your statement? An AI may be able to keep its mind as "clean" as >this. In these examples, the question is how valuable is it to coordinate on this scale to keep this area clean of this type of "dirt." Even if a household is run by several people, they may coordinate to keep out "dust", but not neutrinos or inaccurate political ideology. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Jul 6 12:15:26 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:15:26 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Would You Enjoy Knitting? In-Reply-To: <15a401c69fa2$6913a010$9a00a8c0@old> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060627080003.02434d08@gmu.edu> <15a401c69fa2$6913a010$9a00a8c0@old> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706080838.02524b78@gmu.edu> At 03:45 PM 7/4/2006, Mark Walker wrote: > > ... Many married people want to be less tempted to betray their > > marriage. ... Many somewhat altruistic people would like to be more > > truly altruistic. Many soldiers would like to be more courageous in > > battle. And so on. > >If I understand you Robin you are saying that self-deception is the root >cause of us wanting to be more ideal. The idea is that I might deceive >myself about how good looking I am, and since this is a matter of >self-deception at some level (however one describes the cognitive states of >self-deception) I realize that I am not what I claim to be. But I am not >sure how this helps. Is the idea that if say I am objectively a 5 out of 10 >on the good looking scale but deceive myself that I am a 7 then wanting to >be ideal is a way of letting my beliefs track the truth. If this is the case >then shouldn't my goal to be a 7 objectively so that now my beliefs and the >truth dovetail? How do you explain my wanting to be a 10 if I don't deceive >myself as being a 10? Is the idea that there would be an iteration of the >problem until I reached perfection? If so, it looks like I would have to >have some pretty sophisticated beliefs to explain all of this. I find this paragraph somewhat hard to follow. Other people respect us more when we are more ideal, and so we want to give the impression that we are relatively ideal, but we don't actually want to be that ideal. So we deceive ourselves into thinking we are more ideal than we are, to try to have it both ways - to gain the respect of others while avoiding the costs of being ideal. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Jul 6 12:24:14 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:24:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: References: <20060704211223.GA3729@ofb.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706082132.02439d58@gmu.edu> At 08:05 PM 7/5/2006, you wrote: > > single will imposing rules doesn't strike me as the only or even the > > best way of describing what goes on. More like the Dutch government > >However, the point that seems to be remaining here between what you >have written and what I wrote is a question of integrity: just how >much wholeness is (or are!) an entity to be supposed to consist of? > >Consider again a housewife: yes, her intelligence is also composed >(we surmise) of competing tendencies and hypotheses, but it is >proper to regard her as a single entity. ... Among the usual variation around us it is not hard to identify "single entities". But among the sort of variation we imagine for future creatures, I find it much harder to figure out that "single entity" means. So like Damien, I prefer to use terminology, like coordination scale, that seems more robust in such situations. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Jul 6 15:45:18 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:45:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060706091401.GV26630@leitl.org> <20060706103637.GA26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607060845m37e6d662ydf703ca8af057c1c@mail.gmail.com> On 7/6/06, BillK wrote: > > To date, people as a whole choose road deaths in preference to car > driving restrictions. > There are a great many restrictions on car driving, most of them enacted with the specific rationale of reducing road deaths. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jul 6 16:20:24 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 17:20:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607060845m37e6d662ydf703ca8af057c1c@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060706091401.GV26630@leitl.org> <20060706103637.GA26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607060845m37e6d662ydf703ca8af057c1c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 7/6/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 7/6/06, BillK wrote: > > To date, people as a whole choose road deaths in preference to car > > driving restrictions. > > > > There are a great many restrictions on car driving, most of them enacted > with the specific rationale of reducing road deaths. > Oooohhhh! You naughty troll! :) You can pass as many traffic laws as you like, but if some people ignore them and continue speeding, running red lights, drink driving, mobile phoning while driving, and generally breaking the rules of the road when they feel like it - then in practice people are choosing roads deaths and injuries in preference to restricting their car driving behaviour. The belief behind this behaviour is, of course, 'It'll never happen to me'. And *really* restricting car drivers, like computer control / GPS to never exceed speed limits, sobriety tests in every car, phone disconnect while the engine is running, cameras on *every* red light, etc. etc. would never be accepted. The majority vote is that 40,000 deaths and 200,000 injuries per year are not sufficient to justify enforcing real restrictions. BillK From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 18:56:23 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: <20060706091401.GV26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060706185623.19687.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > I find vindicating technical progress by killing > people and destroying > infrastructure morally abhorrent. Even leaving aside morality as being fuzzy and relative, it is still highly irrational. By common sense cause and effect, one reaps what one sows. So if you only justify investing in technological progress in the name of war, you get the ironic imbalance of capability that we have today: One man can invoke splinters of the sun to vaporize millions of people at the touch of a button. Yet we can't cure the common cold let alone poverty, old age, and death. Investing in fear pays dividends in terror. Investing in love pays dividends of abundance. It isn't rocket science nor does it have to be. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." - Neils Bohr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Jul 6 20:50:52 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:50:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] why the vertebrate eye might not be suboptimal after all Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706154606.02452568@satx.rr.com> Evbio tells us that design mistakes can get frozen in; a standard instance is the vertebrate eye, where the light detectors are facing the wrong way. D'oh! But wait, maybe there's more to this than meets the eye (even if this comes from the "intelligent design" bozos): http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/retina171.htm Damien Broderick From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jul 7 03:22:40 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:22:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: <20060706005202.GA4127@ofb.net> Message-ID: Damien and Russell seized quickly upon a small error: > On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 05:14:55PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > My guess goes quite contrary: moments after a Von Neumann type > > probe lands on a planet---a probe incidentally which was designed > > and sent by a vast superhuman intelligence---it rather quickly > > takes over the entire surface of the planet. It also rather > > > In that way, the initiating intelligence gets a copy of itself > > going in almost no time. No further pellets are either welcome > > or necessary. Within hours, they themselves (any incoming pellets) > > What Russell said. And more specifically, what's the energy supply, vs. > the energy demand? I don't think solar power is going to let you sweep > a planet in hours. Oh, all right! But what about the *main point*? I wrote, in case you forgot, In that way, the initiating intelligence gets a copy of itself going in almost no time. No further pellets are either welcome or necessary. Within hours, [OKAY, DAYS, WEEKS, WHATEVER!] they themselves (any incoming pellets) are hopelessly far behind the technology ruling the planet's surface. Soon, as the planet begins to think for itself (assuming my postulated radius "r of entity integrity" is that large), one of the main question on its mind is what to do about incoming *signals* from the home world. Those distant worlds survive in a certain evolutionary sense if they are receptive only to incoming algorithmic EM that does not threaten their already established identity. I have been telling people this (on-list and off) for years and years. If there is something wrong with it, I'd like to know. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jul 7 03:25:17 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:25:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706081652.0238a680@gmu.edu> Message-ID: Robin writes > [Lee wrote] > > > > Russell and I take the "good housekeeping" view, if I might > > > > phrase it that way, that a powerful intelligence keeps her > > > > area as clean as a Dutch housewife does hers. > > Example two: In modern hi-tech clean near but not absolute success > > is achieved. Did you have this example in mind also when you made > > your statement? An AI may be able to keep its mind as "clean" as > > this. > > In these examples, the question is how valuable is it to coordinate > on this scale to keep this area clean of this type of "dirt." Even > if a household is run by several people, they may coordinate to keep > out "dust", but not neutrinos or inaccurate political ideology. There are two reasons I can think of that an AI may wish to keep its area clean: one is selfish, one is moral. The selfish reason is that it probably will see no reason to allow compute resources to be squandered on vastly inferior processes. It has its own reasons to calculate, its own curiosity, its own redesign of itself. Why permit resources to be wasted on anything else? The second reason is moral: we today *should* not permit natural processes---had we only the power to stop it---such as big fish eating small fish ad infinitum), especially when the cruelty inflicted on sentient prey, such as is inflicted on gazelles by lions, is avoidable. Only our romanticized fancies prevent us from properly perceiving and appreciating the horrors. Evidently people would need to live a few days as a rabbit or field mouse to properly understand. Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 03:28:15 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 04:28:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: References: <20060706005202.GA4127@ofb.net> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607062028k5901c2c9ud7ef6bad0cf7e2bd@mail.gmail.com> On 7/7/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > In that way, the initiating intelligence gets a copy of itself > going in almost no time. No further pellets are either welcome > or necessary. Within hours, [OKAY, DAYS, WEEKS, WHATEVER!] they > themselves (any incoming pellets) are hopelessly far behind the > technology ruling the planet's surface. Yes, that agrees with what I said: that as a star system fills up, it would seem likely to start posting "any further immigrants please move on to the next empty star system" notices. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jul 7 03:38:55 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:38:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706082132.02439d58@gmu.edu> Message-ID: Robin writes > > However, the point that seems to be remaining here between what you > > have written and what I wrote is a question of integrity: just how > > much wholeness is (or are!) an entity to be supposed to consist of? > > > > Consider again a housewife: yes, her intelligence is also composed > > (we surmise) of competing tendencies and hypotheses, but it is > > proper to regard her as a single entity. ... > > Among the usual variation around us it is not hard to identify > "single entities". > But among the sort of variation we imagine for future creatures, I find it > much harder to figure out that "single entity" means. So like Damien, I > prefer to use terminology, like coordination scale, that seems more > robust in such situations. Nature does exhibit examples, all right. Consider beehives. Yet so far (outside of science fiction) in the organizations that seem most capable of dominating their environment, intelligence is focused in responsible individuals. That is, although selection does operate on the level of the genes in animals, and can act at the level of groups, we do not attribute much intelligence to genes or groups. And rightly so, I think. A single owner, for example, of a vast ranch may delegate tasks, but he conceives of the whole place as his personal fiefdom. Can you make it seem more plausible that an AI wanting to dominate its environment would stop anywhere short of the boundary of another equally aware and powerful "entity"? And I still cannot imagine a loosely composed entity being capable of sustaining itself against a centrally composed one. Hence I do not see selection ultimately favoring loose entities "coordinated at other scales". Of course, "nations" spring to mind, but I still consider their actions to be best described as I vaguely alluded to above: an actual plan of a nation will be understood and orders issued from the level of certain of its highly intelligent units, namely people. Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jul 7 03:54:19 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 22:54:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] why the vertebrate eye might not be suboptimal after all In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706154606.02452568@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706154606.02452568@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706224751.02218d28@satx.rr.com> At 03:50 PM 7/6/2006 -0500, I url'd: >http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/retina171.htm A medico pal, not on this list, comments: [me:] I don't defend theistic ID, which of course is horseshit. I was interested in some of his points attempting to counter alleged suboptimality. Your own points are compelling but don't dispose of some of his alternative-perspective pleading for the benefits of the way things are. [me:] It's obviously a typo. Interesting that none of his dopy acolytes hasn't pointed it out to him, though. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jul 7 04:06:13 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 21:06:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607062028k5901c2c9ud7ef6bad0cf7e2bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell writes > ...what I said: that as a star system fills up, it would seem > likely to start posting "any further immigrants please move on > to the next empty star system" notices. Well :-) that's a bit more polite than just shooting them down without saying anything, I guess. More seriously, however, I posit the following structure to a mature galaxy: 1. there is a critical radius of integrity whereby an entity maximizes computations for its own purposes within its boundary. Entities outside that boundary are regarded much as we regard foreign nations or other individuals 2. assuming that this radius is on the order of a light year then (following Dyson and Bradbury), stars are shrouded to extract maximum energy, or (Criswell) stars are altered to maximize long term gain, or (me) stars are novaed to get the mostest soonest (why waste resources on the future, anyway? seems to me to be a characteristic idea of humans who are familiar with very limited tech) 3. no entities bother sending pellets or probes out anymore; except perhaps to outside the galaxy, but not even then if it is known that nearby galaxies have been colonized. This latter is for the aforesaid reasons that pellets are a clunky way to send information, and the threat of physical force would be badly received anyway. Instead, there is an "idea gradient". More advanced stars would constantly be trying to subvert the less advanced, in order to persuade them to run its algorithms. Yes, this is partly from compulust, but its also the answer supplied by Darwinian evolution: algorithms tend to run over large regions which can subvert nearby systems, and which can in turn resist subversion from outside. This, then, is the arms race I have envisioned: a "wind from Earth" (or other entity more advanced than you are) must be carefully scrutinized to keep out algorithms that would subvert its identity. At the same time, it must allow algorithms that enhance its fitness. (This and the above operate under the assumption that s-curves don't top out for intelligence and algorithm advancement.) The steady-state picture that emerges is one of larger empires perpetually being more advanced than smaller empires, that is, at least so far as their centers are concerned. At their boundaries, the level of advancement (thousands of years behind their respective centers) is the same. Each side of such a boundary is continually receiving updates from the direction of its own center, and its those updates that enable it to remain on par with the empire across the divide. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jul 7 04:12:15 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 21:12:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure In-Reply-To: <200607050007.k6507wnH024498@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Spike writes > Those who follow US politics could scarcely fail to notice that > conservatives are breeding way faster than liberals. > > The maternity ward is reshaping our world faster than any other > factor it would seem. One of the best reasons religion is an ESS finally emerges: it's one way that sub-rational populations can remain competitive. And people continue to be baffled why religion just seems to never go away. (Too bad that when you mention to the most enlightened of Westerners that perhaps eugenics and large families might be a good idea, they start thinking that you must be some kind of Nazi. Remember how popular ZPG was back in the '70s? Well, those groups that succumb to such memes aren't around very long, really.) "So it goes", wrote Kurt Vonnegut. Evolution has the final say. Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 04:43:34 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 05:43:34 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0607062028k5901c2c9ud7ef6bad0cf7e2bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607062143g39ab91edr556b9688a68c1967@mail.gmail.com> On 7/7/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Russell writes > > > ...what I said: that as a star system fills up, it would seem > > likely to start posting "any further immigrants please move on > > to the next empty star system" notices. > > Well :-) that's a bit more polite than just shooting them > down without saying anything, I guess. If you can say it with flowers, you can say it with X-ray lasers :) It seems all round more efficient to say it with words, though; dogs bark more often than they bite, men say fuck off more often than they swing fists, nations send diplomatic messages more often than cruise missiles, not because angels come and tell them to be nice but because it's just plain more efficient that way. Not obvious to me that that won't remain true in the future. More seriously, however, I posit the following structure to a > mature galaxy: Mostly seems plausible enough. Doesn't mean it'll actually happen that way of course - history says we'll all be surprised if we live - but most of it sounds plausible. Except for one quibble: 2. assuming that this radius is on the order of a light year > then (following Dyson and Bradbury), stars are shrouded to > extract maximum energy, or (Criswell) stars are altered > to maximize long term gain, or (me) stars are novaed to > get the mostest soonest (why waste resources on the > future, anyway? seems to me to be a characteristic idea > of humans who are familiar with very limited tech) Nova'd? Assuming you can do it (collide enough suns and I suppose you'll get something that'll go boom), that a) wastes 99 point yea nines percent of the energy, and b) kills you with rad damage so you waste the rest too. Don't see the gain there even if you don't care about the future. (And hey, weren't you the one going I'm going to live a trillion years, better make plans for that? Aren't you the one who ought to care about the future?) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jul 7 05:04:00 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:04:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] oops In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706224751.02218d28@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706154606.02452568@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060706224751.02218d28@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060707000135.02236188@satx.rr.com> At 10:54 PM 7/6/2006 -0500, I wrote: >It's obviously a typo. Interesting that none of his dopy acolytes >hasn't pointed it out to him, though. Yes, I did mean: "Interesting that none of his dopy acolytes *has* pointed it out to him, though." Damien Broderick [so much for the vertebrate eye] From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jul 7 05:12:49 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 22:12:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607062143g39ab91edr556b9688a68c1967@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell writes > > More seriously, however, I posit the following structure to a > > mature galaxy: ... > Mostly seems plausible enough... Except for one quibble: > > 2. assuming that this radius is on the order of a light year > > then (following Dyson and Bradbury), stars are shrouded to > > extract maximum energy, or (Criswell) stars are altered > > to maximize long term gain, or (me) stars are novaed to > > get the mostest soonest (why waste resources on the > > future, anyway? seems to me to be a characteristic idea > > of humans who are familiar with very limited tech) > Nova'd? Assuming you can do it (collide enough suns and I suppose > you'll get something that'll go boom), Well, I figure if Criswell can figure out a way to actually *lift* star matter (!), then get it to go bang should be comparatively simple. > that a) wastes 99 point yea nines percent of the energy, > and b) kills you with rad damage so you waste the rest too. Oh! I was not intending to do this anytime soon. But not millions of years either. We should do it as soon as we have all uploaded, and the really smart types running our Dyson sheaves know they can capture all the energy. (I admit that this may turn out to not be possible, but we shouldn't get too deeply into the habit of ruling out possibilities that AIs may consider---unless, of course, we understand the physics so well that, like traveling faster than light, it just doesn't make any sense at all to suppose that it could ever be done.) Actually, I was supposing that it would be the compulust of the really smart types who are running the solar system by then who'd be all in favor of the big bang. They probably want to know things so badly that they are getting really impatient with the slow (to them) speeds of ergs/second coming out of the sun. > Don't see the gain there even if you don't care about the future. > (And hey, weren't you the one going I'm going to live a trillion > years, And just why not? :-) > better make plans for that? Aren't you the one who ought to care > about the future?) Yes, up to the chance that I can partake, and yes, also out of some residual loyalty to the human race, my family, nation, etc., and other outmoded loyalties in the age of individualism. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jul 7 05:27:57 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 22:27:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: <20060706185623.19687.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Damien B. writes (welcome back, old chum) > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > I find vindicating technical progress by killing > > people and destroying infrastructure morally abhorrent. > > Even leaving aside morality as being fuzzy and > relative, it is still highly irrational. By common > sense cause and effect, one reaps what one sows. So if > you only justify investing in technological progress > in the name of war, I agree, at least up to whatever sense it makes to talk about societies as a whole "choosing" anything. > you get the ironic imbalance of > capability that we have today: > > One man can invoke splinters of the sun to vaporize > millions of people at the touch of a button. Yet we > can't cure the common cold let alone poverty, old age, > and death. Maybe the former are/were just a lot easier? After all, we did get good sanitation in the west (finally) even before we invented the machine gun. (Talk about screwed incentives!) > Investing in fear pays dividends in terror. Investing > in love pays dividends of abundance. It isn't rocket > science nor does it have to be. Again, this is an act that one fears to undertake alone. (Did you back in the cold war days favor, I wonder, unilateral disarmament by those countries where you were free to give out such suggestions? I am very glad that Western nations did not succumb to those memes.) For sure, we are glad that over the long haul history seems to gradually favor peace over war. I also agree that war probably retards wealth creation, even given the peculiar types of technology that seem to arise in 20th century wars (probably other tech would have come along sooner in place of them). Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 05:28:17 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 06:28:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0607062143g39ab91edr556b9688a68c1967@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607062228u45f5a4e0y568284d62d38895b@mail.gmail.com> On 7/7/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Well, I figure if Criswell can figure out a way to actually > *lift* star matter (!), then get it to go bang should be > comparatively simple. I figured out starlifting independently - given that you're dealing with plain hydrogen and helium, as I understand it, lifting is easier than bang. But yeah, there's no question bang is possible, nature does it now and then after all. Oh! I was not intending to do this anytime soon. But not > millions of years either. We should do it as soon as we > have all uploaded, and the really smart types running our > Dyson sheaves know they can capture all the energy. That was the scenario I was thinking of - even nanotech solar collectors can only store energy in chemical form (hence can't capture a significant fraction of a nuclear or gravitational bang), and are vulnerable to rad damage. (I > admit that this may turn out to not be possible, but we > shouldn't get too deeply into the habit of ruling out > possibilities that AIs may consider---unless, of course, > we understand the physics so well that, like traveling > faster than light, it just doesn't make any sense at all > to suppose that it could ever be done.) Oh sure - as I've already said, life is unpredictable - for all we really know, our descendants will be tapping energy from the Zero Point. (AI is irrelevant to this.) As long as we're speculating based on the laws of physics as we know them, though, it seems to me a steady flow of energy is more useful than a bang. Yes, up to the chance that I can partake, and yes, also out of > some residual loyalty to the human race, my family, nation, etc., > and other outmoded loyalties in the age of individualism. > Heh, difference in philosophy I guess; I serve humanity, otherwise I'd let someone else worry about all this progress stuff and go catch up on some beer drinking and anime watching while my life lasts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Jul 7 06:39:04 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 23:39:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: <44AC35F1.5020304@posthuman.com> References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <44AC35F1.5020304@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <22155A3C-DB3F-4825-AC18-B7880B308FA7@mac.com> On Jul 5, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Brian Atkins wrote: > I think you should also consider whether or when the "public" will > become > increasingly aware of this possibility. It requires something > jolting for that > to happen, perhaps if a large chunk of "white collar" workers start > to get > automated out of their jobs by rapidly improving hardware/software. Or perhaps they will notice if a large number of white collar workers become seriously augmented in order to excel at or even keep their jobs. The dicey part is when we will get done with our near worship of "jobs". - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Jul 7 06:45:03 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 23:45:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jul 5, 2006, at 3:58 PM, BillK wrote: > On 7/5/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: >> .. For example I can make a very good case that the war in Iraq >> will in >> retrospect end up having cost millions, perhaps tens of millions >> of lives >> (due to the fact that that money that will be unavailable for >> nanomedical >> related developments that would significantly extend the lifespan of >> millions of people). >> > > You could also make a case that the war in Iraq will save millions of > lives by driving the Singularity technology forward. Research on > robotic vehicles, robot bomb investigators, robots to go into tunnels, > robot flying vehicles, new weaponry, new medical facilities, new > bionic limbs, new armor technology, new radars, nano technology, > computer systems, ..... the list goes on. Largely fantastical I am afraid. The troops don't have adequate old fashioned armor. Their are some new pieces of military hardware and some robotics but arguably not as much as the same money invested in the civilian R&D world would bring and much more focus toward aggression and worrisome uses of technology than might otherwise be the case. Plus we are increasing world volatility and the likely escalation of this so-called "war on terror" . It is perverting our civil liberties and much of the domestic agenda. > There is a vast amount being > invested in pushing research on as fast as possible to support the war > in Iraq. That is certainly no justification for this pointless war. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Jul 7 06:54:10 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 23:54:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 5, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Russell writes > >> My guess would be that a newly colonized and initially mostly >> empty star system may be receptive to further immigrants, but >> as it fills up it will start putting up "migrants please move >> on to the next empty star system" signs. (Historical analogies >> would be the recolonization of Krakatoa by plants and animals >> after the eruption, and European immigration to the colonies >> in America and Australia - in each case as niches are filled >> the barriers to further immigration become higher.) > > My guess goes quite contrary: moments after a Von Neumann type > probe lands on a planet---a probe incidentally which was designed > and sent by a vast superhuman intelligence---it rather quickly > takes over the entire surface of the planet. It also rather > quickly bootstraps itself up to being able to receive the > latest algorithms from home, including, especially importantly, > the very "soul" of its originator. Even if it is already occupied? If so then such a probe would be an act of aggression and might trigger an interstellar war. Latest algorithms at c? Hmm. > > In that way, the initiating intelligence gets a copy of itself > going in almost no time. No further pellets are either welcome > or necessary. Within hours, they themselves (any incoming pellets) > are hopelessly far behind the technology ruling the planet's > surface. So these probes are only light hours from home base? Otherwise it is quite possible that later waves are more advanced than the new information presumably somehow beamed all the way from home. Is home beaming individual coded updates in all directions it has probes? I doubt very much it is sending updates to its collective knowledge in clear for others to perhaps intercept. > > Soon, as the planet begins to think for itself (assuming my > postulated radius "r of entity integrity" is that large), > one of the main question on its mind is what to do about > incoming *signals* from the home world. Those distant worlds > survive in a certain evolutionary sense if they are receptive > only to incoming algorithmic EM that does not threaten their > already established identity. So another species that was bright enough could fake updates to these probes to gradually have them do their own bidding or take them over? - s From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 07:06:22 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (jeffrey davis) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 00:06:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060706091401.GV26630@leitl.org> <20060706103637.GA26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607060845m37e6d662ydf703ca8af057c1c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 7/6/06, BillK wrote: > And *really* restricting car drivers, like computer control / GPS to > never exceed speed limits, sobriety tests in every car, phone > disconnect while the engine is running, cameras on *every* red light, > etc. etc. would never be accepted. Or perhaps the he combination of vastly enhanced safety, the reduced social costs associated with vastly reduced rates of injury, and the immediate commercial incentive to the consumer in the form of slashed insurance premiums make it a slam dunk inevitability . YMMV. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 07:15:11 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 08:15:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: References: <20060706091401.GV26630@leitl.org> <20060706103637.GA26630@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607060845m37e6d662ydf703ca8af057c1c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607070015r456dc0b7t31af82884f01ecd7@mail.gmail.com> On 7/7/06, jeffrey davis wrote: > > Or perhaps the he combination of vastly enhanced safety, the reduced > social costs associated with vastly reduced rates of injury, and the > immediate commercial incentive to the consumer in the form of slashed > insurance premiums make it a slam dunk inevitability . > Or perhaps the fact that the cited "it" involves targeting the innocent rather than the guilty means there will be no significant improvement in safety, since the targets are people who are already obeying the law; and perhaps if you decide to allow the government to arbitrarily initiate the use of armed force against those who are doing no harm, the ultimate consequences will make the current road death rate look like a toddler's scraped knee. Oh, seems like the second part's been proven ad nauseam already. Do we need to prove it yet again? (And yes this is off-topic and inflammatory debate on contemporary politics, and yes I will now let the other side get the last word and refrain from further comment on the matter.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randy.burkhardt at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 07:17:00 2006 From: randy.burkhardt at gmail.com (Randy Burkhardt) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 00:17:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9f4ad4540607070017h10b58b04kb2c47904a72e1ea6@mail.gmail.com> Samantha, Samantha, Samantha On 7/6/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > On Jul 5, 2006, at 3:58 PM, BillK wrote: > > > On 7/5/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > >> .. For example I can make a very good case that the war in Iraq > >> will in > >> retrospect end up having cost millions, perhaps tens of millions > >> of lives > >> (due to the fact that that money that will be unavailable for > >> nanomedical > >> related developments that would significantly extend the lifespan of > >> millions of people). > >> > > > > You could also make a case that the war in Iraq will save millions of > > lives by driving the Singularity technology forward. Research on > > robotic vehicles, robot bomb investigators, robots to go into tunnels, > > robot flying vehicles, new weaponry, new medical facilities, new > > bionic limbs, new armor technology, new radars, nano technology, > > computer systems, ..... the list goes on. > > Largely fantastical I am afraid. The troops don't have adequate old > fashioned armor. Their are some new pieces of military hardware and > some robotics but arguably not as much as the same money invested in > the civilian R&D world would bring and much more focus toward > aggression and worrisome uses of technology than might otherwise be > the case. Plus we are increasing world volatility and the likely > escalation of this so-called "war on terror" . It is perverting our > civil liberties and much of the domestic agenda. > > > There is a vast amount being > > invested in pushing research on as fast as possible to support the war > > in Iraq. > > That is certainly no justification for this pointless war. > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Fri Jul 7 08:43:46 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:43:46 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] why the vertebrate eye might not be suboptimal after all References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706154606.02452568@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060706224751.02218d28@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <002201c6a1a1$76a8ac10$cab81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> A medico pal, not on this list, comments: > The real test is this conclusion: "nor is it easy to conceive how it > might be modified without significantly decreasing its function." In > fact it's very easy. After all, we have a perfect example sitting > around. It's called the mollusc eye. And it manages to be just as > good at seeing as the vertebrate eye without all the stupid design > features AND without the flaws that Ayoub claims would necessarily > eventuate from a reverse design. You'll notice the hoops Ayoub jumps > through specifically so that he doesn't even have to address the > issue of the cephalopod eye. "Would hundreds of thousands of > vertebrate species -- in a great variety of terrestrial, marine, and > aerial environments -- really see better with a visual system used by > a handful of exclusively marine vertebrates?" In other words, the > vertebrate eye must be better because there are lots more > vertebrates. Except of course, by that logic, the most successful eye > of all time is the insect eye. Ayoub seems to be unaware that the > very existence of multiple different eye designs poses a major > problem for ID. > It seems interesting. I also realize it is a generalization of the AP (Anthropic Principle). Here we have a sort of VeP (Vertebrate Eye Principle) plus MeP (Mollusc Eye Principle) plus IeP (Insect Eye Principle) at work. Which is 'the best'? Are natural selection and 'anthropic' reasoning the same thing? s. 'I'll say it again: the ACP is to cosmology as natural selection is to the theory of evolution. Natural selection is not really falsifiable, being a tautology. Yet little in biology makes sense without it. Same goes (or will go, once the new paradigm becomes widely accepted) for the ACP.' -Jonathan Colvin From kevin.osborne at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 09:48:45 2006 From: kevin.osborne at gmail.com (kevin.osborne) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 19:48:45 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] hawking asks: How can the human race survive the next hundred years? Message-ID: <3642969c0607070248v2da6f448hec1e892045b711da@mail.gmail.com> see http://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=AtjblpXOSMXPaKrJ2N9lui8jzKIX?qid=20060704195516AAnrdOD From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jul 7 10:23:44 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:23:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: References: <20060706185623.19687.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060707102344.GA26630@leitl.org> On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 10:27:57PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Maybe the former are/were just a lot easier? After all, > we did get good sanitation in the west (finally) even > before we invented the machine gun. (Talk about screwed > incentives!) I've heard people lauding Mr. Gatling for his contributions to the art of surgery. > I also agree that war probably retards wealth creation, One could claim that, given http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182 > even given the peculiar types of technology that seem > to arise in 20th century wars (probably other tech > would have come along sooner in place of them). Again, I'm still waiting for a list of of goodies to come out of the Iraq lunacy. Surely, given the price tag and the number of dead people (100 k victims in the Lancet study has turned out to be an estimate on the low side), it must be something really really good. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 12:08:17 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 20:08:17 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: <20060707102344.GA26630@leitl.org> References: <20060706185623.19687.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> <20060707102344.GA26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 7/7/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Again, I'm still waiting for a list of of goodies to come > out of the Iraq lunacy. Surely, given the price tag and the > number of dead people (100 k victims in the Lancet study > has turned out to be an estimate on the low side), it > must be something really really good. > You're missing the point, Eugen. The WWII leap forward in technology does not in anyway justify (validate, excuse, vindicate) the ruinous expense or the 62 million dead (37 million civilian, 25 million military). It is just a side effect of the war effort. Similarly the expense and the deaths of the Iraq war cannot be justified by the new tech that will come out of that war effort. But the new tech will still appear regardless. BillK From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Jul 7 12:47:00 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 08:47:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706082132.02439d58@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060707084248.02578500@gmu.edu> At 11:38 PM 7/6/2006, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Among the usual variation around us it is not hard to identify > > "single entities". > > But among the sort of variation we imagine for future creatures, I find it > > much harder to figure out that "single entity" means. So like Damien, I > > prefer to use terminology, like coordination scale, that seems more > > robust in such situations. > >... in the organizations that seem most capable of dominating their >environment, intelligence is focused in responsible individuals. ... we >do notnattribute much intelligence to genes or groups. ... >A single owner, for example, of a vast ranch may delegate tasks, but he >conceives of the whole place as his personal fiefdom. >... I still cannot imagine a loosely >composed entity being capable of sustaining itself against a centrally >composed one. Hence I do not see selection ultimately favoring loose >entities "coordinated at other scales". >Of course, "nations" spring to mind, ... an actual plan of >a nation will be understood and orders issued from the level of certain >of its highly intelligent units, namely people. I don't think you appreciate the possible complexities. I'm saying that if I look at a complex future world, I'm not sure how to divide it up into "individuals." Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jul 7 12:59:50 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:59:50 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: References: <20060706185623.19687.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> <20060707102344.GA26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060707125950.GH26630@leitl.org> On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 08:08:17PM +0800, BillK wrote: > Similarly the expense and the deaths of the Iraq war cannot be > justified by the new tech that will come out of that war effort. I'm glad we're on the same page, then. > But the new tech will still appear regardless. So you're agreeing that ROI on war is horribly low, and you'd get two or three orders of magnitude of better return on investment, if you'd avoid a war, and invest directly into R&D instead? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 13:37:26 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 21:37:26 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: <20060707125950.GH26630@leitl.org> References: <20060706185623.19687.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> <20060707102344.GA26630@leitl.org> <20060707125950.GH26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 7/7/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > So you're agreeing that ROI on war is horribly low, > and you'd get two or three orders of magnitude of > better return on investment, if you'd avoid a war, > and invest directly into R&D instead? > Correct. But it never happens that way in practice. Without a war all the wartime government/military funding of R&D virtually disappears. There is little pressure to produce stuff like when your life might be at risk. Nations revert to easy-going peacetime attitudes. Academics worry about tenure, business paints their widgets a different color and calls it progress. New stuff still happens, but on a 'Ma?ana' basis. Wartime is like a pressure cooker. 'We need this stuff NOW!' And, of course, the military funding also changes the direction of research. So you lots of stuff quicker, but it tends to be stuff which can be used to help kill people. Jet planes were invented to deliver bombs, troops and bullets quicker. It was only after the war that people used these cool new jet planes for going on holidays. OR was invented to better manage wartime production of weaponry. After the war all businesses seized on the new OR techniques to improve profitability. For example: Have you seen that new 'Babelfish' translator gadget the army is trying in Iraq? That could be a cool universal translator for everyone in a few years time. BillK From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Jul 7 13:56:34 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 09:56:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Function of war, was My Dilemma In-Reply-To: <20060707102344.GA26630@leitl.org> References: <20060706185623.19687.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060707093311.049ca570@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:23 PM 7/7/2006 +0200, Eugen* Leitl wrote: snip >Again, I'm still waiting for a list of of goodies to come >out of the Iraq lunacy. Surely, given the price tag and the >number of dead people (100 k victims in the Lancet study >has turned out to be an estimate on the low side), it >must be something really really good. The function of war and the evolved mechanisms that turn on "war mode" was to reduce the population, bringing it back into a range where the ecosystem could support it. Hunter gatherer wars typically kill 1/2 percent per year with lots of oscillation around the carrying capacity number, Easter Island being a spectacular example where wars reduced the population by about 95%. The reason there were not 2 billion war deaths in the last century instead of something like 200 million is a combination of economic growth, particularly in farming, and slower population growth. Of course we don't live in the EEA where we evolved. So you really can't expect wars to be particularly adaptive in the modern world. Heck, wars amplified a weather glitch around 1260 CE in the American Southwest into a 90% die off/abandonment of the land over a huge area. The annoying part about understanding this is that it comes along too late for the knowledge to be of much use. Keith Henson (Lets see if it posts) From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jul 7 15:14:17 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:14:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] why the vertebrate eye might not be suboptimal after all In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706224751.02218d28@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706154606.02452568@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060706224751.02218d28@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060707100212.021d1fe0@satx.rr.com> My medico friend adds a more extension and persuasive rebuttal: =============== ...what would you consider to be suboptimal design of a visual organ? Putting the retina on backwards? Having the nerves and blood vessels run across the light-collecting surface of the retina? Having a blind spot? Having the risk of retinal detachments? Having an anterior chamber that can trap fluid and cause pressure damage? These are so obviously poor design features that I didn't think it necessary to defend them. What Ayoub has done, of course, is to pretend that these are optimal design features. There is no way they can be. No designer would *choose* these features. All of Ayoub's arguments are waving his hands. Which is why I raised that question at the start. What would you consider to be suboptimal design? I imagine that if you were to ask a thousand different camera designers how to build an effective eye-like structure from scratch, not a single one of them would incorporate any of those flaws. And I'm sorry for picking on the ID angle, but to me that was the only reason Ayoub came to his arguments in the first place. I don't know of anyone who thinks the vertebrate eye is an optimal design except creationists and IDists. >>Note also that he called cephalopods "marine vertebrates". > >A typo, surely. Yes, most likely a typo. But this was not an email written in haste, it was a referenced article that I presume he proof-read. And it's only 1500 words long. He then submitted it to a journal in 1996, admittedly a crap journal run by the ARN, but still a journal where presumably it was read by at least one editor. Then it was reproduced on the ARN's website. And from there it has been quoted many times by sympathetic souls (including that nicely quotable sentence) none of whom have corrected it or pointed out the error. So why, in ten years of opportunity to revise, has this sentence survived? The answer can only be that none of the people involved, from the author on, has been interested in critical appraisal of the text. If you want a more pointed rebuttal of Ayoub's arguments, check out http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nesse/Articles/Nesse-MaladaptNatSel-QRB-2005.pdf which contains the following para: The eye is also, however, the poster child for the body's imperfections. It works well when it works, but often it does not. Nearly a third of us have hereditary nearsightedness, and almost no one over 55 can read a phone book unassisted (except for those who have been nearsighted for decades!). The lovely mechanism that regulates intraocular pressure often fails, causing glaucoma. Then there is the blind spot, a manifestation of the abject design failure of nerves and vessels that penetrate the eyeball in a bundle and spread out along the interior surface instead of penetrating from the outside as in the betterdesigned cephalopod eye. Octopi not only have a full field of vision, but they need not worry about retinal detachment. They also need neither the tiny jiggle of nystagmus that minimizes the shadows cast by vessels and nerves on the vertebrate retina nor the brain processing mechanisms that extract the visual signal from the nystagmus noise. In short, the vertebrate eye is a masterpiece not of design, but of jury-rigged compensations for a fundamentally defective architecture. Or there's http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/03/the_kraken_wake.html especially Ian Musgrave's contribution, which I've quoted hereafter: The various anti-evolution commentators [[Again, I note that of course I'm not interested in this as an *anti*-evolution argument; I'm a habitual contrarian wondering if what seems ill-adapted necessarily is. Yes, evolution retains plenty of solutions that barely do the job and that thereafter constrain the pathways that might have led to better means of doing a job. But we've also seen science far too quickly decide that some part of the body is merely vestigial and unnecessary; the whole "junk DNA" farrago is a prime example--some probably is conserved viral junk, but plenty isn't. DB]] usually don't put in the time to understand the physiology of the retina in general, nor the comparative physiology of cephalopods and vertebrates. The RPE argument is a case in point. Most cephalopods have a transparent, non-pigmented epithelium that the photoreceptors are attached to. It is very hard to see it in the available online resources, but it is there. There is no reason it cannot do the recycling that the vertebrate RPE does (although this role is probably undertaken by processes from the supporting cells in the basement membrane). The absorption of excess light, as well as the nutrient function of the RPE/choroid, is undertaken by a layer of pigment cells and blood vessels in the basal membrane, that lies at the base of the light harvesting villi. You can see the blood vessels and pigments in this paper on the octopus retina. Tom Curtis wrote: I notice that Ian did not deal with the nutrient issue that I discussed in most depth, and dealt differently (and better) with the over heating issue. The nutrient issue follows directly from the heating issue. The blood vessels in the vertebrate eye are slightly distant from the terminal ends of the photoreceptor processes, and quite far from the cell bodies. The blood has to be pumped through at great velocity to cool down the choroid and to deliver nutrients to the distant retina. In the cephalopods the blood vessels are right next to the terminal parts of the photoreceptor process, the photoreceptor cell bodies and the pigment cells where it is needed. It is far more efficient than the vertebrate system for both cooling and nutrient delivery (this also takes care of Plunge's concerns). Typically, most of the arguments for the "superiority" of the vertebrate "back-to-front" retina are irrelevant. Other commentators in this thread have pointed this out giving a number of examples. Vertebrate photoreceptors can detect a single photon, great, but so can cephalopod photoreceptors, and they are not covered with gunk that absorbs or scatters the incoming photons. Cephalopods occupy many niches, from shallow water tidal zones with high light intensities to the abyssal depths where every photon counts, some are ambush predators, and some are active hunting predators. Some see in black and white, some see in colour, some see polarized light (which vertebrates can't). Many have visual acuity equivalent to many vertebrates; cuttlefish have equivalent visual acuity to cats. All this without an invert retina. When Denton says Denton wrote: "that in redesigning from first principles an eye capable of the highest possible resolution (within the constraints imposed by the wavelength of light16) and of the highest possible sensitivity (capable of detecting an individual photon of light) we would end up recreating the vertebrate eye" he is just plain wrong. The pre-adaptation concept is nonsense. We are to expect that an intelligent designer will give the marine vertebrates, which are significantly more numerous in species and population than the terrestrial vertebrates, a poorly designed retina so that a very few percent of all terrestrial vertebrates can have supposedly superior vision? This is a definition of "good design" of which I was not previously aware. [[again: ID is not the issue here]] Tom Curtis wrote: As to a cooling bath, a more efficient procedure (for humans at least) would be a UV filter in the lens, eliminating the damaging but useless radiation in the first place. . Not really, most of the damage is coming from heat generated by ordinary visual spectrum photons being absorbed by the pigments in the choroids (and superoxide radicals generated by the visual cascade itself), a UV filter would help, but would only reduce some of the damage. Cephalopods manage the cooling system better than vertebrates. Plunge wrote: Should we really claim that the human eye is NOT the best possible design? Yes, because it isn't. The vertebrate eye works, and works rather well (one merely has to contemplate the visual acuity of the eagle to see that the "design" works well). But it is a suboptimal Heath Robinson "design" where the limitations of the original invert retina setup (which were irrelevant to amphioxus and the small chordates in which the vertebrate eye evolved) are worked around by kludges. It is like claiming that the misground Hubble mirror with its correcting lenses is the "best possible design" because it gives clear pictures. From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jul 7 16:29:09 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 09:29:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] My error (was My Dilemma) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Apologies to Stuart, the Avantguardian. It was he, not Damien who wrote the below: Damien B. [should have been Avantguardian] writes > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > I find vindicating technical progress by killing > > people and destroying infrastructure morally abhorrent. > > Even leaving aside morality as being fuzzy and > relative, it is still highly irrational. By common > sense cause and effect, one reaps what one sows. So if > you only justify investing in technological progress > in the name of war, I agree, at least up to whatever sense it makes to talk about societies as a whole "choosing" anything. > you get the ironic imbalance of > capability that we have today: > > One man can invoke splinters of the sun to vaporize > millions of people at the touch of a button. Yet we > can't cure the common cold let alone poverty, old age, > and death. Maybe the former are/were just a lot easier? After all, we did get good sanitation in the west (finally) even before we invented the machine gun. (Talk about screwed incentives!) > Investing in fear pays dividends in terror. Investing > in love pays dividends of abundance. It isn't rocket > science nor does it have to be. Again, this is an act that one fears to undertake alone. (Did you back in the cold war days favor, I wonder, unilateral disarmament by those countries where you were free to give out such suggestions? I am very glad that Western nations did not succumb to those memes.) For sure, we are glad that over the long haul history seems to gradually favor peace over war. I also agree that war probably retards wealth creation, even given the peculiar types of technology that seem to arise in 20th century wars (probably other tech would have come along sooner in place of them). Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jul 7 16:44:18 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 09:44:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Samantha writes > On Jul 5, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Russell writes > > > >> My guess would be that a newly colonized and initially mostly > >> empty star system may be receptive to further immigrants, but > >> as it fills up it will start putting up "migrants please move > >> on to the next empty star system" signs. (Historical analogies > >> would be the recolonization of Krakatoa by plants and animals > >> after the eruption, and European immigration to the colonies > >> in America and Australia - in each case as niches are filled > >> the barriers to further immigration become higher.) > > > > My guess goes quite contrary: moments after a Von Neumann type > > probe lands on a planet---a probe incidentally which was designed > > and sent by a vast superhuman intelligence---it rather quickly > > takes over the entire surface of the planet. It also rather > > quickly bootstraps itself up to being able to receive the > > latest algorithms from home, including, especially importantly, > > the very "soul" of its originator. > > Even if it is already occupied? If so then such a probe would be an > act of aggression and might trigger an interstellar war. Latest > algorithms at c? Hmm. You think that just because a nanotechnological device lands on a planet and tries to convert it to its own tissue, the present inhabitants might go so far as to regard this as WAR? Surely, you are over-reacting. Don't most species look forward to assimilation? Kidding aside, well, "war" has happened before. I guess you could call what I do to the microbes in my laundry war, in a sense. > > In that way, the initiating intelligence gets a copy of itself > > going in almost no time. No further pellets are either welcome > > or necessary. Within [a short time period], they themselves > > (any incoming pellets) are hopelessly far behind the technology > > ruling the planet's surface. > > So these probes are only light hours Sorry, I ought to have said "days" or possibly even weeks > from home base? Otherwise it > is quite possible that later waves are more advanced than the new > information presumably somehow beamed all the way from home. Yes, you're right, and I agree. But I was talking about the eventual situation. No, given the huge distances involved, it is unlikely that a probe will reach a planet on the heels of another, and it is more likely that a more advanced one overtook a more primitive one far from the target system. > Is home beaming individual coded updates in all directions it has > probes? I imagine so. > > Soon, as the planet begins to think for itself (assuming my > > postulated radius "r of entity integrity" is that large), > > one of the main question on its mind is what to do about > > incoming *signals* from the home world. Those distant worlds > > survive in a certain evolutionary sense if they are receptive > > only to incoming algorithmic EM that does not threaten their > > already established identity. > > So another species that was bright enough could fake updates to these > probes to gradually have them do their own bidding or take them over? My own guess is that the encrypters will have the upper hand from now on. But yes, what you say here could be another aspect of the arms race. To be precise (the way I see it), suppose that stars A and B have both been colonized by pellets from Earth, and perhaps have even been receiving EM updates. Still, a mutation of one may provoke it into sending amended versions of itself to B and to others, in a form of rebellion. Suppose that this mutation (or algorithm discovery, however we look at it) is so profound that not only does A take over B, but it establishes a radius of a few hundred light years where it rules. But at some point in its own expansion, it begins to encounter planets suborned by Earth---the closer it gets to Earth---that are a match for its own now far-distant probes. (Again, both *centers* are dozens or hundreds of years more advanced than their peripheries.) Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 17:30:16 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:30:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] My error (was My Dilemma) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060707173016.48298.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> No problem. Thanks for the correction. I am glad Damien is back too. :) -Stu --- Lee Corbin wrote: > Apologies to Stuart, the Avantguardian. It was he, > not Damien who wrote > the below: > > Damien B. [should have been Avantguardian] writes > > > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > > > I find vindicating technical progress by killing > > > people and destroying infrastructure morally > abhorrent. > > > > Even leaving aside morality as being fuzzy and > > relative, it is still highly irrational. By common > > sense cause and effect, one reaps what one sows. > So if > > you only justify investing in technological > progress > > in the name of war, > > I agree, at least up to whatever sense it makes to > talk > about societies as a whole "choosing" anything. > > > you get the ironic imbalance of > > capability that we have today: > > > > One man can invoke splinters of the sun to > vaporize > > millions of people at the touch of a button. Yet > we > > can't cure the common cold let alone poverty, old > age, > > and death. > > Maybe the former are/were just a lot easier? After > all, > we did get good sanitation in the west (finally) > even > before we invented the machine gun. (Talk about > screwed > incentives!) > > > Investing in fear pays dividends in terror. > Investing > > in love pays dividends of abundance. It isn't > rocket > > science nor does it have to be. > > Again, this is an act that one fears to undertake > alone. > (Did you back in the cold war days favor, I wonder, > unilateral disarmament by those countries where you > were free to give out such suggestions? I am very > glad > that Western nations did not succumb to those > memes.) > > For sure, we are glad that over the long haul > history > seems to gradually favor peace over war. > > I also agree that war probably retards wealth > creation, > even given the peculiar types of technology that > seem > to arise in 20th century wars (probably other tech > would have come along sooner in place of them). > > Lee > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 18:17:56 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 11:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060707181756.68117.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > Stuart LaForge wrote: > > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > > > I find vindicating technical progress by killing > > > people and destroying infrastructure morally > abhorrent. > > > > Even leaving aside morality as being fuzzy and > > relative, it is still highly irrational. By common > > sense cause and effect, one reaps what one sows. > So if > > you only justify investing in technological > progress > > in the name of war, > > I agree, at least up to whatever sense it makes to > talk > about societies as a whole "choosing" anything. Why doesn't it make sense that societies choose? Societies choose all the time. They choose the prices of stocks, bonds, and securities on a daily basis. Yeah people don't wake up each morning thinking, "what do I want the price of MSFT to be today?" yet nonetheless the sum total of the millions of individuals buying and selling set the prices. The way the brain chooses is similar. After all a person's choices are no more than the sum total of a whole lot of little choices made by individual neurons choosing to fire or not in response to their connected neighbors firing. The mechanism of choice in both cases can be modelled by vector addition of a whole bunch of little vectors into a definite resultant vector of choice for the larger collective. > > you get the ironic imbalance of > > capability that we have today: > > > > One man can invoke splinters of the sun to > vaporize > > millions of people at the touch of a button. Yet > we > > can't cure the common cold let alone poverty, old > age, > > and death. > > Maybe the former are/were just a lot easier? Generally destruction is always easier than creation. When destruction is ones aim, one has entropy working in your favor. But destruction seldomly creates value unless the destruction is a form of "eating". You may be able to recoup some value from the remnants of the destroyed, but it is but a pale shadow of the value that is lost in costs to both the destroyer and the destroyed. > After > all, > we did get good sanitation in the west (finally) > even > before we invented the machine gun. (Talk about > screwed > incentives!) They are actually neck to neck historically speaking. The gatling gun was invented in 1861. Boston built its first sewer in 1876. http://www.mwra.com/03sewer/html/sewhist.htm > > > Investing in fear pays dividends in terror. > Investing > > in love pays dividends of abundance. It isn't > rocket > > science nor does it have to be. > > Again, this is an act that one fears to undertake > alone. If I could say it any better than Frank Herbert did, I would. Since I can't I will pay homage where it is due: "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." -Frank Herbert, 'Dune'. > (Did you back in the cold war days favor, I wonder, > unilateral disarmament by those countries where you > were free to give out such suggestions? I am very > glad > that Western nations did not succumb to those > memes.) If I was as sophisticated back then as I am now, I would have favored a gradual disarmament. Disarming 25% of our nukes and waiting to see what the other side did, would not have hurt us. If the had followed suit, the world might have been a very different place right now. All our stubborn brinksmanship got us is a black market for nukes and every two-bit dictator or angry sheik trying to get his hands on one. > For sure, we are glad that over the long haul > history > seems to gradually favor peace over war. History favors survival whether by war or peace. I don't find the world any more peaceful now than it was historically. Maybe we are less prone to pull out our biggest guns as the first option but look around yourself. Without your permission, someone has spent over $30,000 of YOUR money on the war in Iraq so far and what has it got you? Your telephone calls being monitored, automated packet sniffers going over your emails, the gestapo going through your personal items at the airport, and a slow but steady bodycount with no end in sight. And by gosh, this is in "the land of the free and the home of the [can't quite make out that word]." While in the less fortunate parts of the world, like Darfur, there is blatant genocide happening. > I also agree that war probably retards wealth > creation, > even given the peculiar types of technology that > seem > to arise in 20th century wars (probably other tech > would have come along sooner in place of them). Yes, wars have become pretty bad investments now that we can no longer count on an ROI from looting and pillaging the countryside. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." - Neils Bohr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From goldgrif at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 20:46:22 2006 From: goldgrif at yahoo.com (steven mckenzie) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: <20060707125950.GH26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060707204622.79037.qmail@web56603.mail.re3.yahoo.com> imagine the same drive to have a "WAR" on poverty, world hunger, lack of inteligence, a new space race to move some of our population to space colonies --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 08:08:17PM +0800, BillK > wrote: > > > Similarly the expense and the deaths of the Iraq > war cannot be > > justified by the new tech that will come out of > that war effort. > > I'm glad we're on the same page, then. > > > But the new tech will still appear regardless. > > So you're agreeing that ROI on war is horribly low, > and you'd get two or three orders of magnitude of > better return on investment, if you'd avoid a war, > and invest directly into R&D instead? > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl > http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 > http://www.ativel.com > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 > 8B29 F6BE > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 21:44:24 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] why the vertebrate eye might not be suboptimal after all In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060707100212.021d1fe0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060707214424.73755.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> I agree with your friend, Damien. If ID were correct, you would think that humans would have the best eyes of all. We would have stable retinas with forward facing photoreceptors and no blind spot. We would have the night vision of cats, the distance vision of hawks, the polarized vision of squids, and the UV vision of honey bees, and a third transparent eyelid like birds. As it stands, we are lucky if we have 20/20 vision. I sure don't w/o corrective lenses. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." - Neils Bohr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jul 7 23:17:43 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:17:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] why the vertebrate eye might not be suboptimal after all In-Reply-To: <20060707214424.73755.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060707100212.021d1fe0@satx.rr.com> <20060707214424.73755.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060707180823.022ef080@satx.rr.com> At 02:44 PM 7/7/2006 -0700, Stuart wrote: >If ID were correct, you would think that humans would have the best >eyes of all. Drat, nobody seems to take my point. It's got nothing to do with *intelligent* design, only with locally and sequentially optimized design. If you find scads of cases of similar designs that work well enough until offspring have offsprung, maybe some of the apparent deficits have unsuspected advantages--as with antagonistic pleitropy. (But I agree that the trouble with a racheting selection system is that often you can't get there from here *purely by darwinnowed mutation*, so critters perforce make the best of it. Hence, my friend's astute comparison with the Hubble's optics.) Damien Broderick From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 23:23:02 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 00:23:02 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] why the vertebrate eye might not be suboptimal after all In-Reply-To: <20060707214424.73755.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060707100212.021d1fe0@satx.rr.com> <20060707214424.73755.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607071623j19677e97h3a6821128b4ad608@mail.gmail.com> On 7/7/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > > I agree with your friend, Damien. If ID were correct, > you would think that humans would have the best eyes > of all. We would have stable retinas with forward > facing photoreceptors and no blind spot. We would have > the night vision of cats, the distance vision of > hawks, the polarized vision of squids, and the UV > vision of honey bees, and a third transparent eyelid > like birds. While I don't know enough about the subject to know whether the advantages of the current arrangement cited actually outweigh the disadvantages (though I find it interesting that the matter appears to be debatable), there is a long-standing tradition of criticizing the work of evolution; what is interesting is that most of the time the error turns out to be on the part of the critics. From the above list, for example: our night vision is inferior to that of cats because (or at least partly because) the layer behind the retina is black rather than reflective, but this cuts down on glare in daylight; we could see UV if our lenses were transparent to it, but the opacity is a feature rather than a bug, it helps protect the eye from UV damage; and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe hawks, while they have superb distance vision, can't focus sharply on nearby objects. There are always tradeoffs; neither evolution nor intelligent designers can provide all possible features in a single design. As it stands, we are lucky if we have > 20/20 vision. I sure don't w/o corrective lenses. > Me neither. Since there is substantial variance among humans in visual acuity, and I would have expected evolution to mop that up, here's a question to which I'd be interested in the answer if anyone knows it: Do populations which followed a hunter/gatherer lifestyle until recently have the same variance in visual acuity as those which have been farming for a few thousand years? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 00:59:10 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] why the vertebrate eye might not be suboptimal after all In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060707180823.022ef080@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060708005910.43586.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > Drat, nobody seems to take my point. It's got > nothing to do with > *intelligent* design, only with locally and > sequentially optimized > design. If you find scads of cases of similar > designs that work well > enough until offspring have offsprung, maybe some of > the apparent > deficits have unsuspected advantages--as with > antagonistic pleitropy. > (But I agree that the trouble with a racheting > selection system is > that often you can't get there from here *purely by > darwinnowed > mutation*, so critters perforce make the best of it. > Hence, my > friend's astute comparison with the Hubble's > optics.) No I actually got your point, Damien. I just wanted to indulge in some ID bashing. What Ayoub is arguing is that vertebrate eyes have achieved a local maximum. Most evolved structures are in a local maximum relative to a given set of constraints. To illustrate, lets say you are on top of the shortest mountain in a mountain range. You look around and there are plenty of mountains taller than the one you are on but no matter what direction you start walking you will be going down hill. Thus you have to go pretty far down before you can climb back up to a spot higher than where you started. Natural selection is like walking a mountain range on foot. I don't necessarily agree with Ayoub because there are a huge variety of vertebrate eyes out there. Which vertebrate has the best eyes? It depends entirely on what niche you are optimizing vision for. A naked mole rat lives in complete darkness and gets around by touch, hearing, and smell so it doesn't need eyes at all. A falcon who is routinely flying in excess of 90 mph would need exceptionally acute vision, especially since it needs to intercept very agile flying prey. Thus in regards to ANY evolutionary trait, the fittest is entirely relative to a given set of environmental contraints. That is the major intellectual shortcoming of eugenics. In a rapidly changing heterogenous environment, the best is only the best until the weather changes. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." - Neils Bohr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 07:51:49 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 00:51:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] why the vertebrate eye might not be suboptimal after all In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607071623j19677e97h3a6821128b4ad608@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060708075149.4735.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > On 7/7/06, The Avantguardian > wrote: > > > > I agree with your friend, Damien. If ID were > correct, > > you would think that humans would have the best > eyes > > of all. We would have stable retinas with forward > > facing photoreceptors and no blind spot. We would > have > > the night vision of cats, the distance vision of > > hawks, the polarized vision of squids, and the UV > > vision of honey bees, and a third transparent > eyelid > > like birds. > > > While I don't know enough about the subject to know > whether the advantages > of the current arrangement cited actually outweigh > the disadvantages (though > I find it interesting that the matter appears to be > debatable), there is a > long-standing tradition of criticizing the work of > evolution; what is > interesting is that most of the time the error turns > out to be on the part > of the critics. True. Most critics underestimate the resourcefulness of natural selection operating on the scale of deep geologic time. > From the above list, for example: > our night vision is > inferior to that of cats because (or at least partly > because) the layer > behind the retina is black rather than reflective, > but this cuts down on > glare in daylight; we could see UV if our lenses > were transparent to it, but > the opacity is a feature rather than a bug, it helps > protect the eye from UV > damage; Both of these points are correct. Although keep in mind that I was merely indulging in a flight of fancy as to the perfect designer eye I would like to have. Reality didn't really enter into it. Keeping in mind it is merely a pipedream, one could argue that the polarizing lens of my hypothetical eye would prevent glare and the transparent third eyelid could operate as a UV shield that could be lowered when one actually wanted to view things in that wavelength. > and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I > believe hawks, while they > have superb distance vision, can't focus sharply on > nearby objects. > There > are always tradeoffs; neither evolution nor > intelligent designers can > provide all possible features in a single design. Your overall point on tradeoffs are correct. Constraints favor specialization over generalization. Thus you can design a swiss army knife that is incredibly versatile, but an axe is preferable for cutting firewood and you are better off with a hunting knife to skin game. As far as hawks go, however, your belief is false. Hawks and other diurnal raptors have both excellent distance vision and incredible accomodation. Their lens can change shape much quicker than ours can to track prey close up as well. It takes but a moment's consideration to realize this is true. What good is it to be able to see a mouse from a mile away if when you come within striking distance at high speed, you lose sight of it? Hawk eyes are also unusual in that they have two high resolution foveas (areas of retina densely packed with photoreceptors) one in the center of the retina like ours and another on the side which we do not have. This means that a hawk's peripheral vision at certain angles is as high resoultion as its direct gaze. Truly beautiful and amazing. Hawk eyes do however have their tradeoffs as well. They are incredibly large. If you look at a hawk's small areodynamic skull, it is almost all eyesocket leaving room for only a tiny brain. > As it stands, we are lucky if we have > > 20/20 vision. I sure don't w/o corrective lenses. > > > > Me neither. Since there is substantial variance > among humans in visual > acuity, and I would have expected evolution to mop > that up, here's a > question to which I'd be interested in the answer if > anyone knows it: > > Do populations which followed a hunter/gatherer > lifestyle until recently > have the same variance in visual acuity as those > which have been farming for > a few thousand years? I am unaware of any actual data on this subject but I would be willing to bet that hunter gatherers have a higher average visual acuity and smaller variance. Just my gut feelings as a biologist. :) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." - Neils Bohr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Jul 8 13:33:48 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 14:33:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] why the vertebrate eye might not be suboptimal after all In-Reply-To: <20060708075149.4735.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0607071623j19677e97h3a6821128b4ad608@mail.gmail.com> <20060708075149.4735.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607080633h27eb1b32l11a3b39aa4c39d4d@mail.gmail.com> On 7/8/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > > As far as hawks go, however, your belief is false. > Hawks and other diurnal raptors have both excellent > distance vision and incredible accomodation. Their > lens can change shape much quicker than ours can to > track prey close up as well. Fair enough, I stand corrected on that one. Hawk eyes do however have their tradeoffs as well. > They are incredibly large. If you look at a hawk's > small areodynamic skull, it is almost all eyesocket > leaving room for only a tiny brain. Makes sense. I am unaware of any actual data on this subject but I > would be willing to bet that hunter gatherers have a > higher average visual acuity and smaller variance. > Just my gut feelings as a biologist. :) As a non-biologist, that would be my suspicion too :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 8 16:37:21 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 11:37:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blackford on enhancement Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060708113206.021541a8@satx.rr.com> My friend Russell Blackford, a polymath currently finishing his second PhD, eloquently makes some points about the philosophical underpinnings of the ethics of genetic enhancement, at his blog http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/ (June 15 entry; be encouraged to comment there.) ==================================== LeRoy Walters and Julie Gage Palmer's The Ethics of Human Gene Therapy (1997) includes one of the best discussions of the prospect of genetic enhancement that I've encountered to date. I've been rereading this over the past few days, and found this passage which really says it all, and highlights the difference between people who broadly favour changing human nature, and human capacities, and those who "don't get it". Here is what they say (it deserves quoting at some length): "... a particular perspective on human nature clearly underlies our moral judgments about genetic enhancement. We are dissatisfied with and critical of certain aspects of the human condition as we see it reflected in the world around us and as we experience it. In the physical sphere, we regard disease and disability as evils that should be overcome as quickly and efficiently as possible. In the intellectual and moral sphere we have also identified serious problems that should be addressed in multiple ways, one of which is the judicious use of genetic technologies. We think that a certain dissatisfaction with human nature as it has developed and as we have inherited it is a prerequisite for intervention to improve human nature. Also implicit in the notion of genetic enhancement is a dynamic rather than a static view of human nature. While there are historical and evolutionary reasons for human nature's being as it is, we do not view the human race as being fated to accept the current state of affairs. Rather, we accept the possibility of change in human nature and have tried to argue for the ethical acceptability of certain kinds of planned changes in the characteristics of future human beings. In our view, such genetic enhancements are an important part of the overall task of attempting to provide a better life and a better world to our descendants." (page 133) Unusually for me, I find I totally agree with this passage. Note that nothing here denies that we might, in practice, need to be very cautious about attempting genetic enhancement, or that there might be practical and ethical problems that are crucial barriers to particular experiments. The focus of the passage is on the big picture: that we do not have to take human nature as we find it. I often make the point that we can never entirely step out of our own nature. This applies at both the individual level and the species level. If, for example, I am dissatisfied with some aspect of my own personality, and find it a barrier to achieving my goals, that is because it conflicts with desires that are themselves a product of my personality. As it happens, I am rather shy in social situations, a trait which I find annoying and frustrating - other aspects of my personality would better suited if I were less self-conscious and wary of others, a bit more extroverted, more relaxed about how others see me, and even able to be a bit more "pushy", etc., without embarrassment and the awkwardness that can go with it. However, all this is a problem only because it conflicts with the desires I actually have (although I find it difficult, I actually want to be gregarious and find social occasions energising, rather than emotionally draining, and to have the advantages of finding it easy to "network", and so on). I don't wish to jettison my entire personality and start again, just tweak aspects that don't fit well with my conscious desires - desires to be a certain way and to do, and enjoy, certain things. There is no standard entirely external to us by which we are compelled to make changes to ourselves, but nor have our natures (as individuals or as a species) been designed for perfect harmony. At the individual level, we are the products of the genetic lottery and more-or-less chance occurrences in the process of socialisation as we've individually encountered it. There is no reason why our abilities and personalities should be expected to line up neatly with our desires or purposes. At the level of the species, we are a product of biological evolution that had no conscious goal. We have simply inherited genes that happened to confer more reproductive fitness than did their rivals in the environment of human evolutionary adaptedness. There is no reason to believe that they were the best genes for our ancestors' conscious happiness, let alone that they are best for our conscious pursuit of happiness, or whatever other conscious desires we have, in modern environments. What we must concede is that it will be difficult to improve on what evolution has given us - not because we are perfectly designed by its processes but because we still have so much to learn about ourselves. For example, the underlying biological bases of our social nature need to be understood in much more depth before we take action that might hinder their operation. Accordingly, I am all for proceeding with caution and accepting that we may not see much change to human nature in our own lifetimes. That acknowledged, it remains to be emphasised that we are conscious beings whose desires, purposes, and values go far beyond, and may even conflict with, reproductive fitness and with some aspects of our natures that once served it. If there is a genuine choice between maintaining our evolved physical and psychological nature as it is and tweaking it to something more conducive to getting what we consciously want for ourselves, then I'm all for doing the tweaking. On that point of principle, I am in good company with Walters and Palmer. From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat Jul 8 19:57:18 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:57:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blackford on enhancement In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060708113206.021541a8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Damien S. quotes Russell Blackford > ...we do not have to take human nature as we find it. > > There is no reason why our abilities and personalities should > be expected to line up neatly with our desires or purposes. > ... > What we must concede is that it will be difficult to improve on what > evolution has given us - not because we are perfectly designed by its > processes but because we still have so much to learn about ourselves. > For example, the underlying biological bases of our social nature > need to be understood in much more depth before we take action that > might hinder their operation. Accordingly, I am all for proceeding > with caution and accepting that we may not see much change to human > nature in our own lifetimes. The most effective road to such learning about our own natures would be through experimentation. All those countries exercising capital punishment should pool their criminals awaiting execution, and these criminals should be freely experimented on. Yet can you imagine the howls of outrage? Far better it is, apparently, to simply kill them than to mess around with artificial means of affecting their relationships with one another and altering their moods. There simply *are* some aspects of our conservatism that make no sense. > That acknowledged, it remains to be emphasised that we are conscious > beings whose desires, purposes, and values go far beyond, and may > even conflict with, reproductive fitness and with some aspects of our > natures that once served it. Careful there, or only those who do not lower their reproductive fitness shall inherit the earth. Again, though, seeking to produce more desirable individuals by the millions using artificial means still seems unthinkable to most. I have never in my life been able to truly understand why. > If there is a genuine choice between maintaining our evolved > physical and psychological nature as it is and tweaking it to > something more conducive to getting what we consciously want > for ourselves, then I'm all for doing the tweaking. On that > point of principle, I am in good company with Walters and Palmer. Sure enough. I just wonder how many decades more we'll have to wait before societies are willing to take bold steps (such as I've mentioned above). Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat Jul 8 20:21:24 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 13:21:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: <20060707181756.68117.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The Avantguardian writes > --- Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Stuart LaForge wrote: > > > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > > > > > I find vindicating technical progress by killing > > > > people and destroying infrastructure morally > > > > abhorrent. > > > > > > Even leaving aside morality as being fuzzy and > > > relative, it is still highly irrational. By common > > > sense cause and effect, one reaps what one sows. > > > So if you only justify investing in technological > > > progress in the name of war, > > > > ...at least up to whatever sense it makes to talk > > about societies as a whole "choosing" anything. > > Why doesn't it make sense that societies choose? > Societies choose all the time. They choose the prices > of stocks, bonds, and securities on a daily basis. We must keep clear the distinction between *consciously* choosing, such as governments setting policy, and ordinary and ongoing development. An analogy occurs with your body: you decide to jump out of the airplane but you don't decide to become a bit scared while doing it. Another obvious example: you don't decide what your blood pressure will be, at least up until the time you take conscious deliberate actions to lower it. > > (Did you back in the cold war days favor, I wonder, > > unilateral disarmament by those countries where you > > were free to give out such suggestions? I am very > > glad that Western nations did not succumb to those > > memes.) > > If I was as sophisticated back then as I am now, I > would have favored a gradual disarmament. Disarming > 25% of our nukes and waiting to see what the other > side did, would not have hurt us. Kissinger said, "We found that if we build, they build. We found that if we don't build, they build." > If they had followed suit, the world might have been > a very different place right now. All our stubborn > brinksmanship got us is a black market for nukes and > every two-bit dictator or angry sheik trying to get > his hands on one. I simply cannot understand why people in the West are so naive. Reminds me of the incident mentioned in "The God that Failed". The British Communist Party was undecided what course of action to take: if they came out in favor of a certain candidate, it would actually hurt him. But if they didn't he'd get much less support. An Eastern European Communist attending their meeting suggested simply, "Well, just work behind the scenes campaigning for him under cover, and if anything, make a public declaration against him." "But that would be a lie!", exclaimed the British communist. It is said that even Stalin got a chuckle out of this. It must occur to you that many enemies cannot be negotiated with. You defeat them, or they defeat you. > > For sure, we are glad that over the long haul > > history seems to gradually favor peace over war. > > History favors survival whether by war or peace. I > don't find the world any more peaceful now than it was > historically. Then you haven't read enough history. The present era beginning in 1946 has been by far the most peaceful in history, in terms of the chances that a given individual will be involved in war. > While in the less fortunate parts of the world, like > Darfur, there is blatant genocide happening. Yes, and no Western nation (as if any other nations would care---it took Great Britain until the 19th century to be the first to consciously foster humanitarianism for other nations) can simply demand that genocide anywhere stop. The governments engaging in genocide, such as in Darfur or Rwanda, rightly sense the weakness of the west. They're not afraid, and rightly so. Lee From discwuzit at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 22:15:23 2006 From: discwuzit at yahoo.com (John B) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 15:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Singularity in 2015? *wry grin* Message-ID: <20060708221523.92249.qmail@web54502.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/2006/06/the_gillette_si.html Quite interesting, and very funny... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Jul 9 12:49:14 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 14:49:14 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Singularity in 2015? *wry grin* In-Reply-To: <20060708221523.92249.qmail@web54502.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060708221523.92249.qmail@web54502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520607090549h537f64fam5640cbaa9f65942b@mail.gmail.com> This is one of the reasons why I never took the big S too seriously - you cannot extrapolate from trends beyond certain limits. This example is good because it shows how extrapolation from a real trend can lead to absurd conclusions. On 7/9/06, John B wrote: > http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/2006/06/the_gillette_si.html > > Quite interesting, and very funny... From charlie at antipope.org Sun Jul 9 12:20:19 2006 From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 13:20:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607051628s45dc6ea5g4987475d06ad6c55@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0607051628s45dc6ea5g4987475d06ad6c55@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <11F7603E-3630-4AAC-8CFB-218094C97E2E@antipope.org> On 6 Jul 2006, at 00:28, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 7/5/06, A B wrote: > I've been struggling with an issue for a few months now, ever since > I first learned about the Singularity and its myriad implications. > My dilemma is that I'm not sure that I should try to inform and > educate my friends and loved ones about the Singularity. > > I think "tell the truth and shame the devil" is a good guideline. > > I also think, however, that the truth is that the more extreme > Singularitarian predictions are about the human predilection to > believe in doomsday/nirvana scenarios rather than the actual future. I think a good antidote for anyone getting a wee bit overheated about the Singularity would be to read "The Pursuit of the Millennium" by Norman Cohn. It's a history of a rather different strain of millennialism -- the one that ravaged Europe circa 950AD-1030AD -- but the underlying lesson is transferable. Like it or not, we are mostly natives of societies that are infested with a pervasive religious meme complex that trains us from an early age to expect the return of a semi-mythical leader who will set all wrongs to right. This predisposes us to anticipate the Singularity in terms wittily characterized by Ken MacLeod as "the Rapture of the Nerds" (when we'll all go a-flying up to machine heaven, hallelujah!). The reality is, it may or may not happen, and if it *does* happen we may or may not live to see it anyway. Angsting about it is pointless, unless your purpose is to lobby your local government to try to make the horrid thing impossible by, say, banning certain lines of research. -- Charlie From jonkc at att.net Sun Jul 9 15:48:29 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 11:48:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma. References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007a01c6a36f$319937a0$300a4e0c@MyComputer> A B Wrote: > the Singularity meme has personally caused me a > not-insignificant amount of fear and anxiety. If the Singularity never happens you will end up dead, there is absolutely no doubt about it. If the Singularity does happen you may end up dead. That would seem to me to be an improvement. John K Clark From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Jul 9 17:43:51 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 10:43:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0607062143g39ab91edr556b9688a68c1967@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060709174351.GB7187@ofb.net> On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 10:12:49PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Well, I figure if Criswell can figure out a way to actually > *lift* star matter (!), then get it to go bang should be > comparatively simple. Looks a lot harder to me. For lifting you just heat up the outer layers of the star and collect the matter. For a bang... fusion reactions are *hard*, it's difficult enough to get them to happen at all, let alone explosively. Stars do sometimes go bang but under special circumstances, one of which is being very massive. And if it's not worth sending probes around it's probably not worth trying to move *stars* together. The other condition is having a white dwarf in a binary system -- not sure if companion main sequence works, or if you need white dwarf + a (usually red) giant. And why would you make a star go bang? How would you store or use the energy? I guess distilling the energy as (anti)matter streams might look attractive, but you're talking about passing the energy of a stellar mass through a much smaller distillery in a fraction of a second. > > Don't see the gain there even if you don't care about the future. > > (And hey, weren't you the one going I'm going to live a trillion > > years, > > And just why not? :-) I think his point was that seems inconsistent with blowing up stars to live as quickly as possible. > Yes, up to the chance that I can partake, and yes, also out of > some residual loyalty to the human race, my family, nation, etc., > and other outmoded loyalties in the age of individualism. The age of individualism, hmm. Individual freedom has gone up in some ways, but in others we seem more interdependent than ever before. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Jul 9 17:44:24 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 10:44:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Libertarian paternalism In-Reply-To: <61323B76-F993-4780-A106-B86363405291@mac.com> References: <20060703023804.GA10033@ofb.net> <20060704221256.GB13912@ofb.net> <61323B76-F993-4780-A106-B86363405291@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060709174424.GC7187@ofb.net> On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 03:41:33PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > and agree with. Thank you for posting about it here. I find it very You're welcome! Glad you liked it. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Jul 9 17:25:29 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 10:25:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] why the vertebrate eye might not be suboptimal after all In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706154606.02452568@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706154606.02452568@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060709172529.GA4774@ofb.net> On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 03:50:52PM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > Evbio tells us that design mistakes can get frozen in; a standard > instance is the vertebrate eye, where the light detectors are facing > the wrong way. D'oh! But wait, maybe there's more to this than meets > the eye (even if this comes from the "intelligent design" bozos): > > http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/retina171.htm Your friend beat this up more thoroughly; my objections would have been to point out that having mentioned the cephalopod eye, he didn't go on the contrast how *it* addressed the problems solved by the vertebrate eye in an allegedly unique fashion. How does the octopus handle retinal rengeration? Perhaps it doesn't need to, with short lifespans and little exposure to light -- *but he didn't say*, which on "critical thinking" grounds should make his argument suspect of leaving out unwelcome evidence. And then if short lifespans mattered -- well, most vertebrates have short lifespans, and many have low light exposure (fish, nocturnal mammals), why do they have our eye? This was mentioned but I'll expand it: the fact that there are so many different types of eye *and* that the types track lineage, not environment, suggests that lineage is the primary constraint, not optimality. Three (at least) different kinds of eye in the oceans; vertebrates living in lots of different environments, all with the same basic design... clearly, either basic design can't be altered easily, or every design used is so flexible it can adapt optimally to any environment. (Which I've read may not be true; the compound eye may have practically hard scaling limits.) I think Dawkins speculated on why we have our eye design: that the proto-vertebrate spent most of its life with its head buried in things (mud, other animals) so it actually did look behind itself, down a long body tube, to see things coming up behind it as it foraged. Its descendants went on to a more free-roving lifestyle but had to deal with an eye which had started out (optimally! at the time) facing the wrong way. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Jul 9 17:35:13 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 10:35:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060709173513.GA7187@ofb.net> On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 09:44:18AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Samantha writes > > So another species that was bright enough could fake updates to these > > probes to gradually have them do their own bidding or take them over? > > My own guess is that the encrypters will have the upper hand > from now on. But yes, what you say here could be another One-time pad, use it and love it. -xx- Damien X-) From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun Jul 9 20:45:42 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 13:45:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: <20060709174351.GB7187@ofb.net> Message-ID: Damien Sullivan writes > And why would you make a star go bang? How would you store or use the > energy? I guess distilling the energy as (anti)matter streams might > look attractive, but you're talking about passing the energy of a > stellar mass through a much smaller distillery in a fraction of a > second. My remark is really about what the possible motivations of extremely advanced life. Let's suppose that benefit is directly proportional to computation per second times total number of seconds. Now we humans are accustomed to being able to *think* only so much per second. Therefore, to maximize our benefit, we need to live as long as possible. But if *benefit* is really what you want, then it doesn't really matter what the outside universal clock reads. Also, one of our prejudices is to live as long as possible in order to take advantage of opportunities that are not currently available. But the maximally advanced life that I have been able to envision does not have these particular constraints. Therefore, if it's possible, one might as well do all one's thinking as soon as possible. What difference does it make, anyway? Besides: as I see it, by this time truly intelligent life has already attempted and already succeeded in having spread long ago away from any particular star. So one final burst of EM carrying all the information gleaned from the last few hours of maximum benefit---read "damn near Omega point"---following the nova can be sent to nearby stars, in order that they may profit in time for their novae. Just what, you might ask, would be sent? Design info and math results, that's all. As I've said, I think that that's all there will be in the end. The design info is how to become more advanced and enjoy better (gratification research), and the math is---to pick the most trivial intriguing problem---what are the highest Ramsey numbers found so far. > I think his point was that seems inconsistent with blowing up stars to > live as quickly as possible. Oh. Well, I think I've dealt with that above, too. > > Yes, up to the chance that I can partake, and yes, also out of > > some residual loyalty to the human race, my family, nation, etc., > > and other outmoded loyalties in the age of individualism. > > The age of individualism, hmm. Individual freedom has gone up in some > ways, but in others we seem more interdependent than ever before. Yes, and I wish that we could continue a discussion of the granularity we should expect of extremely advanced intelligence. Robin and you have your hunches that I "don't appreciate the complex possibilities", that we "don't know how to divide up [a complex future world] into individuals", and "a strong pressure to get along, but a single will imposing rules doesn't strike me as the only or even the best way of describing what goes on", that is, your talk of "coordination scale". And I have my hunches. And so there we are, until our thoughts become a little less inchoate. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun Jul 9 21:06:47 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 14:06:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Happened to "the Blight"? Message-ID: Speaking, as we were in the thread about intelligence dominating space, it seems likely to me that our genuine altruism and love of cooperation is just a byproduct of the way primate groups happen to function. Bengal tigers function otherwise. A good dramatization of a grasping, solitary intelligence was Vernor Vinge's "Blight" in "A Fire Beyond the Deep". This transhuman intelligence had been contained, somehow, eons ago near its resting place in the lower Beyond. Then someone got in and monkeyed with it, and it was on the loose again, posing a great threat to all of us poor folk in the slow zone. How exactly did Vinge send in the cavalry at the end? Something about a great wave of *slowness* that engulfed the many lightyears of the Blight's locale? Lee From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Jul 9 22:11:45 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 15:11:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What Happened to "the Blight"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060709221145.GA18760@ofb.net> On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 02:06:47PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > A good dramatization of a grasping, solitary intelligence was Vernor > Vinge's "Blight" in "A Fire Beyond the Deep". This transhuman > intelligence had been contained, somehow, eons ago near its resting > place in the lower Beyond. Then someone got in and monkeyed with Urm. When it woke up, it was in the Low Transcend, where Powers can first live. The Beyond is the realm of FTL and AI, but no Powers. > How exactly did Vinge send in the cavalry at the end? Something about > a great wave of *slowness* that engulfed the many lightyears of the > Blight's locale? Yes. And there's a strong implication that that is how the Blight was contained the first time around, except on an even bigger scale -- that the Beyond and Slow Zones (in our and other galaxies) are artificial constructs, presumably meant to act as sub-Power nurseries. The Zones shrank over time; the Blight archive would have recently found itself in the Low Transcend, as opposed to High Beyond. 5 billion years ago, in the ur-Partition, it might well have been Slow Zone. -xx- Damien X-) From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jul 9 22:52:10 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 15:52:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200607092306.k69N68KW025042@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Amara, the Italians are going nuts over this perhaps. {8-] http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/soccer/specials/world_cup/2006/07/09/i taly.france.final.ap/index.html?cnn=yes spike From atomictiki at yahoo.com Mon Jul 10 03:18:47 2006 From: atomictiki at yahoo.com (P.J. Manney & E. Gruendemann) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 20:18:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Los Angeles Times "West Magazine" -- The Forever Young Issue Message-ID: <20060710031847.59325.qmail@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes, leave it to The Los Angeles Times to devote an entire Sunday Magazine issue to "Forever Young." They sure know their readership! However, Brian Alexander did write the article on HGH... http://www.latimes.com/features/magazine/west/?track=leftnav-west There are too many articles to copy. You may have to register to read if you're interested. Patricia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon Jul 10 07:35:52 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:35:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What is "war" (was: My Dilemma) In-Reply-To: <20060707125950.GH26630@leitl.org> References: <20060706185623.19687.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> <20060707102344.GA26630@leitl.org> <20060707125950.GH26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Jul 7, 2006, at 5:59 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > So you're agreeing that ROI on war is horribly low, > and you'd get two or three orders of magnitude of > better return on investment, if you'd avoid a war, > and invest directly into R&D instead? How about backing up a couple more steps and define "war". Several thousand years ago, the definition was relatively simple as a matter of practical circumstance and largely revolved around a few brutes beating on each other for the privilege of rape and pillage. Fast forward to modern times and the practical reality has blurred enough that there is no obvious delineation or definition of what is war and what it is not, even practically. Sure, some things still *look* kind of war-like, but I would argue that those are legacy vestiges shortly doomed to be historical artifacts. There are many activities that generate the functional result of wars without the body count, and it does not take much of an active imagination to envision devastating "wars" where there is little or no body count. What, precisely, makes war "war"? It is thrown about as a suitcase term filled with a lot of negativity, but it does not mean anything for the purposes of this discussion. Are all outcomes not the result of war if no one dies? I think not. How much individual autonomy must be restricted before a situation becomes "war"? Given the current state of the world, it is hard to think of a definition that is a superset of body count that does *not* put most of us on the battlefield with consistent application. Body counts suck, but there is more than one way to skin a camel that do not require body counts per se. The amount of warfare has not declined, just the body count (and even that may be temporary). If merely reducing the body count makes one think they are winning the war, it just means they are fighting the last war and losing the current one. Sun Tzu would respect that people and governments can win all manner of war these days firing few if any shots, but he would be under no illusions as to whether or not the activity was "war". In the big scheme of things, getting over-run by a mob of bloodthirsty brutes does not even register on the radar, but that is a recent luxury of the human experience. It does not mean that human nature has changed, just the nature of the techniques used to express that human nature. J. Andrew Rogers From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon Jul 10 07:48:38 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:48:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060707084248.02578500@gmu.edu> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706082132.02439d58@gmu.edu> <7.0.1.0.2.20060707084248.02578500@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Jul 7, 2006, at 5:47 AM, Robin Hanson wrote: > I don't think you appreciate the possible complexities. I'm saying > that if I look at a complex future world, I'm not sure how to > divide it up into "individuals." More generally, "individuals" are fictions that we arbitrarily delineate at communication bottlenecks (both latency *and* bandwidth). As the communication topology changes with time, so will the effective definition of "individual", whether it is immediately recognized or not. If inter-brain communication was within an order of magnitude of the technical specs of intra-brain communication, I doubt human organisms would have much of a concept of "individual" in the same sense that we do today. J. Andrew Rogers From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jul 10 10:17:54 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:17:54 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060706082132.02439d58@gmu.edu> <7.0.1.0.2.20060707084248.02578500@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <20060710101754.GY26630@leitl.org> On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 12:48:38AM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > More generally, "individuals" are fictions that we arbitrarily > delineate at communication bottlenecks (both latency *and* Self-organization has discrete steps in hierarchies. Cell organelles (anything with a membrane), cells, cortex modules, organs, multicellular organisms, social organisms (mostly insects, but also mole-rats) and large-scale superpersonal organisation levels (corporations, countries, etc). Aggregation is conservative, though it does modify individual units towards increased specialization. Anything with discrete units of selection is very unlikely to degenerate into a homogenous soup. We might very well form a borganism at some point, but the individual people units will be still recognizable as discrete units. > bandwidth). As the communication topology changes with time, so will > the effective definition of "individual", whether it is immediately > recognized or not. > > If inter-brain communication was within an order of magnitude of the > technical specs of intra-brain communication, I doubt human organisms But in this universe things which are closer together can talk to each other with a higher bit rate. There's no way how a 10^10 switch assembly with ~THz native switching rate can convey its entire state to a similiar system even 10 cm away. Higher codes can transport a lot of information with a small bit rate. > would have much of a concept of "individual" in the same sense that > we do today. I think we'll see superpersons grow smarter and stronger, but this isn't the end of us. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Mon Jul 10 13:57:17 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 06:57:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: <20060710101754.GY26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen writes > On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 12:48:38AM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > > More generally, "individuals" are fictions that we arbitrarily > > delineate at communication bottlenecks (both latency *and* > > Self-organization has discrete steps in hierarchies. Cell organelles > (anything with a membrane), cells, cortex modules, organs, multicellular > organisms, social organisms (mostly insects, but also mole-rats) and > large-scale superpersonal organisation levels (corporations, countries, > etc). Aggregation is conservative, though it does modify individual units > towards increased specialization. Yes, though the emphasis in this discussion is on long run trends. It's as though, say, the first billion years of post-singularity life is under the (highly speculative) microscope here. What is also important to remember is that the very concept of "individual" is in question. > Anything with discrete units of selection is very unlikely > to degenerate into a homogenous soup. We might very well form a > borganism at some point, but the individual people units will > be still recognizable as discrete units. Of course, since you are talking about people, I agree. We tend to be stubborn creatures, and I know that if I happen to survive this century, I will take steps to ensure that my own identity does not succumb to fraying at the edges, or problems of "coordinate scale". But the implications of Andrew's remarks to me are this: in the long run, homogeneous material (visualize a million mile long and wide sheaf of thin material orbiting a star) may be intelligent, but may not have any sense of an "individual". Yes, a local region a meter or so in size controls its own square meter completely, but works cooperatively with decimeter patches on its periphery just the way IBM works with smaller companies (assimilation is not always optimal). (I suspect that individualism is so grasping, however, and so imperial that individuals of the far future will parallel corporations or nations today, and still be very conscious and protecting of their own boundaries.) > > bandwidth). As the communication topology changes with time, so will > > the effective definition of "individual", whether it is immediately > > recognized or not. > > > > If inter-brain communication was within an order of magnitude of the > > technical specs of intra-brain communication, I doubt human organisms > > But in this universe things which are closer together can talk > to each other with a higher bit rate. Exactly. But there is still the problem: why *must* individuals emerge from homogeneous material? I've given my extrapolations that they will, but these are little more than hunches. (Naturally, new post-humans, like today's individuals if they survive, may perpetuate the habit of individualism forever, erecting barriers between themselves and "the other" just as organisms do with their skins, or everyman does with the picket fence around his castle. > > [I, Andrew, doubt that organisms [sic] would have much of a concept > > of "individual" in the same sense that we do today. > > I think we'll see superpersons grow smarter and stronger, but > this isn't the end of us. I agree. But from an ultimate Darwinian view, how will they compete with homogeneous material whose meter-sized (or continent-sized) regions merge indistinguishibly into each other? Can they really produce superior algorithms? (Rather I should ask, Can it, the material, produce the most competitive algorithms?) My own admittedly weak reason for agreeing with you that this homogeneous material will fragment into grasping, recognizing, selfish individuals is that the Will of material to embrace and support a single agenda is too strong. Lee From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jul 10 15:11:22 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:11:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060706091401.GV26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1F464AB0-CBD1-40C2-9229-23BB5852F8CA@mac.com> On Jul 6, 2006, at 3:13 AM, BillK wrote: > On 7/6/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> I find vindicating technical progress by killing people and >> destroying >> infrastructure morally abhorrent. >> >> Besides, the motivations and capabilities of intelligent technologies >> to come out of military lab are most likely to produce a Singularity >> a la SkyNet. I'm not sure "saving millions of lives" would be the >> result... >> > > 'Morally abhorrent' is irrelevant. (But nice to know). Huh? You want to back up and try again? Morality is irrelevant? > > All the wonderful stuff that we now take for granted came out of the > huge WWII R&D projects. It would all probably have arrived eventually > at a much more leisurely pace, but the frantic wartime effort produced > it all within about a decade. > I doubt it. Even simple transistors came long afterward. The computer revolution was not 'leisurely' nor was much of it driven by purely military needs. > I am in no way supporting or trying to justify the Iraq war. Just > pointing out that the heat of this wartime development will have more > wonders available to us in five or ten years. We will, of course, once > again take these wonders for granted at the same time as regretting > all the wartime death and injuries. > You are 'pointing out' something you have no way of knowing. More wonders will come out of civilian space in this period by far than from Iraq imho. More wonders are threatened by this "war on terror" than are being produced by it. > We regret the 40,000 road deaths every year in USA, but it doesn't > stop us taking advantage of cars without trying to severely control or > restrict them so as to minimise road deaths and injuries. That is truly irrelevant and one of the worst analogies I've seen in quite some time. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jul 10 15:20:42 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:20:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] In the Long Run, How Much Does Intelligence Dominate Space? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6A335545-908C-4666-A00F-EC23655371A8@mac.com> On Jul 6, 2006, at 8:25 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Robin writes > >> [Lee wrote] >>>>> Russell and I take the "good housekeeping" view, if I might >>>>> phrase it that way, that a powerful intelligence keeps her >>>>> area as clean as a Dutch housewife does hers. >>> Example two: In modern hi-tech clean near but not absolute success >>> is achieved. Did you have this example in mind also when you made >>> your statement? An AI may be able to keep its mind as "clean" as >>> this. >> >> In these examples, the question is how valuable is it to coordinate >> on this scale to keep this area clean of this type of "dirt." Even >> if a household is run by several people, they may coordinate to keep >> out "dust", but not neutrinos or inaccurate political ideology. > > There are two reasons I can think of that an AI may wish to keep > its area clean: one is selfish, one is moral. > > The selfish reason is that it probably will see no reason to allow > compute resources to be squandered on vastly inferior processes. > It has its own reasons to calculate, its own curiosity, its own > redesign of itself. Why permit resources to be wasted on anything > else? No appreciation of variety or of the benefits of diversity eh? If it has enough power to grab all "compute resources" then it certainly should do so, eh? The strong take all and the weak go wanting and yet.. > > The second reason is moral: we today *should* not permit natural > processes---had we only the power to stop it---such as big fish > eating small fish ad infinitum), especially when the cruelty > inflicted on sentient prey, such as is inflicted on gazelles by > lions, is avoidable. Only our romanticized fancies prevent us > from properly perceiving and appreciating the horrors. Evidently > people would need to live a few days as a rabbit or field mouse > to properly understand. > What? Aren't you one of the folks that beat the no objective morality drum? If so isn't it a tad inconsistent to talk of natural predator-prey relationships as "cruel" and something we should strive to prevent? I imagine we will have a lot better things to do. - samantha From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Jul 10 14:37:05 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:37:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Attitudes of old not due to age In-Reply-To: <20060626185818.11299.qmail@pallas3.usifex.com> References: <20060623222029.15976.qmail@pallas3.usifex.com> <449C7EEC.1070200@pobox.com> <20060626185818.11299.qmail@pallas3.usifex.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060710103351.023d9708@gmu.edu> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5782/1913 "Many differences between younger and older people that have long been believed to reflect intractable age differences in attitudes or the consequences of age-related decline may be neither. Young or old, when people perceive time as finite, the attach greater importance to finding emotional meaning and satisfaction from life and invest fewer resources into gathering information and expanding horizons." Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jul 10 15:43:44 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:43:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Dilemma In-Reply-To: <1F464AB0-CBD1-40C2-9229-23BB5852F8CA@mac.com> References: <20060705182740.96200.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060706091401.GV26630@leitl.org> <1F464AB0-CBD1-40C2-9229-23BB5852F8CA@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607100843kfb73899pbf35d44ea4cc5d6c@mail.gmail.com> On 7/10/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > You are 'pointing out' something you have no way of knowing. More > wonders will come out of civilian space in this period by far than > from Iraq imho. More wonders are threatened by this "war on terror" > than are being produced by it. > This is an important point. It's not just the money, or even the lives lost (which admittedly are relatively few on the historical scale): to what extent is progress retarded by an atmosphere of paranoia, constant surveillance, red tape in the way of travel, communication and trade etc? The effect is hard to put a number on, but that doesn't mean it's small. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Mon Jul 10 17:52:56 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:52:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Morality Among Posthumans (was In the Long Run...Intelligence Dominate Space?) In-Reply-To: <6A335545-908C-4666-A00F-EC23655371A8@mac.com> Message-ID: Samantha writes > On Jul 6, 2006, at 8:25 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > There are two reasons I can think of that an AI may wish to keep > > its area clean: one is selfish, one is moral. > > > > The selfish reason is that it probably will see no reason to allow > > compute resources to be squandered on vastly inferior processes. > > It has its own reasons to calculate, its own curiosity, its own > > redesign of itself. Why permit resources to be wasted on anything > > else? > > No appreciation of variety or of the benefits of diversity eh? If > it has enough power to grab all "compute resources" then it certainly > should do so, eh? The strong take all and the weak go wanting and > yet.. You could take your argument up with rabbits in Australia, or Kudzu throughout the U.S. Or with mother nature, or with Mr. Darwin. I'm describing what *is* here, not what I want. > > The second reason is moral: we today *should* not permit natural > > processes---had we only the power to stop it---such as big fish > > eating small fish ad infinitum), especially when the cruelty > > inflicted on sentient prey, such as is inflicted on gazelles by > > lions, is avoidable. Only our romanticized fancies prevent us > > from properly perceiving and appreciating the horrors. Evidently > > people would need to live a few days as a rabbit or field mouse > > to properly understand. > > What? Aren't you one of the folks that beat the no objective > morality drum? Just because it isn't objective HAS NO NECESSARY RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER OF WHAT I APPROVE OF. I hate vacuum that could otherwise be hosting sentient creatures enjoying, for example. > If so isn't it a tad inconsistent to talk of natural > predator-prey relationships as "cruel" and something we should strive > to prevent? I imagine we will have a lot better things to do. Yes, (1) each of us has his or her own agenda, which ultimately (if all goes well) include embarking on a path of maximum personal evolution, the goal being to try to keep up with the kind AIs, but also (2) to as fully as we can embrace policies that minimize suffering throughout the cosmos. Lee From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Mon Jul 10 17:50:46 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:50:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman hearing aids Message-ID: <20060710175046.GA31061@ofb.net> I'm reading George Williams, _Plan and Purpose in Nature_. He laments our having only two ears, and points out we could fake the benefits with programmable hearing aids. Have the aids also connected to two more microphones on the body, and a wearable computer; the computer would be able to have full range and direction information, and you could tell it to filter out all sounds except from a desired area. (Me, inspired by him) Rear-view mirror on eyeglasses. Or a small camera on the back of the head, piping a view to a small display where your eyes can see it. Or use that pins-on-back display developed for blind people, but using vision behind you as input. -xx- Damien X-) From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon Jul 10 17:31:14 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causes thingy. In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607100843kfb73899pbf35d44ea4cc5d6c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello, This is all just speculation on my part. I've been wondering lately if maybe our Universe is entirely deterministic after all. If everything is "caused", then something must have "caused" the universe to come into existence in the first place. A religious person might appeal to a timeless God. A scientist might appeal to a birth from the Multiverse. But even then, if everything is predetermined then something would still have to "cause" the existence of the Multiverse. Lately I've wondered if the nature of this "first cause" is defined by the nature of absolute Nothingness [I'm not referring to "empty" space, but rather the total absence of *all* things, including space]. I will argue that absolute Nothingness is inherently unstable, and in fact is profoundly volatile. In the case of Nothingness, there is no physics, no dimension, no logic, and *no rules*. There is nothing at all to prevent "Something" arising from "Nothing". So by extension, the birth of "something" is an inexorable result - our universe exists because it was spawned from the Multiverse, and the Multiverse exists because it was "forced" into existence by the very nature of Nothingness. The reason that I insist that a Multiverse exists, is based on the observations that our Universe is approximately 15 Billion years old. If Nothingness behaves as I suggest, then the first "something" [the first Universe if you like] should be infinitely (or nearly infinitely) old. So, if one accepts this explanation for existence, then one doesn't have to abandon the notion that the Universe *is* entirely predetermined after all. It seems to me that the "infinite causal regression problem" can be explained. Of course, one might point out the experimental and theoretical "evidence" that some quantum events seem to suggest that some things truly are "un-caused". But, I would argue back that the seemingly random and "un-caused" quantum events are *at least* somewhat causally linked to the past; they would not exist if our Universe (or some Universe) had never existed to harbor them in the first place. Gotta go. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hemm at openlink.com.br Mon Jul 10 18:00:27 2006 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:00:27 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman hearing aids References: <20060710175046.GA31061@ofb.net> Message-ID: <038901c6a44a$ba3a0ea0$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Shall we have some pictures? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Sullivan" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 2:50 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman hearing aids > I'm reading George Williams, _Plan and Purpose in Nature_. He laments > our having only two ears, and points out we could fake the benefits with > programmable hearing aids. Have the aids also connected to two more > microphones on the body, and a wearable computer; the computer would be > able to have full range and direction information, and you could tell it > to filter out all sounds except from a desired area. > > (Me, inspired by him) Rear-view mirror on eyeglasses. Or a small > camera on the back of the head, piping a view to a small display where > your eyes can see it. Or use that pins-on-back display developed for > blind people, but using vision behind you as input. > > -xx- Damien X-) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon Jul 10 19:12:15 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:12:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman hearing aids In-Reply-To: <20060710175046.GA31061@ofb.net> References: <20060710175046.GA31061@ofb.net> Message-ID: On Jul 10, 2006, at 10:50 AM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > I'm reading George Williams, _Plan and Purpose in Nature_. He laments > our having only two ears, and points out we could fake the benefits > with > programmable hearing aids. Have the aids also connected to two more > microphones on the body, and a wearable computer; the computer > would be > able to have full range and direction information, and you could > tell it > to filter out all sounds except from a desired area. The hacking of cochlear implants to rewire inputs is purportedly not unknown, though obviously rare. These have the benefit of having a communication protocol/channel between the sensor and the implant, allowing some hacking on that abstraction layer. The neat part is that it does not have to be conventionally encoded audio that is communicated over the channel -- think intentionally induced synaesthesia. J. Andrew Rogers From scerir at libero.it Mon Jul 10 19:49:52 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:49:52 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causes thingy. References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> From: "A B" The reason that I insist that a Multiverse exists, is based on the observations that our Universe is approximately 15 Billion years old. If Nothingness behaves as I suggest, then the first "something" [the first Universe if you like] should be infinitely (or nearly infinitely) old. According to Vilenkin there must have been a beginning (an initial singularity) to the inflation of spacetimes http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9312022 http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9403004 According to Guth the above is likely http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301199 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0101507 But according to Aguirre & Gratton http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301042 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111191 it is not so obvious that there must have been a beginning of time, it is possible there is a 'background' spacetime (your 'nothing', or 'nothingness') developing bigbang-like regions, or universes, each having its own time arrow, something that also Schulman thought http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9911101 From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jul 10 21:09:13 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:09:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ecliptic preferred frame Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060710160212.021b8d88@satx.rr.com> http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/krauss06/krauss06.2_index.html Care to speculate on this weirdness, Robert? Lawrence Krauss says: <...the impact of the recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) studies on Inflation Theory.... what is intriguing to me is that while everything is consistent with the simplest models, there's one area where there's a puzzle. On the largest scales, when we look out at the universe, there doesn't seem to be enough structure ? not as much as inflation would predict. Now the question is, is that a statistical fluke? That is, we live in one universe, so we're a sample of one. With a sample of one, you have what is called a large sample variance. And maybe this just means we're lucky, that we just happen to live in a universe where the number's smaller than you'd predict. But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun ? the plane of the earth around the sun ? the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.> Talk about anthropic! Spooky! Damien Broderick From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 10 20:45:04 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:45:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causes thingy. In-Reply-To: <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:49:52 -0400, scerir wrote: > The reason that I insist that a Multiverse exists, > is based on the observations that our Universe > is approximately 15 Billion years old. > If Nothingness behaves as I suggest, > then the first "something" [the first > Universe if you like] should be infinitely > (or nearly infinitely) old. To a layman like myself this seems like a pretty convincing argument. Please tell me if this paraphrase more or less captures your meaning: "If ours is not one universe in a multiverse, then its origin would be infinitely in the past. Instead it seems to have taken [(infinite time) - (~15 billion years)] for this stable universe of ours to have come into existence. Moreover, this same argument for the existence of a multiverse can be made by any scientist/philosopher of any existent universe of any finite age." I have to wonder if you are not making an error when you refer to the supposed behavior of nothingness. How can "nothing" ever "behave" in any way at all? :) I've tried to eliminate that error in my paraphrase, I hope not at the expense of your true meaning. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 10 22:42:24 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:42:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causes thingy. In-Reply-To: References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: Sorry, I attributed this quote to scerir when in fact it was "From A B" . [From A B:] > The reason that I insist that a Multiverse exists, > is based on the observations that our Universe > is approximately 15 Billion years old. > If Nothingness behaves as I suggest, > then the first "something" [the first > Universe if you like] should be infinitely > (or nearly infinitely) old. -gts From goldgrif at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 02:18:54 2006 From: goldgrif at yahoo.com (steven mckenzie) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causes thingy. In-Reply-To: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060711021854.37444.qmail@web56601.mail.re3.yahoo.com> conversely or not, as Hawkins pointed out , a universe that appears to be made for intelligence, made be due to the fact that the universe allows intelligence to evolve, if there are multiverses, many of them may not be "friendly" to the origin of intelligence, and we "lucked" out --- A B wrote: > Hello, > > This is all just speculation on my part. > > I've been wondering lately if maybe our Universe > is entirely deterministic after all. If everything > is "caused", then something must have "caused" the > universe to come into existence in the first place. > A religious person might appeal to a timeless God. A > scientist might appeal to a birth from the > Multiverse. But even then, if everything is > predetermined then something would still have to > "cause" the existence of the Multiverse. Lately I've > wondered if the nature of this "first cause" is > defined by the nature of absolute Nothingness [I'm > not referring to "empty" space, but rather the total > absence of *all* things, including space]. I will > argue that absolute Nothingness is inherently > unstable, and in fact is profoundly volatile. In the > case of Nothingness, there is no physics, no > dimension, no logic, and *no rules*. There is > nothing at all to prevent "Something" arising from > "Nothing". So by extension, the birth of "something" > is an inexorable result - our universe exists > because it was spawned from the Multiverse, and the > Multiverse exists because it was "forced" into > existence by the very nature of Nothingness. The > reason that I insist that a Multiverse exists, is > based on the observations that our Universe is > approximately 15 Billion years old. If Nothingness > behaves as I suggest, then the first "something" > [the first Universe if you like] should be > infinitely (or nearly infinitely) old. > > So, if one accepts this explanation for existence, > then one doesn't have to abandon the notion that the > Universe *is* entirely predetermined after all. It > seems to me that the "infinite causal regression > problem" can be explained. Of course, one might > point out the experimental and theoretical > "evidence" that some quantum events seem to suggest > that some things truly are "un-caused". But, I would > argue back that the seemingly random and "un-caused" > quantum events are *at least* somewhat causally > linked to the past; they would not exist if our > Universe (or some Universe) had never existed to > harbor them in the first place. Gotta go. > > Best Wishes, > > Jeffrey Herrlich > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make > PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min.> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From goldgrif at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 02:24:23 2006 From: goldgrif at yahoo.com (steven mckenzie) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ecliptic preferred frame In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060710160212.021b8d88@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060711022423.95860.qmail@web56612.mail.re3.yahoo.com> may I suggest, that this ia an illusion, and maybe another intelligence would see the same thing, is the acuity of these devices perfect? just an idea --- Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/krauss06/krauss06.2_index.html > > Care to speculate on this weirdness, Robert? > Lawrence Krauss says: > > <...the impact of the recent cosmic microwave > background (CMB) studies on Inflation Theory.... > what is intriguing to me is that while everything > is consistent with the simplest models, there's > one area where there's a puzzle. On the largest > scales, when we look out at the universe, there > doesn't seem to be enough structure ? not as much > as inflation would predict. Now the question is, is > that a statistical fluke? > > That is, we live in one universe, so we're a > sample of one. With a sample of one, you have > what is called a large sample variance. And maybe > this just means we're lucky, that we just happen > to live in a universe where the number's smaller > than you'd predict. But when you look at CMB map, > you also see that the structure that is observed, > is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the > plane of the earth around the sun. Is this > Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. > We're looking out at the whole universe. There's > no way there should be a correlation of structure > with our motion of the earth around the sun ? the > plane of the earth around the sun ? the ecliptic. > That would say we are truly the center of the > universe. > > The new results are either telling us that all of > science is wrong and we're the center of the > universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, > or maybe it's telling us there's something weird > about the microwave background results and that > maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our > theories on the larger scales.> > > Talk about anthropic! Spooky! > > Damien Broderick > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From goldgrif at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 02:25:15 2006 From: goldgrif at yahoo.com (steven mckenzie) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:25:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causes thingy. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060711022515.39294.qmail@web56607.mail.re3.yahoo.com> is there really nothing? --- gts wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:49:52 -0400, scerir > wrote: > > > The reason that I insist that a Multiverse exists, > > is based on the observations that our Universe > > is approximately 15 Billion years old. > > If Nothingness behaves as I suggest, > > then the first "something" [the first > > Universe if you like] should be infinitely > > (or nearly infinitely) old. > > To a layman like myself this seems like a pretty > convincing argument. > Please tell me if this paraphrase more or less > captures your meaning: > > "If ours is not one universe in a multiverse, then > its origin would be > infinitely in the past. Instead it seems to have > taken [(infinite time) - > (~15 billion years)] for this stable universe of > ours to have come into > existence. Moreover, this same argument for the > existence of a multiverse > can be made by any scientist/philosopher of any > existent universe of any > finite age." > > I have to wonder if you are not making an error when > you refer to the > supposed behavior of nothingness. How can "nothing" > ever "behave" in any > way at all? :) I've tried to eliminate that error in > my paraphrase, I hope > not at the expense of your true meaning. > > -gts > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Jul 11 03:02:54 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:02:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] What is "war" (was: My Dilemma) In-Reply-To: References: <20060707125950.GH26630@leitl.org> <20060706185623.19687.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> <20060707102344.GA26630@leitl.org> <20060707125950.GH26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060710225121.0471dcf8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:35 AM 7/10/2006 -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: snip >What, precisely, makes war "war"? snip You might be interested in my take on it (if you have not already read it) Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 I think you could sort out wars, riots, and related that are caused by activating the evolved mechanism that induced our remote ancestors to make war on neighboring bands (for good reason). You can make a good case that war is not particularly adaptive for culture above hunter gatherers, see the discussion about corn farmers in the American Southwest. Keith Henson From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Jul 11 04:09:42 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:09:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] birthday greetings In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060710225121.0471dcf8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200607110409.k6B49qQ2023158@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Happy birthday Anders Sandberg! spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 03:52:59 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:52:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ecliptic preferred frame In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060710160212.021b8d88@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060711035259.4344.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/krauss06/krauss06.2_index.html > > Care to speculate on this weirdness, Robert? > Lawrence Krauss says: > > <...the impact of the recent cosmic microwave > background (CMB) studies on Inflation Theory.... > what is intriguing to me is that while everything > is consistent with the simplest models, there's > one area where there's a puzzle. On the largest > scales, when we look out at the universe, there > doesn't seem to be enough structure ? not as much > as inflation would predict. Now the question is, is > that a statistical fluke? > > That is, we live in one universe, so we're a > sample of one. With a sample of one, you have > what is called a large sample variance. And maybe > this just means we're lucky, that we just happen > to live in a universe where the number's smaller > than you'd predict. But when you look at CMB map, > you also see that the structure that is observed, > is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the > plane of the earth around the sun. Is this > Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. > We're looking out at the whole universe. There's > no way there should be a correlation of structure > with our motion of the earth around the sun ? the > plane of the earth around the sun ? the ecliptic. > That would say we are truly the center of the > universe. > > The new results are either telling us that all of > science is wrong and we're the center of the > universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, > or maybe it's telling us there's something weird > about the microwave background results and that > maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our > theories on the larger scales.> > > Talk about anthropic! Spooky! Not to rain on anybody's sense of wonder and awe but I don't think it is all that spooky at least not from the stand point of every thing else I know. If you look at the actual WMAP data located at http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_or.html Then one can clearly see that this correlation between the CMB and the ecliptic is largely the result of the motion of our own galaxy. When our own galaxy is filtered out, the correlation goes away. What is so spooky about the conservation of angular momentum? That the ecliptic of the solar system is roughly correlated with the rotational plane of the galaxy in my mind is no more surprising than the ecliptic of the solar system being correlated with the rotation of the sun and the planets. It is what I would expect. Of course there are exceptions like Uranus with its axis pointed at 90 degrees to the ecliptic but its the exception and not the rule. I would expect it was because of some collision with another planet or something that changed it's angular momentum vector. In any case, I think it is safe to say that if there is correlation between the angular momentum of the universe and our solar system, is it is far more probable that the rotation of the solar system is aligned to the rotation of the universe than the rotation of the universe being aligned to that of our solar system. After all one does not by convention attribute the direction the wind to have been caused by the direction that the weather vane is pointed. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." - Neils Bohr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Jul 11 04:23:12 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:23:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060710225121.0471dcf8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200607110443.k6B4h0jL029154@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Amara or some of the Europeans, please help me understand something. In the world cup football matches of the last couple weeks, France and Italy did well, resulting in their reaching the finals. I didn't follow it myself, but I was constantly reminded that Italy was winning, because many local businesses hung Italian flags. But I didn't see any French flags. Some of my colleagues are Italian Americans, and some are French Americans. I heard from the Italians, early and often. The French not a word, never a flag, nothing. When the Italians won yesterday, I heard they went nuts down in San Francisco, even those clearly not Italian. We like to cheer for any people who will cheer for themselves, do we not? Please offer me some insight if you have one. It appears that Italian Americans are proud to be Italian, but French Americans are not proud to be French. Why is that? Those two countries are neighbors, genetically the people are about the same, they have similar population and standards of living. Why the asymmetry? spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jul 11 04:55:14 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:55:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ecliptic preferred frame In-Reply-To: <20060711035259.4344.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060710160212.021b8d88@satx.rr.com> <20060711035259.4344.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060710235138.022daca8@satx.rr.com> At 08:52 PM 7/10/2006 -0700, Stuart wrote: > one can clearly see that this correlation between >the CMB and the ecliptic is largely the result of the >motion of our own galaxy. When our own galaxy is >filtered out, the correlation goes away. Can Krauss be that dumb? >In any case, I think it is safe to say that if there >is correlation between the angular momentum of the >universe and our solar system, it is far more >probable that the rotation of the solar system is >aligned to the rotation of the universe than the >rotation of the universe being aligned to that of our >solar system. Well, obviously. But if it *is* the universe, and not just the galaxy, that's startling. Look at all the photos of the galaxies, tipped over every which way. Damien Broderick From scerir at libero.it Tue Jul 11 05:09:18 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:09:18 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causesthingy. References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> From: "gts" > I have to wonder if you are not making > an error when you refer to the > supposed behavior of nothingness. > How can "nothing" ever "behave" > in any way at all? :) (I did not speak of nothingness but) it seems to me that question should be: 'why is nothing unstable and therefore becomes something?'. If this is the behavior of nothingness, it means that the information content of such a nothingness is not zero (Chaitin etc.). And this, in turn, means that the unstable nothingness is not perfect nothingness. (Not sure the above makes sense!). s. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jul 11 05:56:13 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:56:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] an Eganesque paper on the landscape Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060711005047.023b8a58@satx.rr.com> http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0607/0607029.pdf Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jul 11 06:20:32 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:20:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causesthingy. In-Reply-To: <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> At 07:09 AM 7/11/2006 +0200, Serafino wrote: >it seems >to me that question should be: 'why is nothing >unstable and therefore becomes something?'. >If this is the behavior of nothingness, it >means that the information content of such a >nothingness is not zero (Chaitin etc.). And this, >in turn, means that the unstable nothingness >is not perfect nothingness. This is almost certainly one of those realms where words are not much use, compared with operations on mathematical formalisms. However: To speak of instability is to posit change over time, and yet the postulate of nothingness forbids time and change. On the other hand, one must assume that the "experience" of a photon is of utter timelessness, and yet an energetic gamma ray will transition into an electron and a positron, for example, at some arbitrary point and time (as witnessed from our frame of reference) in its trajectory. How does it know when to do this, when it knows no "when"? Granted, the event is to be regarded as stochastic, but somehow a temporal tick becomes associated with this timeless happening. On the other hand, the particle pair *is* created into a pre-existing spacetime, so perhaps the salience of this comparison with pure Ur-nothingness is moot. Ho hum. Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 06:11:10 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:11:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ecliptic preferred frame In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060710235138.022daca8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060711061110.9278.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:52 PM 7/10/2006 -0700, Stuart wrote: > > > one can clearly see that this correlation between > >the CMB and the ecliptic is largely the result of > the > >motion of our own galaxy. When our own galaxy is > >filtered out, the correlation goes away. > > Can Krauss be that dumb? I am not saying he is dumb. Smart people make mistakes too. I know I do. The whole blurb about the strangeness of the CMB is but a small paragraph in a rather lengthy discussion of the mysteriousness of dark energy and modern cosmology. Maybe he just didn't see the filtered data at the time he wrote it? I am after all just giving my appraisal of the WMAP data at the link I posted. Either NASA is purposely altering the data to take away the spookiness or Krauss made a mistake. > > >In any case, I think it is safe to say that if > there > >is correlation between the angular momentum of the > >universe and our solar system, it is far more > >probable that the rotation of the solar system is > >aligned to the rotation of the universe than the > >rotation of the universe being aligned to that of > our > >solar system. > > Well, obviously. But if it *is* the universe, and > not just the > galaxy, that's startling. Look at all the photos of > the galaxies, > tipped over every which way. Yes, but I stared pretty long and hard at the filtered data and I just didn't see what Krauss was talking about. The universe as a whole does not seem to favor the ecliptic but I didn't use statistical analysis software on the pixels of the microwave map either. If there is a correlation, it is not obvious. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." - Neils Bohr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Jul 11 06:48:27 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:48:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: <200607110443.k6B4h0jL029154@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060710225121.0471dcf8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200607110443.k6B4h0jL029154@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607102348y4f54ef64gf6c4911ab169d299@mail.gmail.com> On 7/11/06, spike wrote: > > Please offer me some insight if you have one. It appears that Italian > Americans are proud to be Italian, but French Americans are not proud to > be > French. Why is that? Those two countries are neighbors, genetically the > people are about the same, they have similar population and standards of > living. Why the asymmetry? > While I do not have a complete answer to your question, it seems an incomplete one has been composed: http://www.classbrain.com/artfree/publish/article_176.shtml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Tue Jul 11 06:40:29 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:40:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory References: <200607110443.k6B4h0jL029154@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <001101c6a4b4$eba649d0$42911f97@nomedxgm1aalex> From: "spike" > Please offer me some insight if you have one. > It appears that Italian Americans are proud > to be Italian, but French Americans are not proud > to be French. Why is that? Those two countries > are neighbors, genetically the people are about > the same, they have similar population and standards > of living. Why the asymmetry? It is a long story. And there are many answers. First of all, the soccer World Cup is one of the very, very rare events for which Italians (even Italians living abroad) feel they live in a country, in a nation, and not just in their little or large towns. http://www.homestead.com/forza_azzurri/Main.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy_national_football_team There are many reasons for that, but the roots are perhaps already here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Italy_1494_shepherd.jpg On the contrary our French cousins are 'toujour' proud of their country, of its 'grandeur', and they are inclined to believe that the 'equipe de France', or 'les bleus' http://www.fff.fr/bleus/index.shtml 'sans aucun doute' must win, easily, the World Cup. (But this time they did not play a good enough soccer). From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Jul 11 09:46:30 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:46:30 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: <001101c6a4b4$eba649d0$42911f97@nomedxgm1aalex> References: <200607110443.k6B4h0jL029154@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <001101c6a4b4$eba649d0$42911f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <470a3c520607110246i5e216762l5c6679b405d53cbb@mail.gmail.com> This is, I believe, a feature and not a bug. I was born in Italy, Italian is my mother language, and I can find there some good things, and of course some bad things. But I don't feel I live in a nation. I feel I live in the little or large town where I happen to be living, and that I live in the 3rd planet of the solar system. I do not have more, or less, empathy, for persons of one or another ethnic group. I believe in local administration for local issues, and I believe in global administration for global issues. Keeping the power at level of granularity of nation states does, I think, much more harm than good in today's world. G. On 7/11/06, scerir wrote: > First of all, the soccer World Cup > is one of the very, very rare events > for which Italians (even Italians living > abroad) feel they live in a country, > in a nation, and not just in their little > or large towns. From amara at amara.com Tue Jul 11 10:24:31 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:24:31 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory Message-ID: spike: >Amara or some of the Europeans, please help me understand something. >In the world cup football matches of the last couple weeks, France and >Italy did well, resulting in their reaching the finals. I didn't follow >it myself, but I was constantly reminded that Italy was winning, because >many local businesses hung Italian flags. But I didn't see any French >flags. I know alot of French people well, but I barely know French-Americans. So comments of your observation, given what I know. Are Italians patriotic? No. Only in football (soccer), and the rare times that Italian solders or Italian comedians die. If you were here, Spike, you would have noticed that all of the Italian flags flying were/are NEW. Italians are refreshingly unpatriotic (family and town and region are important, and in that order). Are French patriotic? Yes, about many more things than Italians. I've not known them to be the flag-waving people, however, but they do some cool things with their blue hair during football/soccer games. >It appears that Italian Americans are proud to be Italian, but French >Americans are not proud to be French. Well, after Sunday, the French were not proud when their lead player lost his head and embarrassed himself. The Italians, well.. it was a unusual moment, of which some have been waiting 20 years. And it was a bizzare win. I spent a full day with several friends/colleagues bouncing like a rabbit in and out of the Norchia and Tarquinia Etruscan tombs in northern Lazio, and could only tune into the game about the time that the famous head butt occurred. Not the kind of game that I was hoping to see. However given that the Italians are not usually patriotic, seeing the emotional display of Italian flags and their level of ecstasy about that particular endeavor was a rare experience indeed. The sounds from the people in my neighborhood upon that last shoot-out kick was deafening. Horns, firecrackers, fireworks, enthusiastic yelling. All headed immediately to the center of town to meet each other, whether in cars or by foot, all adorned with colors of green white, and red. The fireworks over Rome as seen from my Frascati terrace was a stochastic symphony. Everyone these days is smiling. From your embedded reporter in Roma/Frascati, Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson From velvethum at hotmail.com Tue Jul 11 11:25:16 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:25:16 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory References: <200607110443.k6B4h0jL029154@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: > Please offer me some insight if you have one. It appears that Italian > Americans are proud to be Italian, but French Americans are not proud to be > French. Why is that? Those two countries are neighbors, genetically the > people are about the same, they have similar population and standards of > living. Why the asymmetry? > > spike Perhaps it's because it's not cool to be French in US after Iraq war started. Or maybe it has to do with the recent history of this French team. In 1998, France won the World Cup for the very first time. They also won European Championship two years later. In other words, in two year span they have accomplished everything there is to accomplish in international football. This team had nothing to prove anymore, and since then, perhaps the French public hasn't been as hungry for success as before 1998. Contrast that with Italians who haven't won the World Cup since 1982. Their recent success was not expected, therefore, probably more exhilarating for the Italian public so they were more likely to share that joy with others than the French. But the French should be proud of this brilliant team. IMO, they played the best football in this tournament and only bad luck prevented them from winning again. H. From mfj.eav at gmail.com Tue Jul 11 14:00:41 2006 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:00:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] nothingness to nothingness, and the causal events in between ? Message-ID: <61c8738e0607110700r14f5132en7d9693e182619fec@mail.gmail.com> Perhaps the selection processes underlying successive universes requires the strength of pervasive intelligence to permeate an entire universe in order for a universe to successfully be born, evolve and wind down in a manner which regenerates an intelligence friendly startup singularity. A universe which generates sufficient universal intelligence skews the process. The "I'm my own Grandpa" scenario, if you will. We may not be able to perceive intelligence of the type required to underly the darwinian selection process on the universal scale. Or perhaps we are a byte, a quantum blip in the process that will in several billion years yield a single computronium state on the universal scale. MFJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Jul 11 14:33:33 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:33:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c520607110733q38c21b7ek443fdf57d791a6e9@mail.gmail.com> Now this is a nice way of putting things. See also other message on same topic by yours truly, *very* (hopefully refreshingly) unpatriotic Italian. We had our overdose of patriotic bullshit in the past and have grown out of it. This is one of the few aeas in which I really wish the fest of the world could follow the Italian example. G. On 7/11/06, Amara Graps wrote: > Italians are refreshingly unpatriotic (family > and town and region are important, and in that order). From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jul 11 14:44:44 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:44:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: <470a3c520607110733q38c21b7ek443fdf57d791a6e9@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520607110733q38c21b7ek443fdf57d791a6e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060711144444.GA26630@leitl.org> On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 04:33:33PM +0200, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > We had our overdose of patriotic bullshit in the past and have grown > out of it. This is one of the few aeas in which I really wish the fest > of the world could follow the Italian example. Same thing with Germany. That Hitler incident was a rather radical cure. The more jarring to suddenly see lots of aggressive flagwaving everywhere. I think the immunization has started to wear off. But I'm genuinely worried about people elsewhere yet immunologically naive in respect to nationalism. Let me tell you, that shit can really ruin your day. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From goldgrif at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 14:58:03 2006 From: goldgrif at yahoo.com (steven mckenzie) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:58:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] nothingness to nothingness, and the causal events in between ? In-Reply-To: <61c8738e0607110700r14f5132en7d9693e182619fec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060711145803.94965.qmail@web56602.mail.re3.yahoo.com> http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/krauss06/krauss06.2_index.html maybe this will help??? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From goldgrif at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 15:00:36 2006 From: goldgrif at yahoo.com (steven mckenzie) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: <20060711144444.GA26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060711150036.4158.qmail@web56609.mail.re3.yahoo.com> I think only Some have grown out of the tribal BS, most are so indoctrinated, it will be impossible to wake them to their higher potentials being chimps we have to decide which way to lean, I prefer being an intelligent bonobo than an semi intelligent trog --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > We had our overdose of patriotic bullshit in the > past and have grown > > out of it. This is one of the few aeas in which I > really wish the fest > > of the world could follow the Italian example. > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From scerir at libero.it Tue Jul 11 15:23:58 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:23:58 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causesthingy. References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex><0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000601c6a4fe$087a0260$03911f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Damien B. wrote: > To speak of instability [of nothingness] is to posit > change over time, and yet the postulate of nothingness > forbids time and change. One can speculate about some initial state completely symmetrical (and, I guess, with some minimal entropy). Dunno if this state can be defined as 'nothingness' or, rather, as 'everythingness'. Dunno if there is a way to postulate differences between the meanings of the two terms (I hope so). But if the initial state is a state of 'everythingness', it is less difficult to speculate about its corruption (breaking symmetry) in (its proper) time. In this case, we should say that 'everythingness' is unstable. From goldgrif at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 16:05:36 2006 From: goldgrif at yahoo.com (steven mckenzie) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] What is "war" (was: My Dilemma) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060710225121.0471dcf8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060711160536.89226.qmail@web56613.mail.re3.yahoo.com> we get an adrenalin rush when we hear war, we, as humans seem to like a good scrap, i remember a little novel I think called duende meadow it plot in brief a group of physicists were able to place a group of people in a parallel dimension, still connected to earth,when they returned Russia appears to have invaded the USA got the people all hot and bothered especially , then they kept hearing about having to produce crops for the great war and decide they have to stop these evil Russians, the short of it Russia took over the USA after we wiped ourselves off, were using the cropland to fight a great war against hunger in Africa we use words to try so hard to communicate, we always need a context and what would we need to change our concpet of war as good to a concept of war as bad --- Keith Henson wrote: > At 12:35 AM 7/10/2006 -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > snip > > >What, precisely, makes war "war"? > > snip > > You might be interested in my take on it (if you > have not already read it) > > Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War > > http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 > > I think you could sort out wars, riots, and related > that are caused by > activating the evolved mechanism that induced our > remote ancestors to make > war on neighboring bands (for good reason). > > You can make a good case that war is not > particularly adaptive for culture > above hunter gatherers, see the discussion about > corn farmers in the > American Southwest. > > Keith Henson > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From goldgrif at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 15:54:01 2006 From: goldgrif at yahoo.com (steven mckenzie) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: <20060711150036.4158.qmail@web56609.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060711155401.84762.qmail@web56613.mail.re3.yahoo.com> we even still have people upset with a soverign nation choosing to either wait or not get involved with the USA in a war against various nation --- steven mckenzie wrote: > I think only Some have grown out of the tribal BS, > most are so indoctrinated, it will be impossible to > wake them to their higher potentials > being chimps we have to decide which way to lean, I > prefer being an intelligent bonobo than an semi > intelligent trog > > > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > > > We had our overdose of patriotic bullshit in the > > past and have grown > > > out of it. This is one of the few aeas in which > I > > really wish the fest > > > of the world could follow the Italian example. > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > 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.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mstriz at gmail.com Tue Jul 11 18:46:55 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:46:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: <20060711144444.GA26630@leitl.org> References: <470a3c520607110733q38c21b7ek443fdf57d791a6e9@mail.gmail.com> <20060711144444.GA26630@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 7/11/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Same thing with Germany. That Hitler incident was a rather radical cure. > The more jarring to suddenly see lots of aggressive flagwaving everywhere. > > I think the immunization has started to wear off. But I'm genuinely > worried about people elsewhere yet immunologically naive in respect > to nationalism. Let me tell you, that shit can really ruin your day. How a propos. John Dean published a book today about authoritarianism and how it effects political affiliation. Dean was a counsel to Nixon and a self-styled Goldwater conservative. During the Republican takeover of the American Congress in 1994, he had many conversations with Goldwater about the strange turn that the Republican Party was making. It was only later, after years of research, that he came upon information that is still not well publicized: decades of social science research and hundreds of studies have revealed that people with "authoritarian personalities" tend overwhelmingly to be conservative in their political beliefs. Having an authoritarian personality doesn't mean that one is a dominating, authority-type figure. It means that one prefers to have authority or authority figures in one's life. Although a small percentage of such people are leaders, most of them are followers, and like to be. These are people who are rule-bound and like structure, law and order, police, and (authoritarian) religion. Social conservatives in America have risen to dominance by virtue of this personality type. Since whole populations tend to move toward and away from such authoritarian convictions, Dean (as well as others) believe that it is partly under environmental control. Dean suggests that such personalities like to have enemies, and that having perceived enemies can foment authoritarian personalities. It's why social conservatives can always use some bogeyman (gay marriage, flag burning, terrorism, etc.) to fire up their followers. He believes that the Cold War provided a common enemy which fueled the rise of modern conservativism in America, and which has given it its particular authoritarian, social conservative flavor. Terrorism has been a further boon to authoritarian people. These folks will always invent enemies for the United States. He also points to other instances in history when this has happened, such as Germany and Italy in the 1930s, where plenty of enemies were invented. Authoritarian type people need a leader in whom they believe completely and do not question. Life is black and white. There are no shades of gray ("you're either with us, or you're against us"). G. Gordon Liddy once said that he would rather be shot than snitch on Nixon (or was it Reagan?), even if he knew they did something wrong. That's a rather glaring example of the authoritarian mentality. Today, many people in American politics ask for unquestioning support of Bush. Critics of the president or the country are castigated as unpatriotic. There was certainly a dampening of public debate after 9/11. Dean suggests that the authoritarian mentality is veering the United States dangerously in the direction of other fascist countries in the past. Luckily, that meme has only caught 51% of the population and not 60 or 70%. Further, the fact that Bush's approval ratings are so low now may be a sign that the crest of this movement has passed. As a person who has made no secret of my criticisms of Bush and conservatives, I have to be careful in considering such information. Is it easy for me to accept the premise because it provides a simple explanation for why I think some people are wrong? Certainly reality is far more complicated, but the fact that an actual conservative (someone who held conservative convictions long before so-called movement conservatism arose in the United States) is promulgating this view should be worth something. It certainly fits with their behavior. It's no secret that American conservativism is an unholy marriage between fiscal and social conservatives, but this information puts it into a new light. American conservatism is an unholy marriage between ideological and personality-driven conservatives. Martin From scerir at libero.it Tue Jul 11 19:50:21 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:50:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory References: <200607110443.k6B4h0jL029154@andromeda.ziaspace.com><001101c6a4b4$eba649d0$42911f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <470a3c520607110246i5e216762l5c6679b405d53cbb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000801c6a523$3f4d0b50$f4b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> > > First of all, the soccer World Cup > > is one of the very, very rare events > > for which Italians (even Italians living > > abroad) feel they live in a country, > > in a nation, and not just in their little > > or large towns. Giu1i0 scrive: > This is, I believe, a feature and not a bug. A feature, yes, a feature. Only the outline of a fast Ferrari, or the roar of a MV-Agusta, or a dish of bucatini, or the new pizza called '2 a 0' [from the score of Italy-Germany, soccer World Cup, last week], or the soundtrack of Fellini's 'Amarcord', really reflects our idea of Italy, as a nation. Or am I wrong here? s. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 19:49:08 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:49:08 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causesthingy. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:20:32 -0400, Damien Broderick wrote: > This [Pure Nothingness or The Void] is almost certainly one of those > realms where words arenot much use... Yes, talking about nothingness is something like talking about the sound of one hand clapping. Or like talking about the sound of one hand waving. Or whatever. It makes no sense! This is why I objected to AB's assertion that "nothingness" can in any way "behave". > so perhaps the salience of this comparison with pure Ur-nothingness is > moot. Ho hum. "Ho hum" is how I also respond, having just finished torturing my feeble mind with a slow and thorough reading of Karl Popper's book _Conjectures and Refutations_. This book took me almost six months to read. (A good sleep aid it was, but I think it also indoctrinated me in an important way.) I'm convinced now more than ever that it makes rational sense to make rational sense of things, and that things that make no rational sense should be ignored simply because they make no rational sense. But shoot I already knew that. :) -gts From goldgrif at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 20:54:33 2006 From: goldgrif at yahoo.com (steven mckenzie) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:54:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060711205433.29732.qmail@web56609.mail.re3.yahoo.com> may I ask, do you feel that possibly people who follow such psychology give up "rational thinking" and follow the herd due to laziness or fear? --- Martin Striz wrote: > On 7/11/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > Same thing with Germany. That Hitler incident was > a rather radical cure. > > The more jarring to suddenly see lots of > aggressive flagwaving everywhere. > > > > I think the immunization has started to wear off. > But I'm genuinely > > worried about people elsewhere yet immunologically > naive in respect > > to nationalism. Let me tell you, that shit can > really ruin your day. > > How a propos. > > John Dean published a book today about > authoritarianism and how it > effects political affiliation. Dean was a counsel > to Nixon and a > self-styled Goldwater conservative. During the > Republican takeover of > the American Congress in 1994, he had many > conversations with > Goldwater about the strange turn that the Republican > Party was making. > It was only later, after years of research, that he > came upon > information that is still not well publicized: > decades of social > science research and hundreds of studies have > revealed that people > with "authoritarian personalities" tend > overwhelmingly to be > conservative in their political beliefs. > > Having an authoritarian personality doesn't mean > that one is a > dominating, authority-type figure. It means that > one prefers to have > authority or authority figures in one's life. > Although a small > percentage of such people are leaders, most of them > are followers, and > like to be. These are people who are rule-bound and > like structure, > law and order, police, and (authoritarian) religion. > Social > conservatives in America have risen to dominance by > virtue of this > personality type. > > Since whole populations tend to move toward and away > from such > authoritarian convictions, Dean (as well as others) > believe that it is > partly under environmental control. Dean suggests > that such > personalities like to have enemies, and that having > perceived enemies > can foment authoritarian personalities. It's why > social conservatives > can always use some bogeyman (gay marriage, flag > burning, terrorism, > etc.) to fire up their followers. He believes that > the Cold War > provided a common enemy which fueled the rise of > modern conservativism > in America, and which has given it its particular > authoritarian, > social conservative flavor. Terrorism has been a > further boon to > authoritarian people. These folks will always > invent enemies for the > United States. > > He also points to other instances in history when > this has happened, > such as Germany and Italy in the 1930s, where plenty > of enemies were > invented. Authoritarian type people need a leader > in whom they > believe completely and do not question. Life is > black and white. > There are no shades of gray ("you're either with us, > or you're against > us"). > > G. Gordon Liddy once said that he would rather be > shot than snitch on > Nixon (or was it Reagan?), even if he knew they did > something wrong. > That's a rather glaring example of the authoritarian > mentality. > Today, many people in American politics ask for > unquestioning support > of Bush. Critics of the president or the country > are castigated as > unpatriotic. There was certainly a dampening of > public debate after > 9/11. > > Dean suggests that the authoritarian mentality is > veering the United > States dangerously in the direction of other fascist > countries in the > past. Luckily, that meme has only caught 51% of the > population and > not 60 or 70%. Further, the fact that Bush's > approval ratings are so > low now may be a sign that the crest of this > movement has passed. > > As a person who has made no secret of my criticisms > of Bush and > conservatives, I have to be careful in considering > such information. > Is it easy for me to accept the premise because it > provides a simple > explanation for why I think some people are wrong? > Certainly reality > is far more complicated, but the fact that an actual > conservative > (someone who held conservative convictions long > before so-called > movement conservatism arose in the United States) is > promulgating this > view should be worth something. It certainly fits > with their > behavior. > > It's no secret that American conservativism is an > unholy marriage > between fiscal and social conservatives, but this > information puts it > into a new light. American conservatism is an > unholy marriage between > ideological and personality-driven conservatives. > > Martin > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From atomictiki at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 20:34:08 2006 From: atomictiki at yahoo.com (P.J. Manney & E. Gruendemann) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:34:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: <200607110443.k6B4h0jL029154@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060711203409.21283.qmail@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> spike wrote: Please offer me some insight if you have one. It appears that Italian Americans are proud to be Italian, but French Americans are not proud to be French. Why is that? Those two countries are neighbors, genetically the people are about the same, they have similar population and standards of living. Why the asymmetry? spike Okay, how about this: Italian Americans came over to the US in huge, communal waves of immigration over a century. They settled in areas with other Italians, in some places creating "Little Italys." Sometimes, entire villages emigrated and settled together, like the town of Middletown, CT, where I went to school, although they were technically Sicilian. Italian customs and traditions were maintained. Italian was spoken at home. Ties with their former country were maintained. Hence the self identity as "Italian Americans." When Italian Americans return to visit Italy, they get a very warm welcome (this from my many Italian American friends who have done this). The French did not immigrate to the US in the same numbers or waves. They didn't have the same economic or social imperatives. They did not create "Little Frances" or keep their traditions. They assimilated as individuals. (My father's mother was one of these French-Americans. There was no incentive to marry a Frenchman -- she couldn't find any in her new country! She married a Russian immigrant instead and my father's upbringing was in no way "French.") Of course, there was much French immigration to parts of Canada, since it was once a French colony until the British won it by force. And Quebec is a proudly French cultural province. But unfortunately, the French have no love of their Canadian or Tahitian or any other colonial descendants. The impression I have received is that the French consider their colonial brethren inferior -- and they speak bad French (to the Parisians, of course)! Unpardonable! So why should French immigrants be proud of France? Having said that, there is a French Festival in Santa Barbara this weekend for Bastille Day. But why Santa Barbara, I have no idea... it's Spanish! Since I'm going up the coast this weekend, I thought I might stop by, if for no other reason than to laugh at the Poodle Parade -- I kid you not. http://www.frenchfestival.com/ If this is what they think French culture is, I'm not surprised that there are no proud French Americans! Respectfully, Patricia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Tue Jul 11 21:20:11 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:20:11 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory Message-ID: scerir : >Only the outline of a fast Ferrari, or the roar of a MV-Agusta, or a >dish of bucatini, or the new pizza called '2 a 0' [from the score of >Italy-Germany, soccer World Cup, last week], or the soundtrack of >Fellini's 'Amarcord', really reflects our idea of Italy, as a nation. Don't forget Paolo Conte http://www.last.fm/music/Paolo+Conte Happy Feet! (lyrics) http://www.uppercutmusic.com/artist_p/paolo_conte_lyrics/happy_feet_musica_per_i_vogstri_piedi_madame_lyrics.html (music) http://inconcluso.castpost.com/508871.html Even Happier Feet in two weeks... http://www.veronaticket.com/reserve-ticket-arena/arena-verona-e.cfm?Opera=Paolo%20Conte%20-%20Frascati%20(Rm)&IDS=237 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/ *********************************************************************** "The trouble with nude dancing is that not everything stops when the music stops." --Robert Helpmann From mstriz at gmail.com Tue Jul 11 21:25:43 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:25:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: <20060711205433.29732.qmail@web56609.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <20060711205433.29732.qmail@web56609.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 7/11/06, steven mckenzie wrote: > may I ask, do you feel that possibly people who follow > such psychology give up "rational thinking" and follow > the herd due to laziness or fear? Probably fear more than laziness. I could propose an evolutionary explanation for such behavior: When a population of humans is facing an external threat, heirarchical organization is more likely to lead to an effective solution to the problem. So people make dominance-submission realationships a more salient aspect of their psychology. One or a few people take command, and the rest follow. Debating endlessly as peers could lead to stagnation so that the threat is not addressed sufficiently. We see this on a less profound level whenever a classroom is divided up into groups and given an assignment. One or two people take the lead. Suppose you told the class that a hungry bear was walking down the hallway outside. I bet they would quickly organize to save themselves, with one or a few people taking command. But that's a just-so story. Martin From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 22:08:52 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causesthingy. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060711220852.84706.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi gts, You're right, I should not have tried to assign a "behavior" to Nothingness. ("Behavior" in its common meaning, is not precisely what I meant). A point I should have made in the original post is that: if true Nothingness has ever existed, it certainly doesn't exist now, nor has it existed for a really, really long time. Maybe probabilistically, is another way to look at it. If Nothingness once existed in the remote past, it had no "rules" (eg. of physics or logic) governing it. Nothing at all to prevent *anything* from coming to pass. So from this baseline, there is already a 50/50 chance that "Something" will definitely arise from "Nothing". So, if Nothingness existed, then it had before it literally an infinite number of possible "things" to "become", but it had only *1* thing that it could remain - Nothingness. (and dividing 1 by infinity of course leads to zero - a zero probability perhaps?). My guess (and that's all that it is), is that probability *strongly* favors the transition from "Nothing" to "Something" (and this "Something" may have been the first Universe). No doubt someone would quickly point out that "Nothingness" would exclude probability during its existence, however, in this case I mean "probability" in the sense of measurement, not in the sense of a "driving force" of some kind. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich gts wrote: On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:20:32 -0400, Damien Broderick wrote: > This [Pure Nothingness or The Void] is almost certainly one of those > realms where words arenot much use... Yes, talking about nothingness is something like talking about the sound of one hand clapping. Or like talking about the sound of one hand waving. Or whatever. It makes no sense! This is why I objected to AB's assertion that "nothingness" can in any way "behave". > so perhaps the salience of this comparison with pure Ur-nothingness is > moot. Ho hum. "Ho hum" is how I also respond, having just finished torturing my feeble mind with a slow and thorough reading of Karl Popper's book _Conjectures and Refutations_. This book took me almost six months to read. (A good sleep aid it was, but I think it also indoctrinated me in an important way.) I'm convinced now more than ever that it makes rational sense to make rational sense of things, and that things that make no rational sense should be ignored simply because they make no rational sense. But shoot I already knew that. :) -gts _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Jul 12 03:48:13 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:48:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causesthingy. In-Reply-To: References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com> On 7/11/06, gts wrote: > > I'm convinced now more than ever that it makes rational sense to make > rational sense of things, and that things that make no rational sense > should be ignored simply because they make no rational sense. > > Welcome back, Gordon, and congratulations on your reinforced rationality. Popper contributed some valuable understandings. As to the second part of your statement, I would suggest that you certainly should *not* ignore that which appears to make no sense, as those observations are hints of potential for growth. In the bigger picture all the pieces must fit, and paradox is always a case of insufficient context. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Jul 12 03:52:27 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:52:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Empathy and Italian Message-ID: <20060712035227.88261.qmail@web35503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: I do not have more, or less, empathy, for persons of one or another ethnic group. Anna asks:) Why? If every human on the planet was blue, with bald heads, weighed 130 pounds, height of 5'6 and not one, could be distinshed by appearance, wouldn't it be beneficial to understand empathy? How else could you learn to communicate and make reasonable judgements? Just Curious Anna:) --------------------------------- Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Jul 12 04:13:37 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:13:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: <20060711203409.21283.qmail@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200607120428.k6C4S5r1029817@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Thanks Patricia! This is very insightful. There were plenty of rants regarding the evils of nationalism, the evils of conservative politics etc, but what I was really looking for was why the contrast between Italian and French. Your essay came closer to an explanation than any I saw. spike ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of P.J. Manney & E. Gruendemann Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 1:34 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] italian football victory spike wrote: Please offer me some insight if you have one. It appears that Italian Americans are proud to be Italian, but French Americans are not proud to be French. Why is that? Those two countries are neighbors, genetically the people are about the same, they have similar population and standards of living. Why the asymmetry? spike ? ? ? Okay, how about this: ? Italian Americans came over to the US in huge, communal waves of immigration over a century.? They settled in areas with other Italians, in some places creating "Little Italys."?... ?http://www.frenchfestival.com/ ? If this is what they think French culture is, I'm not surprised that there are no proud French Americans! ? Respectfully, Patricia From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Jul 12 04:22:59 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:22:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200607120437.k6C4boSE010208@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Martin Striz > ...Suppose you told the class that a hungry bear was walking down > the hallway outside. I bet they would quickly organize to save > themselves... Martin Hmmmm. {8^D If it is a classroom full of conservatives, they would organize an attack on the bear before the bear could attack the class. If it is a classroom full of liberals, they would draft a subset of able-bodied students to defend the others against the bear, by negotiation if possible. If it is a classroom full of libertarians, each student would immediately look around for the slowest looking individual in the room, then she would determine if she thought she could outrun that classmate. spike From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Jul 12 04:25:23 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:25:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causesthingy. In-Reply-To: <22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060712042523.4718.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Jef Allbright wrote: I would suggest that you certainly should *not* ignore that which appears to make no sense, as those observations are hints of potential for growth. In the bigger picture all the pieces must fit, and paradox is always a case of insufficient context. Anna asks:) Although I agree with the statement, i'm curious to know. How does someone analize observations that make no sense? How do you distinguish between the events that make no sense and the ones that should not be ignored? Anna:) Jef Allbright wrote: On 7/11/06, gts wrote: I'm convinced now more than ever that it makes rational sense to make rational sense of things, and that things that make no rational sense should be ignored simply because they make no rational sense. Welcome back, Gordon, and congratulations on your reinforced rationality. Popper contributed some valuable understandings. As to the second part of your statement, I would suggest that you certainly should *not* ignore that which appears to make no sense, as those observations are hints of potential for growth. In the bigger picture all the pieces must fit, and paradox is always a case of insufficient context. - Jef _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- All new Yahoo! Mail - --------------------------------- Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed Jul 12 05:12:09 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:12:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: <200607120437.k6C4boSE010208@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Spike characterizes certain types in Martin's hypothetical situation: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Martin Striz > > > ...Suppose you told the class that a hungry bear was walking down > > the hallway outside. I bet they would quickly organize to save > > themselves... Martin > > Hmmmm. > > {8^D > > If it is a classroom full of conservatives, they would organize an attack on > the bear before the bear could attack the class. > > If it is a classroom full of liberals, they would draft a subset of > able-bodied students to defend the others against the bear, by negotiation > if possible. "Draft?" Draft, you say? You mean as if there were a nation whose young could be---still very far from volunteering in adequate numbers ---coerced into the military? No, it seems to me that the classroom full of liberals would tax themselves to pay for mercenaries to go protect them, if any could be found. But I think you got the others right :-) Lee > If it is a classroom full of libertarians, each student would immediately > look around for the slowest looking individual in the room, then she would > determine if she thought she could outrun that classmate. From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Jul 12 04:52:13 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:52:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: <200607120437.k6C4boSE010208@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060712045213.22446.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> What if she organized a defensive attack on the bear using negotiations , keeping in mind, she could outrun other classmates? Would that be satisfactory? Just Curious Anna:) spike wrote: > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Martin Striz > ...Suppose you told the class that a hungry bear was walking down > the hallway outside. I bet they would quickly organize to save > themselves... Martin Hmmmm. {8^D If it is a classroom full of conservatives, they would organize an attack on the bear before the bear could attack the class. If it is a classroom full of liberals, they would draft a subset of able-bodied students to defend the others against the bear, by negotiation if possible. If it is a classroom full of libertarians, each student would immediately look around for the slowest looking individual in the room, then she would determine if she thought she could outrun that classmate. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Wed Jul 12 05:32:35 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:32:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory Message-ID: spike: >Thanks Patricia! This is very insightful. There were plenty of rants >regarding the evils of nationalism, the evils of conservative politics >etc, but what I was really looking for was why the contrast between >Italian and French. Flag waving is not part of the French 'cultural character', Spike. I think the answer is simply that. IF the French were a flag-waving culture, then their flags would still be visible in six months, while in Italy, the flags will be off of the balconies in a few weeks. At lunch yesterday, I asked the French graduate student in our group your question, and he said they don't like to put up flags and do that sort of thing. Of course they are just as crazy about football/soccer as the Italians and we know that are a patriotic culture. France is a much older 'united' culture than the Italian culture. That's one large difference in their nationalistic feelings. As a country, Italy is very new; about 120 years only, so there was and is a strong bias to one's local area and not outside. I suspect that this is as large a factor as Mussolini towards not feeling nationalistic. The character that brought Mussolini into power is still embedded in the culture today so that people like things as they are, want the stability and a permanent position, no changes, no business competition, etc. You could ask similar questions about Spain. They are even less 'united' than Italy; their regions are really autonomous. What role did Franco play in their unpatriotism? Maybe half, but I'm not convinced it is all of the reason. And Greece? That looks even more complicated. OK. Remember, too, how long the Italians waited for this football win (and that they lost the World Cup in penalty kicks to the French previously). Even though the two cultures are neighbors, they are very very different! Amara From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed Jul 12 06:54:50 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:54:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] National Character (was Italian football victory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Patricia had written > The French did not immigrate to the US in the same numbers or waves. They didn't have the same economic or social imperatives. They did not create "Little Frances" or keep their traditions. They assimilated as individuals. (My father's mother was one of these French-Americans. There was no incentive to marry a Frenchman -- she couldn't find any in her new country! She married a Russian immigrant instead and my father's upbringing was in no way "French.") Of course, there was much French immigration to parts of Canada, since it was once a French colony until the British won it by force. And Quebec is a proudly French cultural province. But unfortunately, the French have no love of their Canadian or Tahitian or any other colonial descendants. < I believe it's true that the French (in the sense you are speaking of have no love of *anyone* outside Paris). Probably only slightly do they hold provincials in higher esteem than the real degenerates overseas :-) > The impression I have received is that the French consider their colonial brethren inferior -- and they speak bad French (to the Parisians, of course)! Unpardonable! So why should French immigrants be proud of France? < Could it be that they're proud of French culture, but not of France? Amara writes > Flag waving is not part of the French 'cultural character', Spike. I > think the answer is simply that. Do you suppose that it ever was? On the one hand, in the days of revolutionary France, they waved the tricolor around a lot, no? And perhaps before that, the Fleur-de-lis? But I wouldn't know. Anyway, if anything has truly changed since the days of Philip the Second, I'd love to know exactly what and when. > You could ask similar questions about Spain. They are even less 'united' > than Italy; their regions are really autonomous. That's right. It goes all the way back nearly a thousand years, when the kings of Leon and the kings of Catalan had little more use for each other than they had for the Moors, and sometimes less. There is an absolutely stunningly great book on Spanish character and history, "Spain: The Root and the Flower", by Crow. > What role did Franco play in their unpatriotism? Maybe half, but > I'm not convinced it is all of the reason. I'll bet I know by the end of the book, if I ever get there. Right now I'm understanding how it came to be that they drove the Moors out, a civilization that was superior in technology, superior in culture, superior economically, and in every other way that you can think of. But Crow explains and describes the one thing that seems to have made all the difference: the indomitable Spanish character. I myself like to think that maybe it's no coincidence that outside the English speaking countries, no one has more people signed up for cryonics than Spain. Lee From amara at amara.com Wed Jul 12 07:50:39 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:50:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] My Life as a Solid Rocket Booster Message-ID: http://mfile.akamai.com/18566/wmv/etouchsyst2.download.akamai.com/18355/wm.nasa-global/sts-121/right_forward_srb_camera.asx (camera on the SRB of the July 4 shuttle launch) The fall back down to Earth made me dizzy! Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "It seems like once people grow up, they have no idea what's cool." --Calvin From amara at amara.com Wed Jul 12 08:51:27 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:51:27 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory Message-ID: BTW, If you haven't seen this brilliant Bozzetto animation, Spike, then you must. It is very funny and it is very true. "Europe and Italy" http://www.infonegocio.com/xeron/bruno/italy.html Other Bruno Bozzetto animations here: http://www.bozzetto.com/flashfilms2.htm 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/ ******************************************************************** "Life is short. Why miss a single channel?" -- DirecTV slogan From scerir at libero.it Wed Jul 12 10:11:25 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:11:25 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory References: Message-ID: <000601c6a59b$893b0be0$c7911f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Amara Graps: > Don't forget Paolo Conte > http://www.last.fm/music/Paolo+Conte Sure, but in this set ('Italianit?': important people) the very leaders (perhaps completely unknown in US) are: - Tot? http://www.antoniodecurtis.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tot%C3%B2 and - Eduardo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduardo_De_Filippo http://w3.uniroma1.it/cta/eduardo/ s. did you know that 'le virt?' [virtues] are just a soup with dozens of different herbs? http://www.ilmiositoweb.it/cucinaregionale/N63.HTM From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 14:00:47 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:00:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causesthingy. In-Reply-To: <20060711220852.84706.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060711220852.84706.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:08:52 -0400, A B wrote: > A point I should have made in the original post is that: if true > Nothingness has ever existed, it certainly doesn't exist now But think for a moment about the last part of your sentence:"if true Nothingness has ever existed, it certainly doesn't exist now." What does it mean to talk about the "existence" of "nothingness"? If this something you call "Nothingness" has ever existed, then it seems to me you must be talking about something other than nothing. -gts From scerir at libero.it Wed Jul 12 15:43:45 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:43:45 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory References: <20060711203409.21283.qmail@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001d01c6a5c9$f77c8420$4b931f97@nomedxgm1aalex> When Italian Americans return to visit Italy, they get a very warm welcome (this from my many Italian American friends who have done this). Patricia There are little towns in Italy, and also ghost towns, which are supported and maintained by people born there and then immigrated to US, or Australia, or Canada, or South America. Sometimes they also maintain a webpage, or a website of their Italian hometown. One simple example? The little (beautiful) village of Roccacaramanico. Only 5 persons living there, after a massive emigration. But hundreds are living in US, and in Australia. (English) http://www.roccacaramanico.it/index%20(i).html (Italian) http://www.roccacaramanico.it/ From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 16:31:17 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:31:17 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causesthingy. In-Reply-To: <22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> <22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:48:13 -0400, Jef Allbright wrote: > Welcome back, Gordon Thanks Jef. > As to the second part of your statement, I would suggest that you > certainly should *not* ignore that which appears to make no sense You're right; my comment was a bit tongue in in cheek. :) I was thinking, for example, of Popper's criticism of Bohr's complementarity principle as an example of paradoxical nonsense in science, nonsense we should not accept as doctrine. Popper writes on page 135 of _Conjectures and Refutations_: "[The principle of complementarity] was used in a defensive mood - to rescue the existing theory; and the principle of complementarity has (I believe for this reason) remained completely sterile within physics. In twenty-seven years it has produced nothing except some philosophical discussions, and some arguments for confounding the critics (especially Einstein). I do not believe that physicists would have accepted such an ad hoc principle had they understood it was ad hoc." In another book (one I have not yet read) Popper argues for a philosophy of objective probability to make sense of quantum weirdness, one which presumably does away with subjectivist interpretations and the contradiction that is the complementarity principle. He argues, I believe, for the existence of *real objective propensities* to explain the apparent statistical randomness of quantum phenomena. (Not sure, but as I recall Heisenberg had a similar idea of objective propensities, which he called "potentia". I've looked for a Heisenberg quote to confirm this memory of mine but couldn't find one.) -gts From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Jul 12 17:10:03 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:10:03 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] birthday greetings In-Reply-To: <200607110409.k6B49qQ2023158@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060710225121.0471dcf8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200607110409.k6B49qQ2023158@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1268.206.59.242.189.1152724203.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> spike wrote: > > > Happy birthday Anders Sandberg! Thanks! I have the honor of being able to celebrate it in your nation's capital, where I am for a very brief whirlwind conference-business meeting tour (sorry, no real time to meet any people except lobbyists :-) I like birthdays, because they are the only totally customizable, individual festivities in the year. All the others have established and expected traditions, but we own our own birthdays. And they are about not just celebrating ourselves (which is fun) but about celebrating life. That makes them wonderfully transhumanistic. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 12 17:25:23 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:25:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popper and QT In-Reply-To: References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> <22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com> At 12:31 PM 7/12/2006 -0400, gts wrote: >Popper argues for a philosophy >of objective probability to make sense of quantum weirdness, one which >presumably does away with subjectivist interpretations and the >contradiction that is the complementarity principle. He argues, I believe, >for the existence of *real objective propensities* to explain the apparent >statistical randomness of quantum phenomena. Popper is widely regarded, partly for this reason, as simply not understanding quantum theory. As far as I know, the objective propensity theory proved to be entirely sterile. (40 years ago, it was adopted by several parapsychologists, but even in that domain it seems to have fallen by the wayside.) Damien Broderick From goldgrif at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 17:17:30 2006 From: goldgrif at yahoo.com (steven mckenzie) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causesthingy. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060712171730.35740.qmail@web56615.mail.re3.yahoo.com> nonsense in science, oh forbid remember rocks do not fall from the sky, and continents don't move and till 1924 the milkyway was the universe --- gts wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:48:13 -0400, Jef Allbright > > wrote: > > > Welcome back, Gordon > > Thanks Jef. > > > As to the second part of your statement, I would > suggest that you > > certainly should *not* ignore that which appears > to make no sense > > You're right; my comment was a bit tongue in in > cheek. :) I was thinking, > for example, > of Popper's criticism of Bohr's complementarity > principle as an example of > paradoxical nonsense in science, nonsense we should > not accept as doctrine. > > Popper writes on page 135 of _Conjectures and > Refutations_: > > "[The principle of complementarity] was used in a > defensive mood - to > rescue the > existing theory; and the principle of > complementarity has (I believe for > this reason) remained completely sterile within > physics. In twenty-seven > years it has produced nothing except some > philosophical discussions, and > some arguments for confounding the critics > (especially Einstein). I do > not believe that physicists would have accepted such > an ad hoc principle > had they understood it was ad hoc." > > In another book (one I have not yet read) Popper > argues for a philosophy > of objective probability to make sense of quantum > weirdness, one which > presumably does away with subjectivist > interpretations and the > contradiction that is the complementarity principle. > He argues, I believe, > for the existence of *real objective propensities* > to explain the apparent > statistical randomness of quantum phenomena. (Not > sure, but as I recall > Heisenberg had a similar idea of objective > propensities, which he called > "potentia". I've looked for a Heisenberg quote to > confirm this memory of > mine but couldn't find one.) > > -gts > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 18:16:07 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:16:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popper and QT In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com> References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> <22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:25:23 -0400, Damien Broderick wrote: > Popper is widely regarded, partly for this reason, as simply not > understanding quantum theory. As far as I know, the objective > propensity theory proved to be entirely sterile. I can't defend Popper's book on the subject (_Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics: From the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery_) because I have yet not read it. However I wonder if his views on this subject were not given the credit they might have deserved simply because he was a philosopher of science rather than a physicist. No matter who was right, we're still left with this curious complementarity principle of Bohr's which really makes no sense whatsoever. It is as though Bohr and his followers threw up their hands and said, "Well, these contradictory observations make no sense, so let's just enshrine this nonsense and call it a 'Principle'". -gts From amara at amara.com Wed Jul 12 19:09:59 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:09:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] birthday greetings Message-ID: Dear Anders, I'm late wishing you Auguri, and since Eugene's birthday is today, I offer some summer poetry for our two longtime extropians/transhumanists. ------------------ ODE TO THE WATERMELON by Pablo Neruda The tree of intense summer, hard, is all blue sky, yellow sun fatigue in drops, a sword above the highways, a scorched shoe in the cities: the brightness and the world weigh us down, hit us in the eyes with clouds of dust, with sudden golden blows, they torture our feet with tiny thorns, with hot stones, and the mouth suffers more than all the toes: the throat becomes thirsty, the teeth, the lips, the tongue: we want to drink waterfalls, the dark blue night, the South Pole, and then the coolest of all the planets crosses the sky, the round, magnificent, star-filled watermelon. It's a fruit from the thirst-tree. It's the green whale of the summer. The dry universe all at once given dark stars by this firmament of coolness lets the swelling fruit come down: its hemispheres open showing a flag green, white, red, that dissolves into wild rivers, sugar, delight! Jewel box of water, phlegmatic queen of the fruitshops, warehouse of profundity, moon on earth! You are pure, rubies fall apart in your abundance, and we want to bite into you, to bury our face in you, and our hair, and the soul! When we're thirsty we glimpse you like a mine or a mountain of fantastic food, but among our longings and our teeth you change simply into the cool light that slips in turn into spring water that touched us once singing. And that is why you don't weigh us down in the siesta hour that's like an oven, you don't weigh us down, you just go by and your heart, some cold ember, turned itself into a single drop of water. (translated by Robert Bly) from Odas Elementales 1954-1967 ----------------- H A P P Y B I R T H D A Y A N D E R S A N D E U G E N E !! Amara From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 19:43:20 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causesthingy. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060712194320.23626.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi gts, I think that semantics is going to erect a barrier at about this point :-) First of all, in retrospect, I should not have made such a sweeping claim that "Nothingness" *definitely* no longer "exists". As Scerir informed us, some scientists believe that "Nothingness" can exist in the "background"(?) of "Existence". And of course, they might turn out to be correct, it just seemed intuitive to me that true "Nothingness" can not harbor or enclose "Something" and still remain as "Nothingness" - I would expect that "Nothingness" is irretrievably lost at that "point". gts writes: "What does it mean to talk about the "existence" of "nothingness"?" That's a really good question and one that I have a hard time answering. I am not sure that I can give a satisfactory answer, at least for the time being. The "existence" of "Nothingness" certainly wouldn't correspond well with the "existence" of familiar "things". For example, the "existence" of "Nothingness" would be without Time - perhaps to the extent that "Nothingness" could be said to have "once existed", but by the perspective of an observer within "Existence", it "never did". My brain is starting to complain. :-) The reason I started this thread was to attempt to provide a (debatably) rational explanation for the question of: Why does "Anything" exist instead of only "Nothing"? without having to fall back on something supernatural. If my viewpoint is correct (and I don't claim that it definitely is), then it makes *possible* that our Universe is entirely Deterministic (without being stumped by the classical philosophical problem of "infinite causal regression"). Determinism within this Universe (to one extent or another) seems to be an implicit component of some peoples vision of the Singularity. For example, the extrapolation of technology trends that some people have used to predict the time-line of the Singularity, hints at a bit of inevitability or predeterminism. Another example is the common belief that Algorithms (which appear to me to rely to some extent, if not entirely on determinism) are the essence of minds. Although I must admit that my current familiarity with Algorithms is shamefully lacking. I don't know how much more I can really contribute to this topic, but it's been fun while it lasted. :-) Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich gts wrote: On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:08:52 -0400, A B wrote: > A point I should have made in the original post is that: if true > Nothingness has ever existed, it certainly doesn't exist now But think for a moment about the last part of your sentence:"if true Nothingness has ever existed, it certainly doesn't exist now." What does it mean to talk about the "existence" of "nothingness"? If this something you call "Nothingness" has ever existed, then it seems to me you must be talking about something other than nothing. -gts _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Wed Jul 12 20:19:01 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:19:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popper and QT References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex><0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex><7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com><22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001101c6a5f0$6b33d190$0abf1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> From: "gts" > I can't defend Popper's book on the subject > (_Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics: > From the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific > Discovery_) because I have yet not read it. > However I wonder if his views on this subject > were not given the credit they might have > deserved simply because he was a philosopher > of science rather than a physicist. Sir Karl Raimund Popper was not strong in math. People still remember a conference he gave in Trieste, about quantum paradoxes, and his blackboard was full of technical nonsenses. Nevertheless he invented an interesting gedanken ('Zur Kritik der Ungenauigkeitsrelationen', in 'Die Naturwissenschaften', 22, 807-808, 1934) experiment, involving two particles ('entangled', but this term was invented one year later). Einstein did not believe that Popper's gedanken experiment could have been carried out. The problem was this: to predict position and momentum of particle 1, both time and energy of the entangled particle 2 have to be measured simultaneously, which appeared to be impossible to Einstein, following Heisenberg. According to Nathan Rosen (the 'R' in 'E.P.R.') it might have been possible that Popper's experiment (1934) influenced Einstein, and the paper by E.P.R. (1935). Actually the reasoning by E.P.R., in their paper, is similar to Popper's reasoning, criticized by Einstein the previous year. (Bohr's response to E.P.R. is similar to Einstein's response to Popper!). Kim and Shih performed an experiment similar to Popper's, with unexpected results. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9905039 (The experiment has nothing to do with 'propensities' or with Heisenberg-Aristotle 'potentia', which have more to do with the 'amplitudes' - between two measurements - than with the probabilistic outcome of a measurement. There is - perhaps - a sort of revival of these concepts in the so called two-state time-symmetrical quantum formalism by Aharonov, Lebowitz, Bergmann, or in the 'non-demolitive' quantum measurements). > No matter who was right, we're still left > with this curious complementarity principle > of Bohr's which really makes no sense > whatsoever. That curious principle (but not so curious or vague as we believe [1[) is the heart of a new general principle, named the 'indistinguishability' principle (sometimes the 'finite information' principle). [1] 'However, since the discovery of the quantum of action, we know that the classical ideal cannot be attained in the description of atomic phenomena. In particular, any attempt at an ordering in space-time leads to a break in the causal chain, since such an attempt is bound up with an essential exchange of momentum and energy between the individuals and the measuring rods and clocks used for observation; and just this exchange cannot be taken into account if the measuring instruments are to fulfil their purpose. Conversely, any conclusion, based in an unambiguous manner upon the strict conservation of energy and momentum, with regard to the dynamical behaviour of the individual units obviously necessitates a complete renunciation of following their course in space and time'. [Bohr, Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature, pp.97-8, Cambridge University Press, 1934] From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 20:15:50 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:15:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popper and QT In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com> References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> <22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:25:23 -0400, Damien Broderick wrote: > Popper is widely regarded, partly for this reason, as simply not > understanding quantum theory. "In this introduction, I attempt to exorcize the ghost called 'consciousness' or 'the observer' from quantum mechanics, and to show that quantum mechanics is as 'objective' a theory as, say, classical mechanics. In the body of this volume, I shall attempt to substantiate my argument in somewhat greater detail... ...My thesis in this introduction is that the observer, or better, the experimentalist, plays in quantum theory exactly the same role as in classical physics. *His task is to test the theory*. ...If a mere philosopher like myself opposes a ruling dogma such as [Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation], he must expect not only retaliation, but even derision and contempt. He may well be brow-beaten..." [As apparently he was] - Karl Popper in his introduction to _Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics_ (neat how Amazon.com lets you peek into books before buying them) -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 21:12:17 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:12:17 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causesthingy. In-Reply-To: <20060712194320.23626.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060712194320.23626.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:43:20 -0400, A B wrote: > The reason I started this thread was to attempt to provide a > (debatably) rational explanation for the question of: Why does > "Anything" exist instead of only "Nothing"? without having to fall back > on something supernatural. I once asked a very smart friend of mine exactly that same question, though my motivation at the time was to convince him of some supernatural cause of the universe. My question was, "If God does not exist, then how do you explain the fact that something exists instead of nothing?" His answer was along the lines of, "Why shouldn't it be true that the universe has always existed? There is no particular reason to posit a first cause, because the universe itself is not of the same type of thing as the things inside it. Perhaps the universe has always been here for no reason at all." I was stumped. :) I think it was Bertrand Russell who made a similar argument as my friend's to refute 'first cause' type arguments for the existence of God, which could be used also to refute any argument similar to yours that "Nothingness was unstable and so Somethingness came into existence." (Just change your eastern-sounding argument about 'The Void giving rise to Existence' to the analogous western-sounding argument 'God was bored or lonely, so he created the world.') As an aside, I think also that it was Russell who pointed out that it's superfluous and incorrect even to speak of *the* universe, (or *the* multiverse), because the words "the" (and "this") are pointers. When we say for example "the house" we really mean something like "*that* house, over *there*, *that* house to which I am pointing, as distinct from everything other than that house to which I am *not* pointing." But we cannot point at anything at all without also pointing at Universe. When someone speaks of *the* universe or *the* multiverse, the correct response should be "Huh? As opposed to what else?" Your answer might me "As opposed to Nothingness" but you cannot point at nothingness. Of course we can and do still talk casually about "the" universe or "the" multiverse but I think it's a good idea to keep in mind that we make a grammatical error when we do so (except perhaps when distinguishing one of many theoretical universes in a possible multiverse). -gts From velvethum at hotmail.com Wed Jul 12 22:54:52 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:54:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain ofCausesthingy. References: <20060712194320.23626.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, >> gts writes: >> "What does it mean to talk about the "existence" of "nothingness"?" Jeffrey: >> That's a really good question and one that I have a hard time >> answering. I am not sure that I can give a satisfactory answer, at >> least for the time being. Let me contribute this short definition of nothingness to this debate. Nothingness is nonexistence of everything. It doesn't make sense to talk about existence of something that doesn't exist. Jeffrey: >> Another example is the >> common belief that Algorithms (which appear to me to rely to some >> extent, if not entirely on determinism) are the essence of minds. >> Although I must admit that my current familiarity with Algorithms is >> shamefully lacking. Mind merely behaves according to an algorithm. Its "essence" is not an algorithm itself. Its essence (that is, what mind actually is) is a physical expression of that algorithm. H. From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Jul 12 22:09:52 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:09:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] birthday greetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <32786.72.236.102.69.1152742192.squirrel@main.nc.us> Yes, birthday greetings to Anders and Eugen! :) And Amara, thanks so much for the Pablo Neruda, he's one of poetry's delights IMHO. :) > > It's a fruit from the thirst-tree. > It's the green whale of the summer. > What fine word pictures! :) Regards, MB From fauxever at sprynet.com Thu Jul 13 01:19:26 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:19:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Chip Thought Control Message-ID: <000e01c6a61a$627fa1d0$6600a8c0@brainiac> My, Robot ... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/science/12cnd-science.html?hp&ex=1152763200&en=e2ad13e9af8d6fc6&ei=5094&partner=homepage July 12, 2006 Man Uses Chip to Control Robot With Thoughts By ANDREW POLLACK A paralyzed man with a small sensor implanted in his brain was able to control a computer, a television and a robot using only his thoughts, scientists reported today. The development offers hope that in the future, people with spinal cord injuries, Lou Gehrig's disease or other ailments that impair movement might be able to better communicate with or control their world. "If your brain can do it, we can tap into it,'' said John P. Donoghue, a professor at Brown University who led the development of the system and was the senior author of a report published today in the journal Nature. In separate experiments, the first person to receive the implant, Matthew Nagle, was able to move a cursor, open e-mail, play a simple video game called Pong and draw a crude circle on the screen. He could change the channel or volume of a television set, move a robot arm somewhat, and open and close a prosthetic hand. Although his cursor control was sometimes wobbly, the basic movements were not hard to learn. "I pretty much had that mastered in four days,'' Mr. Nagle, now 26, said in a telephone interview from the New England Sinai Hospital and Rehabilitation Center in Stoughton, Mass., where he lives. He said the implant did not cause any pain. A former high school football star in Weymouth, Mass., Mr. Nagle was paralyzed below the shoulders after being stabbed in the neck during a melee at a beach in July 2001. He said he was not involved in starting the brawl and didn't even know what sparked it. The man who stabbed him is now serving ten years in prison, he said. There have been some tests of a simpler sensor implant in people, as well as tests of systems using electrodes outside the scalp. And Mr. Nagle has spoken about his experiences before. But the paper in Nature is the first peer-reviewed publication of an experiment using a more sophisticated implant in a human. The paper helps "shift the notion of such 'implantable neuromotor prosthetics' from science fiction towards reality,'' Stephen H. Scott of Queen's University in Canada wrote in a commentary in the journal. The implant system, known as the BrainGate, is being developed by Cyberkinetics Neurotechnology Systems of Foxborough, Mass. The company is now testing the system in three other people whose names have not been released - one with a spinal cord injury, one who had a brain-stem stroke and one with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, known as Lou Gehrig's disease. Timothy R. Surgenor, the president of the company, said Cyberkinetics hoped to have an implant approved for use as early as 2008 or 2009. Mr. Donoghue of Brown is a cofounder of the company and its chief scientist. Some of the authors of the research paper work for the company, while others work at Massachusetts General Hospital and other medical or academic institutions. The sensor measures 4 millimeters - about one sixth of an inch - on a side and contains 100 tiny electrodes. The device was implanted in the area of Mr. Nagle's motor cortex that is responsible for arm movement, and was connected to a pedestal that protruded from the top of his skull. When the device was to be used, technicians connected the pedestal to a computer with a cable. So Mr. Nagle was directly wired to a computer, somewhat like a character in the "Matrix" movies. Mr. Nagle would then imagine moving his arm to hit various targets, as technicians calibrated the machine, a process that took about half an hour each time. The implanted sensor eavesdropped on the electrical signals emitted by nearby neurons as they controlled the imaginary arm movement. Scientists said the study was important because it showed that the neurons in Mr. Nagle's motor cortex were still active, years after they had any role to play in physically moving his arms. Cursor control was not very smooth. In a task where the goal was to guide the cursor from the center of the screen to a target on the perimeter, Mr. Nagle hit the target about 73 to 95 percent of the time. When he did, it took an average of 2.5 seconds, though sometimes much longer. The second patient tested with the implant had worse control than Mr. Nagle, the paper said. By contrast, healthy people moving the cursor by hand can hit the target almost every time and in only one second. Dr. Jonathan R. Wolpaw, a researcher at the New York State Department of Health in Albany, said the BrainGate performance did not appear to be substantially better than a non-invasive system he is developing using electroencephalography, in which electrodes are placed outside the scalp. "If you are going to have something implanted into your brain, you'd probably want it to be a lot better,'' he said. Dr. Donoghue and other proponents of the implants say they have the potential to be a lot better, because they are much closer to the relevant neurons. The scalp electrodes get signals from millions of neurons all over the brain. One way to improve implant performance was suggested by another paper in the same edition of Nature. In a study involving monkeys, Krishna V. Shenoy and colleagues at Stanford University eavesdropped not on the neurons controlling arm movement but on those expressing the intention to move. "Instead of sliding the cursor out to the target, we can just predict which target would be hit, and the cursor simply leaps there,'' said Mr. Shenoy, an assistant professor of electrical engineering and neurosciences. He said a patient using the system could do the equivalent of typing 15 words a minute, about four times the speed of the other devices. Other obstacles must be overcome before brain implants become practical. The ability of the electrodes to detect brain signals begins to deteriorate after several months, for reasons that are not fully understood. Also, ideally, the implant would transmit signals out of the brain wirelessly, doing away with the permanent hole in the head and the accompanying risk of infection. Mr. Nagle, meanwhile, had his implant removed after a bit more than a year, so he could undergo another operation that allowed him to breathe without a ventilator. He can control a computer with voice commands, so he does not really need the brain implant. But he said he was happy he volunteered for the experiment. "It gave a lot of people hope,'' he said. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 04:30:58 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causesthingy. In-Reply-To: <20060712194320.23626.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060713043058.16679.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- A B wrote: > The reason I started this thread was to attempt to > provide a (debatably) rational explanation for the > question of: Why does "Anything" exist instead of > only "Nothing"? without having to fall back on > something supernatural. If my viewpoint is correct > (and I don't claim that it definitely is), then it > makes *possible* that our Universe is entirely > Deterministic (without being stumped by the > classical philosophical problem of "infinite causal > regression"). The rational explanation for the existense of "anything" is simply that the entropy of "something" is higher than that of "nothing". There are a great deal many, perhaps infinite, ways to have "something". But there is only single way to have "nothing". Thus nothing is not probabilistically favored be cause it is too orderly to be at all a thermodynamically stable state. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." - Neils Bohr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From amara at amara.com Thu Jul 13 07:23:38 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:23:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popper and QT Message-ID: >I can't defend Popper's book on the subject (_Quantum Theory and the >Schism in Physics: From the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific >Discovery_) because I have yet not read it. However I wonder if his >views on this subject were not given the credit they might have deserved >simply because he was a philosopher of science rather than a physicist. From extropy archives 24May02 (which are off-line, I guess) Amara ------------begin copy of old message From: Amara Graps Subject: Popper vs. Bayesian statistics (was Re: Use of the Extropian Principles) Pat Fallon: >There are many sources of human knowledge, but none has authority. All >theories are tentative. Popper argues that a propper scientific theory >makes testable predictions; it is falsifiable. _Falsificationism in Statistics_ Pg. 171-173, Howson and Urbach Theories seriously entertained by scientists at one time are often later rejected when reviewed in the light of new experimental evidence. The most straightforward form for such rejections is that of a logical refutation, and provided one is prepared to concede certainty to the refuting data, such refutations may be regarded as scientific modes of inference which require no concession to Bayesian principles. Indeed some philosophers, keen to avoid a subjective probabilistic assessment of hypotheses, maintain that logical refutations assessment of hypotheses, maintain that logical refutations are the only significant type of inference in science. However, as we explained earlier, a large part of modern science is concerned with statistical hypotheses, and these are generally not refutable in this way. As an example of a simple statistical hypothesis, take the theory that a particular penny has an even chance of landing heads and tails, with separate tosses being independent (the penny is then said to be a 'fair' coin). This theory cannot be refuted by observing the outcomes of trials in which the penny is tossed; no proportion of heads in any sequence, however large, is precluded by the theory. Nevertheless, scientists do not regard statistical theories as necessarily unscientific, nor have they dispensed with procedures for rejecting them in the face of what they take to be unfavourable evidence. What principles apply here and how can they be justified? One answer, in the falsificationist spirit, that is occasionally canvassed claims that although statistical theories are not strictly falsifiable, they are falsifiable in an extended sense of the term: as Cournot (1843, p. 155) expressed the idea, events which are sufficiently improbable "are rightly regarded as physically impossible". Popper had the same notion: scientists, he said, should make "a methodological decision to regard highly improbable events as ruled out -- as prohibited" (1959a, pg. 191). And he talked of hypotheses as having been "practically falsified" if they attached sufficiently low probabilities to events that actually occurred. Watkins, endorsing the idea called it a "non-arbitary way of reinterpreting probabilistic hypothesis so as to render them falsifiable" (1984, pg. 244). Popper defended his position with a surprisingly weak argument. He claimed that extremely improbable events that did happen "would not be physical effects, because, on account of their immense improbability, *they are not reproducible at will* (1959a, pg. 203). This unreproducibility of very improbable events, Popper reasoned, means that a physicist "would never be able to decide what really happened in this case, and whether he may not have made an observational mistake". Poppers seems to be operating here with a rather eccentric definition of 'physical effect', which would exclude most natural phenomena from that category, for most natural phenomena cannot be humanly controlled and so are not reproducible at will. More importantly, Popper's claim that unreproducible effects cannot be properly checked is clearly mistaken; improbable and unreproducible events -- for example the sequence of heads and tails produced when a coin is tossed ten thousand times are not necessarily so fleeting as to prevent a close examination. The Cournot-Popper view overlooks the fact that very improbable events occur all the time. Indeed, it would be difficult to name a probability so small that no event of some smaller probability had not already taken place or is not taking place right now: events of miniscule probability are ubiquitous. Even a probability of 10^(10^(12)), which Watkins considered to be 'vanishingly small' and to amount to an impossibility (1984, pg. 244) is nothing of the sort. The probability of the precise distribution of genes in the five billion members of contemporary humanity is incomparably smaller than this, relative to Mendel's laws of inheritance, as is the probability that the atoms in the jug of water on this table have a particular spatial distribution at a given time. Popper attempted to give pragmatic effect to this thesis by propounding a rule that would tell us in particular cases how small a probability should be in order to be classed as a practical impossibility. We shall follow Watkin's recent exposition of the rule. [... typing fingers and time constraints ... Please see this book for the pages of text and math and reasoning etc etc.] REFERENCES _Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach_ by Colin Howson and Peter Urbach, 1989, Open Court Publishing. Cournot, A.A. 1843, _Exposition de la Theorie des Chances et des Probabilites_ Paris. Popper, K.R. 1959a, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_. London: Hutchinson. Watkins, J.W.N. 1984. _Science and Scepticism_. London: Hutchinson and Princeton: Princeton University Press. This URL might be useful too (Edwin Jaynes) http://bayes.wustl.edu/ ------------end copy of old message -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Jul 13 09:13:14 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:13:14 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The political brain Message-ID: <470a3c520607130213t4b7ede78h42feb587aa03d668@mail.gmail.com> The political brain http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000CE155-1061-1493-906183414B7F0162 This very good article says that when it comes to politics we tend to forget reason and run by emotions: ""Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones,"". This is probably the reason why transhumanists never seem to come to any agreement when political positions are concerned. There must be some kind of emotional attachment to political ideas formed early in life, that switches reason off when it comes to questioning one's worldview. Or, to say it like our grandfathers (there is nothing new onder the sun): you are blind to what you don't want to see, and deaf to what you don't want to hear. G. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 14:27:56 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:27:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothingness and that Infinite Chain of Causesthingy. In-Reply-To: <20060713043058.16679.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060713043058.16679.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:30:58 -0400, The Avantguardian wrote: > But there is only single way to have "nothing". Thus > nothing is not probabilistically favored because it > is too orderly to be at all a thermodynamically stable > state. I think Jeffery (AB) was referring not to the kind of nothingness that would exist in a true vacuum, (in which case thermodynamic considerations would apply), but rather to the sort of nothingness as seen in the eastern concept of The Void, which is not even the nothingness of a vacuum. A perfect vacuum would after all contain time and space, which is hardly nothing. How can Nothingness (or void) be said to have any order whatsoever? Here's a riddle for ya': if all matter and antimatter in Universe were suddenly to vanish, would Universe continue to exist as an immense perfect vacuum? Or would it become Void in the eastern sense, lacking even space and time, something like a singularity? Or would the answer perhaps just be a stale old quesadilla? ;) -gts From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Jul 13 16:17:06 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:17:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The political brain In-Reply-To: <470a3c520607130213t4b7ede78h42feb587aa03d668@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520607130213t4b7ede78h42feb587aa03d668@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5380B11F-711F-4045-82B3-CE44E9D5FE2E@mac.com> Hmm. Many of us question our world view often. So how did that come about? Believing that people cannot or do not change their political thinking leads to some dangerous places. It is reminiscent of the notion that there are separate truths for different classes and no objective truth. I would think that part of what makes politics difficult is first that few of the starting assumptions for a particular political POV are easily if at all tested on testable. If on top of that it is assumed that being of viewpoint X automatically makes one hopelessly incapacitated to see much if any truths held by viewpoint Y then immediate frustration follows labeling quickly followed by dismissal. - samantha On Jul 13, 2006, at 2:13 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > The political brain > > http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm? > articleID=000CE155-1061-1493-906183414B7F0162 > > This very good article says that when it comes to politics we tend to > forget reason and run by emotions: ""Essentially, it appears as if > partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the > conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, > with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of > positive ones,"". > > This is probably the reason why transhumanists never seem to come to > any agreement when political positions are concerned. There must be > some kind of emotional attachment to political ideas formed early in > life, that switches reason off when it comes to questioning one's > worldview. > > Or, to say it like our grandfathers (there is nothing new onder the > sun): you are blind to what you don't want to see, and deaf to what > you don't want to hear. > > G. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 16:15:21 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:15:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popper and QT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "This problem of a *propensity interpretation of probability* arose out of my interest in Quantum Theory. It is usually believed that Quantum Theory has to be interpreted statistically, and no doubt statistics is essential for its empirical tests. But this is a point where, I believe, the dangers of the testability theory of meaning become clear. Although the tests of the theory are statistical, and although the theory (say, Shroedinger's equation) may imply statistical consequences, it need not have statistical meaning: and one can give examples of objective propensities (which are something like generalized forces) and of fields of propensities, which can be measured by statistical methods without themselves being statistical. ... Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen have published an interesting thought-experiment which can be substituted for my example, although their tendency (which is deterministic) is quite different from mine. Einstein's belief in determinism (which I had occasion to discuss with him) is, I believe, unfounded, and also unfortunate..." -Karl Popper, _Conjectures and Refutations_, pg 80 "On Popper's view, propensities are not inherent in individual things, rather ?they are relational properties of the experimental arrangement ? of the conditions we intend to keep constant during repetition? (1959, 37; emphasis added). The same experimental arrangement, or system, can be characterized in different ways: ?Take the tossing of a penny: it may have been thrown 9 feet up. Shall we say or shall we not say that this experiment is repeated if the penny is thrown to a height of 10 feet?? (1967, 38). Here Popper's question is rhetorical; we might choose to say that it is the same experiment, or we might choose to say that it is a different experiment. Either way is equally correct and equally objective. On this kind of view, we could describe populations at many (perhaps infinitely many) different levels of description, being more or less specific (including greater or fewer causal factors), and the resulting probabilities would each be objective, in the sense described earlier ? they would capture reality. Interpretations of Probability in Evolutionary Theory http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001088/00/millstein.doc -gts From jonkc at att.net Thu Jul 13 17:27:28 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:27:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popper and QT. References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex><0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex><7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com><22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <00c601c6a6a1$b88ef580$02094e0c@MyComputer> gts wrote: > Popper argues for a philosophy of objective probability to make > sense of quantum weirdness Before he deals in anything as grand as Quantum mechanics Popper should explain something much more mundane, like the Monty Hall problem, if probability is an objective quality something has. > I wonder if his views on this subject were not given the credit they might > have deserved simply because he was a philosopher of science rather > than a physicist. Unlike a moral philosopher there is a simple way far a a scientific philosopher to prove he is right, he could just use his theory about how science works to discover some new scientific fact. To my knowledge Popper never did that. Some great scientists have thought about philosophic questions but never in their scientifically most productive years. John K Clark From george at betterhumans.com Thu Jul 13 14:57:53 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:57:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Chimp Plays Pac Man Message-ID: <44B65F71.10109@betterhumans.com> This is awesome and incredibly revealing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqvRjHaDX6M Cheers, George From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 18:43:42 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:43:42 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Re: Popper and QT. In-Reply-To: References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> <22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com> <00c601c6a6a1$b88ef580$02094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:27:28 -0400, John K Clark wrote: > Unlike a moral philosopher there is a simple way far a a scientific > philosopher to prove he is right, he could just use his theory about how > science works to discover some new scientific fact. I don't find that test very convincing. Popper for example would probably question even your suggestion that scientific facts can be discovered. Although he was a realist who believed in factual objective reality, his contention was always that scientists can hope only to arrive at theories that approximate those objective facts. (Ignore my second paragraph in my private email to you, John. We agree on that point; I merely misread your words. I agree that moral philosophers have an almost impossible burden of proof.) -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 18:43:43 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:43:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popper and QT In-Reply-To: <001101c6a5f0$6b33d190$0abf1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> <22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com> <001101c6a5f0$6b33d190$0abf1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:19:01 -0400, scerir wrote: Interesting, thanks! > Kim and Shih performed an experiment similar to Popper's, > with unexpected results. > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9905039 From the intro to that paper: "In this paper we wish to report a recent realization of Popper?s thought experiment. Indeed, it is astonishing to see that the experimental results agree with Popper?s prediction." But not having read this one of Popper's books devoted to QT, or having studied this experiment in detail (from my brief scan of the paper above it appears Popper was right but perhaps for the wrong reasons), I'll defer to you and take your word for it that this experiment was not conclusive proof of and may have no bearing on Popper's objective philosophy of probability. No matter, it's hard not to admire Popper's quest for objective truth. :) -gts From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Jul 14 02:16:54 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:16:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The political brain Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060713221649.02d40640@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:13 AM 7/13/2006 +0200, you wrote: >The political brain > >http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000CE155-1061-1493-906183414B7F0162 > >This very good article says that when it comes to politics we tend to >forget reason and run by emotions: ""Essentially, it appears as if >partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the >conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, >with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of >positive ones,"". This is Drew Westin's work. You can get the entire preprint paper if you want by asking for the password. >This is probably the reason why transhumanists never seem to come to >any agreement when political positions are concerned. There must be >some kind of emotional attachment to political ideas formed early in >life, that switches reason off when it comes to questioning one's >worldview. > >Or, to say it like our grandfathers (there is nothing new onder the >sun): you are blind to what you don't want to see, and deaf to what >you don't want to hear. The evolutionary psychology question you want to ask is why humans have this trait? My answer is that it is part of the evolved mechanisms leading to wars that have been honed since we no longer had predators to keep our numbers in check. Pointer to the article has been posted recently. Keith Henson From goldgrif at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 02:34:13 2006 From: goldgrif at yahoo.com (steven mckenzie) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The political brain In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060713221649.02d40640@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060714023414.95960.qmail@web56608.mail.re3.yahoo.com> I refute the idea that there is some kind of emotional attachment to political > ideas formed early in > >life, that switches reason off when it comes to > questioning one's > >worldview. i was raised and held strongly very "conservative" views, then as i explored things, i became very "liberal" my faith is based on constant questioning and exploring i am not, by any accounts unique I feel that people cant handle the cognitive dissonance, like people can't seem to handle quiet but have to have their music always blaring, the hardest thing for most to accept is that they are wrong, especially in western culture another thing I notuced is the idea that all behavior has an evoltionary reason, some may behaviors may simple he hold overs from previous times, and not really evolutionary based at all --- Keith Henson wrote: > At 11:13 AM 7/13/2006 +0200, you wrote: > >The political brain > > > >http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000CE155-1061-1493-906183414B7F0162 > > > >This very good article says that when it comes to > politics we tend to > >forget reason and run by emotions: ""Essentially, > it appears as if > >partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until > they get the > >conclusions they want, and then they get massively > reinforced for it, > >with the elimination of negative emotional states > and activation of > >positive ones,"". > > This is Drew Westin's work. You can get the entire > preprint paper if you > want by asking for the password. > > >This is probably the reason why transhumanists > never seem to come to > >any agreement when political positions are > concerned. There must be > >some kind of emotional attachment to political > ideas formed early in > >life, that switches reason off when it comes to > questioning one's > >worldview. > > > >Or, to say it like our grandfathers (there is > nothing new onder the > >sun): you are blind to what you don't want to see, > and deaf to what > >you don't want to hear. > > The evolutionary psychology question you want to ask > is why humans have > this trait? My answer is that it is part of the > evolved mechanisms leading > to wars that have been honed since we no longer had > predators to keep our > numbers in check. > > Pointer to the article has been posted recently. > > Keith Henson > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Jul 12 03:40:40 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:40:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] italian football victory In-Reply-To: References: <20060711205433.29732.qmail@web56609.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <20060711205433.29732.qmail@web56609.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060711233009.04d2d310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:25 PM 7/11/2006 -0400, you wrote: >On 7/11/06, steven mckenzie wrote: > > may I ask, do you feel that possibly people who follow > > such psychology give up "rational thinking" and follow > > the herd due to laziness or fear? > >Probably fear more than laziness. I could propose an evolutionary >explanation for such behavior: > >When a population of humans is facing an external threat, heirarchical >organization is more likely to lead to an effective solution to the >problem. So people make dominance-submission realationships a more >salient aspect of their psychology. One or a few people take command, >and the rest follow. Debating endlessly as peers could lead to >stagnation so that the threat is not addressed sufficiently. > >We see this on a less profound level whenever a classroom is divided >up into groups and given an assignment. One or two people take the >lead. Suppose you told the class that a hungry bear was walking down >the hallway outside. I bet they would quickly organize to save >themselves, with one or a few people taking command. > >But that's a just-so story. If you are going to propose an EP explanation, you should set it in a hunter gatherer environment. And since we still have some of those around you can see if your explanation makes sense. From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri Jul 14 05:46:04 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:46:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The political brain In-Reply-To: <20060714023414.95960.qmail@web56608.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Steven writes > I refute [i.e. rebut] the idea that there is > some kind of emotional attachment to political [Giulio wrote] > > ideas formed early in life, that switches reason > > off when it comes to questioning one's worldview. > i was raised and held strongly very "conservative" > views, then as i explored things, i became very > "liberal". > my faith is based on constant questioning and > exploring. i am not, by any accounts unique *Constant questioning?" I question that. In the first place, it's all a matter of degree (on a continuum). Secondly, the same person can be inordinately stubborn to new information or to changing pre-existing beliefs in one area, and the epitome of rational open-mindedness in another. I think that it's a tempting trap that too many fall into to think that they are---as opposed to the hoi polloi---without biases and almost always rational. No one is. Keith wrote > [Giulio wrote] > >http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000CE155-1061-1493-906183414B7F0162 > > > > This very good article says that when it comes to > > politics we tend to forget reason and run by > > emotions: ""Essentially, it appears as if > > partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until > > they get the conclusions they want, and then > > they get massively reinforced for it, with the > > elimination of negative emotional states and > > activation of positive ones,"". > > The evolutionary psychology question you want to ask Thank you! > is why humans have this trait? My answer is that it > is part of the evolved mechanisms leading to wars > that have been honed since we no longer had predators > to keep our numbers in check. You make it sound as though war or tribal conflict were the only cause. On the contrary, humans are receptive to meme systems that are powerful perpetuators of survival behavior. Thus the young are prone to write almost into their very firmware the wisdom of their parents. Moreover, many meme systems emphasize on a meta-level that parents, traditions, elders, etc., should be respected *only* because they are such. This too had, and has, survival value. It is of course quite remarkable that we are Skinnerian creatures in Dennett's sense of the genes telling us "do what is best as you go along". So we are able to change our minds, about some things, and in some areas. For example, it took me until I was past 30 to realize that governments were basically evil, though perhaps necessary. Yet at age 17 I went from fervent theist to atheist. But my basic political beliefs, founded on the 20th century contentions that Communism, Stalin, and liberals were basically evil haven't changed :-) Yes, your main focus is on war. But inter-tribal conflict guaranteed the survival of some groups at the expense of others, and any group that permits some meme such as "we are really all just individuals and we have no group interest whatsoever" to gain ascendancy is still asking for extinction. Lee From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Jul 14 08:30:02 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 04:30:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Making noise Message-ID: <20060714083002.14786.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I've acknowledged that not many have responsed to my questions. I was curious to know why. Do I seem incomprehensible? Am I not understanding properly? Am I not forwarding my questions in the proper manner? If i'm only making noise, then i'd prefer to stop. Please explain. Anna If this is my last post then I would like to thank Natasha and Max, Eliezer, Samantha, Jef, John, Amara, Spike, Bill, Russell, Brian, Hughes, Sullivan, Broderick, Hanson, Wallace, Avanguardian, Eugen, Ben and Lee for giving me such inspirational ideas. If I forgot anybody, my sincere apologies, I know, what a great experience this has been for me and that it will only lead me to top better endeavors. Thank you. Feeling and longing are the motive forces behind all human endeavor and human creations. A. Einstein. Again thanks Anna:) PS.. Eliezer, smileys represent a form of communication that leads to representations regarding "Friendly AI", I hope you recognize that:) --------------------------------- Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 09:08:22 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Making noise In-Reply-To: <20060714083002.14786.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060714090822.82028.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > I've acknowledged that not many have responsed to my > questions. > I was curious to know why. > Do I seem incomprehensible? No but sometimes your questions can be pretty strange. :) How would everybody looking like a member of the Blue Man Group help people understand empathy? I don't think appearence should matter. > Am I not understanding > properly? Am I > not forwarding my questions in the proper manner? > If i'm only making noise, then i'd prefer to stop. > Please explain. Not everyone answers every post. Don't take it personally. Perhaps you should stop being curious and be a bit more assertive. Try stating something instead of asking something. If someone disagrees with you strongly enough, they will answer you. > Anna > > If this is my last post then I would like to thank > Natasha and Max, Eliezer, > Samantha, Jef, John, Amara, Spike, Bill, Russell, > Brian, Hughes, Sullivan, > Broderick, Hanson, Wallace, Avanguardian, Eugen, > Ben and Lee for giving me > such inspirational ideas. > If I forgot anybody, my sincere apologies, I know, > what a great experience > this has been for me and that it will only lead me > to top better endeavors. > Thank you. You are welcome. > > Feeling and longing are the motive forces behind > all human endeavor > and human creations. > A. Einstein. > > Again thanks > Anna:) > > PS.. Eliezer, smileys represent a form of > communication that leads to > representations regarding "Friendly AI", I hope > you recognize that:) > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at > giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! > Mail > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." - Neils Bohr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From scerir at libero.it Fri Jul 14 09:45:38 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:45:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popper and QT References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex><0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex><7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com><22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com> <001101c6a5f0$6b33d190$0abf1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <000601c6a72a$443e33b0$89b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> From: "gts" But not having read this one of Popper's books devoted to QT, or having studied this experiment in detail (from my brief scan of the paper above it appears Popper was right but perhaps for the wrong reasons), I'll defer to you and take your word for it that this experiment was not conclusive proof of and may have no bearing on Popper's objective philosophy of probability. Although Popper perceived that his subtle gedanken experiment was a wrong and in any case an 'overdetermined argument' (Max Jammer), he published it many times, with refiniments. K. R. Popper, Die Naturwissenschaften 22, 807 (1934). K. R. Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Hutchinson, London (1982). K. R. Popper, in Open Questions in Quantum Physics, Tarozzi G, van der Merwe A (eds.), Dordrecht (1984). K. R. Popper, Nature 328, 675 (1987). K. R. Popper, Nature 329, 112 (1987). Essentially he was both trying to falsify a prediction of (the formalism of) quantum mechanics, Heisenberg's interpretation of quantum 'collapse' in terms of (subjective, according to Popper) knowledge. He was also trying to test his own realistic interpretation of quantum effects, based on actual and local 'propensities'. The set up was simple. Essentially (but there are many other configurations and possible tunings): a source 's' of two (position/momentum) entangled photons 'p1' and 'p2', a narrow slit on the left, and many detectors 'D' on the right. D2 | D1 <-----p1-----------s---------p2-------> D0 | D3 D4 QM predicts that the slit (on the left side) 'measures' the position of photon p1, hence it measures the position of the entangled (position correlation) photon p2, hence the momentum of photon p2 is 'spread' (due to position/momentum Heisenberg uncertainty relation) and p2 hits one of those detectors on the right, and not necessarily the detector D0 on the straight line. (It is possible to show it easily, details are given, I guess, in the literature cited below). In Popper's words 'To sum up: if the Copenhagen [rather Heisenberg's] interpretation is correct, than any increase in the precision of out mere knowledge of the position of the particles going to the right should increase their scatter; and this prediction should be testable.' Needless to say Popper's own model states that the behaviour of photon p2 does not depend at all on the slit on the left (measuring position of photon p1). Experiments done, since 1995, (below) confirm the prediction of QM. Popper's argument (no less subtle than E.P.R.'s realistic argument) is then wrong. But this does not mean that the mere _subjective_ knowledge of the position of photon p1, measured by the slit on the left, _causes_ the sudden 'ghost' scattering of photon p2 on the right. So, in a certain sense, Popper was also a bit right. s. - Two-Photon Entanglement and Quantum Reality (1997) in this page http://physics.umbc.edu/Faculty/shih.html - Experimental Observation of Two-Photon "Ghost" Interference and Diffraction", Physical Review Letters, v.74, p.3600 (1995) in this page (see year 1995) http://people.bu.edu/alexserg/references.html - Optical Imaging by Means of Two-Photon Quantum Entanglement, Physical Review A , v.52, pp. R3429-3432 (1995) in this page (see year 1995) http://people.bu.edu/alexserg/references.html From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 13:08:20 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:08:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Making noise In-Reply-To: <20060714083002.14786.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060714083002.14786.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 7/14/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > I've acknowledged that not many have responsed to my questions. > I was curious to know why. > Stuart is correct. Many on the list have been on it a long time and recognize that responses may vary with personal interest, timing, other things going on in their lives, etc. I myself have had several questions over the last few months go relatively unresponded to. I don't take it personally though it does cause some interesting facial expressions if I put my attention in that area. The Extro lists consist primarily of people who have been here a long time (consider us mostly class of '95-'99) who have been to several shared meetings (the various Extro & WTA conferences) with some lurkers who raise their heads from time to time. There is also a relatively large common knowledge base in terms of the books or papers that have been read or that we are generally aware of. I know that for myself your questions have been quite refreshing in that they cause me to think about the wide gaps that exist between the 'old folks' (long time list members) and the rest of humanity. It is relatively rare for someone new to come into the group. Its like joining a craps table [1] in Las Vegas casino where the same people have been playing off and on for a decade or so. Given the pace of the game it is hard for people to stop and explain to newcomers what they need to know in order to avoid losing their shirts. There is an undercurrent which occurs in discussion threads from time to time that involves that fact that many participants, particularly those who have read work by Robin, Eliezer, Damien and others realize that there is a "Great Filter" coming [2]. On our better days some will debate, on the list or talking to themselves, what fraction will survive it and try to figure out whether there are strategies that can be adopted that might make for better odds. This can distill down to simple allocation of time considerations, e.g. "Does one try to explain complex bodies of knowledge to novices or does one go write book chapters on how to implement lifespan extension strategies?". Everything is not possible... (yet). Do I seem incomprehensible? Am I not understanding properly? Am I > not forwarding my questions in the proper manner? > No, generally I think your questions are understood. Unclear is how best to wrestle with them. Think of it as two children playing who are mixing paint colors. One child has the hot colors. The other child has the cool colors. Sometimes if they mix their paint colors just the right way they end up with a very pretty new color. Other times they end up with yucky brown. Mixing your general meme set as I perceive it with the list general meme set as I perceive it to get something pretty rather than something yucky could perhaps be described as "challenging". If i'm only making noise, then i'd prefer to stop. > It cannot be viewed as noise since 'colors' at your disposal are similar to those that many others have [3]. Indeed the list's colors are so far off the spectrum that most of humanity uses that they are effectively invisible. So do not view it as a pointless exercise. One would hope that over time both you and list members will develop better color mixing skills. Robert 1. Some might suggest a poker table is a better analogy. 2. The simple way to view this is to ask "Who will manage to surf the 'singularity' and survive?". 3. Though I think the Anna and ExI list color sets are both quite different from that that a significant majority (99.9+%) of humanity in both the underdeveloped and developed worlds are working with. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From george at betterhumans.com Fri Jul 14 13:34:34 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:34:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste Message-ID: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> This comment was recently posted by "Chris" on my blog (responses welcome): "Does anyone know if any work has been done on the subject of how much waste heat would be generated by a singularity event? I'm thinking in terms of the fact that all computation, like all physical action, generates at least some degree of waste heat ( just no getting around thermodynamics) Assuming our civilization gives rise to a computational matrix that independently evolves in processing power exponentially, wouldn't that result in a catastrophic and possibly terminal heat-shock to the host-biosphere? Maybe that's the fate of all civilizations that reach singularities. I'd love it if anyone has any ideas to share on this..." From ola.bini at ki.se Fri Jul 14 15:57:59 2006 From: ola.bini at ki.se (Ola Bini) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:57:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: <44B7BF07.30205@ki.se> George Dvorsky wrote: > This comment was recently posted by "Chris" on my blog (responses welcome): > > "Does anyone know if any work has been done on the subject of how much > waste heat would be generated by a singularity event? I'm thinking in > terms of the fact that all computation, like all physical action, > generates at least some degree of waste heat ( just no getting around > thermodynamics) Assuming our civilization gives rise to a computational > matrix that independently evolves in processing power exponentially, > wouldn't that result in a catastrophic and possibly terminal heat-shock > to the host-biosphere? Maybe that's the fate of all civilizations that > reach singularities. I'd love it if anyone has any ideas to share on > this..." > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > The short answer to this is "not necessarily". Lookup reversible computing for more information. -- Ola Bini (http://ola-bini.blogspot.com) JvYAML, RbYAML, JRuby and Jatha contributor System Developer, Karolinska Institutet (http://www.ki.se) OLogix Consulting (http://www.ologix.com) "Yields falsehood when quined" yields falsehood when quined. From jay.dugger at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 17:17:33 2006 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:17:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0607141017p773a4045n9c89e306c7b79274@mail.gmail.com> Freitas worked on this problem. His website, check del.icio.us or Google, should have a paper on it. There will probably exist material in NM & KSRM. On 7/14/06, George Dvorsky wrote: > This comment was recently posted by "Chris" on my blog (responses welcome): > > "Does anyone know if any work has been done on the subject of how much > waste heat would be generated by a singularity event? I'm thinking in > terms of the fact that all computation, like all physical action, > generates at least some degree of waste heat ( just no getting around > thermodynamics) Assuming our civilization gives rise to a computational > matrix that independently evolves in processing power exponentially, > wouldn't that result in a catastrophic and possibly terminal heat-shock > to the host-biosphere? Maybe that's the fate of all civilizations that > reach singularities. I'd love it if anyone has any ideas to share on > this..." > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Jul 14 16:58:39 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:58:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060714123412.03c04d38@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:34 AM 7/14/2006 -0400, you wrote: >This comment was recently posted by "Chris" on my blog (responses welcome): > > "Does anyone know if any work has been done on the subject of how > much >waste heat would be generated by a singularity event? I'm thinking in >terms of the fact that all computation, like all physical action, >generates at least some degree of waste heat ( just no getting around >thermodynamics) Assuming our civilization gives rise to a computational >matrix that independently evolves in processing power exponentially, >wouldn't that result in a catastrophic and possibly terminal heat-shock >to the host-biosphere? Maybe that's the fate of all civilizations that >reach singularities. I'd love it if anyone has any ideas to share on >this..." Ultimately, you can't get more waste heat than the energy available. If you captured the entire output of the sun, and radiated the waste heat by a shell somewhat further out than the distance of earth, the temperature would not be a great deal different than earth is now (accounting for geometry factors). As likely would be a huge fall in the use of energy by a civilization undergoing a singularity. Consider the inefficiencies of food, transport and brain activity. I posted on this subject to another list yesterday. Here is an extract. Date: 13 Jul 2006 08:59:33 -0800 From: Keith Henson Subject: Re: "Overpopulation" > >There is nothing wrong with a human population of a trillion, that's on the > >order of 200 times the current population. It is not impossible either, > >they could live at 1/10 the current density on earth given just the > >material in the asteroids converted to O'Neill colonies. (snip objection) It's not an upper bound, just making a point that its the ratio of resources (including land) to human population that's the problem. Current population 6+ billion, which for this purpose is close enough to 5. Times 200 that's a trillion. From memory, the asteroids have material to construct 2000 times the land area of earth if converted to O'Neill colonies. If you increase the population by 200x and the land area they have by 2000x, the population density goes down by a factor of ten. snip comment I think earth is way over populated right now. But if you are concerned about heat, the energy budget I remember from the space colonies studies was about 25kW per person, a big chunk being in light for food production. The radiator budget per person to dump the waste heat at near room temperature is 1/4 kW / square meter, or 50 square meters (both sides radiate). That's 50x10^12 square meters or .05x10*9 km^2 of radiator. Area of the earth is 0.5 x 10^9 so the radiator for that many people is roughly 1/10th the area of the earth. It happens that large, fluid dominated space radiators are mass inefficient on a square root law, i.e., a radiator 100 times as large will have ten times the mass per kW of radiation capacity. (See the paper Drexler and I wrote back in 1979.) This does not put a hard limit on habitat size, but it does make continental sized ones a lot more massive. If they averaged out at 10^7 each, it would take 10^5 of them to hold a trillion people. Mind you, while this is physically possible, I don't think it is very likely any more. :-( I suspect that people will upload instead of going out. Think of how many people would live entirely in Second Life if they could. An almost depopulated world is the background for the Singularty story I have been writing. > >But today's population can't be sustained with the current level of > >technology. Something, either massive die offs or a massive technological > >shift, seem unavoidable within the lives of most reading this post. > > > >Since we are the kind of people who consider and bring about technology, it > >is a subject that should be of interest here. snip questions Nanotechnology. Singularity. Google and read Vernor Vinge's paper. Keith Henson From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 17:01:53 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:01:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: <20060714170153.48360.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi George, As an indirect response to "Chris": Wouldn't the developing intelligences be aware of the waste-heat problem? If the new intelligences were "unfriendly", it might spell doom for the *biological* intelligences, but I strongly doubt that it would lead to the death of all local intelligences, "Fermi-Paradox" style. I doubt that an SI is going to allow itself to be deep-fried as a byproduct of its own excessively-swift growth. :-) Couldn't it/they just "slow down" in order to avoid the problem? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich George Dvorsky wrote: This comment was recently posted by "Chris" on my blog (responses welcome): "Does anyone know if any work has been done on the subject of how much waste heat would be generated by a singularity event? I'm thinking in terms of the fact that all computation, like all physical action, generates at least some degree of waste heat ( just no getting around thermodynamics) Assuming our civilization gives rise to a computational matrix that independently evolves in processing power exponentially, wouldn't that result in a catastrophic and possibly terminal heat-shock to the host-biosphere? Maybe that's the fate of all civilizations that reach singularities. I'd love it if anyone has any ideas to share on this..." _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Fri Jul 14 17:18:11 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:18:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Re: Popper and QT. References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex><0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex><7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com><22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com><00c601c6a6a1$b88ef580$02094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <003c01c6a769$a0d3d640$d60a4e0c@MyComputer> gts > Popper for example would probably question even your > suggestion that scientific facts can be discovered. So in other words you don't think Popper was very bright. > his contention was always that scientists can hope only to > arrive at theories that approximate those objective facts. According to Popper's own holly dogma that idea is nonsense because it can never be disproved. As for me, I believe it is a fact that Einstein's physics comes closer to describing the way the world works than Newton's physics. If Popper wanted to convince me his philosophy had real value all he'd have to do is come up with a theory that explained the world better than Einstein; if he really has a deep and unique perception of how science really works it should be easy. If they're really on to something then why aren't great scientific philosopher's also great scientists? John K Clark From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 18:27:00 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:27:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <20060714170153.48360.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <20060714170153.48360.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: George, The simple answer revolves around what kind of an answer you want out of the singularity? If the answer is "42" (assuming Adams is correct) and you compute it entirely using revsersible computing and you are storing the result into memory which is entirely suboptimal (i.e. !42) you would have to flip a minimum of 6 bits. So the cost could be very low (in terms of waste heat produced). If you can reduce the answer to 0 or 1 then you only need to flip a single bit and the cost is at the limit of what is possible. Now of course somebody somewhere has to know *what* that 0 or 1 (or 42) actually means and it is difficult to say how much the knowing of that might cost. At the other end of the spectrum you get into the points Keith was making about being limited by the surface area that you are using to radiate the wasted bits. The larger one is the more bits you can throw away per unit time. So singularity development is fundamentally limited in part by the volume in which it is taking place. In practice there are probably several plateaus (Kurzweil S-curves) in the singularity. 1) Limit of easily available energy (sub KT-I civilization). 2) Limit of heat capacity of the Earth (~KT-I civilization). This is the Frietas "hypsithermal limit" which equates to about 10kg of operating nanotech per person for a population of ~10 billion. This limit can be transcended but it requires significant planetary reengineering. 3) The level of a relatively optimized inner solar system (KT-II civilization). 4) The level of an entirely optimized solar system (KT-II+ civilization). 5) The heat capacity of an expanded highly evolved Matrioshka Brain (several light years in size). At each of these transitions there tend to be fairly significant shifts in the architecture of the computronium. How fast those shifts occur tend in large part to involve questions regarding how much energy and/or matter one is willing to "throw away". These are economic questions related to how much computational and/or memory capacity one wants available at time T, T+1, T+2, etc. Since we don't know *what* MBrains would want to think about it is difficult to imagine what the cost/benefit tradeoffs might be. Regarding the host bio-sphere question, one possible solution to minimize effects on the current highly sub-optimal biosphere is to develop the singularity from the asteroid belt outward. This would have minimal impact on Earth and provide most of the capacity that even a highly evolved MBrain would have. It would however develop more slowly than a "burn the bridges behind us" strategy of full development of the inner solar system first. But since "slowly" in singularity time would be measured in spans of decades to centuries it may be entirely acceptable if the bio-compuntronium is not overthrown by AI nano-computronium based entities. In answer to Chris's question, yes the problem has been thought about (it is a crucial aspect of MBrain evolution) and the singularity doesn't have to generate waste heat that would be considered by some (many?) to be detrimental unless it is allowed to evolve along that path. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Fri Jul 14 18:41:09 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:41:09 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <44B7BF07.30205@ki.se> References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <44B7BF07.30205@ki.se> Message-ID: <1535.72.255.40.22.1152902469.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> The outermost limits are of course the Brillouin inequality saying that the entropy dissipation cost kTln(2) per erased bit. While we can use reversible computing, thermal nois is going to cause errors and error correction is irreversible operation. If bits are stored energy wells of depth E, the probability that thermal noise makes it jump is on the order of exp(-E/kT) per second. So if the civilization has I bits of information at temperature T, it has to dissipate P = k ln(2) T I exp(-E/kT) Watts Also note that if information grows, empty memory has to be erased by storing new data. So we have to add a growth term P = k ln(2) T (I exp(-E/kT) + I') Assuming molecular bonds, E=1e-19 J, T=3K and a solar input of 1e22 W plus k=1.38e-23 we get a limit of: 3.48477063e44 = exp(-2415.45894)*I + I' The first term on the right is extremely small (around 1e-1000I), so apparently the information growth is indeed the limiting factor here. (in my old darling http://www.jetpress.org/volume5/Brains2.pdf I look at energy dissipation limits) An information gain of 3e44 bits/s is pretty nice. It corresponds to filling a 1 m^3 volume with a few kilograms of matter up to the Bekenstein limit of information every second. Assuming molecular storage and using the solar system mass it will fill its capacity of 1e52 bits in 1e 33e6 seconds - it will fill up in little over one year. So there you have it, given these assumptions. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jul 14 18:51:41 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:51:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popper and QT. In-Reply-To: <003c01c6a769$a0d3d640$d60a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> <22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com> <00c601c6a6a1$b88ef580$02094e0c@MyComputer> <003c01c6a769$a0d3d640$d60a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060714134353.022ea3f0@satx.rr.com> At 01:18 PM 7/14/2006 -0400, John K Clark wrote: >According to Popper's own holly dogma I'm unfamiliar with Popper's theology of Christmas decoration. >that idea is nonsense because it can >never be disproved. Not so; for Popper an assertion that can't be tested is not nonsensical or meaningless (as the logical positivists claimed), it is simply unscientific. He recognized that there are many interesting and valuable assertions about our experience that are not scientific. > If Popper wanted to convince me his philosophy had real value all >he'd have to do is come up with a theory that explained the world better >than Einstein; if he really has a deep and unique perception of how science >really works it should be easy. At least two Nobel prize-winning scientists -- Sir Peter Medawar and Sir John Eccles -- acknowledged Popper's analysis of scientific method as a significant and indeed unique contribution to their award-winning work. Damien Broderick From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 19:16:02 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:16:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <1535.72.255.40.22.1152902469.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <44B7BF07.30205@ki.se> <1535.72.255.40.22.1152902469.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On 7/14/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: [snip] > An information gain of 3e44 bits/s is pretty nice. It corresponds to > filling a 1 m^3 volume with a few kilograms of matter up to the Bekenstein > limit of information every second. Assuming molecular storage and using > the solar system mass it will fill its capacity of 1e52 bits in 1e 33e6 > seconds - it will fill up in little over one year. So there you have it, > given these assumptions. George, please ignore Anders. He has fallen into the black hole known as "theoretical physics" which is a close relative to "imaginary fantasies" which is probably about what you can expect from someone who was probably raised being told stories about Valhalla. His stories should not be confused with "engineering realities". When he shows you the *designs* for how one would achieve this, tells you precisely *how* he intends to manufacture them and *where* he intends to get the resources from, then, and only then, should you take him seriously. Until then you should consider his wishful thinking as being related to the "ideal singularity" or the "fantasy singularity" and not a "real singularity" that we should reasonably concern ourselves with. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mstriz at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 19:46:52 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:46:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: On 7/14/06, George Dvorsky wrote: > This comment was recently posted by "Chris" on my blog (responses welcome): > > "Does anyone know if any work has been done on the subject of how much > waste heat would be generated by a singularity event? I'm thinking in > terms of the fact that all computation, like all physical action, > generates at least some degree of waste heat ( just no getting around > thermodynamics) Heat might only be an issue if computation continues to be performed by semiconductors. Neurons can do a lot of computation within minimal heat loss. Your head isn't hot due to neuron inefficiency. It's kept hot on purpose because enzyme kinetics are optimized for 37C. Presumably a Singularity event would produce novel computational substrates, so there's not way to predict post-Singularity energy/heat budgets. Martin From estropico at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 20:45:23 2006 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:45:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExtroBritannia's July event: Natasha Vita-More and Anders Sandbergs Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90607141345l353058e6i864e4677966dff23@mail.gmail.com> ExtroBritannia's July event Natasha Vita-More and Anders Sandbergs: Transhumanism 2.0 - Getting on track Natasha Vita-More and Anders Sandbergs will discuss the way ahead for transhumanism, from the experience of the Extropy Institute to the promotion of the Proactionary Principle as the concept with the most potential to take us toward transhumanity. Monday the 24th of July 2006 starting at 7pm at Conway Hall (Bertrand Russell Room) in Holborn, London. The event is free and everyone is welcome. CONWAY HALL 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL tel 020 7242 8032 www.conwayhall.org.uk Nearest tube: Holborn Map: http://tinyurl.com/8syus --- The ExtroBritannia mailing list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extrobritannia The ExtroBritannia Blog: http://www.extrobritannia.blogspot.com ExtroBritannia is the monthly public event of the UK Transhumanist Association: http://www.transhumanist.org.uk From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jul 14 20:40:24 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:40:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cockroaches (was Making noise) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200607142054.k6EKs6WR016730@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Making noise ...? Sometimes if they mix their paint colors just the right way they end up with a very pretty new color.? Other times they end up with yucky brown...Robert Yucky brown. There are two words that just go well together. Why? I have been pondering why people and even pets tend to be so squicked by cockroaches. They don't bite or sting, they are no more filthy than any other bug, altho they have gotten a bad rap for being dirty. It occurred to me that mammalian excrement is almost universally yucky brown (never blue, never red). So the mammalian brain may have evolved to avoid devouring things that are yucky brown. The cockroach is an enormously successful beast from an evolutionary point of view. We have never seen a pretty blue roach, or a red one or any other color besides yucky brown. Perhaps part of the cockroach's success comes from the cheerful evolutionary accident of appearing to predators as a scurrying turd. spike (End of random thought, and now, back to our originally scheduled program.) From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 21:59:29 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:59:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: On 7/14/06, Martin Striz wrote: > > Heat might only be an issue if computation continues to be performed > by semiconductors. No, no, no. This is not the problem. You can "compute" effectively for *free*. This area was resolved several decades ago by Bennett with some contributions from Landauer, Bremermann and Bekenstein. It has nothing to do with whether or not one uses semiconductors. It has to do with whether one is destructively erasing bits (throwing away information). That is what produces the heat. This is the difference between nonreversible computing and reversible computing. In nonreversible computing you throw away lots of bits and produce lots of heat. In reversible computing you run the calculation forward, save the result (producing a small amount of heat), then run the calculation backwards restoring things to their original state. As has been pointed out you can't do such a calculation entirely for free (at least not quickly) -- but the energy lost to the computation process itself is many orders of magnitude below the energy lost when you erase bits. Merkle and perhaps others (Fredkin?) have shown that you can design reversible computing circuits using existing semiconductor fabrication methods. However, the chips that have reversible capabilities are likely to require more gates and/or operate more slowly -- so they will not be implemented until chip manufacturers exhaust all other methods in their bag of tricks for minimizing or removing heat produced in current nonreversible designs. Neurons can only be considered semi-reversible designs. You don't have to regenerate the Na+/K+ ions in the brain but you do lose the energy needed to recharge the neurons after they fire. That wasted energy shows up as heat and the rest of your body functions as a radiator for the brain. Neurons can do a lot of computation within minimal > heat loss. Your head isn't hot due to neuron inefficiency. It's kept > hot on purpose because enzyme kinetics are optimized for 37C. Actually, the metabolism in the liver and perhaps intestines probably plays a more important role in keeping one at 37 deg. Their fundamental raison d'etre is to produce the glucose which in turn is used by the brain to keep you alive long enough and figure out how to make copies of those genes you are carrying around. As arctic ground squirrels can be cooled very close to freezing and still restore themselves to normal functioning in the spring you would have a hard time convincing me that 37C is necessary for most of the enzymes in the brain. More likely 37C just happened to be the temperature that most of the enzymes performed well at without having to devote excessive energy to keeping the body cool or reaching the limits on resources like water for evaporative cooling. Presumably a Singularity event would produce novel computational > substrates, so there's not way to predict post-Singularity energy/heat > budgets. There are perhaps half-a-dozen novel computational substrates in the works from DNA (chemical) logic to Spin-logic to photonic logic to quantum logic to Drexler's rod-logic, etc. They do *not* require the singularity. They require that they demonstrate sufficient advantages over the current path to justify what will presumably be a very large investment that would allow them to produce significantly better results than the current path. My bet would be that only robust nanotechnology has the potential for such an investment payoff. *After* the rapid growth phase of the singularity era, presumably all of these paths will be explored to see if they provide some unique benefits but at that point they will just be icing on the cake. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From george at betterhumans.com Fri Jul 14 19:25:13 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:25:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <44B7BF07.30205@ki.se> <1535.72.255.40.22.1152902469.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <44B7EF99.7070907@betterhumans.com> Dear Anders, It would appear you have some explaining to do: Robert Bradbury wrote: > When he shows you the *designs* for how one would achieve this, tells > you precisely *how* he intends to manufacture them and *where* he > intends to get the resources from, then, and only then, should you take > him seriously. Until then you should consider his wishful thinking as > being related to the "ideal singularity" or the "fantasy singularity" > and not a "real singularity" that we should reasonably concern ourselves > with. From goldgrif at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 22:52:23 2006 From: goldgrif at yahoo.com (steven mckenzie) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] cockroaches (was Making noise) In-Reply-To: <200607142054.k6EKs6WR016730@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060714225223.59846.qmail@web56615.mail.re3.yahoo.com> lolol quite true i dont hate bugs, have no problem with spiders, or ventipedes, just roaches and mosquitoes lolol --- spike wrote: > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert > Bradbury > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Making noise > > ...? Sometimes if they mix their paint colors just > the right way they end up > with a very pretty new color.? Other times they end > up with yucky > brown...Robert > > > Yucky brown. There are two words that just go well > together. Why? > > I have been pondering why people and even pets tend > to be so squicked by > cockroaches. They don't bite or sting, they are no > more filthy than any > other bug, altho they have gotten a bad rap for > being dirty. > > It occurred to me that mammalian excrement is almost > universally yucky brown > (never blue, never red). So the mammalian brain may > have evolved to avoid > devouring things that are yucky brown. The > cockroach is an enormously > successful beast from an evolutionary point of view. > We have never seen a > pretty blue roach, or a red one or any other color > besides yucky brown. > Perhaps part of the cockroach's success comes from > the cheerful evolutionary > accident of appearing to predators as a scurrying > turd. > > spike > > (End of random thought, and now, back to our > originally scheduled program.) > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Jul 14 23:45:34 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:45:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Re: Popper and QT. In-Reply-To: <003c01c6a769$a0d3d640$d60a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> <22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com> <00c601c6a6a1$b88ef580$02094e0c@MyComputer> <003c01c6a769$a0d3d640$d60a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Jul 14, 2006, at 10:18 AM, John K Clark wrote: > gts > >> Popper for example would probably question even your >> suggestion that scientific facts can be discovered. > > So in other words you don't think Popper was very bright. > >> his contention was always that scientists can hope only to >> arrive at theories that approximate those objective facts. > > According to Popper's own holly dogma that idea is nonsense because > it can > never be disproved. Hmm. The above is a truism. Approximate ranges all the way up to 100%. > As for me, I believe it is a fact that Einstein's > physics comes closer to describing the way the world works than > Newton's > physics. With neither giving 100% approximation with the observed facts. > If Popper wanted to convince me his philosophy had real value all > he'd have to do is come up with a theory that explained the world > better > than Einstein; if he really has a deep and unique perception of how > science > really works it should be easy. This is odd. Popper was not remotely in the same field as Einstein. Einstein did not attempt to explain "the world". He worked on certain aspects of reality. Noting how science as an enterprise works or particular aspects of how it works is not at all the same as actually doing science. > > If they're really on to something then why aren't great scientific > philosopher's also great scientists? It isn't the same task of course. A "philosopher of science" is not equivalent to a "scientific philosopher" either. - samantha From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jul 15 01:00:14 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:00:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: <200607142054.k6EKs6WR016730@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Bad news, fellow cryonicists. This month's issue of Wired refers to cryonicists as transhumanist nut-jobs. Then the article goes on to explain, presumably to non-transhumanist non-nut-jobs, how this crazy idea might actually work: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/posts.html?pg=4 Stuck Pig Mike Duggan, a veterinary surgeon, holds his gloved hands over an 8-inch incision in the belly of pig 78-6, a 120-pound, pink Yorkshire. He's waiting for a green light from Hasan Alam, a trauma surgeon at Massachu-setts General Hospital. "Make the injury," Alam says. Duggan nods and slips his hands into the gash, fingers probing through inches of fat and the rosy membranes holding the organs in place. He pushes aside the intestines, ovaries, and bladder, and with a quick scalpel stroke slices open the iliac artery. It's 10:30 am. Pig 78-6 loses a quarter of her blood within moments. Heart rate and blood pressure plummet. Don't worry - Alam and Duggan are going to save her. Alam goes to work on the chest, removing part of a rib to reveal the heart, a throbbing, shiny pink ball the size of a fist. He cuts open the aorta - an even more lethal injury - and blood sprays all over our scrubs. The EKG flatlines. The surgeons drain the remaining blood and connect tubes to the aorta and other vessels, filling the circulatory system with chilled organ-preservation fluid - a nearly frozen daiquiri of salts, sugars, and free-radical scavengers. Her temperature is 50 degrees Fahrenheit; brain activity has ceased. Alam checks the wall clock and asks a nurse to mark the time: 11:25 am. But 78-6 is, in fact, only mostly dead - the common term for her state is, believe it or not, suspended animation. Long the domain of transhumanist nut-jobs, cryogenic suspension may be just two years away from clinical trials on humans (presuming someone can solve the sticky ethical problems). Trauma surgeons can't wait - saving people with serious wounds, like gunshots, is always a race against the effects of blood loss. When blood flow drops, toxins accumulate; just five minutes of low oxygen levels causes brain death. Chill a body, though, and you change the equation. Metabolism slows, oxygen demand dives, and the time available to treat the injury stretches. "With the pig essentially dead," Alam says, "we've got hours to fix it and play around." By noon the team has stitched up the arteries and gone to lunch. It has become -routine: Alam has suspended 200 pigs for an hour each, and although experimental protocol calls for different levels of care for each pig, the ones that got optimal treatment all survived. Today he'll keep 78-6 down for two hours. That afternoon, the team scrubs back in and starts pumping warm blood into 78-6, watching the heart twitch and writhe like a bag of worms as it struggles to find a rhythm. A healthy heart should feel like a rare steak, Alam explains; medium or well-done -suggests muscle damage. He pokes it. "Medium," he says, removing clamps to let it pump more blood. If he closes the chest too soon and the heart tires, he won't be able to save the animal. A few minutes later, Alam touches the heart again. "Medium-rare," he says. "Looks pretty good." But he admits he's ballparking. "It's the gestalt," he says. "It's not in any book." Over the next hour, the surgeons stitch up 78-6. Everyone leaves except Alam, who perches on a stool at her side. When he removes her breathing tube, she breathes irregularly a few times and he leans in with a hand venti-lator, squeezing rhythmically and stroking her head. She quivers; her ear twitches. By 6 pm she's awake, draped in a blanket. Attendants roll her gurney into a recovery room with classical music playing on a radio and a healthy pig in an adjacent stall to keep her company. Pigs like that. Tests on other subjects - and postmortem examinations of brains - have revealed no cognitive damage from the -procedure, but Alam will nevertheless stick around until 78-6 gets back on her feet, around midnight. "She didn't look so great before," he says, patting the pig's side. "But she's going to make it." - Bijal P. Trivedi From brian at posthuman.com Sat Jul 15 01:17:36 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:17:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <44B84230.6020003@posthuman.com> Mail editor at wiredmag.com if you care to send them your thoughts. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sat Jul 15 01:41:27 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:41:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <44B847C7.7030207@goldenfuture.net> I get the impression that "Transhumanist nut-jobs" is meant as a whole category in and of itself. Not that there are non-nut-job Transhumanists, but that all Transhumanists are nut-jobs. Kinda like when Rush Limbaugh refers to "environmentalist whackos". Curious, when you consider that cryonicists have been around longer than Transhumanists. I suggest we take the U.N. approach. We should send them a sternly-written note. And if they ignore it, we should write them yet another sternly-written note. Joseph spike wrote: >Bad news, fellow cryonicists. This month's issue of Wired refers to >cryonicists as transhumanist nut-jobs. Then the article goes on to explain, >presumably to non-transhumanist non-nut-jobs, how this crazy idea might >actually work: > >http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/posts.html?pg=4 > > >Stuck Pig > >Mike Duggan, a veterinary surgeon, holds his gloved hands over an 8-inch >incision in the belly of pig 78-6, a 120-pound, pink Yorkshire. He's waiting >for a green light from Hasan Alam, a trauma surgeon at Massachu-setts >General Hospital. > >"Make the injury," Alam says. Duggan nods and slips his hands into the gash, >fingers probing through inches of fat and the rosy membranes holding the >organs in place. He pushes aside the intestines, ovaries, and bladder, and >with a quick scalpel stroke slices open the iliac artery. It's 10:30 am. Pig >78-6 loses a quarter of her blood within moments. Heart rate and blood >pressure plummet. Don't worry - Alam and Duggan are going to save her. > >Alam goes to work on the chest, removing part of a rib to reveal the heart, >a throbbing, shiny pink ball the size of a fist. He cuts open the aorta - an >even more lethal injury - and blood sprays all over our scrubs. The EKG >flatlines. The surgeons drain the remaining blood and connect tubes to the >aorta and other vessels, filling the circulatory system with chilled >organ-preservation fluid - a nearly frozen daiquiri of salts, sugars, and >free-radical scavengers. > >Her temperature is 50 degrees Fahrenheit; brain activity has ceased. Alam >checks the wall clock and asks a nurse to mark the time: 11:25 am. > >But 78-6 is, in fact, only mostly dead - the common term for her state is, >believe it or not, suspended animation. Long the domain of transhumanist >nut-jobs, cryogenic suspension may be just two years away from clinical >trials on humans (presuming someone can solve the sticky ethical problems). >Trauma surgeons can't wait - saving people with serious wounds, like >gunshots, is always a race against the effects of blood loss. When blood >flow drops, toxins accumulate; just five minutes of low oxygen levels causes >brain death. > >Chill a body, though, and you change the equation. Metabolism slows, oxygen >demand dives, and the time available to treat the injury stretches. "With >the pig essentially dead," Alam says, "we've got hours to fix it and play >around." By noon the team has stitched up the arteries and gone to lunch. It >has become -routine: Alam has suspended 200 pigs for an hour each, and >although experimental protocol calls for different levels of care for each >pig, the ones that got optimal treatment all survived. Today he'll keep 78-6 >down for two hours. > >That afternoon, the team scrubs back in and starts pumping warm blood into >78-6, watching the heart twitch and writhe like a bag of worms as it >struggles to find a rhythm. A healthy heart should feel like a rare steak, >Alam explains; medium or well-done -suggests muscle damage. He pokes it. >"Medium," he says, removing clamps to let it pump more blood. If he closes >the chest too soon and the heart tires, he won't be able to save the animal. > > >A few minutes later, Alam touches the heart again. "Medium-rare," he says. >"Looks pretty good." But he admits he's ballparking. "It's the gestalt," he >says. "It's not in any book." > >Over the next hour, the surgeons stitch up 78-6. Everyone leaves except >Alam, who perches on a stool at her side. When he removes her breathing >tube, she breathes irregularly a few times and he leans in with a hand >venti-lator, squeezing rhythmically and stroking her head. She quivers; her >ear twitches. > >By 6 pm she's awake, draped in a blanket. Attendants roll her gurney into a >recovery room with classical music playing on a radio and a healthy pig in >an adjacent stall to keep her company. Pigs like that. Tests on other >subjects - and postmortem examinations of brains - have revealed no >cognitive damage from the -procedure, but Alam will nevertheless stick >around until 78-6 gets back on her feet, around midnight. "She didn't look >so great before," he says, patting the pig's side. "But she's going to make >it." > >- Bijal P. Trivedi > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > From alito at organicrobot.com Sat Jul 15 02:47:19 2006 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:47:19 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: <44B847C7.7030207@goldenfuture.net> References: <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <44B847C7.7030207@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <1152931640.28322.63.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 21:41 -0400, Joseph Bloch wrote: > I get the impression that "Transhumanist nut-jobs" is meant as a whole > category in and of itself. Not that there are non-nut-job > Transhumanists, but that all Transhumanists are nut-jobs. Kinda like > when Rush Limbaugh refers to "environmentalist whackos". > Agreed, but I thought it was meant as a compliment. The piece didn't need to mention transhumanism at all if it was trying to insult when talking about a subject the writer obviously feels is a positive change and that it is likely to become reality. It's like saying "those crazy bastards they seem to have been right on this one" and triggering the "what else could they be right about?". Email feedback should ask for more of the same. From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Jul 15 04:56:14 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:56:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200607142054.k6EKs6WR016730@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060715005242.03c75c68@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:00 PM 7/14/2006 -0700, you wrote: >Bad news, fellow cryonicists. This month's issue of Wired refers to >cryonicists as transhumanist nut-jobs. Then the article goes on to explain, >presumably to non-transhumanist non-nut-jobs, how this crazy idea might >actually work: > >http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/posts.html?pg=4 snip >Long the domain of transhumanist >nut-jobs, cryogenic suspension may be just two years away from clinical >trials on humans Well, it isn't cryonic or cryogenic suspension, but if you look at it, "just two years away from clinical trials on humans" kind of cancels out "transhumanist nut-jobs." Keith Henson From eugen at leitl.org Sat Jul 15 11:03:28 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:03:28 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060715005242.03c75c68@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200607142054.k6EKs6WR016730@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060715005242.03c75c68@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060715110328.GL4317@leitl.org> On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 12:56:14AM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > >Long the domain of transhumanist > >nut-jobs, cryogenic suspension may be just two years away from clinical > >trials on humans > > Well, it isn't cryonic or cryogenic suspension, but if you look at it, > "just two years away from clinical > trials on humans" kind of cancels out "transhumanist nut-jobs." The Wired's waster of dead tree and electrons is technically illiterate. He confuses cryonics with cryogenics, equals cryonics with hypothermia, and doesn't even know that it were precisely those "transhumanist nut-jobs" who did this work, oh, more a decade ago, with dogs, and a lot better than the pig work cited. And he also fails to realize that the ceiling of hypothermia is somewhere in range of about 12 hours, maybe less, maybe more. Hypothermia is however an essential first step for cryonics, which can't be reversed without advanced nanotechnology, something that Wired person apparently also isn't aware of. It's hard to package that much confusion in a few lines of text, but the author manages that with bravour. Kudos for that. I've never bothered reading Wired (I'm told, they were reasonably interesting a year or two after conception), and now I know why. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Jul 15 11:14:31 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 07:14:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060715005242.03c75c68@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200607142054.k6EKs6WR016730@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060715005242.03c75c68@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: I've been aware of this work for the last few months. Interesting that it is largely the military that is funding it. If they put people with battlefield injuries into suspended animation to allow for extended repair procedures the body bag count is likely to decrease. I would anticipate the next area they would be interested in funding should be limb regrowth. Now of course this just takes us a step further down the slippery slope of "I'm not dead yet!" The question really becomes, how far will the envelope be pushed? I'm undecided as to whether pureeing my brain in a blender on low speed or dropping my frozen brain on the floor will actually manage to make me really and truly dead. The whole incineration at several thousand degrees thingy seems like such a waste of energy. R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mstriz at gmail.com Sat Jul 15 11:27:30 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 07:27:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: On 7/14/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > On 7/14/06, Martin Striz wrote: > > Heat might only be an issue if computation continues to be performed > > by semiconductors. > > > No, no, no. This is not the problem. You can "compute" effectively for > *free*. This area was resolved several decades ago by Bennett with some > contributions from Landauer, Bremermann and Bekenstein. It has nothing to > do with whether or not one uses semiconductors. It has to do with whether > one is destructively erasing bits (throwing away information). That is what > produces the heat. This is the difference between nonreversible computing > and reversible computing. In nonreversible computing you throw away lots of > bits and produce lots of heat. In reversible computing you run the > calculation forward, save the result (producing a small amount of heat), > then run the calculation backwards restoring things to their original state. > As has been pointed out you can't do such a calculation entirely for free > (at least not quickly) -- but the energy lost to the computation process > itself is many orders of magnitude below the energy lost when you erase > bits. Very well, let me clear up a few issues that I have. I will offer the caveat that my training is neurobiology, genetics and biochemistry, in no particular order, but not computer science, so the information that you've offered here is new to me. Let me ask you a few questions: 1) Why do we use silicon for computation in most microprocessors, as opposed to some other substrate? 2) Is there a more efficient substrate that we could use, what is it, and why don't we use it? 3) If neurons are nonreversible (and they are), why are they so much more efficient (in your view)? > Merkle and perhaps others (Fredkin?) have shown that you can design > reversible computing circuits using existing semiconductor fabrication > methods. However, the chips that have reversible capabilities are likely to > require more gates and/or operate more slowly -- so they will not be > implemented until chip manufacturers exhaust all other methods in their bag > of tricks for minimizing or removing heat produced in current nonreversible > designs. 4) Why do they require more gates and/or operate more slowly? > Neurons can only be considered semi-reversible designs. You don't have to > regenerate the Na+/K+ ions in the brain but you do lose the energy needed to > recharge the neurons after they fire. That wasted energy shows up as heat > and the rest of your body functions as a radiator for the brain. No. It takes a goot bit of energy to reinstate the action potential. It doesn't show up as heat though because chemical transformations are efficient. Silicon literally RELIES on internal resistance to do computation, which produces waste energy by its nature. What I'm asking you is why we use that to do computation in the first place. > > Neurons can do a lot of computation within minimal > > heat loss. Your head isn't hot due to neuron inefficiency. It's kept > > hot on purpose because enzyme kinetics are optimized for 37C. > > > Actually, the metabolism in the liver and perhaps intestines probably plays > a more important role in keeping one at 37 deg. Their fundamental raison > d'etre is to produce the glucose which in turn is used by the brain to keep > you alive long enough and figure out how to make copies of those genes you > are carrying around. Yes, neurons don't warm your head up. They don't produce a lot of waste heat, as I said. Your head is kept warm through fluid conduction thanks to the vasculature. The point is that there's a reason for that: enzyme kinetics. If you drop the system below ~34C, enzyme rates slow down enough that the system goes kaput. If you take it above ~40C, enough enzymes start denaturing that that system also goes kaput. They are remarkably temperature sensitive (trust me, I have loads of empirical evidence to back this up :), and that's why thermoregulation matters so much to warm blooded species. > As arctic ground squirrels can be cooled very close to > freezing and still restore themselves to normal functioning in the spring > you would have a hard time convincing me that 37C is necessary for most of > the enzymes in the brain. Non sequitur. Many species (such as cold blooded ones) have evolved various optimizations for temperature tolerance, but that doesn't extrapolate to humans or most mammals. Golden mantled squirrels are an exception. You can cool a squirrel but it won't do much. It won't eat or drink or mate or clean itself. It'll be more or less comatose. Can't do that for people, though. > More likely 37C just happened to be the > temperature that most of the enzymes performed well at without having to > devote excessive energy to keeping the body cool or reaching the limits on > resources like water for evaporative cooling. Cart before the horse. In the vast design space of protein chemistry, you can design enzymes to function optimally at virtually any temperature between 0 and 100C. Arctic species function at close to 0C. Thermophilus aquaticus functions at 60C in hot water geysers. The question of why mammals have converged on 35-40C is an interesting one. I personally hypothesize that it has to do with fighting pathogens, but one way or another, it's dictated by environment, not the other way around (not due to internal proteomic considerations). In other words, our enzymes don't just "happen to do well" at that temperature. They are under selection to specifically do well at that temperature. > > Presumably a Singularity event would produce novel computational > > substrates, so there's not way to predict post-Singularity energy/heat > > budgets. > > > There are perhaps half-a-dozen novel computational substrates in the works > from DNA (chemical) logic to Spin-logic to photonic logic to quantum logic > to Drexler's rod-logic, etc. They do *not* require the singularity. They > require that they demonstrate sufficient advantages over the current path to > justify what will presumably be a very large investment that would allow > them to produce significantly better results than the current path. My bet > would be that only robust nanotechnology has the potential for such an > investment payoff. *After* the rapid growth phase of the singularity era, > presumably all of these paths will be explored to see if they provide some > unique benefits but at that point they will just be icing on the cake. Martin From eugen at leitl.org Sat Jul 15 11:28:01 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:28:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: References: <200607142054.k6EKs6WR016730@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060715005242.03c75c68@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060715112801.GP4317@leitl.org> On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 07:14:31AM -0400, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > I've been aware of this work for the last few months. Interesting that it is > largely the military that is funding it. If they put people with battlefield Of course the military (which was very interested in what 21CM was doing, and politely, but firmly, was told to go elsewhere) is very interested in limiting own fatalities, most often by exsanguination in the field. Hypothermia can make the golden hour last half a day. > injuries into suspended animation to allow for extended repair procedures the > body bag count is likely to decrease. I would anticipate the next area they > would be interested in funding should be limb regrowth. > > Now of course this just takes us a step further down the slippery slope of "I'm > not dead yet!" > > The question really becomes, how far will the envelope be pushed? I'm > undecided as to whether pureeing my brain in a blender on low speed or dropping > my frozen brain on the floor will actually manage to make me really and truly > dead. The whole incineration at several thousand degrees thingy seems like > such a waste of energy. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jul 15 11:33:57 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:33:57 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: References: <200607142054.k6EKs6WR016730@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060715005242.03c75c68@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 7/15/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > I've been aware of this work for the last few months. Interesting that it > is largely the military that is funding it. If they put people with > battlefield injuries into suspended animation to allow for extended repair > procedures the body bag count is likely to decrease. I would anticipate the > next area they would be interested in funding should be limb regrowth. > The military are funding this already, to aid wounded soldiers. UCI Among Recipients of $3.9 Million Grant Advancing Wound Healing Research Multi-Center Project Financed by Department of Defense Could Hold Key for Breakthroughs in Limb Regeneration Irvine, Calif., May 30, 2006 - UC Irvine will take part in a multi-institutional program to better understand how deep wounds can be healed following traumatic injury -- research that also could lead to significant advances in the field of limb regeneration. The program will be financed by a one-year, $3.9 million grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the research and development arm of the Department of Defense. ---------------------- They are also funding unmanned land and air vehicles to take soldiers out of harm's way. And language translation devices also. (But don't refer to all this and more as benefits coming from the war in Iraq) ;) BillK From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Jul 15 11:52:39 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 07:52:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <44B7EF99.7070907@betterhumans.com> References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <44B7BF07.30205@ki.se> <1535.72.255.40.22.1152902469.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <44B7EF99.7070907@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: On 7/14/06, George Dvorsky wrote: > > Dear Anders, > > It would appear you have some explaining to do: > [snip -- my comments re: lack of an engineering outline...] :-) George, this is *not* to say that the solar system cannot be developed *quite* quickly. With robust nanotechnology and a couple of years of setup time (to distribute the nanoseeds around the solar system) you can go from sub-KT-I to full KT-II (i.e. ~10^12 W to ~10^26 W [1] in available energy) in a few years [2] or less [3]. Converting the the solar system into an optimal architecture however takes much longer because you cannot get around the material transport time limits or the material (element) transmutation energy requirement constraints with simple fanciful hand waving. There is a significant plateau at this point [4]. Now whether humanity *chooses* to make the transition that quickly (days to decades from < KT-I to KT-II) that quickly is a very complex question. Most people do not even realize that that transition point is available and must eventually be dealt with. Robert 1. http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/ETI/Authors/Kardashev-NS/ToIbEC.html 2. Dyson's "mistake" which produced the 800 year transition time estimate was because he proposed the disassembly of Jupiter rather than the asteroids or Mercury. If you pick material sources which exist in much shallower gravity wells you can harvest the full solar output in a much shorter period of time. 3. If you disassemble the asteroids, you have longer transport times to fully enshroud the sun. If you disassemble Mercury you can capture the full solar output in much less time but have a much larger headache of how to continue to allow sunshine on the Earth (not impossible mind you but the design requirements are more complex). 4. Full optimization (in my book) requires significantly extending the lifespan of the sun which requires removing a considerable amount of material from it. Given the gravity well that the sun is in that requires millions to hundreds of millions of years depending on how clever one is and the fraction of ones energy resources that one is willing to devote to the task. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Jul 15 11:59:35 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 07:59:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <44B7BF07.30205@ki.se> <1535.72.255.40.22.1152902469.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <44B7EF99.7070907@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: > that quickly (days to decades from < KT-I to KT-II) that quickly s/that quickly// Will someone please suggest to Google that gmail should include a semi-intelligent grammar checker. Its a waste of my brain cycles to be making minor editing corrections in the word flow my fingers are encoding... :-( R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sat Jul 15 13:09:35 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:09:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: <20060715130935.GB4317@leitl.org> On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 07:27:30AM -0400, Martin Striz wrote: > 1) Why do we use silicon for computation in most microprocessors, as > opposed to some other substrate? Silicon is a particular sweet spot (single-element semiconductor with a particular bandgap, easy to purify, forms solid oxides, plays well with other elements, etc) for a particular technology (photolithography, the only massively parallel processing technology apart from classical chemistry and biotechnology we currently command). In fact, we're already using some 20-odd other elements in a modern (CPU or memory) process. The next major advance will most likely use carbon (both as diamond and graphene), with minor additives (just as life does CHNOPS, and almost the entire PSE, in traces). > 2) Is there a more efficient substrate that we could use, what is it, > and why don't we use it? Because we can't yet do self-assembly of molecular electronics, we will continue using silicon massively for at least the next 20 years. Once we have self-assembly, or even machine-phase self-assembly (nanoscale factory, with nanorobots manning the processing pipeline), silicon will rapidly disappear, similiarly as germanium before, vacuum tubes and ferrite rings on copper mesh, before, and zink sulphide before, and electromechanical relais even before. I hence really object to people using 'in silico' instead of 'in machina', because that expression won't age gracefully. > 3) If neurons are nonreversible (and they are), why are they so much > more efficient (in your view)? Both CMOS and neurons are so far removed from reversible computing that other effects dominate. In principle, classical electronics is a joke at the nanoscale, but we've been doing it for so long we've grown pretty good at it. > > Merkle and perhaps others (Fredkin?) have shown that you can design > > reversible computing circuits using existing semiconductor fabrication > > methods. However, the chips that have reversible capabilities are likely to > > require more gates and/or operate more slowly -- so they will not be > > implemented until chip manufacturers exhaust all other methods in their bag > > of tricks for minimizing or removing heat produced in current nonreversible > > designs. > > 4) Why do they require more gates and/or operate more slowly? Basically, they're catching the energy and reuse it, instead of just dissipating it away. As to slowness, it is probably related to reversibility requring equilibrium at each step, which needs time. The faster you operate, the less the system has time to equilibrate. There are many things that waste energy in current CMOS. There's leak current, clock distribution (instead of asynchronous logic), drivers for scaling up from nano to macro, inability to hold state statically (which is a major advantage of spintronics). After you kill this all off, and work with SETs, ballistic transport and spin-polarized current you can consider going reversible, not before. We could build reversible electronics today, but the power saving would not be measurable. It would completely disappear in the noise floor. > No. It takes a goot bit of energy to reinstate the action potential. > It doesn't show up as heat though because chemical transformations are > efficient. Silicon literally RELIES on internal resistance to do > computation, which produces waste energy by its nature. What I'm > asking you is why we use that to do computation in the first place. It's an evolutionary fluke. Biology has been using gradients for a very long time, and with switchable ion channels you can make gradients collapse temporarily. > Yes, neurons don't warm your head up. They don't produce a lot of There are some more metabolically active tissues in the body, but the CNS and the brain especially are pretty close to the top (sorry, forgot the numbers, and don't have time to look them up right now) > waste heat, as I said. Your head is kept warm through fluid conduction > thanks to the vasculature. The point is that there's a reason for > that: enzyme kinetics. If you drop the system below ~34C, enzyme > rates slow down enough that the system goes kaput. If you take it > above ~40C, enough enzymes start denaturing that that system also goes > kaput. They are remarkably temperature sensitive (trust me, I have > loads of empirical evidence to back this up :), and that's why > thermoregulation matters so much to warm blooded species. Extremophiles manage to operate at 120 C or so, but they don't form complex tissues. There's no particular reason we operate at 37 C but that our normothermic homeostasis is adapted to a specific heat loss rate, which is a function of the environment temperature. If you cool too far down, the kinetics of chemical reactions plummets too far down to homeostate the system. > Cart before the horse. In the vast design space of protein chemistry, > you can design enzymes to function optimally at virtually any > temperature between 0 and 100C. Arctic species function at close to > 0C. Thermophilus aquaticus functions at 60C in hot water geysers. > The question of why mammals have converged on 35-40C is an interesting > one. I personally hypothesize that it has to do with fighting > pathogens, but one way or another, it's dictated by environment, not Possible, but I think it's a co-evolution drive for fast fight/flight reflexes. If you run too hot, however, you need more food for metabolism to maintain, and might starve. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From scerir at libero.it Sat Jul 15 14:59:45 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:59:45 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: <000e01c6a81f$50688f00$71b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> [Chris, on George's blog, asked] > "Does anyone know if any work has been done on > the subject of how much waste heat would be > generated by a singularity event?" Not so much, using CTC [1]. Few years ago, it was pointed out [Mitchison, Jozsa, Proc.R.Soc.Lond., A 457, 1175-1193, (2001)] that a properly programmed quantum computer could be (itself) prepared in a superposition state, so that it would either run the program or not, depending on whether a photon activates its on/off switch or not. From the 'quantum interrogation' setup and procedures http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/27/quantum-interrogation/ http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/28/paul-kwiat-on-quantum-computation/ http://www.physics.uiuc.edu/people/Kwiat/Interaction-Free-Measurements.htm we know there is a possibility that we can obtain the right answer from the computer even without running it. You can read about the first implementation [Hosten, Rakher, Barreiro, Peters, Kwiat, Nature, 439, 949-952, (2006)] here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7079/pdf/nature04523.pdf http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7079/full/nature04523.html [the pdf file is much better, I hope the link still works] [1] Ok, counterfacual computation. From scerir at libero.it Sat Jul 15 15:07:30 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:07:30 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste Message-ID: <003101c6a820$656e38e0$71b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> > Not so much, using CTC [1]. arghhh, should be CFC [counterfactual computation] From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jul 15 15:38:21 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:38:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: <44B84230.6020003@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <200607151551.k6FFpg1n011322@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Mail editor at wiredmag.com if you care to send them your thoughts... Ja, I have been thinking about sending her a note along these lines: Dear Wired, We cryonicists are not nut jobs! When the singularity arrives and all sentient life forms are uploaded by the ascendant artificial intelligence, (perhaps in the form of a utility fog or a Matrioshka Brain) you faithless skeptics will see that those who were suspended via cryonics will have the last simulated laugh! spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brian Atkins > Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 6:18 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs > > Mail editor at wiredmag.com if you care to send them your thoughts. > -- > Brian Atkins > Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > http://www.singinst.org/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jul 15 15:42:58 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:42:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: <44B847C7.7030207@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <200607151602.k6FG2Haa018277@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch ... > > I suggest we take the U.N. approach. We should send them a > sternly-written note. And if they ignore it, we should write them yet > another sternly-written note. > > Joseph Cool, I can do sternly-written notes. They are just like ordinary notes except with a sterny face at the end, like this: |8-| Or even this: }8-| Sterny faces let them know you mean business. Like the UN. Sorta. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Jul 15 17:58:56 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:58:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] War injuries and cold In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060715005242.03c75c68@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200607142054.k6EKs6WR016730@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060715005242.03c75c68@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060715122130.03c84650@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:14 AM 7/15/2006 -0400, you wrote: >I've been aware of this work for the last few months. Interesting that it >is largely the military that is funding it. If they put people with >battlefield injuries into suspended animation to allow for extended repair >procedures the body bag count is likely to decrease. This has been known for a long time. "Medical During the operations, several wounded British soldiers had to spend hours in the cold before receiving medical aid; although, famously, no British soldiers evacuated to medical aid stations died. Many recovered beyond what medicine of the time thought possible, and subsequent theories have suggested that this was due to the extreme cold (similar anecdotal tales had originated during the bitter winter fighting of the Korean War)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War Keith Henson From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 18:48:56 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:48:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Re: Popper and QT. In-Reply-To: References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> <22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com> <00c601c6a6a1$b88ef580$02094e0c@MyComputer> <003c01c6a769$a0d3d640$d60a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:45:34 -0400, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> According to Popper's own holly dogma that idea is nonsense because >> it can never be disproved. > > Hmm. The above is a truism. Popper believed his own theories concerning the correct approach to epistemology (and science) were ultimately a 'moral decision' on his part, i.e., more or less an act of faith. However other philosophers of science who followed after Popper offered some seemingly coherent arguments for accepting Popper's philosophies of falsificationism and rational criticism. I learned of these arguments while reading _Evolutionary Epistemology, Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge_, the book that inspired me to read Popper's own _Conjectures and Refutations_. I highly recommend this book, even more than Popper's, to anyone interested in the general subject of evolutionary epistemology: Evolutionary Epistemology, Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812690397/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/103-7683219-5666269?ie=UTF8 > Popper was not remotely in the same field as Einstein. Not quite true. Einstein was no stranger to philosophy, and both Popper and Einstein were philosophical realists (unlike for example Bohr). Popper gave great credit to Einstein even if they disagreed about some fundamental points, e.g., the question of determinism vs indeterminism. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 19:55:46 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:55:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popper and QT In-Reply-To: <000601c6a72a$443e33b0$89b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> <22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com> <001101c6a5f0$6b33d190$0abf1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <000601c6a72a$443e33b0$89b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 05:45:38 -0400, scerir wrote: Thanks for looking into this subject, scerir. > Experiments done, since 1995, (below) confirm the prediction > of QM. Popper's argument (no less subtle than E.P.R.'s > realistic argument) is then wrong. [but]....in a certain sense,Popper > was also a bit right. What a shame Popper died in 1994, before these experiments! I wonder how Popper himself would have interpreted the results. In particular I am interested in his philosophy of "objective propensities," and whether it applies not only to QT but to the interesting subject of probability in general. He writes something about objective propensity in his book _Conjectures and Refutations_ though his words there do not address QT in any detail. His notion of objective propensity seems a very common sense approach to probability. For example we might say that a fair coin has an objective 50% propensity to fall heads, and that this propensity to fall heads is 'objective' in that it is defined completely by the physical, objective experimental arrangement without regard to any observer. I believe Popper was trying to apply that same common-sense notion of objective probability to quantum statistics. I'd be interested to know your opinion as to whether these experiments corroborate or falsify or say anything conclusive about Popper's philosophy of probability. -gts From mstriz at gmail.com Sat Jul 15 21:02:41 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:02:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <20060715130935.GB4317@leitl.org> References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <20060715130935.GB4317@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 7/15/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 07:27:30AM -0400, Martin Striz wrote: > > > 1) Why do we use silicon for computation in most microprocessors, as > > opposed to some other substrate? > > Silicon is a particular sweet spot (single-element > semiconductor with a particular bandgap, easy to purify, > forms solid oxides, plays well with other elements, etc) > for a particular technology (photolithography, the only > massively parallel processing technology apart from classical > chemistry and biotechnology we currently command). > In fact, we're already using some 20-odd other elements in a modern > (CPU or memory) process. The next major advance will most likely > use carbon (both as diamond and graphene), with minor additives > (just as life does CHNOPS, and almost the entire PSE, in traces). Is the heat generated due to internal resistance or information loss? :) > > No. It takes a goot bit of energy to reinstate the action potential. > > It doesn't show up as heat though because chemical transformations are > > efficient. Silicon literally RELIES on internal resistance to do > > computation, which produces waste energy by its nature. What I'm > > asking you is why we use that to do computation in the first place. > > It's an evolutionary fluke. Biology has been using gradients for a very > long time, and with switchable ion channels you can make gradients > collapse temporarily. The larger point is that energy is well conserved in most chemical transformations. It just gets shuffled around from chemical bonds in the reagents to chemical bonds in the products, hot potato style. Only a small fraction of chemical transformations are significantly endo/exothermic. Neuron spike trains are a series of such transformations: the voltage changes across the plasma membrane, an ion channel undergoes a conformational change in response, ions pass through, phosphate gets removed from ATP and the energy released is used to cause a conformational change in a pump which tosses Na+ and K+ across the plasma membrane, etc. Energy is conserved. A semiconductor gets hot because it has a particular internal resistance, so the energy associated with electrons passing through it that can't go very fast gets dissipated as heat. It's a physical property of the system. I don't understand what informaton loss has to do with it. Presumably we can use substrates without such properties, we just happen to use semiconductors for the reasons you elucidated. > > waste heat, as I said. Your head is kept warm through fluid conduction > > thanks to the vasculature. The point is that there's a reason for > > that: enzyme kinetics. If you drop the system below ~34C, enzyme > > rates slow down enough that the system goes kaput. If you take it > > above ~40C, enough enzymes start denaturing that that system also goes > > kaput. They are remarkably temperature sensitive (trust me, I have > > loads of empirical evidence to back this up :), and that's why > > thermoregulation matters so much to warm blooded species. > > Extremophiles manage to operate at 120 C or so, but they don't > form complex tissues. There's no particular reason we operate > at 37 C but that our normothermic homeostasis is adapted to > a specific heat loss rate, which is a function of the environment > temperature. If you cool too far down, the kinetics of chemical > reactions plummets too far down to homeostate the system. > > The question of why mammals have converged on 35-40C is an interesting > > one. I personally hypothesize that it has to do with fighting > > pathogens, but one way or another, it's dictated by environment, not > > Possible, but I think it's a co-evolution drive for fast fight/flight > reflexes. If you run too hot, however, you need more food for metabolism > to maintain, and might starve. The most efficient temperature at which to operate is ambient air temperature, because it minimizes the effort that you have to make to constantly fight heat gain/loss. That range as a global average is 20-30C. I hypothesize that the reason we operate 5-10C above that (which introduces an energy cost through the homeostatic mechanism) is because pathogens have also evolved for ambient temperatures and we can fight them off by denaturing their proteins when we maintain slightly elevated temperatures. Unfortunately, many human (or mammalian) pathogens have evolved optimal metabolic rates also at 35-40C in response. Martin From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Jul 15 21:06:50 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:06:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: <1152931640.28322.63.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <44B847C7.7030207@goldenfuture.net> <1152931640.28322.63.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: Using such a phrase is not a compliment. It implies we are generally nuts but now and then may be onto something. It should be objected to. - s On Jul 14, 2006, at 7:47 PM, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 21:41 -0400, Joseph Bloch wrote: >> I get the impression that "Transhumanist nut-jobs" is meant as a >> whole >> category in and of itself. Not that there are non-nut-job >> Transhumanists, but that all Transhumanists are nut-jobs. Kinda like >> when Rush Limbaugh refers to "environmentalist whackos". >> > Agreed, but I thought it was meant as a compliment. The piece didn't > need to mention transhumanism at all if it was trying to insult when > talking about a subject the writer obviously feels is a positive > change > and that it is likely to become reality. It's like saying "those > crazy > bastards they seem to have been right on this one" and triggering the > "what else could they be right about?". Email feedback should ask for > more of the same. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sat Jul 15 21:21:55 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:21:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: References: <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <44B847C7.7030207@goldenfuture.net> <1152931640.28322.63.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <44B95C73.6010909@goldenfuture.net> Absolutely; "nut job" in any context is never a compliment. Joseph Samantha Atkins wrote: >Using such a phrase is not a compliment. It implies we are >generally nuts but now and then may be onto something. It should be >objected to. > >- s > >On Jul 14, 2006, at 7:47 PM, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > > > >>On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 21:41 -0400, Joseph Bloch wrote: >> >> >>>I get the impression that "Transhumanist nut-jobs" is meant as a >>>whole >>>category in and of itself. Not that there are non-nut-job >>>Transhumanists, but that all Transhumanists are nut-jobs. Kinda like >>>when Rush Limbaugh refers to "environmentalist whackos". >>> >>> >>> >>Agreed, but I thought it was meant as a compliment. The piece didn't >>need to mention transhumanism at all if it was trying to insult when >>talking about a subject the writer obviously feels is a positive >>change >>and that it is likely to become reality. It's like saying "those >>crazy >>bastards they seem to have been right on this one" and triggering the >>"what else could they be right about?". Email feedback should ask for >>more of the same. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>extropy-chat mailing list >>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > From scerir at libero.it Sat Jul 15 22:53:29 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:53:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popper and QT References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex><0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex><7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com><22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com><001101c6a5f0$6b33d190$0abf1f97@nomedxgm1aalex><000601c6a72a$443e33b0$89b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <000801c6a861$7e8dbcb0$7f961f97@nomedxgm1aalex> From: "gts" > What a shame Popper died in 1994, before these experiments! > I wonder how Popper himself would have interpreted the results. Oh, this is simple. The debate, about Popper's gedanken experiment, its meaning, and the real experimental results, is going on since 1995, as you can see. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507121 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507040 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507011 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0505158 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0405057 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9910078 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0005063 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9905039 There are people who think that Popper was right (because, otherwise, a FTL machine would be possible: note that there are theorems, in QM, forbidding such a machine, but these theorems use the QM formalism, i.e. the tensor product, so there are _remote_ chances that these theorems may be 'circular'). There is a famous physicist (Shih) whose experiments gave opposite results (or it seems so). There are people who say that HUP does not apply to entangled particles (due to the so called 'conditional' measurement, or due to the so called 'non-separability'). There are people who say the opposite. In these cases it is better to read that what the very best wrote. In this specific case: Asher Peres. > In particular I am interested in his philosophy of "objective > propensities," and whether it applies not only to QT but to the > interesting subject of probability in general. It seems that Popper's 'propensity' is something 'contextual'. In this sense the concept has been rediscovered by modern QM (contextual hidden variables, etc.). > I'd be interested to know your opinion as to whether these experiments > corroborate or falsify or say anything conclusive about Popper's > philosophy of probability. I do not remember what Popper wrote about probability. But the question is always the same, this one. 'The question of whether the waves are something "real" or a function to describe and predict phenomena in a convenient way is a matter of taste. I personally like to regard a probability wave, even in 3N-dimensional space, as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations ... Quite generally, how could we rely on probability predictions if by this notion we do not refer to something real and objective?' [Max Born, Dover publ., 1964, "Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance", p. 107]. From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 22:36:51 2006 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:36:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060715223651.26339.qmail@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> The way I see it, the real science is happening, and it will only be a matter of time before it is obvious that there's really nothing too farfetched about slowing down (or stopping) an organism's metabolic processes and then re-starting them again. It is apparent just from the response so far on this list that people are interpreting the Wired article and its "nut-job" remark differently. My interpretation is that the article's authors are simply acknowledging a cultural stereotype. And in order to make that stereotype disappear, we all need to just keep promoting, discussing, and encouraging the real science behind the loose mantle of "transhumanism". If someone tells me something can't be done and that I'm crazy to try, my impulse is to go off and try and then show them the results. This is all, of course, disregarding the fact that the article is not making enough of a distinction between cryonic suspension, cryogenics, and suspended animation -- however weak the understanding of the science in question on the part of the author might be, this sort of coverage does represent a positive overall. If anything, it might make people curious, which could compel them to research further -- in which case they would be perfectly welcome to use their faculties of reason and make their own determinations regarding the validity of what they read. If someone wants to call me a nut-job, they're welcome to do so -- all I can say is "wait and see". In elementary school there were plenty of people telling me I'd be much better off diverting my attention toward "boy bands" and shopping than keeping it focused, as it was and is, on science and technology. They turned out to be hilariously wrong, of course. If transhumanism or the technologies commonly discussed in transhumanist circles are viable, they can certainly survive a bit of casual invective. I don't know if the people suggesting writing to Wired are being serious or sarcastic (particularly those who suggest, "You just wait until the singularity gets here!"), but if they are serious, I'd suggest taking the "here's the science, look at it first and THEN decide whether it is evidence of nutjobbery" approach, rather than the more "apocalyptic" approach. Nothing happens until it happens, and it is far better to argue from the standpoint of things that provide concrete data and results than from the standpoint of statistical trends that few today really have much of a grasp on at all. - Anne --------------------------------- See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com. Check it out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Sat Jul 15 23:11:24 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 01:11:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popper and QT References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex><0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex><7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com><22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com><001101c6a5f0$6b33d190$0abf1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <000601c6a72a$443e33b0$89b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <001201c6a863$fea93ad0$7f961f97@nomedxgm1aalex> From: "gts" > What a shame Popper died in 1994, before these experiments! > I wonder how Popper himself would have interpreted the results. I would like to think that Popper, from his present location, might ask professor Shih to perform the same (1999) experiment, but modifying the proportions, i.e. the path of photon p1 (between the source and slit on the left) much longer than the path of photon p2 (between the source and the detector array). Just to show if there is a 'ghost' scattering of photon(s) p2 due to the _later_ (in laboratory reference frame) measurement of position of photon(s) p1 by the slit on the left :-) D2 | D1 <-----p1-----------------------s----p2--> D0 | D3 D4 From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 23:15:33 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:15:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popper and QT In-Reply-To: <000801c6a861$7e8dbcb0$7f961f97@nomedxgm1aalex> References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> <22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com> <001101c6a5f0$6b33d190$0abf1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <000601c6a72a$443e33b0$89b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <000801c6a861$7e8dbcb0$7f961f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:53:29 -0400, scerir wrote: > From: "gts" > >> What a shame Popper died in 1994, before these experiments! >> I wonder how Popper himself would have interpreted the results. > > Oh, this is simple. The debate, about Popper's gedanken > experiment, its meaning, and the real experimental results, > is going on since 1995, as you can see. > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507121 > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507040 > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507011 > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0505158 > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0405057 > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9910078 > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0005063 > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9905039 lol. :) -gts From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jul 16 05:37:30 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:37:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200607160548.k6G5m2R2019417@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs > > Using such a phrase is not a compliment. It implies we are > generally nuts but now and then may be onto something. It should be > objected to. > > - s >From the general tone of the article, it didn't feel to me like an intentional jab, or rather I didn't feel insulted. Of course, I seldom do, even if an insult is the intended, so perhaps I am not the right one to ask. Recommend we laugh it off. spike From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 16 08:28:45 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 04:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothing happens "was transhumanist nut jobs" In-Reply-To: <20060715223651.26339.qmail@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060716082845.72874.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Anna writes:) Thank you, I really liked your post. Anna Corwin wrote: Nothing happens until it happens, and it is far better to argue from the standpoint of things that provide concrete data and results than from the standpoint of statistical trends that few today really have much of a grasp on at all. Anna's questions:) Who provides concrete data? The scientists? The philoshers? The astronomists? The mathematicians? How does one decide what is concrete data? At the same time: I'm curious to know how things happen then? If nobody is paying attention to the future and halts and replies, "Nothing happens until it happens", how do humans prepare for such a technological future as well as a transhumanist point of view? Anna:) Some men see things as they are and say, "Why?" I dream of things that never were and say, "Why not?" George Bernard Shaw Anne Corwin wrote: The way I see it, the real science is happening, and it will only be a matter of time before it is obvious that there's really nothing too farfetched about slowing down (or stopping) an organism's metabolic processes and then re-starting them again. It is apparent just from the response so far on this list that people are interpreting the Wired article and its "nut-job" remark differently. My interpretation is that the article's authors are simply acknowledging a cultural stereotype. And in order to make that stereotype disappear, we all need to just keep promoting, discussing, and encouraging the real science behind the loose mantle of "transhumanism". If someone tells me something can't be done and that I'm crazy to try, my impulse is to go off and try and then show them the results. This is all, of course, disregarding the fact that the article is not making enough of a distinction between cryonic suspension, cryogenics, and suspended animation -- however weak the understanding of the science in question on the part of the author might be, this sort of coverage does represent a positive overall. If anything, it might make people curious, which could compel them to research further -- in which case they would be perfectly welcome to use their faculties of reason and make their own determinations regarding the validity of what they read. If someone wants to call me a nut-job, they're welcome to do so -- all I can say is "wait and see". In elementary school there were plenty of people telling me I'd be much better off diverting my attention toward "boy bands" and shopping than keeping it focused, as it was and is, on science and technology. They turned out to be hilariously wrong, of course. If transhumanism or the technologies commonly discussed in transhumanist circles are viable, they can certainly survive a bit of casual invective. I don't know if the people suggesting writing to Wired are being serious or sarcastic (particularly those who suggest, "You just wait until the singularity gets here!"), but if they are serious, I'd suggest taking the "here's the science, look at it first and THEN decide whether it is evidence of nutjobbery" approach, rather than the more "apocalyptic" approach. Nothing happens until it happens, and it is far better to argue from the standpoint of things that provide concrete data and results than from the standpoint of statistical trends that few today really have much of a grasp on at all. - Anne --------------------------------- See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com. Check it out. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Jul 16 12:48:41 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:48:41 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <44B7EF99.7070907@betterhumans.com> References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <44B7BF07.30205@ki.se> <1535.72.255.40.22.1152902469.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <44B7EF99.7070907@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: <41657.86.130.16.9.1153054121.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> George Dvorsky wrote: > Dear Anders, > > It would appear you have some explaining to do: > > Robert Bradbury wrote: >> When he shows you the *designs* for how one would achieve this, tells >> you precisely *how* he intends to manufacture them and *where* he >> intends to get the resources from, then, and only then, should you take >> him seriously. Until then you should consider his wishful thinking as >> being related to the "ideal singularity" or the "fantasy singularity" >> and not a "real singularity" that we should reasonably concern ourselves >> with. Indeed :-) It is very simple: consider a spherical singularity on a frictionless surface... The difference between Robert and me is that I am very much a theoretician, using known data and physics to put upper limits on various things, while Robert is interested in what can actually be built and how. His above demands are quite reasonable if I were trying to make a real prediction rather than just play around a bit with the problem. Actually turning my above calculation into something more practical would require a lot of engineering analysis. My guess is that a start would be to take my Uranos semi-Matrioshka model and combine with Robert's analysis of how to build a Matrioshka (which is much more realistic). Then we could go into the engineering of planetary disassembly and the kinds of high density storage available (is C12/C13 diamond the best atomic information storage?). But while fun, I think the exercise is a bit like late 19th century physicists calculating maximum speeds for steam-powered racing cars: they would have had good reasons to believe there would be better energy sources and engineering solutions in the future, but they could only do rigorous calculations and design for the steam cars. Why do we care about singularity energy demands? Perhaps because we want to look form them as part of SETI. Perhaps to put upper bounds on how hard a takeoff can be. That can be useful for thinking about policy. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jul 16 14:15:31 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:15:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200607142054.k6EKs6WR016730@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 7/14/06, spike wrote: > - Bijal P. Trivedi > A more interesting question might be "who is Bijal Trivedi?" A google turns up a *lot* of articles, generally about various branches of Science in many relatively serious journals (more serious than Wired). So the "fault" may not be so much with the Wired editors (Are there editors who actually really *know* anything about anything?) as it would be with the author. But if Bijal is coming from a "classical" scientific framework then one has to wonder whether the "nutjobs" comment is from him or was added by the editors? (Serious science writers don't usually use such terms.) Then one gets into a long discussion as to whether the magazine is trying to promote useful debate and/or accelerate the rate of progress or simply sell issues/advertising? (Witness the recent de Grey v. Estep debate in Technology Review where the editors seemed to go back and forth on the topic of lifespan extension engineering -- it hasn't been pointed out here but has been pointed out on the GRG list and on the sites maintained by several who read this list. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun Jul 16 17:34:56 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:34:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <41657.86.130.16.9.1153054121.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: Anders writes > George Dvorsky wrote: > > Dear Anders, > > > > It would appear you have some explaining to do: > > > > Robert Bradbury wrote: > >> When he shows you the *designs* for how one would achieve this, tells > >> you precisely *how* he intends to manufacture them and *where* he > > Actually turning my above calculation into something more practical would > require a lot of engineering analysis. My guess is that a start would be > to take my Uranos semi-Matrioshka model and combine with Robert's analysis > ... > But while fun, I think the exercise is a bit like late 19th > century physicists calculating maximum speeds for steam-powered racing > cars: they would have had good reasons to believe there would be better > energy sources and engineering solutions in the future, but they could > only do rigorous calculations and design for the steam cars. > > Why do we care about singularity energy demands? That's a key question! In fact, why the hell do we want to discuss things that may not happen at all for millions of years? (I like the 19th century engineer analogy.) Well, all of us who do it undoubtedly have different reasons. I discuss futurism primarily as a tool the way SF writers do. It really helps me straighten out just exactly what it is that I want, or indeed, what many of us do or should want. Ultimately, the reflections are on our values, and that means our values NOW. Lee P.S. Sorry for not changing the subject line, but I don't think that any'll follow this line anyhow. I just wanted to put in my 2 cents. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jul 16 19:03:07 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:03:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: References: <200607142054.k6EKs6WR016730@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060716135747.021503d0@satx.rr.com> At 10:15 AM 7/16/2006 -0400, Robert B. wrote: >(Are there editors who actually really *know* anything about anything?) Speaking. I should mention, if I haven't previously, that all the short science fiction to date that I've published (as their sf editor) in COSMOS magazine is available for free download at http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/fiction I particularly recommend Joe Haldeman's story, and Charlie Stross's extract is a brief taste of his new post-Singularity novel GLASSHOUSE. Damien Broderick From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jul 16 20:25:48 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:25:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060716135747.021503d0@satx.rr.com> References: <200607142054.k6EKs6WR016730@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200607150100.k6F10JVK011920@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060716135747.021503d0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 7/16/06, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 10:15 AM 7/16/2006 -0400, Robert B. wrote: > > >(Are there editors who actually really *know* anything about anything?) > > Speaking. Alright -- Fine. :-| That is one out of how many? Robert (Not that I mind editors particularly -- but it would seem at times that it might be too easy to interject a little controversy for the sake of selling issues -- after all science reporting isn't all that exciting to the public at large -- so one is caught between making it accurate (dull) or interesting (fluffy) -- almost by definition science isn't all that appealing unless you are exploring what you might be able to do with it that hasn't already been done and then one has slipped over the edge of the cliff onto a very slippery slope...) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Jul 16 21:22:17 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:22:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <41657.86.130.16.9.1153054121.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <44B7BF07.30205@ki.se> <1535.72.255.40.22.1152902469.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <44B7EF99.7070907@betterhumans.com> <41657.86.130.16.9.1153054121.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060716212217.GS4317@leitl.org> On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 02:48:41PM +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Why do we care about singularity energy demands? Perhaps because we want > to look form them as part of SETI. Perhaps to put upper bounds on how hard > a takeoff can be. That can be useful for thinking about policy. Hard as in absolute capabilities after time t, or in maximal amount of material transformed within t? The latter requires access to predispersed material in shallow gravity wells. Singulatities suffer bad kinetics on the bottom of gravity wells, especially atmosphere-contaminated (sure, local biosphere contains a lot of fuel). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From amara at amara.com Sun Jul 16 22:26:18 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:26:18 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs Message-ID: Robert: >>>(Are there editors who actually really *know* anything about anything?) Damien >> Speaking. Robert: >That is one out of how many? about which topic? http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/dustgroup/%7egraps/dips2005/index.html http://www.springerlink.com/(ys012uujyscmwq3aah2aq5bw)/app/home/issue.asp?referrer=parent&backto=journal,2,250;linkingpublicationresults,1:100258,1 (another editor) Amara From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 00:37:10 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:37:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/16/06, Amara Graps wrote: > (another editor) Alright already... I'll rephrase... "Do any editors not currently or formerly subscribed to an Extropian or Transhumanist list know anything?" By definition, editors who subscribe these lists have to know significantly more than nothing unless they aren't reading any of the list traffic. This tends to get into a depth vs. breadth discussion. Editors of specialist journals, e.g. "Mutation Research" are probably not cross-field educated, e.g. they don't read the "Journal of the British Interplanetary Society". Editors specializing in science for public consumption (SA, SN, NS, TR, etc.) probably aren't well enough read in the variety of topics which cross their desks to make good judgement calls on fine points such as whether or not fans of cryonics shoudl be considered 'nutjobs'. I don't see any easy way out of this situation. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 01:05:45 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:05:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <20060715130935.GB4317@leitl.org> Message-ID: I largely agree with the much that Eugen said using relatively few words (if one is familiar with the topic he said a lot). We might differ on a few points but those are for long relaxed conversations rather than mailing lists. Now, with respect to the recent questions... On 7/15/06, Martin Striz wrote: > > Is the heat generated due to internal resistance or information loss? :) Currently both. The heat from the transistors in most uP now is due to moving electrons around (and thus resistance). The heat from the DRAM chips now (which are starting to require heat sinks) is coming primarily from electron, i.e. information, loss. When you reset a DRAM cell, which is really a capacitor, you don't put the electrons back into the battery, you throw them away (information converted into heat). In reversible computing you would put all the electrons back into the battery except those required to communicate the final result and those which would absolutely be lost. Of course using LN2 cooling, or superconductors, one can reduce the losses due to moving the electrons around significantly. Ideally, one would like to convert the 0's & 1's the electrons would indicate into single photons which would require even less energy to convey a single bit. While we have shown that doing things like switching single electrons and emitting or detecting single photons *is* feasible from an engineering standpoint we are still quite a ways from being able to manage millions or billions of such devices on a small chip and structuring them such that they have near 100% energy conversion efficiencies. The larger point is that energy is well conserved in most chemical > transformations. It just gets shuffled around from chemical bonds in > the reagents to chemical bonds in the products, hot potato style. Agreed. But I believe that only ATP synthesis is "really" efficient. I'd guess some large fraction of the reactions taking place in cells have a fair amount of loss (10-50%???) involved. phosphate gets removed from ATP and the energy released is > used to cause a conformational change in a pump which tosses Na+ and > K+ across the plasma membrane, etc. Energy is conserved. I would like to know the actual efficiency of this reaction compared with the theoretical limit. I presume that as the concentration gradients inside and outside the cell membrane change more work is required to do the ion exchange. So just after a neuron discharge, much of the energy in ATP may be thrown away while as the neuron becomes fully charged it uses an increasing fraction of the energy ATP makes available. Or is the full energy of each ATP required for each 3Na+/2K+ exchange and the pumps simply slow down due to the decreased concentration of ions? A semiconductor gets hot because it has a particular internal > resistance, so the energy associated with electrons passing through it > that can't go very fast gets dissipated as heat. Less so in LN2, not at all in superconductors. We *do* have superconducting logic circuits developed by Likharev and perhaps others before him -- the problem is that you need a really big freezer to keep them cool enough to operate. Cooling things to have zero resistance is a problem here on Earth. It becomes significantly less so if one is hanging out in the Oort cloud. I hypothesize that the reason we operate 5-10C above that > (which introduces an energy cost through the homeostatic mechanism) is > because pathogens have also evolved for ambient temperatures and we > can fight them off by denaturing their proteins when we maintain > slightly elevated temperatures. Unfortunately, many human (or > mammalian) pathogens have evolved optimal metabolic rates also at > 35-40C in response. Its an interesting hypothesis. As Eugen points out one has to strike a balance between higher operating temperatures and energy resources. Maybe as we unravel the genomes of various organisms and the protein structures further we will gain some insights into what temperature dependent aspects are incorporated into the various machines. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jul 17 01:20:46 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:20:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060716201652.02176b58@satx.rr.com> barf: http://www.ulrichbold.com/astrology.htm Evolutionary Astrology focuses on the soul's evolution and its core dynamics for the current life relative to abilities, potential, fears and karmic issues coming from experiences of previous lifetimes. A holistic and deep understanding for one's current life can be embraced through Evolutionary Astrology. It provides insights into "who you are" and "why you are the way you are". Thereby individual orientations for your daily life and resolutions for your problems support your further evolution and growth. Whether you are a beginner in astrology, advanced or even a professional astrologer wanting to take a fresh look at astrology or at your birth chart, Evolutionary Astrology is for those interested in voyaging into a deeper understanding of the Soul's Purpose. Evolutionary Astrology's primary focus is on the continuity of the Soul's journey, it's natural potential and how to actualize your abilities fearless, for your life to be in harmony with your Soul's evolutionary purpose. ================ Not as radical as I'd hoped. I was hoping to learn about, for example, Quantum Colonic Astrology or Dark Energy Astrology... Damien Broderick From goldgrif at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 01:29:57 2006 From: goldgrif at yahoo.com (steven mckenzie) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:29:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060716201652.02176b58@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060717012957.78313.qmail@web56614.mail.re3.yahoo.com> who brought this here, totally inappropriate --- Damien Broderick wrote: > barf: > > http://www.ulrichbold.com/astrology.htm > > Evolutionary Astrology focuses on the soul's > evolution and its core > dynamics for the current life relative to abilities, > potential, fears > and karmic issues coming from experiences of > previous lifetimes. A > holistic and deep understanding for one's current > life can be > embraced through Evolutionary Astrology. It provides > insights into > "who you are" and "why you are the way you are". > Thereby individual > orientations for your daily life and resolutions for > your problems > support your further evolution and growth. > > Whether you are a beginner in astrology, advanced or > even a > professional astrologer wanting to take a fresh look > at astrology or > at your birth chart, Evolutionary Astrology is for > those interested > in voyaging into a deeper understanding of the > Soul's Purpose. > Evolutionary Astrology's primary focus is on the > continuity of the > Soul's journey, it's natural potential and how to > actualize your > abilities fearless, for your life to be in harmony > with your Soul's > evolutionary purpose. > > ================ > > Not as radical as I'd hoped. I was hoping to learn > about, for > example, Quantum Colonic Astrology or Dark Energy > Astrology... > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jul 17 02:24:28 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:24:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... In-Reply-To: <20060717012957.78313.qmail@web56614.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060716201652.02176b58@satx.rr.com> <20060717012957.78313.qmail@web56614.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060716212321.021b1e58@satx.rr.com> At 06:29 PM 7/16/2006 -0700, somebody called steven mckenzie wrote: >who brought this here, totally inappropriate omigod, you mean this *isn't* the singularity astrology list? Damien Broderick From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Jul 17 03:16:31 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060716201652.02176b58@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060716201652.02176b58@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <34129.72.236.102.81.1153106191.squirrel@main.nc.us> > barf: > > http://www.ulrichbold.com/astrology.htm > > Evolutionary Astrology focuses on the soul's evolution and its core > dynamics for the current life relative to abilities, potential, fears > and karmic issues coming from experiences of previous lifetimes. A > holistic and deep understanding for one's current life can be > embraced through Evolutionary Astrology. It provides insights into > "who you are" and "why you are the way you are". Thereby individual > orientations for your daily life and resolutions for your problems > support your further evolution and growth. [...] > Yikes. At this rate there will never be a singularity! We'll just slip quietly (or not so quietly) into a new Dark Ages. :( Regards, MB From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 06:11:30 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 07:11:30 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothing happens "was transhumanist nut jobs" In-Reply-To: <20060716082845.72874.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060715223651.26339.qmail@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <20060716082845.72874.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607162311r521dc3day949a6b220774fd1d@mail.gmail.com> On 7/16/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > I'm curious to know how things happen then? > If nobody is paying attention to the future and halts and replies, > "Nothing happens until it happens", how do humans prepare for such a > technological future as well as a transhumanist point of view? > One day at a time. We like to believe we can make grand plans, and sometimes we even can; however, successful plans tend to be either detailed or long-term but _not_ both simultaneously - the future isn't that predictable. What we do is, we hold general principles that history tells us we can rely on - knowledge is better than ignorance, progress is better than stagnation and decline. Then within that, we set ourselves to individual tasks that will contribute in some way to those long-term goals. We work, each of us at our chosen task, one day at a time; and we discover the future, one day at a time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From goldgrif at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 07:37:43 2006 From: goldgrif at yahoo.com (steven mckenzie) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:37:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060716212321.021b1e58@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060717073743.94179.qmail@web56612.mail.re3.yahoo.com> then people start cutting on it different people have different folk beliefs, that give them comfort or whatever, slamming them is, well shows how stupid really smart people are --- Damien Broderick wrote: > At 06:29 PM 7/16/2006 -0700, somebody called steven > mckenzie wrote: > > >who brought this here, totally inappropriate > > omigod, you mean this *isn't* the singularity > astrology list? > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 08:14:20 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:14:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nothing happens "was transhumanist nut jobs" In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607162311r521dc3day949a6b220774fd1d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060715223651.26339.qmail@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <20060716082845.72874.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0607162311r521dc3day949a6b220774fd1d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 7/17/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > One day at a time. > > We like to believe we can make grand plans, and sometimes we even can; > however, successful plans tend to be either detailed or long-term but _not_ > both simultaneously - the future isn't that predictable. > > What we do is, we hold general principles that history tells us we can rely > on - knowledge is better than ignorance, progress is better than stagnation > and decline. Then within that, we set ourselves to individual tasks that > will contribute in some way to those long-term goals. We work, each of us at > our chosen task, one day at a time; and we discover the future, one day at a > time. > The best thing about the future is that it comes one day at a time. Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865) But I have always liked --- Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans. John Lennon (1940 - 1980) BillK From lcorbin at tsoft.com Mon Jul 17 08:24:47 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:24:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... In-Reply-To: <20060717073743.94179.qmail@web56612.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Steven writes > then people start cutting on it > different people have different folk beliefs, that > give them comfort or whatever, slamming them is, well > shows how stupid really smart people are Well, it hardly makes any sense for anyone to be anything but relaxed about all this. Though..., come to think of it, I guess if someone *does* want to fight, well, who are we to say no? :-) My thought was, "the only thing that's changed is that all the people in the world who have, uh, non-standard or unexpected (there, I found some nice quibble-words :), anyway, they were there before the web too, it's just that now we hear from them also". > > omigod, you mean this *isn't* the singularity > > astrology list? > > > > Damien Broderick You do get around a lot, I have to say. lee From goldgrif at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 08:51:35 2006 From: goldgrif at yahoo.com (steven mckenzie) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:51:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060717085135.26077.qmail@web56608.mail.re3.yahoo.com> what can I say, I am sl*t, lololol > You do get around a lot, I have to say. > > lee > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 09:55:07 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:55:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <20060715130935.GB4317@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 7/17/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Its an interesting hypothesis. As Eugen points out one has to strike a > balance between higher operating temperatures and energy resources. Maybe > as we unravel the genomes of various organisms and the protein structures > further we will gain some insights into what temperature dependent aspects > are incorporated into the various machines. > An earlier comment from Eugen tweaked my 'interesting' sensors. Just exactly *why* do humans have a working temperature of around 37C? Obviously millennia of evolution have been adjusting up and down to find the best compromise for humans. Slower metabolism v faster metabolism survival characteristics. After some searching I found the new field of (still controversial) Metabolic ecology. Ecology's Big, Hot Idea John Whitfield Published: December 14, 2004 By correcting for mass and temperature, Brown, Gillooly, and their colleagues believe they have revealed underlying similarities in all the rates of life. The hatching times for egg-laying animals, including birds, fish, amphibians, insects, and plankton, turn out to follow the same relationship?if a fish egg were the same size and temperature as a bird egg, it would take equally long to hatch (Figure 3). The same goes for growth: a tree and a mammal of equal size and temperature would gain mass at the same speed. And size and temperature even explain much of the variation in mortality rates between species?which one might have thought to be strongly dependent on external factors such as predators?perhaps through metabolism's influence on aging processes, such as free-radical damage to the genome. -------------------------------------------------- At first sight it sounds like they might be on to something significant, but there is still much scientific disputation going on. :) BillK From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 10:48:34 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 06:48:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <20060715130935.GB4317@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 7/17/06, BillK wrote: > > An earlier comment from Eugen tweaked my 'interesting' sensors. > Just exactly *why* do humans have a working temperature of around 37C? > > Obviously millennia of evolution have been adjusting up and down to > find the best compromise for humans. Slower metabolism v faster > metabolism survival characteristics. > > After some searching I found the new field of (still controversial) > Metabolic ecology. > [snip] > You have to be *very* careful here. There is an interplay between a) Size (volume) and surface area; and b) Size and cell number By increasing the volume to surface area ratio (n^3 v. n^2) larger species have a greater heat production & retention capability -- so they can run the cells more slowly (and decrease free radical production) while maintaining the same temperature. Larger species also have larger cell numbers and therefore greater overall cellular reserve capacity. Being larger also tends to reduce the number of species that can prey upon you. So there are multiple reasons that larger species can live longer. Of couse being larger causes you tend to hit the environmental resource capacity (e.g. food) limits with greater frequency. Rather than focus on simply cell temperature, I would also want to draw attention to cell volume. Out of all of the possible volumes that Eukaryotic cells could have why is the general structure for Eukaryotic cells to have ~1000x the volume of Prokaryotic cells? There are a few examples of multi-genome copy 'fused' cells (some muscle cells, some liver cells, megakaryocytes & granulocytes) but these are relatively rare compared with the number of total cell types (~300) and species (thousands [mammals] to millions [insects]). If you start to fiddle with the cell temperature -- why not fiddle with the overall architecture? One has to wonder why there is a lack of imagination going on with both nature (same ole same ole) and virtual realities? Where are the Sci Fi novels or Video Games where the players are constructed out of utility fog for example? Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 11:41:46 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:41:46 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <20060715130935.GB4317@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 7/17/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Rather than focus on simply cell temperature, I would also want to draw > attention to cell volume. Out of all of the possible volumes that > Eukaryotic cells could have why is the general structure for Eukaryotic > cells to have ~1000x the volume of Prokaryotic cells? There are a few > examples of multi-genome copy 'fused' cells (some muscle cells, some liver > cells, megakaryocytes & granulocytes) but these are relatively rare compared > with the number of total cell types (~300) and species (thousands [mammals] > to millions [insects]). If you start to fiddle with the cell temperature -- > why not fiddle with the overall architecture? > > One has to wonder why there is a lack of imagination going on with both > nature (same ole same ole) and virtual realities? Where are the Sci Fi > novels or Video Games where the players are constructed out of utility fog > for example? > It's not nature's lack of imagination. It is the classic surface area to volume ratio problem. As you probably well know, :) Prokaryotic cells (bacteria) are the more primitive cells and Eukaryotic cells are believed to have evolved from groups of prokaryotic cells. So naturally eukaryotic cells have to be bigger to accommodate all the functions. Quote: Gases and food molecules dissolved in water must be absorbed and waste products must be eliminated. For most cells, this passage of all materials in and out of the cell must occur through the plasma membrane (see diagram above). Each internal region of the cell has to be served by part of the cell surface. As a cell grows bigger, its internal volume enlarges and the cell membrane expands. Unfortunately, the volume increases more rapidly than does the surface area, and so the relative amount of surface area available to pass materials to a unit volume of the cell steadily decreases. Finally, at some point, there is just enough surface available to service all the interior; if it is to survive, the cell must stop growing. The important point is that the surface area to the volume ratio gets smaller as the cell gets larger. Thus, if the cell grows beyond a certain limit, not enough material will be able to cross the membrane fast enough to accommodate the increased cellular volume. When this happens, the cell must divide into smaller cells with favorable surface area/volume ratios, or cease to function. That is why cells are so small. -------------------------------------------------------------- Sounds reasonable to me. M brains must face a similar type of problem, scaled up of course. BillK From paul_illich at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 12:53:18 2006 From: paul_illich at yahoo.com (paul illich) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:53:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A columnist in a universe far, far away In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060717125318.42011.qmail@web52711.mail.yahoo.com> Taking off from Hawking-land, more media lampooning of Lifeboat Ethic Earth... Paul http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/07/17/a_columnist_in_a_universe_far_far_away/ A columnist in a universe far, far away By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist | July 17, 2006 ``[This] view of the universe also holds that in some remote regions there are planets exactly like our Earth, with continents of the same outline and terrain, inhabited by identical creatures, some of them holding copies of this magazine in their hands." ``Beyond the Big Bang," by Alex Vilenkin, physics professor and director of the Tufts University Institute of Cosmology, writing in the current issue of Natural History magazine O-REGION GOOGOLPLEX 2689; THE PLANET KNOWN AS SC&TAR# -- Newspaper columnist Alex Beam was pacing his office, facing another deadline. He had counted them: about 1,300 to date. Surely no other writer in the universe had ever faced these kinds of pressures. Sc&tar#, as usual, was in turmoil. Depending on who was counting, at least three hot wars were raging on the planet, with another two or three simmering ominously on the back burner. Sc&tar#'s great religions were tearing out one another's throats. The poor had been reduced to hapless servitude; the rich were languishing at their seaside vacation homes. Beam's native city of Boston was falling apart. Vital infrastructure was crumbling before his eyes. No one accepted blame, no one took responsibility. That was the Sc&tar#ian way. The man with the perfectly aligned teeth and the enviable wet - look haircut had stepped forward and promised to fix things. At least it would keep his name in the newspapers until he skipped town. Sc&tar# was an ecological nightmare. Beam had seen the movie; the planet was cooked. On the plus side, his home in the western suburbs would soon have beachfront. Even better news: A National Science Foundation study reported that New England would become the nation's primary wine-growing region by 2099. And who doesn't like New Hampshire cabernets? The geniuses on Sc&tar# were talking about abandoning ship. Stephen Hawking, who was so smart that no one could understand a word he wrote, was advocating space colonization. Having read Russian astrophysicist Nicolai Kardashev's provocative 1964 paper in Soviet Astronomy, Beam was well aware that unless Sc&tar# became a Type 1 civilization, dependent only on the sun for energy, the planet was doomed. The crackpot -- sorry, forward-thinking -- Lifeboat Foundation was already talking about building arks to ferry the population into space. Each one would hover about 250 miles above Sc&tar# and provide accommodations for 1,000 people. Sounds like seating could be tight. Beam had once written favorably about foundation board member Ray Kurzweil and his odd, millenarian ramblings. Maybe he could come up with a ticket. Getting aboard would be one thing, getting by would be another. For recreation, the ark people envisioned weightless ``astrobatics" and a game called Space Polo, where two teams compete in a three- dimensional game of micro-gravity polo, pushing off each other and walls. Well, OK, Beam thought. But what about squash, or racquetball? In his office, Beam worked in 45-minute bursts and might play a game of computer solitaire or pick up a magazine for distraction. On the floor, where he kept only his most essential research materials, he found a copy of Natural History magazine, a.k.a. Scientific American for dummies. Hmm, Beam thought. Here is an interesting article, by a university professor promoting his book, ``Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes." ``Yes, dear reader," Beam read, ``scores of your duplicates are now reading copies of this article. They live on planets exactly like [ours], with all its mountains, cities, trees and butterflies." Can it really be, Beam mused? Somewhere out in the cosmos, could there be another man with thinning hair and a taste for Negro Modelo beer, struggling to write a newspaper column? Naaah. Too outlandish. He went back to playing Sc&tar#ian solitaire, figuring he could always write about the collapse of the Boston Red Sox or of the Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge. Whichever came first. A different Alex Beam is a Globe columnist on planet Earth. His e-dress is beam at globe.com. "One fundamental goal of any well-crafted indoctrination program is to direct attention elsewhere, away from effective power, its roots, and the disguises it assumes." Chomsky, 'Deterring Democracy', 1992 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jul 17 14:12:48 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:12:48 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Utility fog games (was: Singularity heat waste) In-Reply-To: References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <20060715130935.GB4317@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1545.86.138.88.248.1153145568.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Robert Bradbury wrote: > One has to wonder why there is a lack of imagination going on with both > nature (same ole same ole) and virtual realities? Where are the Sci Fi > novels or Video Games where the players are constructed out of utility fog > for example? http://www.experimentalgameplay.com/game.php?112368 -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jul 17 14:40:20 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:40:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <20060715130935.GB4317@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060717093629.0216a838@satx.rr.com> At 12:41 PM 7/17/2006 +0100, BillK wrote: >Thus, if the cell grows beyond a certain limit, not enough material >will be able to cross the membrane fast enough to accommodate the >increased cellular volume. When this happens, the cell must divide >into smaller cells with favorable surface area/volume ratios, or cease >to function. Or elongate, or become stellate. Damien Broderick From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 15:06:20 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:06:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <20060715130935.GB4317@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607170806q17798b43s4740c5abdb6e23e@mail.gmail.com> On 7/17/06, BillK wrote: > > Thus, if the cell grows beyond a certain limit, not enough material > will be able to cross the membrane fast enough to accommodate the > increased cellular volume. When this happens, the cell must divide > into smaller cells with favorable surface area/volume ratios, or cease > to function. > How do ostrich eggs manage with just a single compact membrane to service (eventually) trillions of cells worth of living tissue, then? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm curious as to the answer.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 15:24:34 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:24:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popper and QT In-Reply-To: <000801c6a861$7e8dbcb0$7f961f97@nomedxgm1aalex> References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com> <22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com> <001101c6a5f0$6b33d190$0abf1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <000601c6a72a$443e33b0$89b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <000801c6a861$7e8dbcb0$7f961f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:53:29 -0400, scerir wrote: >> I'd be interested to know your opinion as to whether these experiments >> corroborate or falsify or say anything conclusive about Popper's >> philosophy of probability. > > I do not remember what Popper wrote about probability. I know only what I could understand of what he wrote of probability in _Conjectures and Refutations_. Here's a bit of Popper on the subject, in which he writes of his disdain for subjectivist interpretations of probability: "Though things have improved since then [1944], subjectivism is still rampant in the philosophy of science, and especially in the field of probability. The subjectivist theory of probability, which interprets degrees of probability as degrees of rational belief, stems directly from the subjectivist approach to truth -- especially from the coherence theory." Popper railed against subjectivist ideas such as the coherence theory of truth. He argued always for the correspondence theory, and writes that subjectivism should be "discarded as a lapse, as based on a mistake -- though perhaps a tempting one." (Popper, _Conjectures and Refutations_, pg 308) > I personally like to regard a probability wave, even in 3N-dimensional > space, as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical > calculations ..."Quite generally, how could > we rely on probability predictions if by this notion we > do not refer to something real and objective?' > [Max Born, Dover publ., 1964, "Natural Philosophy of Cause > and Chance", p. 107]. Offhand I'd say Popper would agree with you and Born here. -gts From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 16:12:13 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:12:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607170806q17798b43s4740c5abdb6e23e@mail.gmail.com> References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <20060715130935.GB4317@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607170806q17798b43s4740c5abdb6e23e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 7/17/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 7/17/06, BillK wrote: > > > Thus, if the cell grows beyond a certain limit, not enough material > > will be able to cross the membrane fast enough to accommodate the > > increased cellular volume. When this happens, the cell must divide > > into smaller cells with favorable surface area/volume ratios, or cease > > to function. > > > > How do ostrich eggs manage with just a single compact membrane to service > (eventually) trillions of cells worth of living tissue, then? (Not a > rhetorical question, I'm curious as to the answer.) > :) You know the answer to this question. Eggs are a huge store of food. That's why they are good for breakfast. The developing chick gets air through the shell. A gigantic M brain would probably need internal power sources also. BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 16:19:07 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:19:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <20060715130935.GB4317@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607170806q17798b43s4740c5abdb6e23e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607170919n3d907705k53572eea59f698e0@mail.gmail.com> On 7/17/06, BillK wrote: > > On 7/17/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > How do ostrich eggs manage with just a single compact membrane to > service > > (eventually) trillions of cells worth of living tissue, then? (Not a > > rhetorical question, I'm curious as to the answer.) > > > > :) You know the answer to this question. > > Eggs are a huge store of food. That's why they are good for breakfast. I'm thinking of the oxygen supply (and CO2 in the other direction). The developing chick gets air through the shell. Yes, which means it has to diffuse through a single compact membrane, which means it takes the cube-square law hit. If an ostrich egg can get by like that, how would it be a limiting factor on the size of eukaryote cells? A gigantic M brain would probably need internal power sources also. > The obvious solution is to build it in the form of a Dyson sphere. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jul 17 16:40:10 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:40:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... In-Reply-To: <20060717073743.94179.qmail@web56612.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060716212321.021b1e58@satx.rr.com> <20060717073743.94179.qmail@web56612.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060717112214.0224fa10@satx.rr.com> At 12:37 AM 7/17/2006 -0700, steven mckenzie wrote: >then people start cutting on it You cutting on your brain, you end with mash up brain. >different people have different folk beliefs, that >give them comfort or whatever, Right. There is no end of comforting folk beliefs. Racism, creationism, guardian angels, anal probes by aliens. Who are we to cry stinking fish? >slamming them is, well >shows how stupid really smart people are Actually I thought it was pretty funny, as well as vomitous, that some cunning sharks should have mashed up a debased form of evolutionary theory, reincarnation and astrology. I see a big future in neuro-astrology, eco-angelology, brane-numerology, and Atlantean Singularitarianism. In fact, I see that Terasem has already paved the way to a non-profit singularity religion. Hallelujah! MB was spot-on, as usual. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jul 17 16:46:05 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:46:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607170919n3d907705k53572eea59f698e0@mail.gmail.co m> References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <20060715130935.GB4317@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607170806q17798b43s4740c5abdb6e23e@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0607170919n3d907705k53572eea59f698e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060717114429.023334c8@satx.rr.com> At 05:19 PM 7/17/2006 +0100, Russell wrote: >A gigantic M brain would probably need internal power sources also. > >The obvious solution is to build it in the form of a Dyson sphere. Or a fractal coral. Or a rotating rhizome. Damien Broderick From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 16:49:26 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:49:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060717114429.023334c8@satx.rr.com> References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <8d71341e0607170806q17798b43s4740c5abdb6e23e@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0607170919n3d907705k53572eea59f698e0@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060717114429.023334c8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607170949i29292720o61167fef78828ba4@mail.gmail.com> On 7/17/06, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 05:19 PM 7/17/2006 +0100, Russell wrote: > >The obvious solution is to build it in the form of a Dyson sphere. > > Or a fractal coral. Or a rotating rhizome. > Fractal helps with convective cooling, but not with radiative cooling, which is what structures not immersed in an atmosphere/hydrosphere will require. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jul 17 17:04:27 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:04:27 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607170949i29292720o61167fef78828ba4@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0607170806q17798b43s4740c5abdb6e23e@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0607170919n3d907705k53572eea59f698e0@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060717114429.023334c8@satx.rr.com> <8d71341e0607170949i29292720o61167fef78828ba4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060717170427.GT14701@leitl.org> On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 05:49:26PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > Fractal helps with convective cooling, but not with radiative cooling, which is > what structures not immersed in an atmosphere/hydrosphere will require. I'm curious why you think a fractal versus a flat radiator surface would do worse. The amount of surface seeing cold space is bigger with a fractal versus a flat surface, it is a better wide-band radiator. With a large surface you've got an approximation of a black-body radiator, though there are even better things, at least for some spectral areas: http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APPLAB000084000011001997000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes Comment on "Three-dimensional photonic-crystal emitter for thermal photovoltaic power generation" [Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, 380 (2003)] Thorsten Trupke, Peter W?rfel, and Martin A. Green Centre of Excellence for Advanced Silicon Photovoltaics and Photonics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, NSW, Australia (Received 28 July 2003; accepted 20 November 2003) In a recent article, Lin et al. [Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, 380 (2003)] reported on the light-emitting properties of three-dimensional tungsten photonic crystals and their potential applications as improved thermal emitters in thermophotovoltaic (TPV) systems. Their findings have attracted considerable interest throughout the media and the application of this type of materials has been praised as a potential superior future energy source; e.g., in waste heat-driven electrical generators (http://www.photonics.com). The results of the theoretical modeling in the work of Lin et al. suggest that a TPV system can achieve higher heat to electric energy conversion efficiencies in combination with a three-dimensional tungsten photonic crystal than with any conventional selective thermal emitter. These theoretical results are based on the experimental observation that the photonic crystal, when heated to a given temperature, emits more radiation in certain spectral regimes than a black body of the same temperature. This experimental observation shall briefly be discussed here. ?2004 American Institute of Physics. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 17:11:25 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:11:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <20060717170427.GT14701@leitl.org> References: <8d71341e0607170806q17798b43s4740c5abdb6e23e@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0607170919n3d907705k53572eea59f698e0@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060717114429.023334c8@satx.rr.com> <8d71341e0607170949i29292720o61167fef78828ba4@mail.gmail.com> <20060717170427.GT14701@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607171011r7f52ae75l69cff324009eb7c9@mail.gmail.com> On 7/17/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > I'm curious why you think a fractal versus a flat radiator surface > would do worse. It won't do worse, but it won't do significantly better either; the best you can get, across the spectrum and on a large scale, is a flat black body radiator. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon Jul 17 17:50:51 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:50:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060716201652.02176b58@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060717175051.96389.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Since you brought it up:) This is way out there, I know. But what the heck, i'm known now to do and say strange things:) I was wondering if astrology could help in building AI. Don't get me wrong, I was looking at it from the point of view of catagorizing certain charactestics based on the time frame of when your born. When creating a "Friendly AI", how will it know how to relate to humans? The Blue Man Theory, (looking at it from the point of view that everybody looks exactly the same, blue, bald, 136p and 5'6) is a way to learn to focus on body language, facial expression, and spoken language, leaving out all forms of prejudice. So how will an AI distinguish between the characteristics of all these Blue people? For example: The AI meets #128766 (named Joe) and recognizes that Joe is nice, timid and lazy. It will catagorize it. Then meets #178654 (named Sara) and recognizes that Sara is sweet, educated and egotistical. It will catagorize it. I'm assuming that once the AI has met enough blue people, it will find a way to group certain characteristics or find the link between them. I am a strong believer in astrology based on the idea that people born at a certain times have similar characterics (Again, from a point of view of the Blue Man Theory). This can't be proven, I know, it's just my experiences and observations that have led me to be curious. Could Astrology just be a way for humans to learn about characterics? It would seem ludicrious to believe that human characterics are unique per individual therefore there must be a way compute it. How can something that's been around that long have no meaning or reason? Anna:) Damien Broderick wrote: barf: http://www.ulrichbold.com/astrology.htm Evolutionary Astrology focuses on the soul's evolution and its core dynamics for the current life relative to abilities, potential, fears and karmic issues coming from experiences of previous lifetimes. A holistic and deep understanding for one's current life can be embraced through Evolutionary Astrology. It provides insights into "who you are" and "why you are the way you are". Thereby individual orientations for your daily life and resolutions for your problems support your further evolution and growth. Whether you are a beginner in astrology, advanced or even a professional astrologer wanting to take a fresh look at astrology or at your birth chart, Evolutionary Astrology is for those interested in voyaging into a deeper understanding of the Soul's Purpose. Evolutionary Astrology's primary focus is on the continuity of the Soul's journey, it's natural potential and how to actualize your abilities fearless, for your life to be in harmony with your Soul's evolutionary purpose. ================ Not as radical as I'd hoped. I was hoping to learn about, for example, Quantum Colonic Astrology or Dark Energy Astrology... Damien Broderick _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Mon Jul 17 18:21:49 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:21:49 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Popper and QT References: <20060710173114.9113.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><006001c6a45a$0371a830$39b81f97@nomedxgm1aalex><0bad01c6a4a8$2fe16740$cbb81f97@nomedxgm1aalex><7.0.1.0.2.20060711010743.021583f8@satx.rr.com><22360fa10607112048w159529ebjb08a840bcc29db94@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20060712122040.02250ca8@satx.rr.com><001101c6a5f0$6b33d190$0abf1f97@nomedxgm1aalex><000601c6a72a$443e33b0$89b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex><000801c6a861$7e8dbcb0$7f961f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <000601c6a9cd$df996640$5bbb1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> > > I do not remember what Popper wrote about probability. [gts:] > Here's a bit of Popper on the subject, in which he writes of his disdain > for subjectivist interpretations of probability: > "Though things have improved since then [1944], subjectivism is still > rampant in the philosophy of science, and especially in the field of > probability. The subjectivist theory of probability, which interprets > degrees of probability as degrees of rational belief, stems directly from > the subjectivist approach to truth -- especially from the coherence > theory." I would say that I do not even remember what the probability is. I vaguely remember that von Weizsaecker wrote (in 'Zeit und Wissen') that probability is 'the expectation value of the relative frequency'. It seems a perfect mix of subjectivism and frequentism. It is possible that theories (like SR and QM) made of principles and operations (or measurements), need a certain quantity of subjectivism. While in SR there is a diffeomorphism covariance (invariance of physical laws under arbitrary coordinate transformations), in QM there are several conceptual problems, i.e. when two independent observers measure a quantum system. [Max Born here:] > > I personally like to regard a probability wave, even in 3N-dimensional > > space, as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical > > calculations ..."Quite generally, how could > > we rely on probability predictions if by this notion we > > do not refer to something real and objective?' [gts:] > Offhand I'd say Popper would agree with [...] Born here. Yes. The problem is that very often Born did not agree with himself, about the _possible_ 'ontic' content of quantum states. This (the ontology) is still a huge problem, as you can read on this interesting page of the 'quantum-quandaries' blog: http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2006/06/28/professional-jealousy/ s. 'Once at afternoon tea in the Institute, Teller tried to explain to Bohr why he thought Bohr was wrong in thinking that the historical set-up of classical concepts would forever dominate our way of expressing our sense experience. Bohr listened with closed eyes and finally only said: 'Oh, I understand. You might as well say that we are not sitting here, drinking tea, but that we are just dreaming all that.' -Ted Bastin, Quantum Theory and Beyond (Cambridge University Press, 1971), page 27. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 19:10:15 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:10:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <20060715130935.GB4317@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 7/17/06, BillK wrote: > > Thus, if the cell grows beyond a certain limit, not enough material > will be able to cross the membrane fast enough to accommodate the > increased cellular volume. When this happens, the cell must divide > into smaller cells with favorable surface area/volume ratios, or cease > to function. > > That is why cells are so small. > I'm not buying it. This was pointed out to me by Prof. Skulachev at MSU who is an expert on mitochondrial bioenergetics. There are multiple cell layers between the capillaries where O2 is released and CO2 absorbed. The gases have to diffuse across multiple cell layers to enter or exit from the cells most distant from the capillaries (I think he cited at least 3 cell layers as being typical). So there is going to be a concentration gradient of the gases and the complication of largely flat cells vs. cubic cells. vs. spherical cells. If the cells had wanted they could have evolved ways of storing resources (e.g. glycogen or gas vacuoles) that would mitigate the surface area problem. In cells with large volumes one has active transport systems to take up materials and expel wastes. Genome sizes range *all* over the place so it isn't a requirement for a certain amount of DNA. So I tend to lean in the direction that nature has developed solutions to many of these problems in specific situations but hasn't been clever enough to structure them into optimal organisms. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 19:14:55 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:14:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060717093629.0216a838@satx.rr.com> References: <44B79D6A.9060502@betterhumans.com> <20060715130935.GB4317@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20060717093629.0216a838@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 7/17/06, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 12:41 PM 7/17/2006 +0100, BillK wrote: > > >Thus, if the cell grows beyond a certain limit, not enough material > >will be able to cross the membrane fast enough to accommodate the > >increased cellular volume. When this happens, the cell must divide > >into smaller cells with favorable surface area/volume ratios, or cease > >to function. > > Or elongate, or become stellate. > True, single cells form many varied shapes, but then you run up against the other restriction. ;) Cells have to remain very small unless they contain their own store of nutrient. The female ovum is probably the largest single cell. The overall restriction is that the cell internal volume (cytoplasm) is limited by the amount of nutrients that it can receive and wastes that it can get rid of through the surface area. The other restriction is that eukaryotic cell size is also limited by the amount of cytoplasmic activity that the cell's nucleus can control. STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF THE CELL BillK From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jul 17 19:21:44 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:21:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity heat waste In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607171011r7f52ae75l69cff324009eb7c9@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0607170806q17798b43s4740c5abdb6e23e@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0607170919n3d907705k53572eea59f698e0@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060717114429.023334c8@satx.rr.com> <8d71341e0607170949i29292720o61167fef78828ba4@mail.gmail.com> <20060717170427.GT14701@leitl.org> <8d71341e0607171011r7f52ae75l69cff324009eb7c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060717192144.GX14701@leitl.org> On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 06:11:25PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > It won't do worse, but it won't do significantly better either; the best you > can get, across the spectrum and on a large scale, is a flat black body > radiator. But in order to achieve equlibrium, you have to have several emission/absorption processes, which makes the surface anything but flat (the flatter it is, the larger the deviation from a black body spectrum). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jul 17 20:06:24 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:06:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... In-Reply-To: <20060717175051.96389.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060717175051.96389.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6AAE4B68-BD39-4240-8CD8-E1B19D31374E@mac.com> On Jul 17, 2006, at 10:50 AM, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Since you brought it up:) > This is way out there, I know. But what the heck, i'm known > now to do and say strange things:) > > I was wondering if astrology could help in building AI. > Don't get me wrong, I was looking at it from the point of view > of catagorizing certain charactestics based on the time frame > of when your born. That is not just "strange". It borders on willfully stupid. Astrology has been tested utterly flunked the test over and over again. > > I am a strong believer in astrology based on the idea that people > born at a certain times have similar characterics (Again, from a point > of view of the Blue Man Theory). > This can't be proven, I know, it's just my experiences and > observations that have led me to be curious. > It has been proven bogus. > > Could Astrology just be a way for humans to learn about > characterics? > If you wanted to learn characteristics then you would study human beings, psychology, evolutionary psychology and so on. You wouldn't try to draw some bogus correlation against the position of certain groups of stars as seen from earth. Why would you think that clumps of similar characteristics get handed out based on your birth location and time? > > It would seem ludicrious to believe that human characterics are > unique per individual therefore there must be a way compute it. > How can something that's been around that long have no meaning > or reason? You can have plenty of "meaning or reason" without making up bizarre theories like astrology or taking up such nonsense. Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't mean it has "meaning or reason". There are explanations for much of human nature and human characteristics though. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jul 17 20:44:09 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:44:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... In-Reply-To: <20060717073743.94179.qmail@web56612.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <20060717073743.94179.qmail@web56612.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <463A0B0B-3535-4F74-9947-1954E68061FD@mac.com> As the world gets more complex we really cannot afford to have a lot of respect for "folk beliefs" embodying bogus notions about reality. Nor can we afford to equate "slamming" ideas with "slamming" people. It is not at all smart to entertain these "folk beliefs" or to tolerate them without comment, especially in one's own e-home. - samantha On Jul 17, 2006, at 12:37 AM, steven mckenzie wrote: > then people start cutting on it > different people have different folk beliefs, that > give them comfort or whatever, slamming them is, well > shows how stupid really smart people are > > --- Damien Broderick wrote: > >> At 06:29 PM 7/16/2006 -0700, somebody called steven >> mckenzie wrote: >> >>> who brought this here, totally inappropriate >> >> omigod, you mean this *isn't* the singularity >> astrology list? >> >> Damien Broderick >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > __________________________________________________ > 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.cgi/extropy-chat From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 21:34:34 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut jobs & transhumanism going extinct) In-Reply-To: <200607160548.k6G5m2R2019417@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060717213434.27836.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/posts.html?pg=4 They called us nutjobs. > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha > Atkins > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs > > > > Using such a phrase is not a compliment. It > implies we are > > generally nuts but now and then may be onto > something. It should be > > objected to. > > > > - s > > >From the general tone of the article, it didn't > feel to me like an > intentional jab, or rather I didn't feel insulted. > Of course, I seldom do, > even if an insult is the intended, so perhaps I am > not the right one to ask. > > > Recommend we laugh it off. Again? How many times are we going to turn the other cheek while the media insults us left and right. I have had enough, it is time for an object lesson. I recommend we play tit for tat and retaliate. Not with some whiny little letter to the editor, however. No, I recommend we sue Wired for LIBEL. The transhuman orgs could use some cash and Wired Magazine has deep pockets. They printed a very negative portrayal about transhumanists as a whole in widely distributed magazine. This potrayal is simply not true and they knew it. Such is called defamation in print or libel. It is a tort and suable in court. I spoke to my attorney about it this morning. He said he would need to read the context in which it occurred but it sounded as if there are grounds for a lawsuit. However, I do not serve in any offical capacity on the board of any transhuman org so while I may be fighting mad, it's not my fight. My recommendation is somebody on the WTA BOD sue them. It will be easier to explain to the judge why an officer from an organization that has "transhumanist" in its offical title would be offended at the remark "transhumanist nutjobs". Not-for-profits can sue and be sued just like any other corporation. Rather than worrying about all the bad press we have been getting lately, I say we start hitting back. Let the media know they won't be able to take cheap shots at us with impunity. Instead of wallowing in self-pity at our impending extinction, I suggest we mobilize. If we transhumanists don't start standing up for ourselves, nobody else will! Justice De Thezier claims that transhumanism "is not above politics". If that is the case then it is time for the WTA BOD to get down in the mud and start wrestling with the pigs because that is what politics entails. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." - Neils Bohr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mike99 at lascruces.com Mon Jul 17 21:53:05 2006 From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:53:05 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut jobs &transhumanism going extinct) In-Reply-To: <20060717213434.27836.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Stuart, Thanks for your concern about the reputation of transhumanism. But I wouldn't worry too much about WIRED's calumny. At least they spelled "transhumanist" correctly! Seriously, speaking for myself as one of the WTA Board of Directors, I would vote against any proposal to sue WIRED for libel in this case. I have two reasons, one philosophical and one practical: 1) As a matter of political philosophy, I believe that WIRED should be free, within rather broad limits, to call us whatever they wish. We are also free to disagree with them and to make our views known as widely as possible. 2) As a practical matter, we do not have the resources of time and money to expend on a libel case where we have suffered no major harm. Being called a "nut job" is more a matter of opinion by the WIRED writer, and is harder to argue against, than if, for example, they had called us "mass murderers" or "child molesters" which are serious charges that we could easily disprove. Regards, Michael LaTorra mike99 at lascruces.com mlatorra at nmsu.edu English Dept., New Mexico State University Member: Board of Directors, World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org Board of Directors, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies: http://ieet.org/ Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org Society for Universal Immortalism: www.universalimmortalism.org President, Zen Center of Las Cruces: www.zencenteroflascruces.org > -----Original Message----- > From: wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org > [mailto:wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org]On Behalf Of The > Avantguardian > Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 3:35 PM > To: ExI chat list; wta-talk at transhumanism.org > Subject: [wta-talk] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut jobs > &transhumanism going extinct) > > > --- spike wrote: > > > > http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/posts.html?pg=4 > > They called us nutjobs. > > > > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha > > Atkins > > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs > > > > > > Using such a phrase is not a compliment. It > > implies we are > > > generally nuts but now and then may be onto > > something. It should be > > > objected to. > > > > > > - s > > > > >From the general tone of the article, it didn't > > feel to me like an > > intentional jab, or rather I didn't feel insulted. > > Of course, I seldom do, > > even if an insult is the intended, so perhaps I am > > not the right one to ask. > > > > > > Recommend we laugh it off. > > Again? How many times are we going to turn the other > cheek while the media insults us left and right. I > have had enough, it is time for an object lesson. I > recommend we play tit for tat and retaliate. Not with > some whiny little letter to the editor, however. > > No, I recommend we sue Wired for LIBEL. The transhuman > orgs could use some cash and Wired Magazine has deep > pockets. They printed a very negative portrayal about > transhumanists as a whole in widely distributed > magazine. This potrayal is simply not true and they > knew it. Such is called defamation in print or libel. > It is a tort and suable in court. > > I spoke to my attorney about it this morning. He said > he would need to read the context in which it occurred > but it sounded as if there are grounds for a lawsuit. > > However, I do not serve in any offical capacity on the > board of any transhuman org so while I may be fighting > mad, it's not my fight. My recommendation is somebody > on the WTA BOD sue them. It will be easier to explain > to the judge why an officer from an organization that > has "transhumanist" in its offical title would be > offended at the remark "transhumanist nutjobs". > > Not-for-profits can sue and be sued just like any > other corporation. Rather than worrying about all the > bad press we have been getting lately, I say we start > hitting back. Let the media know they won't be able to > take cheap shots at us with impunity. Instead of > wallowing in self-pity at our impending extinction, I > suggest we mobilize. If we transhumanists don't start > standing up for ourselves, nobody else will! > > Justice De Thezier claims that transhumanism "is not > above politics". If that is the case then it is time > for the WTA BOD to get down in the mud and start > wrestling with the pigs because that is what politics > entails. > > > > > > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein > > "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." - Neils Bohr > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > wta-talk mailing list > wta-talk at transhumanism.org > http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk > From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Mon Jul 17 22:15:38 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:15:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut jobs & transhumanism going extinct) In-Reply-To: <20060717213434.27836.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060717213434.27836.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44BC0C0A.5080001@goldenfuture.net> I have forwarded this to the WTA Board of Directors, will keep you posted if anything comes of it. Joseph Bloch Director, World Transhumanist Association President, Center for Human Enhancement The Avantguardian wrote: >--- spike wrote: > > > >http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/posts.html?pg=4 > >They called us nutjobs. > > > >>>bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha >>> >>> >>Atkins >> >> >>>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs >>> >>>Using such a phrase is not a compliment. It >>> >>> >>implies we are >> >> >>>generally nuts but now and then may be onto >>> >>> >>something. It should be >> >> >>>objected to. >>> >>>- s >>> >>> >>>From the general tone of the article, it didn't >>feel to me like an >>intentional jab, or rather I didn't feel insulted. >>Of course, I seldom do, >>even if an insult is the intended, so perhaps I am >>not the right one to ask. >> >> >>Recommend we laugh it off. >> >> > >Again? How many times are we going to turn the other >cheek while the media insults us left and right. I >have had enough, it is time for an object lesson. I >recommend we play tit for tat and retaliate. Not with >some whiny little letter to the editor, however. > >No, I recommend we sue Wired for LIBEL. The transhuman >orgs could use some cash and Wired Magazine has deep >pockets. They printed a very negative portrayal about >transhumanists as a whole in widely distributed >magazine. This potrayal is simply not true and they >knew it. Such is called defamation in print or libel. >It is a tort and suable in court. > >I spoke to my attorney about it this morning. He said >he would need to read the context in which it occurred >but it sounded as if there are grounds for a lawsuit. > >However, I do not serve in any offical capacity on the >board of any transhuman org so while I may be fighting >mad, it's not my fight. My recommendation is somebody >on the WTA BOD sue them. It will be easier to explain >to the judge why an officer from an organization that >has "transhumanist" in its offical title would be >offended at the remark "transhumanist nutjobs". > >Not-for-profits can sue and be sued just like any >other corporation. Rather than worrying about all the >bad press we have been getting lately, I say we start >hitting back. Let the media know they won't be able to >take cheap shots at us with impunity. Instead of >wallowing in self-pity at our impending extinction, I >suggest we mobilize. If we transhumanists don't start >standing up for ourselves, nobody else will! > >Justice De Thezier claims that transhumanism "is not >above politics". If that is the case then it is time >for the WTA BOD to get down in the mud and start >wrestling with the pigs because that is what politics >entails. > > > > > >Stuart LaForge >alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > >"God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein > >"Einstein, don't tell God what to do." - Neils Bohr > >__________________________________________________ >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.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > From mike99 at lascruces.com Mon Jul 17 23:09:24 2006 From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:09:24 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut jobs&transhumanism going extinct) In-Reply-To: <20060717221034.60285.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: A quick Google search finds 444,000 hits for "nut job" (and that's without the plural "jobs"). Among those accused of being nut jobs are: - radio talk host Michael Graham [NOTE: I don't know anything about this guy.] - Anti-Gay Phelps Clan [I have heard of these creeps.] - Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the US House of Representatives - Ann Coulter [needs no introduction] - Minnesota State Sen. Tom Reynolds - President Bush ...and a host of others I doubt that any of these people is suing over the allegation that they are "nut jobs." Why should transhumanist do so? Perhaps suing would suggest to people that we strongly object to such a characterization because we secretly believe it to be accurate. I don't believe transhumanists are nut jobs. Nor do I think that it makes any significant difference if some clueless journalist for WIRED magazine believes that we are. Let's not get all worked up over a passing slight. Let's work on showing what we are really about by accomplishing our goals. 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/ Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org Society for Universal Immortalism: www.universalimmortalism.org President, Zen Center of Las Cruces: www.zencenteroflascruces.org > -----Original Message----- > From: wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org > [mailto:wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org]On Behalf Of The > Avantguardian > Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 4:11 PM > To: World Transhumanist Association Discussion List > Subject: RE: [wta-talk] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut > jobs&transhumanism going extinct) > > > > > --- mike99 wrote: > > > Stuart, > > Thanks for your concern about the reputation of > > transhumanism. But I > > wouldn't worry too much about WIRED's calumny. At > > least they spelled > > "transhumanist" correctly! > > > > Seriously, speaking for myself as one of the WTA > > Board of Directors, I would > > vote against any proposal to sue WIRED for libel in > > this case. I have two > > reasons, one philosophical and one practical: > > > > 1) As a matter of political philosophy, I believe > > that WIRED should be free, > > within rather broad limits, to call us whatever they > > wish. We are also free > > to disagree with them and to make our views known as > > widely as possible. > > > > 2) As a practical matter, we do not have the > > resources of time and money to > > expend on a libel case where we have suffered no > > major harm. Being called a > > "nut job" is more a matter of opinion by the WIRED > > writer, and is harder to > > argue against, than if, for example, they had called > > us "mass murderers" or > > "child molesters" which are serious charges that we > > could easily disprove. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel > >From the wikipedia entry on "libel": > > In states that recognize defamation per se, people > making a defamation claim for certain statements do > not need to prove that the statement was defamatory: > > Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in > their trade, business, or profession" > > Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" > (historically leprosy and sexually-transmitted > disease, now also including MENTAL ILLNESS) > > Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually > only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women) > > Allegations or imputations of criminal activity > (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude) [2] > > Calling us "nut jobs" is an allegation of MENTAL > ILLNESS. You don't think that prospective new members > won't be turned away when they read that WIRED > MAGAZINE thinks we are "nut jobs"? > > > > > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein > > "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." - Neils Bohr > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > wta-talk mailing list > wta-talk at transhumanism.org > http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk > From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon Jul 17 22:49:21 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:49:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... In-Reply-To: <6AAE4B68-BD39-4240-8CD8-E1B19D31374E@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060717224921.72975.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: That is not just "strange". It borders on willfully stupid. Astrology has been tested utterly flunked the test over and over again. Anna writes: What parts of astrology are you talking about? I would like to mention links when you powerfully declare something as stupid. Samantha wrote: If you wanted to learn characteristics then you would study human beings, psychology, evolutionary psychology and so on. Anna writes: Yes, thanks for the insight, I studied psychology in University, maybe I wasn't paying enough attention:) Samantha asks: Why would you think that clumps of similar characteristics get handed out based on your birth location and time? Anna answers: Based on observation. I didn't mention location. Why couldn't their be a correlation between the time you are born and human characteristics? It seems pretty acurate to say that their are only so many charactestics humans can have. Why wouldn't their be a way to compute them? If the time you are born is a starting point *Leo, born in August* Why wouldn't it be likely that Leo's are born with certain characteristics? If i've observed enough correlation between characteristics of Leo and characterists of Pisces, how are you contemplating telling me my idea is stupid with no just answer but to tell me that it's bogus or false? Samantha wrote: You wouldn't try to draw some bogus correlation against the position of certain groups of stars as seen from earth. Anna writes: Yes Samantha, I know your feelings on pseudoscience. Yet at the same time, I never mentioned anything about stars, location, horoscopes or any other meaning associated with Astrology except the time you are born. If you have any great ideas on how an AI is going to distinguish between human characteristics I would like to hear them. Anna:) Samantha Atkins wrote: On Jul 17, 2006, at 10:50 AM, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Since you brought it up:) > This is way out there, I know. But what the heck, i'm known > now to do and say strange things:) > > I was wondering if astrology could help in building AI. > Don't get me wrong, I was looking at it from the point of view > of catagorizing certain charactestics based on the time frame > of when your born. That is not just "strange". It borders on willfully stupid. Astrology has been tested utterly flunked the test over and over again. > > I am a strong believer in astrology based on the idea that people > born at a certain times have similar characterics (Again, from a point > of view of the Blue Man Theory). > This can't be proven, I know, it's just my experiences and > observations that have led me to be curious. > It has been proven bogus. > > Could Astrology just be a way for humans to learn about > characterics? > If you wanted to learn characteristics then you would study human beings, psychology, evolutionary psychology and so on. You wouldn't try to draw some bogus correlation against the position of certain groups of stars as seen from earth. Why would you think that clumps of similar characteristics get handed out based on your birth location and time? > > It would seem ludicrious to believe that human characterics are > unique per individual therefore there must be a way compute it. > How can something that's been around that long have no meaning > or reason? You can have plenty of "meaning or reason" without making up bizarre theories like astrology or taking up such nonsense. Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't mean it has "meaning or reason". There are explanations for much of human nature and human characteristics though. - samantha _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Jul 18 01:17:43 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:17:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... References: <20060717224921.72975.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <14d001c6aa07$f8bf2fd0$650fa8c0@kevin> I've been quite busy researching the role of religion in humanity lately and haven't had time to visit. I decided to drop in and I see a weird debate on astrology? What is happening here? Anne, is it not painfully obvious that two people born at the same time can have wildly varying characteristics and that just as many people born far apart in date can be similar? Can astrology even work considering human genetics and our ability to learn new behavior patterns and the way our personalities change throughout our lives? Even assuming that you could group behaviours by date ranges, how is that any different than recognizing the occasional pattern in a string of random numbers? You can't use it to predict and that's what astrology claims to be able to do. What kind of outside force could force people into such groups that relies on the relative positions of the earth, sun, moon, and stars? Are we really entertaining such topics at the moment? From: Anne-Marie Taylor To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 5:49 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... Samantha Atkins wrote: That is not just "strange". It borders on willfully stupid. Astrology has been tested utterly flunked the test over and over again. Anna writes: What parts of astrology are you talking about? I would like to mention links when you powerfully declare something as stupid. Samantha wrote: If you wanted to learn characteristics then you would study human beings, psychology, evolutionary psychology and so on. Anna writes: Yes, thanks for the insight, I studied psychology in University, maybe I wasn't paying enough attention:) Samantha asks: Why would you think that clumps of similar characteristics get handed out based on your birth location and time? Anna answers: Based on observation. I didn't mention location. Why couldn't their be a correlation between the time you are born and human characteristics? It seems pretty acurate to say that their are only so many charactestics humans can have. Why wouldn't their be a way to compute them? If the time you are born is a starting point *Leo, born in August* Why wouldn't it be likely that Leo's are born with certain characteristics? If i've observed enough correlation between characteristics of Leo and characterists of Pisces, how are you contemplating telling me my idea is stupid with no just answer but to tell me that it's bogus or false? Samantha wrote: You wouldn't try to draw some bogus correlation against the position of certain groups of stars as seen from earth. Anna writes: Yes Samantha, I know your feelings on pseudoscience. Yet at the same time, I never mentioned anything about stars, location, horoscopes or any other meaning associated with Astrology except the time you are born. If you have any great ideas on how an AI is going to distinguish between human characteristics I would like to hear them. Anna:) Samantha Atkins wrote: On Jul 17, 2006, at 10:50 AM, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Since you brought it up:) > This is way out there, I know. But what the heck, i'm known > now to do and say strange things:) > > I was wondering if astrology could help in building AI. > Don't get me wrong, I was looking at it from the point of view > of catagorizing certain charactestics based on the time frame > of when your born. That is not just "strange". It borders on willfully stupid. Astrology has been tested utterly flunked the test over and over again. > > I am a strong believer in astrology based on the idea that people > born at a certain times have similar characterics (Again, from a point > of view of the Blue Man Theory). > This can't be proven, I know, it's just my experiences and > observations that have led me to be curious. > It has been proven bogus. > > Could Astrology just be a way for humans to learn about > characterics? > If you wanted to learn characteristics then you would study human beings, psychology, evolutionary psychology and so on. You wouldn't try to draw some bogus correlation against the position of certain groups of stars as seen from earth. Why would you think that clumps of similar characteristics get handed out based on your birth location and time? > > It would seem ludicrious to believe that human characterics are > unique per individual therefore there must be a way compute it. > How can something that's been around that long have no meaning > or reason? You can have plenty of "meaning or reason" without making up bizarre theories like astrology or taking up such nonsense. Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't mean it has "meaning or reason". There are explanations for much of human nature and human characteristics though. - samantha _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jul 18 02:02:24 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:02:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... In-Reply-To: <14d001c6aa07$f8bf2fd0$650fa8c0@kevin> References: <20060717224921.72975.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <14d001c6aa07$f8bf2fd0$650fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060717204953.0215fd70@satx.rr.com> At 08:17 PM 7/17/2006 -0500, Kevin wrote: >Anne, is it not painfully obvious that two people born at the same >time can have wildly varying characteristics and that just as many >people born far apart in date can be similar? Anne, aside from her astrologically-induced inability to spellcheck her emails, has apparently never noticed the finding that fraternal twins resemble each other somewhat, but not nearly as much as identical twins, who have double the shared genome. However-- >Can astrology even work considering human genetics and our ability >to learn new behavior patterns and the way our personalities change >throughout our lives? ...You can't use it to predict Well, of course people *can* and *do*. The question is whether they are correct in their predictions. Suppose they were, a bit? (Most research I've read shows they aren't, but hey.) Seasons of gestation and birth might be a significant parameter, just as maternal smoking or doping or available nutrition are. On top of that, there are several key filters in development that might be modulated by birth month: in many places, you start school at age 5 (or whatever) with some given month as the cut-off. One lot of kids might be a day younger than another and yet start school a whole year later. And so on. The hilarious aspect to sun-sign astrology (as seen in your local rag) is that Southern Hemisphere idiots contentedly follow the reprinted advice dished out to 6-month-season-reversed Northern Hemisphere dopes, which suggests that the seasonal element isn't very marked. >Are we really entertaining such topics at the moment? Let's hope not, except in another sense of "entertaining". Damien Broderick From jonkc at att.net Tue Jul 18 04:37:27 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:37:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... References: <20060717224921.72975.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001901c6aa23$f45e35f0$1e084e0c@MyComputer> Anne-Marie Taylor > Why couldn't their be a correlation between the time you are born and > human characteristics? Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born at the exact same time, and everybody knows they were as alike as 2 peas in a pod. > I studied psychology in University, > maybe I wasn't paying enough attention If you believe in astrology then you most certainly were not paying attention when people tried to give you an education. Put more simply, if you want to talk about astrology YOU ARE ON THE WRONG LIST! John K Clark From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Jul 18 05:08:06 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:08:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen... In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060717204953.0215fd70@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200607180519.k6I5JLEP024080@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... > > >Are we really entertaining such topics at the moment? > > Let's hope not, except in another sense of "entertaining". > > Damien Broderick Entertaining? More accurately, enduring such topics. Oy vey, we were on such a roll there with the singularity energy requirements, that was way cool. Everyone, do post smart stuff. spike From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Jul 18 07:36:05 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 03:36:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut jobs & transhumanism going extinct) Message-ID: <380-2200672187365437@M2W002.mail2web.com> At 04:34 PM 7/17/2006, you wrote: --- spike wrote: > http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/posts.html?pg=4 They called us nutjobs. > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha > Atkins > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs > > > > Using such a phrase is not a compliment. It > implies we are > > generally nuts but now and then may be onto > something. It should be > > objected to. > > > > - s > > >From the general tone of the article, it didn't > feel to me like an > intentional jab, or rather I didn't feel insulted. > Of course, I seldom do, > even if an insult is the intended, so perhaps I am > not the right one to ask. > > > Recommend we laugh it off. Again? How many times are we going to turn the other cheek while the media insults us left and right. I have had enough, it is time for an object lesson. I recommend we play tit for tat and retaliate. Not with some whiny little letter to the editor, however. The responses need to come from Max More first of all. Greg Burch and Martine Rothblatt ought to reply as well. These three individuals are exceedingly articulate. Max and Greg are top of the line at debating skills. Max has the position to respond. Greg is an attorney and has a background in history. Martine is an attorney and quite skilled at the larger picture. I think it would be responsible to ask individuals such as Amara D. Angelica her opinion since she may have a clearer perspective of these types of incidents, given her experience across many fields. No one should poke jabs, whine nor getting all out of sorts about this. It is business and business needs to be taken care of. Best wishes, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Jul 18 21:29:59 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:29:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen...human characteristics Message-ID: <20060718212959.10808.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Anna writes: Ok well, that went as expected. Keeping in mind, people on the Extropy chat shouldn't bring forth discussions by barfing on them if they don't expect people to come back with a reprieve. My folk beliefs are mine and I was told quite often to stay away from topics that do not fit the proper discussion for this list. I was simply making a point. Back to human characteristics. At the same time, I was wondering if humans are born with pre- determined set of characteristics (not really caring, when their born). How will a "Friendly AI" be able to distinguish between humans using the Blue Man Theory? I figure that during a human's lifetime many characteristics will change but I can't help thinking based on observation that some characterics ultimately stay the same. Anybody have any opinions. In passing, Damien Wrote: Anne, aside from her astrologically-induced inability to spellcheck her emails Anna writes: Thank you again Damien for this wonderful insight. My spellcheck on yahoo doesn't work but I feel I do my best to look up the words to the best of my knowledge, sorry if it is not to your satisfaction. Anna:) Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving. Dale Carnegie --------------------------------- The best gets better. See why everyone is raving about the All-new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Jul 18 22:33:38 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:33:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen...human characteristics Message-ID: <380-220067218223338578@M2W011.mail2web.com> Anna writes: >Ok well, that went as expected. Analytical discourse on unextropic viewpoints are often worthwhile if they bring new knowledge to the list. Otherwise, steer clear. Best wishes, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 22:59:51 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's protect these brains! With Antioxidants! In-Reply-To: <380-2200672187365437@M2W002.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20060718225951.15462.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I think it's likely that many list members here are going to be playing pivotal roles in the development of the Singularity. [Not that it needs to be stated, but Mr. Yudkowsky is a perfect example]. Given that the Singularity may not arrive for several decades, I think it's important that the "pivotal" people take some easy and reasonable precautions toward protecting their mental faculties. One of the most probable threats is from age-related cognitive decline. As many of you probably know, one of the primary suspects for age-related cognitive decline is cumulative free-radical damage. Fortunately, humans can significantly reduce (but not totally eliminate) further free-radical damage by consuming appropriate antioxidants (eg. Vitamin E, C, and others). I've read a fair amount on the subject of free-radicals and antioxidants, and I thinks it's safe to say that all else being equal, a person can forestall or even effectively prevent age-related cognitive decline by consuming the correct antioxidants in the correct amounts. There is a core of so-called "Network Antioxidants" which synergize powerfully with each other inside the brain (eg. by recycling each other and/or operating in varied cellular environments). These are: Vitamin C, Vitamin E (take the "natural" spectrum E), Coenzyme Q-10, R-Lipoic Acid, and Glutathione. Don't take Glutathione as a supplement! There is some evidence that it is harmful. Stay away from the synthetic L- or DL- prefixed vitamin E, try to get the natural (D-), full spectrum Vitamin E (which is a mixture of eight different "forms") in a dosage of about 400 IU daily. Coenzyme Q-10 is an iffy call, with some evidence that it may be ineffective and or slightly harmful - I wouldn't fully recommend supplementing with it. R-Lipoic acid is the most powerful known antioxidant (has the greatest reducing potential), yet it is made within our bodies naturally (in very small, inadequate amounts) and is completely safe at reasonable dosages. The only "side-effect" which one might encounter at ridiculously high dosages is a moderate drop in blood glucose. Stick with ~100mg daily and you won't have any problems. Vitamin C is also totally safe unless you are trying to overdose with it and exceed around 10,000 milligrams daily - you won't overdose successfully but you will get some pretty bad diarrhea. :-) . 1000 - 1500 mg daily is a good amount. If you would like to know more about Antioxidants, Free-Radicals, and Cognitive decline, I highly recommend the books: "The Antioxidant Miracle" (explains the details of the "Network Antioxidants") by Dr. Lester Packer M.D. and "Your Miracle Brain" by Jean Carper. That's a lot of "Miracles", I know, but these really are informative books. Or you can just Google for this info. I'm sorry, I'm feeling way too lazy to go searching for links today. At the very least, we should all consider taking 2 X 500mg Vitamin C, daily. It's a powerfully effective brain antioxidant, it's totally harmless, and it's damned inexpensive. And a good quality multi-vitamin is a good idea too. "I'm seriously, you guys." X-D For the record: Just in case it's not painfully obvious, I'm not a medical doctor, or a medical expert. Please consult your doctor before adding to your diet any of the supplements mentioned here. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Jul 19 01:23:03 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] it had to happen...human characteristics In-Reply-To: <380-220067218223338578@M2W011.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20060719012303.7730.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes, your right. My apology. Anna "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: Anna writes: >Ok well, that went as expected. Analytical discourse on unextropic viewpoints are often worthwhile if they bring new knowledge to the list. Otherwise, steer clear. Best wishes, 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.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jul 19 10:20:20 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:20:20 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's protect these brains! With Antioxidants! In-Reply-To: <20060718225951.15462.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <380-2200672187365437@M2W002.mail2web.com> <20060718225951.15462.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060719102020.GY14701@leitl.org> On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 03:59:51PM -0700, A B wrote: > I think it's likely that many list members here are going to be playing pivotal > roles in the development of the Singularity. [Not that it needs to be stated, I think that's overwhelmingly unlikely, from statistics alone. Nevermind negative bias: technical people don't have time to participate in nontechnical mailing lists. Businessfolks ditto: that'd keep them away from meetings. Also I'd argue against some Ayn Randian archetypes (and Vingean stereotypes of a heroic handful, which drive progress to a supercivilisation single-handedly). Making technical progess possible takes many human hands and minds. > At the very least, we should all consider taking 2 X 500mg Vitamin C, daily. > It's a powerfully effective brain antioxidant, it's totally harmless, and it's > damned inexpensive. And a good quality multi-vitamin is a good idea too. > "I'm seriously, you guys." X-D A pretty good source (no, I'm not getting a cut) is http://www.lef.org/ An extra benefit is that profits partly go into finding advanced human cryopreservation, and anti-aging projects. > For the record: Just in case it's not painfully obvious, I'm not a medical > doctor, or a medical expert. Please consult your doctor before adding to your > diet any of the supplements mentioned here. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Jul 19 14:52:05 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:52:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wired: Response re "Transhumanist Nut-Jobs" Message-ID: <380-22006731914525765@M2W036.mail2web.com> This is the first of ExI's responses to Bijal Trivedi's article. The following is from ExI Vice President, Greg Burch (still current until we complete ExI's closing paperwork). I will forward letters from Max and myself in the next few days. ExI's approach to this issue is to reflect on Wired's historical relationship to reporting on technology and the future, and especially speculative technologies, in which Wired obtained much of its information from ExI (by Wired?s journalists and editors calling ExI first hand) and which information gave articles a certain credibility to Wired; and it current method of reporting. Natasha ____________________________________________ To Wired Editor: I was very disappointed when I read Bijal Trivedi's article about work on low- temperature suspension of trauma subjects. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/posts.html?pg=4 In what looks like a throw-away line, he wrote: "Long the domain of transhumanist nut-jobs, cryogenic suspension may be just two years away from clinical trials on humans ..." During the early years of WIRED?s existence, the magazine took a consistently visionary and optimistic approach to science and technology. This made WIRED a natural ally to those who called themselves "transhumanists:" Both transhumanists and WIRED expressed a clear view that human progress was a good thing and that reason and science should be the arbiter of how that progress should proceed. WIRED had a great new style in those years, and also published many important articles of real substance. But something has happened to WIRED: The style has come to be brittle and the substance seems thinner and thinner. In allowing this phrase "transhumanist nut-jobs" to slip through the editorial filter, WIRED has crossed a line of betrayal: Betrayal of its roots in cutting-edge journalism about cutting edge science, technology and ideas; and betrayal of one of the main sources of the ideas that gave it a meaningful identity in its early years. The transhumanist strand in WIRED's early editorial fabric gave its reporting on new technologies and the social impact of those technologies some real meaning. Abandoning that thread means abandoning a distinct place in the marketplace of ideas. Without it, WIRED is just a glossy advertising catalog. Please take a moment to look back at those early issues of WIRED to see the fresh and optimistic attitude the magazine had. Consider that a phrase like "transhumanist nut-job" serves the magazine and your audience very poorly. Greg Burch http://www.gregburch.net attorney, transhumanist -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From hibbert at mydruthers.com Wed Jul 19 16:48:24 2006 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:48:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] SENS challenge on Tech Review Message-ID: <44BE6258.3090405@mydruthers.com> Most of you are familiar with Aubrey de Grey and his SENS [1] (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence) project. Many of you probably also read about Technology Review's cover article on SENS a year ago, and TR's ensuing challenge[2] to find someone who would write a convincing argument that the proposal was "so wrong that it was unworthy of learned debate." TR appointed a committee (including, among others, Craig Ventner, Rod Brooks, and Nathan Myhrvold) which reported last week that none of the submissions they received was convincing. TR received 5 submissions, of which 3 were determined to be worth evaluation by the committee. de Grey wrote responses to each, and the original authors wrote rebuttals. The committee identified one of the submissions as "the most eloquent", but declared than none of them were convincing. I read that one [3] in detail, along with de Grey's response[4] and the rebuttal[5], and posted a review on my blog.[6] As in early disputes like this (e.g. Sci Am vs. Nanotechnology) the initial critiques didn't score many points, instead spending most of its time saying that SENS looks like pseudo-science, and is composed of fantasy and outright fraud. de Grey did a fine job of insisting that the attacks have to be more substantive to show that SENS isn't worth pursuing. We'll have to wait a bit longer to see serious attacks on feasibility, I fear. Chris [1] http://www.sens.org/ [2] http://www.technologyreview.com/sens/index.aspx [3] http://www.technologyreview.com/sens/docs/estepetal.pdf [4] http://www.technologyreview.com/sens/docs/estepetal_rebuttal.pdf [5] http://www.technologyreview.com/sens/docs/estepetal_response.pdf [6] http://pancrit.blogspot.com/2006/07/sens-debate-continued.html -- It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Wed Jul 19 21:08:29 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:08:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Vernor Vinge podcast interview by Instapundit/Glenn Reynolds Message-ID: (This is somewhat old news, but it doesn't seem to have been mentioned here previously) Back in April, the Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee) and Dr. Helen did a podcast interview with Vernor Vinge. Here's a link and description: http://instapundit.com/archives/029925.php I'm interested in the Singularity, and I'm a big fan of Vernor Vinge's. He's > got a new book out next week called *Rainbows End,*set in 2025, and as I've mentioned before it's pretty much an > *Army of Davids* kind of world. He's also the > author of such previous classics as *A Fire Upon the Deep*and > *A Deepness in the Sky.* > > We talk to him about the Singularity -- and how it may come from the > superhuman "ensemble behavior" of ordinary humans with powerful computers > linked via the Internet rather than through the development of superhuman > artificial intelligence -- about signposts indicating how we're doing, about > humanity's prospects for utopia or extinction, and related minor issues. We > also discussed writing science fiction (the secret, he says, is "brain > parasitism," taking advantage of readers' smarts), whether college is > becoming obsolete, mind uploading, and the joys (or lack thereof) of > virtual-reality sex, a question that perplexes Helen. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jul 20 01:13:40 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:13:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wired: Response re "Transhumanist Nut-Jobs" In-Reply-To: <380-22006731914525765@M2W036.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200607200128.k6K1S3IN009542@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Perfect! Gregory, this is really good stuff man! Calling someone a nut job is not liable, but this measured and indignant response will prick the conscience of WIRED far more than a lawsuit. This solution is far better than my own suggestion of laughing it off. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of nvitamore at austin.rr.com > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:52 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Cc: wta-talk at transhumanism.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] Wired: Response re "Transhumanist Nut-Jobs" > > > This is the first of ExI's responses to Bijal Trivedi's article... > > Natasha > > ____________________________________________ > > To Wired Editor: > > I was very disappointed when I read Bijal Trivedi's article about work on > low- temperature suspension of trauma subjects. > > http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/posts.html?pg=4 > > In what looks like a throw-away line, he wrote: "Long the domain of > transhumanist nut-jobs, cryogenic suspension may be just two years away > from clinical trials on humans ..." > > During the early years of WIRED's existence, the magazine took a > consistently visionary and optimistic approach to science and technology... > "transhumanist nut-job" serves the magazine and your audience very poorly. > > Greg Burch From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jul 20 02:13:13 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:13:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] clarke's vision In-Reply-To: <380-22006731914525765@M2W036.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200607200213.k6K2DOjF019212@andromeda.ziaspace.com> AC Clarke foresaw China's entry into space exploration nearly 40 years ago. Perhaps Damien or someone knows the reference: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/07/19/china.space.reut/index.html Keep in mind, the first one to get there with the wherewithal to enforce her will owns that rock. spike From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu Jul 20 02:30:04 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry Colvin) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:30:04 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" Message-ID: <10511686.1153362604582.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Forwarded Message----- > >This is nice review of some (I am sure it is incomplete) of the >problems regular folk see with the so-called cultural elites. It is >in the form of a summary of the conclusions of the great social >critic Christopher Lasch from his book The Revolt of the Elites. I >like it because Lasch knew the "Elites" from the inside, being one >of them himself. I especially note how he counters Peter Parks' >claim that "bettering oneself" and "meritocracy" is in some way part >of the American democratic ideal of respect for every person, no >matter to which social class they might be assigned by >their "betters" at any given moment. Lasch's book is well worth a >read. > >THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES: And the Betrayal of Democracy by, >Christopher Lasch > >Publisher: W.W. Norton & CO. > >December - 1995 > >In this book, an American historian finds fault with the values and >beliefs of America's professional elites. > >Christopher Lasch argues that democracy today is threatened not by >the masses, as Jose Ortega y Gasset argued in The Revolt of the >Masses, but by the elites. > >These elites - mobile and increasingly global in outlook - refuse to >accept limits or ties to any nation or place. Lasch contends that as >they isolate themselves in their networks and enclaves, they abandon >the traditional middle class and betray our democracy. > >The author traces how meritocracy - and its selective elevation of >individuals into the elite class - gradually replaced the original >American democratic ideal of general competence and respect for >every man. > >The author criticizes our elite class for valuing self-esteem over >achievement. He sees self-fulfilment as a false remedy for deeper >social problems, and he attacks the superior pseudoradicalism of the >academic left. > >He sees these Americans as apathetic about their common culture and >ambivalent about arguing politics or voting. > >The elites, having jettisoned the moral and ethical guidelines >provided by religion, cling to the belief that through various >sciences they can master their fates and escape mortal limits. > >In pursuit of this illusion they have become infatuated with the >global economy. Their revolt, the author warns, is diminishing what >is worthwhile about American life. > >1. There used to be the threat of communism and the revolt of the >workers. Now the threat is a revolt of the elites. > >1.1. Those who control the international flow of information, >bankers, stockbrokers, executives, professors, government analysts, >have lost faith in the concept of Western Civilization and of >reason. > >1.2. These behaviours and beliefs are more characteristic of the >upper classes and represent the betrayal of the middle class and of >the lower classes, but especially the middle class. > >1.3. The middle and lower classes are much more socially and morally >conservative than their would-be liberators from the upper class. >The natural and reasonable conservatism of the middle and lower >classes is not serviced by the media, who are controlled by elites. >These elites believe that they know what is best for the masses. > >2. The Decline of the Middle Class > >2.1. The middle class is treated with scorn and derision by the new >elites. Everything that is ugly in society is associated with the >unenlightened middle class (i.e. homophobia, racism, retrograde >attitudes towards women, etc.) > >2.2. Lasch argues that the crisis in the middle class must be >addressed for democracy to survive. > >2.3. The middle class is the silent backbone of society, paying an >ever-growing proportion of the national tax receipts and working >longer hours. Meanwhile the welfare state generates complacency >among the lower class and the upper-middle and upper class become >more powerful and separate from those who surround them. > >3. Who are the New Elites? > >3.1. They are symbolic analysts. They live in a world of ideas, >abstract concepts and symbols: the stockmarket, financial trends, >technology, communications, universities, etc. > >3.2. They participate in a market that is global in scope. > >3.3. They have more in common with their counterparts in foreign >cities such as London, Brussels, Hong Kong and Cairo than they do >with the average people whom they see every day. > >3.4. In these abstract circles, there exists the cynical idea that >the circles of power in finance, government, entertainment and the >academe become interchangeable. > >3.5. This is product of the Meritocracy. > >4. Lasch's Meritocracy > >4.1. The meritocracy has many of the attributes of the aristocracy >minus its positive traits. > >4.2. No sense of social chivalry and noblesse oblige. > >4.3. No sense of community and of place. > >4.4. Symbolic analysts often feel that they are self-made people who >owe all their privileges to their efforts and talent. > >4.5. They tend to be transient and live in a community of >contemporaries. They do not accept the generational transfer of >wisdom, knowledge and values. > >5. Meritocracy and Democracy > >5.1. For Lasch, meritocracy is a parody of democracy. > >5.2. It has brought on the collapse of public schools and an end to >the notion of a common culture. > >5.3. Educational reforms leave little possibility for outrage. Those >who are left behind know that "they have had every chance to >succeed." > >5.4. The concept of an obligation to others is depersonalized in the >meritocracy. The symbolic analysts who benefit from being elites >feel for their fellow citizens but do little directly or physically >to benefit their fellow citizens. > >6. Democracy in the Age of Meritocracy and Globalization > >6.1. In the borderless economy, money has lost its nationality. >Thus, it is harder to pinpoint those who divert it away from the >national popular interest. > >6.2. A strong centralized government, run by a quasi-permanent >bureaucracy reduce the possibility for protest, change and real >representation. > >6.3. A strong centralized government is supported by a media that is >owned by and serves more and more, a class of symbolic analysts who >are increasingly removed from the common culture. > >7. Lasch's thesis is that the decline of democracy is closely linked >to the decline of the middle class and a move away from argument, >discussion, freedom, individuality and a common culture. > >The Lost Art of Argument > >8. For many years we have been regaled with the benefits of the >communications revolution. Lasch contends that all is not as rosy as >it would seem. > >8.1. The post-industrial economy puts a focus on the >interchangeability of employ for the majority of non-symbolic >analyst work. > >8.2. A growing concentration of non-union labour-intensive parts of >the economy. > >9. Why is this happening? > >9.1. We tend to blame the schools, but this is fallacy in Lasch's >eyes. Instead Lasch says that it is the general decay of public >debate that has caused this. > >9.2. What democracy depends on is not information, but informed, >rigorous and reasoned public debate. > >9.3. The only way that we know that we know something is by >subjecting our ideas to the test of public controversy. > >9.4. Lasch thinks that an example of this decline in public debate >is the way televised political debates have changed. The corporate >media demand certain types of politicians. > >10.Government, Media and Meritocracy > >10.1. The corporatization of the media has brought about the >incorporation of corporate methods in governance. Technocracy is the >result. > >10.2. Democracy requires the broad discussion of issues. This is >difficult when discussion is discouraged. Lasch says that the >written word is a poor substitute for oral argument. > >11.The author notes the rise of "Public Relations and Advertising" >and its negative effects on the democratic exchange of ideas. > >12. The author laments the loss of "the ability to follow an >argument, grasp the point of view of another, expand the boundaries >of understanding, and debate alternative purposes that might be >pursued." From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Jul 20 12:28:39 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:28:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <10511686.1153362604582.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.n et> References: <10511686.1153362604582.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <35173.72.236.103.142.1153398519.squirrel@main.nc.us> Much of this commentary mirrors well the conclusions reached in "The Bell Curve". The last few chapters of that book were serious questions about the direction our country was going, and questioned how to avoid what is described below. Regards, MB > -----Forwarded Message----- >> >>This is nice review of some (I am sure it is incomplete) of the >>problems regular folk see with the so-called cultural elites. It is >>in the form of a summary of the conclusions of the great social >>critic Christopher Lasch from his book The Revolt of the Elites. I >>like it because Lasch knew the "Elites" from the inside, being one >>of them himself. I especially note how he counters Peter Parks' >>claim that "bettering oneself" and "meritocracy" is in some way part >>of the American democratic ideal of respect for every person, no >>matter to which social class they might be assigned by >>their "betters" at any given moment. Lasch's book is well worth a >>read. >> >>THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES: And the Betrayal of Democracy by, >>Christopher Lasch >> >>Publisher: W.W. Norton & CO. >> >>December - 1995 >> >>In this book, an American historian finds fault with the values and >>beliefs of America's professional elites. >> >>Christopher Lasch argues that democracy today is threatened not by >>the masses, as Jose Ortega y Gasset argued in The Revolt of the >>Masses, but by the elites. >> >>These elites - mobile and increasingly global in outlook - refuse to >>accept limits or ties to any nation or place. Lasch contends that as >>they isolate themselves in their networks and enclaves, they abandon >>the traditional middle class and betray our democracy. >> >>The author traces how meritocracy - and its selective elevation of >>individuals into the elite class - gradually replaced the original >>American democratic ideal of general competence and respect for >>every man. >> >>The author criticizes our elite class for valuing self-esteem over >>achievement. He sees self-fulfilment as a false remedy for deeper >>social problems, and he attacks the superior pseudoradicalism of the >>academic left. >> >>He sees these Americans as apathetic about their common culture and >>ambivalent about arguing politics or voting. >> >>The elites, having jettisoned the moral and ethical guidelines >>provided by religion, cling to the belief that through various >>sciences they can master their fates and escape mortal limits. >> >>In pursuit of this illusion they have become infatuated with the >>global economy. Their revolt, the author warns, is diminishing what >>is worthwhile about American life. >> >>1. There used to be the threat of communism and the revolt of the >>workers. Now the threat is a revolt of the elites. >> >>1.1. Those who control the international flow of information, >>bankers, stockbrokers, executives, professors, government analysts, >>have lost faith in the concept of Western Civilization and of >>reason. >> >>1.2. These behaviours and beliefs are more characteristic of the >>upper classes and represent the betrayal of the middle class and of >>the lower classes, but especially the middle class. >> >>1.3. The middle and lower classes are much more socially and morally >>conservative than their would-be liberators from the upper class. >>The natural and reasonable conservatism of the middle and lower >>classes is not serviced by the media, who are controlled by elites. >>These elites believe that they know what is best for the masses. >> >>2. The Decline of the Middle Class >> >>2.1. The middle class is treated with scorn and derision by the new >>elites. Everything that is ugly in society is associated with the >>unenlightened middle class (i.e. homophobia, racism, retrograde >>attitudes towards women, etc.) >> >>2.2. Lasch argues that the crisis in the middle class must be >>addressed for democracy to survive. >> >>2.3. The middle class is the silent backbone of society, paying an >>ever-growing proportion of the national tax receipts and working >>longer hours. Meanwhile the welfare state generates complacency >>among the lower class and the upper-middle and upper class become >>more powerful and separate from those who surround them. >> >>3. Who are the New Elites? >> >>3.1. They are symbolic analysts. They live in a world of ideas, >>abstract concepts and symbols: the stockmarket, financial trends, >>technology, communications, universities, etc. >> >>3.2. They participate in a market that is global in scope. >> >>3.3. They have more in common with their counterparts in foreign >>cities such as London, Brussels, Hong Kong and Cairo than they do >>with the average people whom they see every day. >> >>3.4. In these abstract circles, there exists the cynical idea that >>the circles of power in finance, government, entertainment and the >>academe become interchangeable. >> >>3.5. This is product of the Meritocracy. >> >>4. Lasch's Meritocracy >> >>4.1. The meritocracy has many of the attributes of the aristocracy >>minus its positive traits. >> >>4.2. No sense of social chivalry and noblesse oblige. >> >>4.3. No sense of community and of place. >> >>4.4. Symbolic analysts often feel that they are self-made people who >>owe all their privileges to their efforts and talent. >> >>4.5. They tend to be transient and live in a community of >>contemporaries. They do not accept the generational transfer of >>wisdom, knowledge and values. >> >>5. Meritocracy and Democracy >> >>5.1. For Lasch, meritocracy is a parody of democracy. >> >>5.2. It has brought on the collapse of public schools and an end to >>the notion of a common culture. >> >>5.3. Educational reforms leave little possibility for outrage. Those >>who are left behind know that "they have had every chance to >>succeed." >> >>5.4. The concept of an obligation to others is depersonalized in the >>meritocracy. The symbolic analysts who benefit from being elites >>feel for their fellow citizens but do little directly or physically >>to benefit their fellow citizens. >> >>6. Democracy in the Age of Meritocracy and Globalization >> >>6.1. In the borderless economy, money has lost its nationality. >>Thus, it is harder to pinpoint those who divert it away from the >>national popular interest. >> >>6.2. A strong centralized government, run by a quasi-permanent >>bureaucracy reduce the possibility for protest, change and real >>representation. >> >>6.3. A strong centralized government is supported by a media that is >>owned by and serves more and more, a class of symbolic analysts who >>are increasingly removed from the common culture. >> >>7. Lasch's thesis is that the decline of democracy is closely linked >>to the decline of the middle class and a move away from argument, >>discussion, freedom, individuality and a common culture. >> >>The Lost Art of Argument >> >>8. For many years we have been regaled with the benefits of the >>communications revolution. Lasch contends that all is not as rosy as >>it would seem. >> >>8.1. The post-industrial economy puts a focus on the >>interchangeability of employ for the majority of non-symbolic >>analyst work. >> >>8.2. A growing concentration of non-union labour-intensive parts of >>the economy. >> >>9. Why is this happening? >> >>9.1. We tend to blame the schools, but this is fallacy in Lasch's >>eyes. Instead Lasch says that it is the general decay of public >>debate that has caused this. >> >>9.2. What democracy depends on is not information, but informed, >>rigorous and reasoned public debate. >> >>9.3. The only way that we know that we know something is by >>subjecting our ideas to the test of public controversy. >> >>9.4. Lasch thinks that an example of this decline in public debate >>is the way televised political debates have changed. The corporate >>media demand certain types of politicians. >> >>10.Government, Media and Meritocracy >> >>10.1. The corporatization of the media has brought about the >>incorporation of corporate methods in governance. Technocracy is the >>result. >> >>10.2. Democracy requires the broad discussion of issues. This is >>difficult when discussion is discouraged. Lasch says that the >>written word is a poor substitute for oral argument. >> >>11.The author notes the rise of "Public Relations and Advertising" >>and its negative effects on the democratic exchange of ideas. >> >>12. The author laments the loss of "the ability to follow an >>argument, grasp the point of view of another, expand the boundaries >>of understanding, and debate alternative purposes that might be >>pursued." > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Jul 20 13:44:26 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:44:26 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <35173.72.236.103.142.1153398519.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <10511686.1153362604582.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <35173.72.236.103.142.1153398519.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <470a3c520607200644r162a7b98ub11720960c72b7cd@mail.gmail.com> Is the author saying that I should feel more empathy for my asshole neighbor upstairs than for my friends on this list, just because we live close? Come on, I consider decoupling relationships from geography as one of the great achievements of our time. Sure everything has a downside but let's not throw the baby with the water. G. On 7/20/06, MB wrote: > > Much of this commentary mirrors well the conclusions reached in "The Bell Curve". > The last few chapters of that book were serious questions about the direction our > country was going, and questioned how to avoid what is described below. > > Regards, > MB From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Jul 20 14:49:21 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:49:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <470a3c520607200644r162a7b98ub11720960c72b7cd@mail.gmail.com> References: <10511686.1153362604582.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <35173.72.236.103.142.1153398519.squirrel@main.nc.us> <470a3c520607200644r162a7b98ub11720960c72b7cd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <35265.72.236.103.123.1153406961.squirrel@main.nc.us> I also have asshole neighbors and I prefer many of my online friends. :) The danger lies in taking things to an extreme, which you also warn about in your post. I've not read the book on Elites referenced in the original post, only the summarizing post, so I cannot speak to it directly. But I have read The Bell Curve and wanted to mention that now I see two warnings where I had before seen one. Regards, MB > Is the author saying that I should feel more empathy for my asshole > neighbor upstairs than for my friends on this list, just because we > live close? > Come on, I consider decoupling relationships from geography as one of > the great achievements of our time. Sure everything has a downside but > let's not throw the baby with the water. > G. > > On 7/20/06, MB wrote: >> >> Much of this commentary mirrors well the conclusions reached in "The Bell Curve". >> The last few chapters of that book were serious questions about the direction our >> country was going, and questioned how to avoid what is described below. >> From mstriz at gmail.com Thu Jul 20 15:16:46 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:16:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's protect these brains! With Antioxidants! In-Reply-To: <20060718225951.15462.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <380-2200672187365437@M2W002.mail2web.com> <20060718225951.15462.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 7/18/06, A B wrote: > > One of the most probable threats is from > age-related cognitive decline. As many of you probably know, one of the > primary suspects for age-related cognitive decline is cumulative > free-radical damage. Fortunately, humans can significantly reduce (but not > totally eliminate) further free-radical damage by consuming appropriate > antioxidants (eg. Vitamin E, C, and others). That statement has not be verified empirically, unless you have some studies you'd like to share. Several meta-analyses have found the reverse. You use as much antioxidants as you need and metabolize or pass out the rest. The makers of Protandim claim 40% reductions in lipid peroxidation levels, though. It works by increasing levels of antioxidant enzymes. > Vitamin C > is also totally safe unless you are trying to overdose with it and exceed > around 10,000 milligrams daily - you won't overdose successfully but you > will get some pretty bad diarrhea. :-) You don't know what you're talking about. Serum ascorbic acid levels peak at doses of 400 mg, the rest gets broken down into oxalate and can potentially combine with Ca++ in the kidneys to form kidney stones (although risk for this phenomenon seems to be genetic). It is useless and potentially unhealthy to consume more than 400 mg in a single dose, and given that you would only dose three times a day, ~1200 mg/d. > At the very least, we should all consider taking 2 X 500mg Vitamin C, daily. > It's a powerfully effective brain antioxidant, it's totally harmless, Spreading this kind of misinformation is irresponsible. I did a short review of antioxidants a while back: http://striz.org/blog/?p=227 Martin From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Jul 20 18:02:12 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:02:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Xian talibans Message-ID: <470a3c520607201102w7ae3f514u170870ca0437c377@mail.gmail.com> I have been flamed a few times, on this and other lists, for referring to US neocons as "talibans". So I thought to share this link: http://www.ncccusa.org/news/060705foxnews.html especially "Although I am a fan of FOX NEWS, I do feel you have swung too far to the right. Especially when it comes to issues championed by the extreme Christian right (Christian Taliban). You must remember that 'perception is reality', and the perception is; that FOX NEWS is in favor of turning the USA into an extreme Christian version of Taliban Afghanistan" From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu Jul 20 23:10:16 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry Colvin) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:10:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] First-string vs. second-string academics and the paranormal Message-ID: <33167559.1153437017155.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Forwarded Message----- >What are the differences, if any, between academics who are sympathetic >versus unsympathetic toward an open-minded interest in the anomalous or >paranormal? What, if anything, distinguishes academic "believers" versus >"skeptics" about parapsychology, UFO's, abductions, Bigfoot, Lake >Monsters, crop circles, etc.? > >I was reminded of this questions a couple of years ago when I attended a >UFO and "Earth Mysteries" conference at Bordentown, New Jersey. One >afternoon there I got into a conversation with a parapsychologist about >abduction researchers David Jacobs and John Mack and Mexican ufologist & >TV personality Jaime Maussan. He pretty much deconstructed Jacobs, Mack, >and Maussan as high-status white males who encounter the paranormal in >middle age after many years as prestigious, conventional "Establishment" >academics or media figures--and become unhinged by it, becoming >messianic evangelists for it--and, as I also sort of recall his adding, >using their newfound messianic charisma as a drawing card to attract women! > >Actually, that parapsychologist's observations strike me as pretty >applicable to Mack and Maussan, but less accurate for David Jacobs. John >Mack was and Jaime Maussan is a prominent high-status white male in the >top echelon of his field--Mack as a Harvard professor and >Pulitzer-winning author of a "mainstream" psycho-biography (of T.E. >Lawrence), Maussan as a popular, celebrated TV personality in his >country--who seem to have pretty much ignored the paranormal most of >their lives and then rather suddenly discovered it fairly late in life. >Abductologist and Temple University history professor David Jacobs, on >the other hand, strikes me more as a second-string academic, never >anywhere as prominent in intellectual/cultural circles as Mack and >affiliated with an institution (Temple University) somewhat less >prestigious than Harvard, who has dealt with UFO's most of his >professional life, having written his PhD dissertation on the UFO >controversy in post-World War II America. When I pointed out these >considerations to the parapsychologist, he conceded my point. However, >he still felt Jacobs was and is rather simple-minded and literalistic, >tone-deaf to the ambiguities and "liminalities" of the paranormal, >wedded to a crude (as he saw it) "nuts-and-bolts" belief in literal >physical aliens visiting, abducting, and exploiting us. > > >This contrast between Harvard's John Mack and Temple University's David >M. Jacobs, I feel, suggests general distinctions in beliefs, attitudes, >interests, etc., between higher- and lower-status academics that might >be interesting to study sociologially. Most ufologists with academic >affiliations, for instance, seem to be affiliated with second-string >rather than "Ivy League" institutions. > >In an area of controversy outside Forteana or ufology, I remember once >reading a _Scientific American_ news item about 1969 or 1970 summarizing >a then recent survey of American scientists' opinions on the Viet Nam >war. Physicists, chemists, biologists, astronomers, mathematicians, >etc., affiliated with higher-status schools (Harvard, MIT, Columbia, >Chicago, Berkeley, CalTech, etc.) tended overwhelmingly to be "doves," >strongly condemning our Viet Nam involvement and advocating immediate >U.S.withdrawal. Scientists affiliated with less prestigious schools, >however, tended presominantly to be "hawks," strongly supportive of the >Johnson and Nixon administrations' Viet Nam policies. Moreover, the >survey found a definite statistical correlation between institutional >prestige and political opinion--the more prestigious a scientist's >school, the more likely he/she was to be a "dove"--and the less >prestigious his/her school, the more likely to be a "hawk." > >Though the _Scientific American_ piece on American scientists and the >Viet Nam war didn't quite explicitly draw this conclusion, the clear >implication seemed to be that professors at high-prestige schools see >themselves as a "cultural ???lite," "clerisy," and "the conscience of the >nation." They consider themselves a sort of secular modern counterpart >of the priesthood or the Hebrew prophets, while profs at second- and >third-string schoools see themselves as merely doing one more >white-collar middle-class job in society, not all that different from >lawyers, dentists, accountants, bank officers, used car dealers, or >middle managers. This may also have implications for Forteanism. Could >faculty at second- or third-string schools be more sensitized by >subliminal social resentment to "seeing through"the "Emperor's New >Clothes" aspects of self-anointed intellectual and cultural ???lites, >focussing on Forteana as an aspect of reality systematically ignored by >those intellectual and cultural ???lites? > >The thought that most ufologists with academic affiliations seem to be >affiliated with second-string rather than "Ivy League" schools, though >there of course are exceptions, first popped into my head a couple of >decades ago while reading Frank Salibury's _Utah UFO Display_ (1974). >Frank Salisbury, I already knew from coming across numerous references >to him in other UFO books, was a Professor of Plant Physiology at Utah >State University--a school most people would agree is not quite in the >same league with Harvard, Yale, MIT, Columbia, Chicago, Duke, UCLA, or >Berkeley. The _Utah UFO Display_ book jacket featured a photograph of >Salisbury with his wife and 4 or 5 children (as I recall) posed in front >of Salt Lake City's Mormon Tabernacle. The imagery hardly suggested the >values, sensibility, or outlook of an Eastern Establishment cultural >???lite intellectual! :-) Salisbury, I thought, obviously inhabited a >very different sort of cultural world from, say, Noam Chomsky, John >Kenneth Galbraith, Richard Rorty, Stanley Fish--or John Mack! :-) >Some people, I wryly reflected, might find Salisbury a bit "politically >incorrect" for that photo! :-) > >About the same time, I came across a reference, again like one of many I >had seen over the years in UFO books, to APRO consultant and abductee >hypnotist R. Leo Sprinkle, a psychologist in the counseling department >of the University of Wyoming. Again, it struck me, a school generally >regarded as not in exactly the same league with Harvard or MIT! On the >other hand, however, another APRO consultant and active abductee >hypnotist, James A. Harder, was a professor of engineeering at >Berkeley--and I'd also always thought of J. Allen Hynek's Northwestern >University as pretty much a top-drawer school. > >So, the correlation was certainly not perfect or absolute--but still was >sort of suggestive. The conclusion I drew was NOT that profs involved in >ufology are too dumb to get hired by good schools. Rather, it was that >the awareness of being at a school a bit outside the top scholastic >???lite may create enough of a sense of status resentment or inconsistency >to inspire a defiant interest in matters ignored or dismissed by the >"Academic Establishment." This, I would like to add here, is NOT always >necessarily a bad thing! It may sometimes be positively helpful for >objectivity, open-mindedness, and creativity to be somewhat "marginal" >or "liminal," to use sociologically oriented parapsychologist George P. >Hansen's characterization in _The Trickster and the Paranormal_ >(Philadelphia: XLibris, 2001) of the paranormal and the people involved >with it! > >Peace, >T. Peter From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu Jul 20 23:20:06 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry Colvin) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:20:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Check to see what the Elites are up to...or NOT up to, to be more precise Message-ID: <26396075.1153437606447.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Forwarded Message----- > >Why Elites are AWOL >By Patrick Poole >FrontPageMagazine.com | July 17, 2006 > > >What does it say about America that the killed and wounded soldiers >in Iraq and Afghanistan are more likely to hail from Prattville, >Alabama, Lincoln, Nebraska, Mansfield, Ohio, or Klamath Falls, >Oregon, than New York City, Beverly Hills or Cambridge, >Massachusetts? > > >That's an issue raised by Kathy Roth-Douquet and Frank Schaeffer in >their new book, AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper >Classes from the Military ??? and How It Hurts Our Country >(HarperCollins). This is an important analysis that diagnoses a >severe illness in our body politic, noting that the children of the >cultural elite ??? whether from families involved in politics, >business, academia or the media ??? have almost entirely abandoned the >military, leaving the defense of our Country and our freedoms to the >children of the working class. > > >What makes this work so important is that they present their case in >a very non-political way, with the authors representing both sides >of the Red State/Blue State political divide, with Roth-Douquet >being a longtime Democrat operative and Clinton appointee, and >Schaeffer a committed conservative Republican. > > >Another important element is that this book is not written as a >dispassionate quantitative analysis published by some Washington >D.C.-based think tank, but is a very personal story told by two >individuals with loved ones who have served in harm's way in Iraq >and Afghanistan: for Roth-Douquet, her husband, a career Marine >pilot who has served two tours in Iraq; and for Schaeffer, his son, >John, who served tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Both authors >share a number of personal anecdotes and reflections as members of >the cultural elite that reinforce their thesis. > > >The authors present several sobering statistics to help illustrate >the problems associated with the cultural elite abandoning the >military: > >Of the Princeton University Class of 1956, more than half of the >graduates went on to serve in the military (400 of 750); in 2004, >that number was less than one percent (9 graduates). Sadly, among >Ivy League schools, Princeton is in the lead for ROTC participation. >During the 1956 school year, Stanford University had 1,100 students >enrolled in ROTC; today, there are only 29. >In 1969, seventy percent of the members of Congress were veterans; >in 2004, only twenty-five percent were, with that representation >falling rapidly. >The percentage of members of Congress with children serving in the >military is only slightly above one percent. >While the old political clans of the Kennedys, Roosevelts and the >Bushes have had many family members previously serving in combat, >none of these privileged families (Democrat and Republican alike) >has any relative in the military today. > >These statistics paint a bleak portrait of an entire class that has >eschewed military service, which is problematic in itself, but >particularly since this class comprises America's opinion makers and >cultural leaders. The authors identify several concerns raised by >this almost universal trend: > > >We believe that the increasing gap between the most privileged >classes and those in the military raises three major problems: It >hurts our country, particularly our ability to make the best policy >possible. It undermines the strength of our civilian leadership, >which no longer has significant numbers of members who have the >experience and wisdom that comes from national service. Finally, it >makes our military less strong in the long run. (pp. 10-11). > > >What is most troubling is that this military desertion is neither an >isolated nor a passive trend. The authors document a mindset amongst >the cultural elite that is clearly anti-military. A testament to the >outright contempt that many bear to our military is seen in the >public response to an op-ed by the authors published a few weeks ago >by the Boston Globe, A Call to Serve. The op-ed is a suggested >commencement address that could be given by leaders of either >political party promoting the virtues of military service. > > >But the Letters to the Editor to that op-ed demonstrate a virulent, >almost rabid, reaction to the mere suggestion that Americans from >all walks of life should feel compelled to serve in the military. >One reader said that the innocuous op-ed was "sadly reflective of a >seemingly ubiquitous primitive mentality", and another attacked our >civilian military leaders, saying "no clear-thinking, loving parents >should entrust their child to these cynical ideologues." These >diatribes could easily be entries appearing any day on Daily Kos or >the Huffington Post. > > >The Ivy-covered Halls of Anti-Military Academia > >Undeniably, the most noticeable location where this military >desertion and the cultural forces that inspire it can be seen is on >college campuses, especially in the Ivy League. One organization >calling for the reintroduction of ROTC at Ivy League institutions, >Advocates for ROTC, maintains an extensive list of articles >concerning the status of ROTC at these institutions, as well as the >attacks on the program from within academia. As Jamie Weinstein >chronicled last year for FrontPageMag.com, The Campus Left's War on >ROTC, many elite academic institutions express open contempt for the >military and erect obstacles for students who want to serve their >country through military service. > > >Columbia University, for example, requires their ROTC students to >travel to Fordham College to receive their training, and students do >not receive Columbia course credit for ROTC courses. When the issue >was last put to Columbia students in 2003, 65 percent agreed that >ROTC should be allowed back on campus. But that didn't influence a >Columbia ROTC Task Force from concluding that the college should >boycott the program. This from a college that used to produce more >naval midshipmen than the US Naval Academy. > > >One person to buck this trend in the Ivy League is outgoing Harvard >President Lawrence Summers, former President Clinton's Secretary of >the Treasury, who has attended every ROTC commissioning ceremony for >Harvard graduates during his five-year tenure and openly supported >the program. At the 2006 event, Summers offered his thanks to the >cadets and expressed admiration for their hard work: > > >"I thought there wasn't anything more important that someone could >do than to serve their country???so I admire your courage, your >devotion as citizens in joining our armed forces at this crucial >moment." > > >It should be noted that Harvard had the first ROTC program in the >country. Perhaps due to Summer's boldness in confronting the anti- >military atmosphere at Harvard, the week of the commissioning it was >announced that a new Harvard alumni association had been formed >composed of military veterans, the Harvard Veterans Alumni >Organization. > > >One of Summers' colleagues who has followed his lead is Bucknell >University President Brian Mitchell, who spoke this year at the >commissioning ceremony for the three Bucknell ROTC graduates. But >clearly, Summer and Mitchell are in the minority among university >officials in their support for ROTC, and many of our country's most >prestigious academic institutions actively supported the legal >challenge to the Solomon Amendment, federal legislation that >withholds federal funds from colleges and universities that deny >access to military recruiters, a law which was upheld earlier this >year by the US Supreme Court. > > >Many college authorities expressing their opposition to the >reinstitution of ROTC and military recruiting on their campuses have >cited the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, and yet it is >reasonable to ask if whether the military ever allowed open >homosexuals into the military if academic officials would suddenly >embrace the military. Is it really nothing more than politics that >are holding the academic elites back from military service? > > >Political Implications of the Anti-Military Mindset > >In their book, Roth-Douquet and Schaeffer note that policy issues >related to the military ??? "Don't ask, don't tell", the role of women >in combat, and the implementation of affirmative action quotas for >military promotion ??? are regularly cited by cultural elites as >reasons for their opposition to the military. These political >questions could very well be treated differently by Congress in the >future as one troubling trend continues unabated: the declining >presence of veterans in the House of Representatives and the Senate. > > >As recent as the 1990s, military veterans were over-represented in >Congress. For instance, in the 1970s, more than three-quarters of >the members of Congress had served in the military. But after 1994, >the number of veterans serving in Congress began to rapidly decline. >According to figures from the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, >of the 535 current members of Congress, only 167 are military >veterans ??? less than one-third. > > >There are several answers to why the downward trend in >representation by veterans is occurring, but two stand out >prominently: the increase of women members in Congress, and the >retirement of the World War II-Korea generation: in the 108th >Congress, there are 84 women (14 in the Senate, 70 in the House), >and yet only one, Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM), is a military veteran; >and only 38 veterans from the WWII-Korea-era still serve. The latter >trend of WWII-Korean War era veterans retiring can only continue >when considering that only 10 current members of Congress began >their military service in the all-volunteer era beginning in 1973. > > >With this trend in mind, a question should be asked: as the personal >connections between members of Congress and the military grow more >distant, are our elected officials more or less likely to send >American forces into conflicts with no identifiable military outcome >or absurd rules of engagement? And are they more susceptible to >withdrawing our military from conflicts due to political pressure >rather than strategic military reasons? > > >There are some additional statistics that should be observed from >House Committee's data on veterans in Congress: > >Representation of veterans in the Senate (39 percent) is higher than >that of the House (31 percent). >In the House, 49 veterans are Democrats, 72 are Republicans. >In the Senate, the military service split is more evenly divided >politically: 16 Democrats, 18 Republicans, and one Independent (who >caucuses with the Democrats) ??? mirroring the political >representation of the Senate. >Overall, 31 House members and 10 Senate members are combat veterans. >Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) is the only Congressional Medal of >Honor winner currently serving in Congress. >Only 14 Congressional members have retired from the military, and >only 6 from active duty. > >The authors of AWOL identify several cultural problems that have >begun to develop that have significant political ramifications. One >is that those currently serving in the military are rapidly flocking >to the GOP. > > >In 1976, most of the military identified themselves as Independent, >while 33 percent identified as Republican (still a larger proportion >than the general public). But the members of the armed services have >since abandoned this neutrality. Now 56 percent consider themselves >Republican, and only 15 percent consider themselves Independent. >(pp. 152-153) > > >Meanwhile, the cultural leaders in the US vote overwhelmingly for >Democrats, which has created a glaring gap in the electorate: > >The divide between military and civilian life is self-reinforcing. >And it is becoming increasingly political. The majority of military >personnel identify themselves as Republicans. And a disproportionate >number of academics and those in the media identify themselves as >Democrats. In other words, our nation's defenders mostly vote one >way and those who shape opinion (and educate our elites) mostly vote >another way, at a time when the political and cultural divisions in >our country are deeper than ever. (p. 142) > > >According to the authors, this self-perpetuating political divide >between the mostly conservative military versus a vastly liberal >cultural elite and their dominance in political and cultural >institutions could have potentially catastrophic implications down >the road: > >Our elected leaders and our cultural leaders depend on the health of >the military to protect a huge array of vital interests. A military >that distrusts the decision making of those civilian leaders could >potentially undermine their leadership, by withholding information, >tailoring actions, or otherwise acting too independently. One can >hardly image a worse scenario in a democracy than to have an >unbridgeable gap develop into an us-and-them mentality between the >military and the civilian culture and leadership. (p. 173) > > >To their credit, Roth-Douquet and Schaeffer pull no punches in >presenting the flip-side of this marked political divide. They >charge that this rift breeds "military exceptionalism", where the >members of the military begin to believe they are better than the >rest of the country they are charged to defend. One study they cite >(p. 150) states, "More and more, enlisted as well as officers are >beginning to feel that they are special, better than the society >they serve." > > >Another serious problem they identify is that the striking political >shift amongst those serving in the military is that the military >itself may be abandoning political neutrality, which in the long- >term could undermine the civilian control of the military ??? one of >the most notable hallmarks of American democracy and what has given >our republican political system very uncharacteristic longevity. A >clear delineation between civilian and military must be maintained >in order for our political system to work: > > >Whether or not to use military action is an important issue. And it >is crucial for society to engage in asking hard questions. But that >questioning has to be done by civilians, not soldiers (who should >consider the legality of their individual actions in war, but >not "Is this the most successful policy?"). And some civilians have >to be willing to relinquish the perquisites of a citizen for a space >of time and become soldiers. This act ties the military back to the >citizenry and makes action legitimate. To abandon either the >citizen's connection to the soldier or the soldier's traditional >faithfulness is to undermine our nation's ability to act. (p. 138) > > >According to the authors, there is only one way to reverse these >potentially devastating trends: > >The only credible way to alter perception and begin to depoliticize >the military is for Democrats, liberals, and others to being to >publicly, consistently, and loudly advocate for broad participation >of their own in military service. If they do not, they can hardly >complain that the military is alienated from their values and >politics. And if Democrats do not follow words with actions ??? in >other words not just talk about it but actually serve and encourage >their children to serve ??? the trend of the military representing one >political party will harden into a fact. And that fact will change >the American landscape in what seems to us to be a very dangerous >way. (p. 154) > > >The Rise of the American Anti-Military Culture > >Perhaps the strongest element to Roth-Douquet and Schaeffer's book >is their discussion of the cultural trends that have driven the >cultural elite from military service. According to the authors, the >dramatic shift seen in attitudes of the elite during the 20th >Century can be traced to a combination of cultural factors. > > >The development of what the authors call "rights consciousness" is >one factor to blame for the cultural shift by the elite against >military service. As the Supreme Court applied a radical >interpretation of the Constitution, identifying a long list of >individual rights never mentioned before by the Court, an expansion >of legal rights ensued, which would have implications for perceiving >the duty of Americans to provide for the country's defense. > > >As a result, individuals felt they had a right (among other things) >not to be forced to go to war; they had a right not to be drafted >(although the courts did not agree with them on this point). For the >first time, citizens in large part felt fully entitled to their >citizenship separate from duty such as military service. (p. 117) > > >One cultural area where this new "rights consciousness" was seen was >in the mid-century development of a new social grouping ??? > "teenagers". No longer were adolescents expected to rise to >adulthood and seize personal responsibility as adults, but to wallow >in their adolescence free from responsibility but with increasing >levels of personal freedom. The result has been a social disaster. > > >Parents, too, bear responsibility for this development, as many have >taken extraordinary measure to isolate their children from the real >world and insulate them from the consequences of their poor >individual choices. In many cases, children are rarely prepared by >parents to handle the momentous choices that society thrusts upon >them. Relating this development to the military, this is seen in >the "Not My Child" syndrome, where America's military forces are >supposed to be comprised of someone else's children, a phenomenon >personified by America's Griever-in-Chief, Cindy Sheehan. > > >America's involvement in Vietnam plays a large role in cultural >perceptions of the military. Beginning in the Vietnam era, not >serving in the military came to be seen as a virtue, not a vice. >While all American wars have been controversial to some degree, in >no way had anti-war sentiment been so widespread or become so >embedded in our political, academic and media institutions. > > >Never before in American history had the moral certainty with which >opponents of the Vietnam War expressed their view been as >widespread. And those protestors won ??? the war ended with a U.S. >withdrawal, and the protesters' version of the war is the one that >has held the most sway in the post-Vietnam understanding of that >period, at least among our educated urban classes. As a result, many >of the protesters' premises about the war have remained firmly in >place for them as they've aged, and even as certain facts have come >to light that might arguably undermine some of the antiwar movements >certainties. (p. 119) > > >The cultural dominance of the anti-war narrative after Vietnam is >acute in academia, which many anti-war protestors never left, but is >perpetuated as well in our entertainment and media industries. >Hollywood's version of the Vietnam War can be seen in a long string >of anti-military films, such as Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, >and Full Metal Jacket, while Mel Gibson's pro-military We Were >Soldiers is the rare exception. The anti-war narrative still reigns >in Hollywood, as seen in the recent film, Jarhead, and emboldens >many A-list entertainers, who feel free to openly criticize the >military and the current administration's war policy, despite the >fact that virtually no A-list celebrity criticizing our war effort >against terrorism or complaining of abuses by members of our armed >service has ever served in the military they are quick to deride. > > >The media have also embraced the anti-war narrative. Ignorance of >military affairs, if not open contempt for them, severely limits the >abilities of the media to accurately portray the many dimensions of >military actions. Instead, media coverage of conflicts is extremely >myopic, focused almost exclusively on corruption or casualties. One >only needs to pick up any major newspaper or watch network news to >see that these types of corruption or casualty stories >overwhelmingly dominate current media coverage. And while most >mainstream media reporters in Iraq huddle in the relative safety of >Baghdad's Green Zone, only a few intrepid reporters ??? mostly >independents and freelancers, such as Michael Yon ??? are actually >engaged in first-hand coverage of current combat operations. > > >The anti-war narrative has also had a profound effect on our >nation's military policy. Post-Vietnam conflicts are expected to be >short-term, relatively bloodless affairs, characterized by remote >push-button warfare. Boots on the ground and flag-draped coffins are >to be avoided at all cost. But as we've seen in the post-9/11 world, >this military policy is unrealistic and our national reluctance to >engage in any conflict beyond in-and-out operations has actually >resulted in the escalation of threats against America >internationally, which is perceived by its enemies as lacking the >will to fight. > > >But the shift in perceptions against the military is not just the >result of merely cultural factors; it has been birthed from an >entirely new worldview fueled by both theological and philosophical >presuppositions. > > >The authors identify a significant theological shift that occurred >in the early 1900s, when a liberal or "modernist" theological >movement began to take over the major Christian denominations in >America. Rooted in radical criticism of the Bible and embracing the >implications of Darwin's evolutionary theory, a new cultural vision >was birthed based on the inevitable triumph of man and the >deprecation of old Puritan orthodoxies that assumed the depravity of >man. > > >The main point of modernist theology was the notion that the divine >will of God was going to be seen in the secular progress of man on >earth rather than in terms of theology, let alone divine >intervention. We were to no longer think in terms of good and evil >but in terms of progress from a less enlightened state to a more >enlightened state. In the future mankind would not only have >progressed technologically but morally. We were going to become >better people. We would outgrow things like crime and war. In fact >we would outgrow the need to have countries. And in that new and >better world who would need a military? (p. 115) > > >According this new improved vision of mankind, good and evil were >antiquarian concepts considered by the cultural elite to be held >only by the ignorant, unwashed masses. In our thoroughly secular >age, it is easy to dismiss religious factors in shaping cultural >trends, but the proof of what the authors are identifying is seen in >the formation of the League of Nations and the Kellogg-Briand Pact >developed by France and the United States after World War I, which >outlawed war altogether. > > >By 1933, sixty-five nations had signed on to the treaty banning war, >including Germany, Italy and Japan. And yet, by the end of that >decade, the world would be engulfed in yet another world war that >would claim the lives of tens of millions of soldiers and innocent >civilians. That notwithstanding, the theological vision of an >enlightened evolutionary humanity was not abandoned after World War >II, but reinvented, as seen in the birth of the United Nations. > > >Part of that post-World War II reinvention was the rise of >postmodernism. No longer was there any belief that could be >identified as objective truth; the concepts of good and evil were >said to be constructs used by the privileged classes to preserve >their power. According to the postmodernists, mankind needed to be >freed from objective truth to usher in a new era of anarchism: > > >Americans have always been individualists. But this individualism, >which became more robust in the 1960s, has since been reinforced by >the postmodernist movement of the late 1970s and the 1980s. This >movement argued that truth is relative, that those who win the power >struggle get to define the truth, and that new or different "truths" >can be equally valid to different people???And there certainly is no >national truth that overrides individual preference. In this context >the call to national service is hard to make. There are no national >let alone universal truths, just individual experiences. So the >military has to be pitched as just one more personal choice. (pp. >127-128) > > >The consequences of this new worldview have been catastrophic for >the military. In psychology, character traits inculcated by military >training are deemed slavish, intended for weak-minded individuals >prone to an authoritarian personality. > > >In fact, the requirements of military life demand a rejection of the >postmodern worldview. The postmodern ego that withholds all >commitment and demands a perpetual veto, stands in stark contrast to >the life-and-death necessities of military service, which demands >all soldiers to take responsibility for others serving with them and >to put collective interests ahead of personal ones. Military >training itself is intended to push recruits well beyond their own >expectations, which runs counter to the lowest common denominator >system exemplified by our government-run education system, where >personal strengths are restrained and weaknesses indulged to >ensure "fairness". > > >Sadly, even military recruitment today is predicated on the >postmodern worldview. The familiar recruiting slogans of "Be All >That You Can Be" and "An Army of One" are expressions of the radical >individualism that is antithetical to the realities of military >life. Then again, this is probably a concession by military leaders >to the audience they must recruit from who have been seeped in the >new postmodern worldview most of their lives. > > >Confronting the Problem > >Overall, this book is successful because they stick to the topic at >hand ??? the cultural elite's abandonment of the military and the >consequences thereof. They resist the temptation to get into the >larger, more political, public policy issues that are very >important, but not germane to their thesis. > > >However, Roth-Douquet and Schaeffer don't dismiss that there are >real military policy issues that must be addressed apart from the >cultural problem they identify. For instance, they note the chronic >understaffing of the military and the overall decline in military >spending, but it is relegated to a footnote: > > >Since 9/11 we have not had a national war effort. Our military is >0.4 percent of the population, and though it seems to be terribly >understaffed, there is no serious political effort to increase the >size ??? so that a tiny proportion of the population bears an enormous >burden in this war. At the same time, the military budget is a >smaller proportion of the country's gross domestic product (GDP) >than it was at any time from the 1940s to the mid-`90s. We spend >about 3.7 percent of our GDP on military activities today, compared >to about 4.4 percent in 1993 (post-Cold War, pre-War on Terror), or >to 9.2 percent, in 1962, between Korea and Vietnam. (p. 169) > > >In our day and age when everybody has an opinion on every topic, >whether they are informed or not, it is easy for writers to wander >off the path. Not here. The authors stay on target and they should >be commended for their discipline. > > >There are many positive things to say about this book. The writing >is very accessible and non-technical, and the personal experiences >of both authors resonate on virtually every page. It should be >required reading for military and political leaders alike. > > >The one weakness of the book, however, resides in the book's >conclusion. Having spent two hundred pages of insightful, >informative, compelling and quick reading, the authors' suggestions >for correcting the cultural problems they identify falls flat. > > >First, they rightly recommend a shift in national policy related to >the military: > >The grunt on the ground is best equipped, best trained, and best >served when the opinion makers have a personal stake in his or her >well-being. We submit that the best planning for warfighting is not >done by political leaders who are in a hurry to "get it over" before >the political winds shift, because support for a war in not deep and >shared by all. It is time for a midcourse correction in the policy >of the all-volunteer military and how it recruits. (p. 201) > > >They also make several nip/tuck policy solutions, but the only real >substantive suggestion they make for addressing the abandonment of >the military by the cultural elite is a national service draft. On >this recommendation, the authors diverge as to whether this draft >should be mandatory (Schaeffer) or voluntary (Roth-Douquet). Unlike >previous drafts, they agree that exceptions that favored the elite >(college deferments, etc.) should be very limited, if not eliminated >altogether, to increase the fairness of the process. > > >In her discussion on this proposal, Roth-Douquet notes that the >political will for a compulsory program of national service does not >exist, and is not likely to be a viable political option anytime >soon. Schaeffer responds by saying, "It will take strong medicine to >break the self-reinforcing cycle of selfishness presently endemic to >this culture." (p. 230). Admittedly, both arguments have merit. > > >Leaving aside the issue of a mandatory vs. a voluntary draft, they >suggest the creation of a "National Service Gateway", which would >combine recruiting for all four branches of the military, along with >AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, and even the Red Cross, with both males >and females required to register with the Selective Service System. >Existing college aid programs would be replaced with tax credits, >loan forgiveness, etc. contingent upon service in one of these >programs. Taken at face value, this seems to be an efficient >concept; but the authors are intending to increase participation in >the military, and making it just one option among many robs it of >its unique position in protecting our society and puts military >recruiting into an even more competitive environment. > > >Furthermore, it seems that the last thing needed in our country is >yet another federal program where hundreds of thousands >of "volunteers" are placed on the federal dole. Are AmeriCorps >and "volunteer" programs like it something that we as a nation >should be perpetuating, let alone expanding? And what, if anything, >does this proposal have to do with resolving the cultural problem >they identify ??? the absence of the elite from the military? > > >Understandably, the bipartisan authorship of this book ??? one of its >strengths ??? limits from the beginning the policy prescriptions made >at the end. As a result, their primary recommendation ??? >the "National Service Gateway" ??? seems to have the all the flaws, >convolutions, and enormous price tag for taxpayers as most pieces of >the bipartisan legislation passed by Congress. And if our authors >can't even agree whether it should be voluntary or mandatory, can we >really expect 535 members of Congress to reach a consensus? But >since the authors do such a good job of identifying the cultural and >political trends, and diagnosing the cultural causes, in the end >they can be forgiven for falling short on their proposals for >solutions. The authors admit that they intended to initiate a >conversation, not to solve it. > > >The most prominent implication of Roth-Douquet and Schaeffer's AWOL >is that the abandonment of the military by our cultural leaders >demonstrates a loss in faith in democracy itself. That is a problem >that extends well beyond discussions of national security, military >service demographics and how we recruit. That America's cultural >elite have gone AWOL from military service is a problem that should >be the topic of conversation by both major political parties and >media commentators of all stripes. With the increasing rise in >influence of these same cultural elites while the demands on our >military are higher than at any point since the Vietnam War, this >book and the discussion it hopefully engenders arrives none too soon. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 22 02:52:32 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:52:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] me on Seth Lloyd's book Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060721214955.021ea698@satx.rr.com> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19830813-5003900,00.html Do bear in mind, this is a newspaper, not a scientific journal... Damien Broderick From femmechakra at gmail.com Sat Jul 22 06:23:40 2006 From: femmechakra at gmail.com (Anna Taylor) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:23:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <35265.72.236.103.123.1153406961.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <10511686.1153362604582.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <35173.72.236.103.142.1153398519.squirrel@main.nc.us> <470a3c520607200644r162a7b98ub11720960c72b7cd@mail.gmail.com> <35265.72.236.103.123.1153406961.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <11cc03d50607212323w491ea653u68bec25a0570d5e9@mail.gmail.com> Anna:) What are the first 2 warnings and then the first? MB wrote: Below? MB wrote: our asshole neighbors? Anna questions? What exactly does that explain? Empathy realizes the objectivity of understanding and negotiations. I don't see how the words empathy and asshole could make a really good equation? Just Curious. Anna:) On 7/20/06, MB wrote: > I also have asshole neighbors and I prefer many of my online friends. :) The > danger > lies in taking things to an extreme, which you also warn about in your post. > > I've not read the book on Elites referenced in the original post, only the > summarizing post, so I cannot speak to it directly. But I have read The Bell > Curve > and wanted to mention that now I see two warnings where I had before seen > one. > > Regards, > MB > > > Is the author saying that I should feel more empathy for my asshole > > neighbor upstairs than for my friends on this list, just because we > > live close? > > Come on, I consider decoupling relationships from geography as one of > > the great achievements of our time. Sure everything has a downside but > > let's not throw the baby with the water. > > G. > > > > On 7/20/06, MB wrote: > >> > >> Much of this commentary mirrors well the conclusions reached in "The Bell > Curve". > >> The last few chapters of that book were serious questions about the > direction our > >> country was going, and questioned how to avoid what is described below. > >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Jul 22 16:58:42 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:58:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <11cc03d50607212323w491ea653u68bec25a0570d5e9@mail.gmail.com> References: <10511686.1153362604582.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <35173.72.236.103.142.1153398519.squirrel@main.nc.us> <470a3c520607200644r162a7b98ub11720960c72b7cd@mail.gmail.com> <35265.72.236.103.123.1153406961.squirrel@main.nc.us> <11cc03d50607212323w491ea653u68bec25a0570d5e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> > Anna:) > What are the first 2 warnings and then the first? Anna, I do not understand what you are asking. Regards, MB > > MB wrote: > Below? > > MB wrote: > our asshole neighbors? > > Anna questions? > What exactly does that explain? > Empathy realizes the objectivity of understanding and > negotiations. > > I don't see how the words empathy and asshole could make > a really good equation? > > Just Curious. > Anna:) > > > > On 7/20/06, MB wrote: >> I also have asshole neighbors and I prefer many of my online friends. :) The >> danger >> lies in taking things to an extreme, which you also warn about in your post. >> >> I've not read the book on Elites referenced in the original post, only the >> summarizing post, so I cannot speak to it directly. But I have read The Bell >> Curve >> and wanted to mention that now I see two warnings where I had before seen >> one. >> >> Regards, >> MB >> >> > Is the author saying that I should feel more empathy for my asshole >> > neighbor upstairs than for my friends on this list, just because we >> > live close? >> > Come on, I consider decoupling relationships from geography as one of >> > the great achievements of our time. Sure everything has a downside but >> > let's not throw the baby with the water. >> > G. >> > >> > On 7/20/06, MB wrote: >> >> >> >> Much of this commentary mirrors well the conclusions reached in "The Bell >> Curve". >> >> The last few chapters of that book were serious questions about the >> direction our >> >> country was going, and questioned how to avoid what is described below. >> >> >> >> From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jul 22 17:49:03 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 10:49:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] me on Seth Lloyd's book In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060721214955.021ea698@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200607221805.k6MI5bO6018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Damien, explain please K-machines? You have not mentioned that one here, unless I was in some kind of sleep deprived delirium and missed it. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 7:53 PM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: [extropy-chat] me on Seth Lloyd's book > > http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19830813- > 5003900,00.html > > Do bear in mind, this is a newspaper, not a scientific journal... > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jul 22 17:53:10 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 10:53:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > Anna:) > > What are the first 2 warnings and then the first? > > Anna, I do not understand what you are asking. MB MB wrote this earlier: >> have read The Bell Curve and wanted to mention that now I see two >> warnings where I had before seen one... Then Anna asked: > > What are the first 2 warnings and then the first? Then I wrote: Ja, MB, I wondered about that too, but was too busy changing diapers to worry about it. {8^D spike > > > > > > MB wrote: > > Below? > > > > MB wrote: > > our asshole neighbors? > > > > Anna questions? > > What exactly does that explain? > > Empathy realizes the objectivity of understanding and > > negotiations. > > > > I don't see how the words empathy and asshole could make > > a really good equation? > > > > Just Curious. > > Anna:) > > > > > > > > On 7/20/06, MB wrote: > >> I also have asshole neighbors and I prefer many of my online friends. > :) The > >> danger > >> lies in taking things to an extreme, which you also warn about in your > post. > >> > >> I've not read the book on Elites referenced in the original post, only > the > >> summarizing post, so I cannot speak to it directly. But I have read The > Bell > >> Curve > >> and wanted to mention that now I see two warnings where I had before > seen > >> one. > >> > >> Regards, > >> MB > >> > >> > Is the author saying that I should feel more empathy for my asshole > >> > neighbor upstairs than for my friends on this list, just because we > >> > live close? > >> > Come on, I consider decoupling relationships from geography as one of > >> > the great achievements of our time. Sure everything has a downside > but > >> > let's not throw the baby with the water. > >> > G. > >> > > >> > On 7/20/06, MB wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Much of this commentary mirrors well the conclusions reached in "The > Bell > >> Curve". > >> >> The last few chapters of that book were serious questions about the > >> direction our > >> >> country was going, and questioned how to avoid what is described > below. > >> >> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 22 18:17:49 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:17:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] [DB] on Seth Lloyd's book In-Reply-To: <200607221805.k6MI5bO6018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060721214955.021ea698@satx.rr.com> <200607221805.k6MI5bO6018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060722131350.02216028@satx.rr.com> At 10:49 AM 7/22/2006 -0700, spike jones, my unpaid publicist :), wrote: >Damien, explain please K-machines? You have not mentioned that one here, >unless I was in some kind of sleep deprived delirium and missed it. K-MACHINES is the 2006 sequel to GODPLAYERS (2005), so the two comprise one long novel, PLAYERS IN THE CONTEST OF WORLDS. Here's a rather astute review: >http://www.sfsite.com/07a/km227.htm >A review by Greg L. Johnson Damien Broderick From femmechakra at gmail.com Sat Jul 22 18:47:22 2006 From: femmechakra at gmail.com (Anna Taylor) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:47:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <11cc03d50607221147q242955aasd4346490b5eb02e6@mail.gmail.com> Sorry MB, I wasn't very clear. I was curious to know what warnings you're talking about. Anna:) On 7/22/06, spike wrote: > > > Anna:) > > > What are the first 2 warnings and then the first? > > > > Anna, I do not understand what you are asking. MB > > > MB wrote this earlier: > > >> have read The Bell Curve and wanted to mention that now I see two > >> warnings where I had before seen one... > > Then Anna asked: > > > > What are the first 2 warnings and then the first? > > Then I wrote: Ja, MB, I wondered about that too, but was too busy changing > diapers to worry about it. {8^D > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MB wrote: > > > Below? > > > > > > MB wrote: > > > our asshole neighbors? > > > > > > Anna questions? > > > What exactly does that explain? > > > Empathy realizes the objectivity of understanding and > > > negotiations. > > > > > > I don't see how the words empathy and asshole could make > > > a really good equation? > > > > > > Just Curious. > > > Anna:) > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/20/06, MB wrote: > > >> I also have asshole neighbors and I prefer many of my online friends. > > :) The > > >> danger > > >> lies in taking things to an extreme, which you also warn about in your > > post. > > >> > > >> I've not read the book on Elites referenced in the original post, only > > the > > >> summarizing post, so I cannot speak to it directly. But I have read The > > Bell > > >> Curve > > >> and wanted to mention that now I see two warnings where I had before > > seen > > >> one. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> MB > > >> > > >> > Is the author saying that I should feel more empathy for my asshole > > >> > neighbor upstairs than for my friends on this list, just because we > > >> > live close? > > >> > Come on, I consider decoupling relationships from geography as one of > > >> > the great achievements of our time. Sure everything has a downside > > but > > >> > let's not throw the baby with the water. > > >> > G. > > >> > > > >> > On 7/20/06, MB wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> Much of this commentary mirrors well the conclusions reached in "The > > Bell > > >> Curve". > > >> >> The last few chapters of that book were serious questions about the > > >> direction our > > >> >> country was going, and questioned how to avoid what is described > > below. > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jul 22 18:53:52 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:53:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] [DB] on Seth Lloyd's book In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060722131350.02216028@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200607221914.k6MJEcu5001496@andromeda.ziaspace.com> OK so the question is that are you so exceedingly modest that you declined to mention your new book? If so, I propose the following rule: If anyone here on ExI chat gets a book published, then that person is welcome to mention it here, along with links to reviews, an overview of its content, literary awards, etc. This will not be considered spam. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:18 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] [DB] on Seth Lloyd's book > > At 10:49 AM 7/22/2006 -0700, spike jones, my unpaid publicist :), wrote: > > >Damien, explain please K-machines? You have not mentioned that one here, > >unless I was in some kind of sleep deprived delirium and missed it. > > K-MACHINES is the 2006 sequel to GODPLAYERS (2005), so the two > comprise one long novel, PLAYERS IN THE CONTEST OF WORLDS. Here's a > rather astute review: > > >http://www.sfsite.com/07a/km227.htm > >A review by Greg L. Johnson > > Damien Broderick > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Jul 23 01:35:25 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:35:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> The two warnings... ah, now I understand what you mean. Thanks. :) The first warning was in the book mentioned on the list in the first post, about the Cultural Elites being so separated from the general population. This reminded me of the last chapters of The Bell Curve, where the authors warned (and this is the second warning I mentioned) about the smartest people becoming a separate population, both schools, jobs, and living places. Sounded like two books warning of similar dangers to me. Regards, MB From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sun Jul 23 04:24:30 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:24:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Melanzane alla Parmigiana (Eggplant Parmigiana) (was: The Extropy of Cooking) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Cooking Report: My crop of all the plant ingredients came in and I tried this recipe, plus a little experimentation as well. In short, Amara's basic recipe is an *excellent* baseline, and the best rendition of this classic dish that I have ever had. It was universally liked across my taste-testing audience that was subjected to it. There were a couple points where the instructions were a bit sparse, but after the first attempt, the corrections were easy. I made about a 2/3 recipe, which served approximately 6 people. It is worth noting that the caloric density of this recipe, as best I can compute it, is quite low despite the cheese and similar. Some notes based on my experience: - The tomatoes need to be significantly reduced (certainly more than my first attempt) to come out right. The construction of this dish interferes with evaporation, so counting on reduction in the oven will make a very watery result. For the most part, any reduction that needs to happen should happen on the stove. I do most of my work on the stove, so my relative lack of oven cooking experience bit me here. - Per Amara's instructions, I used "a lot" of fresh basil from the backyard which turned out excellent. Extremely coarse chopping is all that is needed (the leaves on my plants get huge), and it behaves almost like spinach in the dish. Don't be shy with the quantity, it works great. It is unlikely that one will find it sold in grocery stores in quantities so large that you should have leftovers. It would be really difficult to ruin this with too much basil. I have about 20 very happy basil plants which fortunately provide all the basil I need. - I would reduce the cooking temperature to 300F and increase the typical cooking time to more like an hour. As with most dishes of this type, the cooking time is defined by the point where the water in the top layer evaporates sufficiently to allow caramelization. When the top starts to caramelize, it is done. Amara made mention of it, but I will reinforce it: this dish is better behaved when cooked slowly. - This is an eminently hackable recipe. If you like the basic flavors, there is no reason at all that some addition flavors cannot be added in the layers. I like it exactly how it is, but I can easily imagine a half dozen different tasty modifications. It actually needed a bit of salt (or salt sources) in my preparation, which I compensated for. Overall, a really proper and basic recipe that is a worthwhile addition to any repertoire. I have certainly added it to mine. Out of curiosity, do Europeans cook in Celsius? While I know everything is metric for the weights and measures, I don't recall ever seeing many cooking temperatures in anything but Fahrenheit. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers On Jun 27, 2006, at 1:27 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > Melanzane alla Parmigiana (Eggplant Parmigiana) > ----------------------------------------------- > > (English units) > > 4 aubergines/eggplants/melanzane > salt > extra virgin olive oil > 1/2 c grated Parmesan cheese > 2 medium or 1 large (3/4 lb.) fresh mozzarella di bufala > Lots of fresh basil > 3-4 c canned peeled tomatoes > or 2 lb fresh ripe tomatoes, peeled and chopped > > Wash and dry the eggplants, slice them into thick slices and lay > them on > a tray. Sprinkle salt over them and leave for an hour. > > In the meantime prepare the tomato sauce: puree, heat and add some > sprigs of basil. Rinse off the brown juice from the eggplants and pat > dry with a paper towel. > > Cover the bottom of a frying pan with olive oil and fry the > eggplants, a > few at a time, until they are soft and golden. At first the eggplants > soak up the oil then it seeps out. You have to add a little for > each new > batch of eggplants. Put them on kitchen paper to drain off the excess > oil. Cut the mozzarella into thin slices and then strips and grate the > Parmesan cheese. > > Grease a large oven dish with olive oil and lay a first layer of > eggplants to cover the bottom. Pour on a little tomato sauce, some > Parmesan and some mozzarella strips. Continue layering until you have > finished all the ingredients, finishing the top layer with just the > tomato sauce and Parmesan. Cover with aluminum foil. Pre-heat the oven > to 350?F and bake for at least 1/2 hour. Remove the aluminum foil > after > 20 minutes. From amara at amara.com Sun Jul 23 07:46:54 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 09:46:54 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] 95 Theses of Geek Activism Message-ID: Found via boing-boing (http://www.boingboing.net) http://www.scienceaddiction.com/2006/07/23/95-theses-of-geek-activism/ {begin quote from site} Geek activism has not taken off yet, but it should. With the gamers recognizing the need for a louder voice, EFF gaining momentum and Linux taking on the mainstream on the one hand and recent severe losses in privacy, freedom of speech and intellectual property rights on the other, now seems to be the best time to rally around the cause. Geeks are not known to be political or highly vocal (outside of our own circles)- this must change if we want things to improve. So here is my list of things people of all shapes, sizes and sides of the debate need to know. Some of these are obvious, others may not be meant for you. But hopefully, some of these will inspire you to do the right thing and others will help you frame the next discussion, debate or argument you have on these topics. {end quote from site} -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" --Calvin From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jul 23 12:23:03 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 05:23:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> Well, it seems to me that we can't both be for diversity, especially the radical diversity of individual freedom, and bemoan differences, even large ones, as dangerous and to be avoided. We cannot, it seems to me, both have the freedom to augment and change at will and stay true to some homogenized egalitarian ideal. The real problem with "military service" is that it in assumed everyone owes such "service" first of all and then that this "service" is poured down the toilet of pointless military adventures such an Iraq. I will cheer each and every person regardless of purported class who manages to avoid having their precious life put at risk in so asinine and perverse a conflict. - samantha MB wrote: > The two warnings... ah, now I understand what you mean. Thanks. :) > > The first warning was in the book mentioned on the list in the first post, about the > Cultural Elites being so separated from the general population. This reminded me of > the last chapters of The Bell Curve, where the authors warned (and this is the > second warning I mentioned) about the smartest people becoming a separate > population, both schools, jobs, and living places. Sounded like two books warning of > similar dangers to me. > > Regards, > MB > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 13:03:55 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:03:55 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Melanzane alla Parmigiana (Eggplant Parmigiana) (was: The Extropy of Cooking) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4902d9990607230603h422a0a63w5d11d6d0414b8ae3@mail.gmail.com> On 7/23/06, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > Out of curiosity, do Europeans cook in Celsius? While I know > everything is metric for the weights and measures, I don't recall > ever seeing many cooking temperatures in anything but Fahrenheit. I've never, *ever* seen cooking temperatures in Fahrenheit, only in Celsius. These mails were the first :-) Most europeans know Fahrenheit only as some vague high school recollection. Alfio From amara at amara.com Sun Jul 23 13:38:35 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:38:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Melanzane alla Parmigiana (Eggplant Parmigiana) (was: The Extropy of Cooking) Message-ID: J. Andrew Rogers andrew at ceruleansystems.com : >My crop of all the plant ingredients came in and I tried this recipe, >plus a little experimentation as well. In short, Amara's basic recipe >is an *excellent* baseline, and the best rendition of this classic dish >that I have ever had. Wow! I feel honored my recipe is tried again, and with such attention to detail. My next recipe that I'll post here will be a specialty of Rome. (Still iterating with my friends on a couple of different recipes, so I'm not ready yet to post it.) >Out of curiosity, do Europeans cook in Celsius? While I know >everything is metric for the weights and measures, I don't recall >ever seeing many cooking temperatures in anything but Fahrenheit. Oh yes, all my nonUS cookbooks are in Celsius, I keep a piece of paper written for quick help with the basic temperature conversions near my stove. And inside of my oven showing through the window is the necessary temperature gauge -- it is a special gauge I bought in the US to help, giving me both C and F. I can tell a story about differences in Italian stove-ovens, however. It was quite a surprise when I moved into my rental flat 3 years ago; cooking with my stove-oven was a challenge. In the Cucina: My Stove-Oven ----------------------------- I have to give the Italians a lot of credit for their skill in the kitchen. Not only do they produce an enormous variety of delicate, delicious meals with a minimum of high quality yet very inexpensive ingredients, they seem to do it with no effort given their archaic technology stove-ovens. I think that this large appliance must be the natural by-product of their special government which recognized that cooking is important to this culture, and therefore seized upon an obvious opportunity for collecting revenue. My *new* stove-oven that came with my flat has all of the following features described below. First, all stoves are powered by gas, which is run by one of the government-owned utility: Italgas (which unfortunately doesn't know how to read meters. They've been billing me for my neighbor's meter usage for last three years.) Second, the stove burner is not self-igniting, it must be lit each time by a match or lighter, and lighter fluid and matches are controlled and taxed by the government. If you are a newcomer, you will likely do what I did, and that is, wander for some hour or so in the supermarket looking for matches. Eventually, after some pointed questions, you will find yourself at the tabaccheria, the tobaconnist's shop. This actually makes sense, once you understand that cigarettes are a controlled commodity too. Strangely, electronic-igniters are untaxed and easy to find at the hardware store! Third, your oven is also likely fueled by gas, often not self-igniting, [Since I haven't found a skinny electronic-igniter for the oven part yet, I stock up on long matches every time I travel abroad], and with no indicator for temperature. That's where my C-F temperature gauge demonstrates its necessity. With no numbers on the dial to indicate temperature, I must move the dial up or down to control the flame, checking the gauge periodically, to set and control the temperature. And just so you don't think that I'm a rocket scientist, I did not figure out the oven-lighting-temperature-setting procedure on my own - I got help, from friends of friends who were patient enough to demonstrate to me how it works. I've discovered many Italian cooks here are not only comfortable with this large appliance in the form I've described above, they actually _prefer_ it to the more technically advanced stove-ovens that one can find around at the expensive appliance shops. Therefore, I can only marvel at the products that they produce! 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/ ******************************************************************** "Sipping coffee on a sunbaked terrace can be surprisingly productive." ---Michael Metcalf [on the origin of NUMERICAL RECIPES IN FORTRAN 90] From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Jul 23 14:30:40 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:30:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> Message-ID: <37311.72.236.103.79.1153665040.squirrel@main.nc.us> > Well, it seems to me that we can't both be for diversity, especially > the radical diversity of individual freedom, and bemoan differences, > even large ones, as dangerous and to be avoided. We cannot, it seems > to me, both have the freedom to augment and change at will and stay true > to some homogenized egalitarian ideal. Since I've not read that second book I must not answer to its criticisms. What I read in The Bell Curve final chapters, about what they saw and were concerned about for the future, was that the population was splitting into two distinct groups that did not overlap nor did they even have much to do with each other in everyday life. And that one group appeared to be getting the upper hand in all ways so that there would end up being two populations, one rich and well travelled and politically empowered, and the other of everybody else - who would be poor and stuck and politically nowhere. The Bell Curve warned against this, saying that one of the strengths of the US had always been in the diverse groups of people living all mixed up throughout the country: wealthy and poor, smart and not, powerful and not. With *no group* powerful enough to squash completely any other. > > The real problem with "military service" is that it in assumed everyone > owes such "service" first of all and then that this "service" is poured > down the toilet of pointless military adventures such an Iraq. I will > cheer each and every person regardless of purported class who manages to > avoid having their precious life put at risk in so asinine and perverse > a conflict. As far as military service goes I hate the very idea that we should be throwing so many of our young into such a sewer. Parents spend 18 years trying to civilize the young and then have the state take them and toss them into such a debacle as the Middle East. We could be spending our money and time developing ways to be free of that dependency on oil.... IMHO. Regards, MB ps. As for "fixing" other countries, I'm not at all sure it can be done. Sorry to be so down, maybe when I've had more coffee and some breakfast I'll feel more positive! From randy.burkhardt at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 17:23:47 2006 From: randy.burkhardt at gmail.com (Randy Burkhardt) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:23:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> Message-ID: <9f4ad4540607231023p16cde583n84d97d9d9f4d1e31@mail.gmail.com> > The real problem with "military service" is that it in assumed everyone > owes such "service" first of all and then that this "service" is poured > down the toilet of pointless military adventures such an Iraq. I will > cheer each and every person regardless of purported class who manages to > avoid having their precious life put at risk in so asinine and perverse > a conflict. Let me try a story for you. Let's say you and your community live on a block. The adjacent block is inhabited by vipers, thriving and multiplying in recent years. Sometimes in recent years, some of the vipers group, be they rattlesnakes, cobras, or other species, and venture onto your block and kill some of your neighbors. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jul 23 17:49:34 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:49:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <9f4ad4540607231023p16cde583n84d97d9d9f4d1e31@mail.gmail.co m> References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> <9f4ad4540607231023p16cde583n84d97d9d9f4d1e31@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060723124803.021c86b0@satx.rr.com> At 10:23 AM 7/23/2006 -0700, Randy Burkhardt wrote: >Let me try a story for you. >Let's say you and your community live on a block. >The adjacent block is inhabited by vipers, thriving and multiplying in >recent years. >Sometimes in recent years, some of the vipers group, be they >rattlesnakes, cobras, or other species, and venture onto your block >and kill some of your neighbors. Anti-American parables of this kind are out of place on this forum. Damien Broderick From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 18:14:56 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:14:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> Message-ID: On 7/23/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: ... > The real problem with "military service" is that it in assumed everyone > owes such "service" first of all and then that this "service" is poured > down the toilet of pointless military adventures such an Iraq. I will > cheer each and every person regardless of purported class who manages to > avoid having their precious life put at risk in so asinine and perverse > a conflict. Assumptions about the way things *have to* be are built into our belief (meme) system. A bunch of these are associated with the military and how it *has to* work. A few suggestions for how this should be reformed : (1) The right of conscience. Military service persons retain the right to decide whether to participate in any particular military action. This strongly impedes unjustified military adventurism. (2) Right of conscience in military (and related government) funding. Individual taxpayers get to decide where their own personal tax dollars go. (This is essentially direct democracy at the government purse strings level.) (3) Decommercialization of military spending, ie taking the profit out of the defense "business". Just as individual citizens can be conscripted to perform military service, so to the production of defense-related products and services should be *conscripted* -- seized/compelled. Without profit, war would be severly disincentive-ized. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Jul 23 17:12:40 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:12:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <37311.72.236.103.79.1153665040.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060723125914.03e995b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:30 AM 7/23/2006 -0400, MB wrote: snip >We could be spending our money and time developing ways to be free of that >dependency on oil.... We know how, and there is more than one way to do it. I favor power sats, but there are various ways to do it with fission. I suspect though that as soon as we figure out how to cope with energy we won't need much of it anymore. Keith Henson From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jul 23 18:16:34 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:16:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <37311.72.236.103.79.1153665040.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> <37311.72.236.103.79.1153665040.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <44C3BD02.600@mac.com> As transhuman technologies promise large competitive improvements and even radical enhancements beyond current human norms I don't see how we as transhumanism can deplore the splitting off of subgroups with rather different capabilities and increasing divergent interests. After all, not everyone will choose to or be capable of availing themselves of such possibilities at once. I think the 'trick' to what made or makes the US (for instance) great is that we agree to and uphold inalienable rights for all human beings. It is not egalitarianism as some overarching ideal that binds us but equality of fundamental rights that binds how we treat and may treat one another. This equality of rights does not require any rough equality of abilities, wealth, intelligence, knowledge or interests. This is the cornerstone of freedom and peaceful co-existence. - samantha MB wrote: >> Well, it seems to me that we can't both be for diversity, especially >> the radical diversity of individual freedom, and bemoan differences, >> even large ones, as dangerous and to be avoided. We cannot, it seems >> to me, both have the freedom to augment and change at will and stay true >> to some homogenized egalitarian ideal. >> > > Since I've not read that second book I must not answer to its criticisms. What I > read in The Bell Curve final chapters, about what they saw and were concerned about > for the future, was that the population was splitting into two distinct groups that > did not overlap nor did they even have much to do with each other in everyday life. > And that one group appeared to be getting the upper hand in all ways so that there > would end up being two populations, one rich and well travelled and politically > empowered, and the other of everybody else - who would be poor and stuck and > politically nowhere. The Bell Curve warned against this, saying that one of the > strengths of the US had always been in the diverse groups of people living all mixed > up throughout the country: wealthy and poor, smart and not, powerful and not. With > *no group* powerful enough to squash completely any other. > From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 18:24:53 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:24:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <44C3BD02.600@mac.com> References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> <37311.72.236.103.79.1153665040.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C3BD02.600@mac.com> Message-ID: On 7/23/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > As transhuman technologies promise large competitive improvements and > even radical enhancements beyond current human norms I don't see how we > as transhumanism can deplore the splitting off of subgroups with rather > different capabilities and increasing divergent interests. After all, > not everyone will choose to or be capable of availing themselves of such > possibilities at once. I think the 'trick' to what made or makes the > US (for instance) great is that we agree to and uphold inalienable > rights for all human beings. It is not egalitarianism as some > overarching ideal that binds us but equality of fundamental rights that > binds how we treat and may treat one another. This equality of rights > does not require any rough equality of abilities, wealth, intelligence, > knowledge or interests. This is the cornerstone of freedom and > peaceful co-existence. Ah, you are probably referring to this recent Act of Congress - AMERICANS WITH NO ABILITIES ACT - CONGRESSIONAL ACT 2006 WASHINGTON , DC (AP) - Congress is considering sweeping legislation, which provides new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislation by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition. "Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they do a better job, or have some idea of what they are doing." The President pointed to the success of the US Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack job skills, making this agency the single largest US employer of Persons of Inability. Private sector industries with good records of nondiscrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement "warehouse" stores (65%) The DMV also has a great record of hiring Persons of Inability. (63%) Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million "middle man" positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance. Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given, to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations which maintain a significant level of Persons of Inability in middle positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires. Finally, the AWNA ACT contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Nonabled, banning discriminatory interview questions such as "Do you have any goals for the future?" or "Do you have any skills or experience which relate to this job?" "As a Nonabled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, MI due to her lack of notable job skills. "This new law should really help people like me." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens can finally see a light at the end of the tunnel. Said Senator Ted Kennedy, "It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and also find a place for all illegal aliens no matter how useless they may be." BillK :) From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 18:29:03 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:29:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <10511686.1153362604582.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <10511686.1153362604582.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: >From Lasch's screed note these two bits. >These elites - mobile and increasingly global in outlook - refuse to >accept limits or ties to any nation or place. Lasch contends that as >they isolate themselves in their networks and enclaves, ... >The elites, having jettisoned the moral and ethical guidelines >provided by religion, cling to the belief that through various >sciences they can master their fates and escape mortal limits. > >In pursuit of this illusion... Why am I thinking that he's just another one of those faith-based luddite panderers looking to cash in on the Limbaugh/Falwell/Fukuyama circuit. No doubt he'll sell a few books, but he won't stop the tech juggernaut. Resistance is futile. Am I the only one who LIKES the borg? -- Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From randy.burkhardt at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 19:26:45 2006 From: randy.burkhardt at gmail.com (Randy Burkhardt) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:26:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060723124803.021c86b0@satx.rr.com> References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> <9f4ad4540607231023p16cde583n84d97d9d9f4d1e31@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060723124803.021c86b0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <9f4ad4540607231226n69c29d09i115459b607853ac6@mail.gmail.com> On 7/23/06, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 10:23 AM 7/23/2006 -0700, Randy Burkhardt wrote: > > >Let me try a story for you. > >Let's say you and your community live on a block. > >The adjacent block is inhabited by vipers, thriving and multiplying in > >recent years. > >Sometimes in recent years, some of the vipers group, be they > >rattlesnakes, cobras, or other species, and venture onto your block > >and kill some of your neighbors. > > Anti-American parables of this kind are out of place on this forum. > > Damien Broderick > Sorry, I meant it as pro-American/freedom. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 19:39:21 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:39:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A wireless hail Message-ID: My wife and I have moved back into our San Francisco house, briefly, to prep it for sale. I opened my new laptop and voila! I find several unsecured home wireless networks in range. I am in fact now online courtesy of one of those networks. My question: is there a way to extract the information needed to contact the network's owner? I could walk around the neighborhood with my laptop, seeking an increase in the signal strength, and home in that way, then knock on the door, but I'm really talking more about finding and contacting them electronically. What's the scoop? -- Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jul 23 19:44:51 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:44:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <9f4ad4540607231226n69c29d09i115459b607853ac6@mail.gmail.co m> References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> <9f4ad4540607231023p16cde583n84d97d9d9f4d1e31@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060723124803.021c86b0@satx.rr.com> <9f4ad4540607231226n69c29d09i115459b607853ac6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060723144338.0224d6f0@satx.rr.com> At 12:26 PM 7/23/2006 -0700, Randy Burkhardt wrote: > > Anti-American parables of this kind are out of place on this forum. > >Sorry, I meant it as pro-American/freedom. Of course you did. I was hoping you'd notice the transitivity once it was pointed out. Damien Broderick From randy.burkhardt at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 19:54:54 2006 From: randy.burkhardt at gmail.com (Randy Burkhardt) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:54:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060723144338.0224d6f0@satx.rr.com> References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> <9f4ad4540607231023p16cde583n84d97d9d9f4d1e31@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060723124803.021c86b0@satx.rr.com> <9f4ad4540607231226n69c29d09i115459b607853ac6@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060723144338.0224d6f0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <9f4ad4540607231254q6cc53fe2r8db5842cd35778e@mail.gmail.com> Sure, I noticed the effort. I was hoping I was wrong and you were not another supposing equivalency between freedom loving Americans and criminal enemies of peace. On 7/23/06, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 12:26 PM 7/23/2006 -0700, Randy Burkhardt wrote: > > > > Anti-American parables of this kind are out of place on this forum. > > > >Sorry, I meant it as pro-American/freedom. > > Of course you did. I was hoping you'd notice the transitivity once it > was pointed out. > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From naogrist at yahoo.com Sun Jul 23 19:40:49 2006 From: naogrist at yahoo.com (Daniel Wolfson) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <9f4ad4540607231226n69c29d09i115459b607853ac6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060723194049.40369.qmail@web35312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I thought that was what you were trying to express. Randy Burkhardt wrote: > Sorry, I meant it as pro-American/freedom. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sun Jul 23 21:28:49 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:28:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> Message-ID: <1D052406-764D-49BD-BCFB-242F832BD3D1@ceruleansystems.com> On Jul 23, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Jeff Davis wrote: > (3) Decommercialization of military spending, ie taking the profit out > of the defense "business". Just as individual citizens can be > conscripted to perform military service, so to the production of > defense-related products and services should be *conscripted* -- > seized/compelled. Without profit, war would be severly > disincentive-ized. There are a few serious practical problems with this. The first global problem is that there are a couple sovereign states of significant size that significantly rely on military exports for their economic health, Russia being the most notorious but hardly the only one. Of the major exporters this is probably the least true of the US, primarily because the US occupies a special place in the weapon development market. Stopping profit-taking on this scale will be essentially impossible. During the first Gulf War, it was widely rumored in geopolitical academia that USSR acquiescence was achieved on the matter of Iraq because the US led coalition was only going to destroy all the military hardware of one of their best customers but not eliminate the customer, creating a rich new sales opportunity for weaponry when their economy desperately needed it. (The USSR and Russia have frequently been suspected of fomenting conflicts in their export markets solely for the purpose of boosting sales.) The second major problem is that you cannot conscript an advanced weapons R&D program at will. If it is not an ongoing concern in peacetime, it will come up very short in wartime. As is in evidence in two World Wars, it takes months to years to get things going from a standing start, and during those first years it can cost a country dearly. These days, wars tend to be shorter than the war development ramp-up time, so if you do not already have something you never will for useful purposes. For obvious reasons, no vaguely decent government can conscript entire industries indefinitely. The term for that is "nationalizing" and has consistently produced poor results. Remember, the USSR actually did what you are proposing for a long time. The third issue is exclusivity, regulation, and market realities. Before the development of a defense research industry to address the second point in the 1930s and 1940s, most of the best weapon designs were private commercial developments sold to anyone with money which were adapted to the military later.[1] While this was extremely efficient economically, it seriously blunted any meaningful technological advantage a military might have as technology became an increasingly decisive factor. Combined with broad regulatory schemes that effectively killed non-governmental weapon R&D in the mid-20th century, privately-funded commercial military development became a grossly inefficient enterprise. To a significant extent, we have the setup we have today because it has been mandated in the US with no other practical ways to meet the government's objectives given a market and regulatory scheme that the majority of people want. For the military R&D necessary to maintain an advantage to continue, there has to be a customer. It used to be the American public and foreign countries, but both of these markets have been eliminated through strict regulation. That leaves only one plausible commercial market for funding peacetime R&D: the US government. If no customer exists, the work simply won't be done which has practical long-term geopolitical consequences. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers [1] The common usage of military adoption dates to denote a particular weapon design in the first half of the 20th century and prior (e.g. Model 1903 Springfield) creates a common misconception that the weapon was designed or first available around that time when in fact many so designated weapons were sold to the general public for many years prior to military adoption. For example, the famous Model 1911 .45 pistol was based on a gun Colt had been selling to the public since 1905. That most weapon technology and development was done by private ventures with private money until relatively recently is almost inconceivable now because of how the industry has been reshaped. Most weapon design and research done today is done for a specific military contract. From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Jul 23 21:47:27 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 17:47:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <44C3BD02.600@mac.com> References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> <37311.72.236.103.79.1153665040.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C3BD02.600@mac.com> Message-ID: <37507.72.236.102.102.1153691247.squirrel@main.nc.us> > It is not egalitarianism as some > overarching ideal that binds us but equality of fundamental rights that > binds how we treat and may treat one another. This equality of rights > does not require any rough equality of abilities, wealth, intelligence, > knowledge or interests. This is the cornerstone of freedom and > peaceful co-existence. > Yes, Samantha, it is. However, if one group, cohesive and separate from the rest of the population, in fact has more power and clout in government and law and education and money, there is a great danger that they will reinterpret and/or change the law to no longer be the same for the "better" and the "not better". After all, we're just coming out of a Jim Crow era. AFAIK we could easily slide back into some version of it. Regards, MB From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon Jul 24 03:38:40 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry Colvin) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:38:40 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [U-Tapao] Science Fiction comes to life Message-ID: <7370746.1153712321257.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Forwarded Message----- > > The Science Fiction Files From the Author of Star Trek's Famous Episode >"The Trouble With Tribbles" David Gerrold - PC Magazine > >*July 14* - > >Time travel, antigravity, teleportation, sentient silicon beings. Our >yearning to visualize the future has always been far ahead of our >technological prowess. To predict the future of technology in the 21st >century and take a look back at preposterous postulations of the past, what >better source to turn to than a bona fide science-fiction writer? After all, >when sci-fi writers ask "What if?" their extrapolations are sometimes >astonishingly accurate. We asked David Gerrold, sci-fi author and writer of >the most-popular-ever *Star Trek* episode?"The Trouble with Tribbles," from >the original TV series. Here's his survey of the high-tech imaginings of >sci-fi writers Arthur C. Clarke, Robert A. Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, H.G. >Wells, and more. > > *Cell phones:* In Robert A. Heinlein's 1954 book *The Star Beast*, hero >John Thomas Stuart XI is riding his horse when he pulls his ringing phone >out of his saddlebag. The first incarnation of a personal tricorder, >Stuart's phone is also a video and voice recorder. Motorola's flip phone was >inspired by the original *Star Trek* communicators. > > *Flat-screen TVs:* Oversize TV screens were visualized as early as the 1936 >movie *Things to Come*, and Isaac Asimov predicted wall-sized 3D videophones >in *The Naked Sun* (1956), in which TV images have such lifelike clarity >that people communicate only by video. But it wasn't until 1997 that Pioneer >started selling HDTV plasma displays, which were 50 inches diagonal. At the >2006 CES (Consumer Electronics Show) in Las Vegas, Panasonic demonstrated a >103-inch display. > > *Household robots:* Czech author Karel Capek's play *Rossum's Universal >Robots* premiered in Prague in 1921, and he's credited with popularizing the >word "robot." Lester Del Rey predicted household robots in "Helen O'Loy," a >short story he wrote in 1938. And in one of Jack Williamson's most famous >tales, "With Folded Hands" (1947), robots take over all human jobs to keep >people from hurting themselves. Isaac Asimov is credited with developing the >concept of self-contained, autonomous, human-like machines. His robot >stories explored many of the philosophical questions of assimilating >self-aware machines into society. Today we have industrial robots that >assemble cars and motherboards, and Disneyland has the Asimo robot, which >walks across a stage and waves. But we're still a long way away from useful >general-purpose robots. Roomba isn't it. *DG Predicts: Robots are >inevitable. I expect to see general-purpose robots available by 2015. * > > *The Internet:* The real honor of predicting the Internet goes to Murray >Leinster's 1946 short story "A Logic Named Joe," in which people use devices >called "logics," essentially television displays with keyboards attached. On >these they can watch TV, get weather reports, ask research questions, send >e-mail, trade stocks, and play games. Leinster's story also predicted >content censorship. > > > >*Computer viruses:* I predicted hacking across telephone lines in my >novel *When >H.A.R.L.I.E. Was One* (1972), in which a self-aware computer uses a virus to >invade other computers, reprogram them, and send back copies of other >people's private information. In John Brunner's *The Shockwave >Rider*(1975), a renegade genius creates a self-contained computer >program to seek >out and reveal government secrets. Brunner called it a worm, and the name >was quickly adopted by computer scientists. Researchers at Xerox PARC >demonstrated the first worm in 1978. > > *Space tourism:* Alfred Bester predicted space tourism long before Sputnik >was launched, in *The Stars My Destination* (1956). But so far, at $20 >million per trip, it's not for everyone. Spider Robinson, Robert A. >Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, and others predicted orbiting hotels, retirement >communities on the Moon, and resorts on Mars, but don't plan on making >reservations anytime soon. *DG Predicts: Maybe by 2050. And it'll be more >like a trip to Antarctica than one to Hawaii. * > > *Lasers:* In 1898 H.G. Wells's Martians leveled London with heat rays. In >the 1930s Buck Rogers wielded a ray gun, Boris Karloff had the invisible >ray, and Ming of Mongo targeted strange death rays at Earth. The first >commercial application of a laser was the bar code scanner used in >supermarkets in 1974. > > *DVDs:* In a 1969 episode of *Star Trek*, Kirk and Spock visit a library of >big silver discs. (They were actually vinyl records painted silver.) Two >engineers who watched that episode began speculating about how to store >information on a silver disc?possibly by reading pits with a laser. Five >years later, MCA demonstrated the first LaserDisc, called DiscoVision, which >hit the consumer market in 1978. Enthusiasts kept the format alive until the >DVD effectively killed it. > > *Communications satellites:* In a 1945 paper Arthur C. Clarke proposed the >use of geostationary satellites for communications with ground stations. >Fifteen years later, he wrote "I Remember Babylon," a short story for * >Playboy* in which he postulated that the Chinese government could use >communications satellites to broadcast pornography to subvert and corrupt >Western civilization. It was not until 1962 that Telstar, the first active >communications satellite, was launched. > > *Cars that drive themselves:* In the 1950s General Motors showed a >two-seater concept car with its own autopilot. Later concept vehicles >tracked a magnetic stripe embedded in the pavement. In Robert A. Heinlein's >*The Number of the Beast* (1979), Gay Deceiver is a robot car with a voice >programmed to respond as if it's sentient. Today cruise control is standard, >onboard processors monitor engine states, and several carmakers are building >adaptive cruise controls with radar scanning to slow down or stop cars to >avoid obstacles. Not there yet, but the pieces are falling into place. *DG >Predicts: All the necessary technology is ready. It's mostly a software >problem now. I expect to see robotic vehicles demonstrated within 10 years >and commercially available within 20. * > > *Tethered satellites:* In their 1982 book *The Descent of Anansi*, Larry >Niven and Steven Barnes predicted that two satellites linked by a cable and >passing through Earth's magnetic field could generate an electrical current. >NASA launched an experimental tethered satellite in 1992 and reflew the >mission in 1996. Today, the only tethered satellite in orbit is the Tether >Physics and Survivability Experiment, launched in 2005. > > *3D TV:* Sci-fi writers have predicted stereoscopic video (without glasses) >for more than half a century. But in the 40 years since holograms were first >demonstrated to the public, no company has shown even a crude prototype for >projecting via holography a moving stereoscopic image. Fifty-three years >after the premiere of *Bwana Devil*, most 3D movies still use polarized >glasses or LCD shutter-glasses. *DG Predicts: If and when holographic video >is viable, expect to see it in theme parks first. * > > *Impact suits:* Larry Niven predicted flexible body armor in a 1967 short >story called "The Soft Weapon." And in 1972 he and I published *The Flying >Sorcerers*, in which the hero wears an impact suit?a suit that's flexible >under normal conditions but goes rigid on impact to protect the wearer. At >the 2006 Winter Olympics, the U.S. Olympic ski team wore impact suits made >by the Colorado-based company Spyder Active Sports. > > > >*Jet backpacks:* The personal jet backpack debuted in the *Buck >Rogers*comic strip circa 1930, and the German military experimented >with them >during World War II as a way for engineers to fly over minefields. The >RB2000 model is occasionally demonstrated at amusement parks and air shows, >but it's painfully loud, and flights are limited to 30 seconds. It's >unlikely that a rocket belt will ever be practical for commuting. (See >"Flying Cars" on the next page.) > > *Permanent colonies on the Moon and Mars:* These are such staples in >science fiction that it would be easier to list the writers who haven't set >stories in lunar and Martian habitats. The most notable who have are Robert >A. Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Bradbury, and John Varley. *DG >Predicts:These are inevitable. Just add money. If we don't do it, the >Chinese will. >2025 at the latest. * > > *Miniaturized electronics:* In the 1956 movie *Forbidden Planet*, Captain >J. J. Adams uses a handheld television camera the size of a penlight to >broadcast video back to his starship. In the *Star Trek* series, Dr. Leonard >"Bones" McCoy uses a medical tricorder the size of a hardcover book to >perform instantaneous diagnoses of injured crewmates. Today, any portable >device that can't fit into a pocket is considered too large. > > > > *Maglevs:* In *Starman Jones* (1953), Robert A. Heinlein's hero lives near >the track of a linear-accelerated flying train. The world's first commercial >magnetically levitated train, launched in 2002, runs 18 miles to the >Shanghai airport at an average speed of 250 mph. The trip takes less than 8 >minutes, but the system cost $1.2 billion to build. That's nearly $67 >million per mile! There is a 5-mile maglev track in Nagoya, Japan; a 27-mile >demonstration track, also in Japan; and a 21-mile demo track in Germany. The >primary advantage of maglev is speed, so it's best suited for transport >between cities. An American maglev effort is estimated to cost $15 million >to 20 million per mile. > > *Videophones:* Hugo Gernsback predicted videophones in his 1929 novel *Ralph >124C41+: A Romance of the Year 2660*, and the idea came to a mass audience >through the 1939 *Buck Rogers* Saturday afternoon serial. Both Isaac Asimov >and Robert A. Heinlein used videophones in their novels, and two-way video >is routine in *Star Trek* episodes. Technologies for video telephony have >been demonstrated since Disneyland's House of the Future (1957) and the New >York World's Fair (1964-65). 3G videophones are available in Europe and >Asia, but picture quality is relatively poor. *DG Predicts: After the >gosh-wow factor wears off (in about five minutes), we'll discover that video >is the least-important part of a phone call. Practical video telephony will >probably happen on the Internet first, but I don't foresee video calls >becoming commonplace for a while. * > > *Hydroponics and indoor farming:* When humans move to Mars or the Moon, >they'll feed themselves by growing food in tanks. Despite the fact that >hydroponic research has been around for a century, hydroponics remained on >the fringe until the 1950s and 1960s, when scores of authors started writing >about it. John Brunner explored the theme of using it in outer space in his >1972 novel *The Sheep Look Up*. Today hydroponics is used primarily by >hobbyists, organic farmers, and marijuana growers. It also lets researchers >in Antarctica have fresh vegetables, even during the six-month winter, when >the bases are inaccessible. Hydroponics remains a very small factor in >terrestrial agriculture, but it will be the main food supply in lunar and >Martian colonies. > > *Nanotechnology:* In Theodore Sturgeon's story "Microcosmic God" (1941), a >scientist creates microscopic beings who evolve superfast, build their own >Microverse, and eventually surpass even humanity. In the November 1955 issue >of *Galaxy Science Fiction*, Philip K. Dick published a story called >"Autofac." In it he predicted robot factories, where micro-machines, smaller >than ants, construct duplicates of themselves. Today the nanotech revolution >is under way, and we have devices similar to inkjet printers on steroids >that generate 3D objects. Printing live tissue for transplants or printing >steaks for dinner is a possibility. *DG Predicts: Organic fabbers? Printers >that can print heart valves have already been demonstrated. Are fabbed >tissues and organs that far off? I think not. We'll see industrial units in >five years and home units within ten. * > > *Flying cars:* The first movie to show personal flying vehicles was *Just >Imagine*, released in 1930. (It was an embarrassing flop at the box office, >but its spaceship was reused in the *Flash Gordon* and *Buck Rogers* matinee >serials.) Since then, the flying car has been a mainstay of sci-fi novels >and movies. A.E. van Vogt's hero used a flying car in *The World of >Null-A*(1948), as did Robert A. Heinlein's characters in >*Stranger in a Strange Land* (1961). At the movies, *Blade Runner* (1982) >and *The Fifth Element* (1997) both show flying cars navigating through the >concrete canyons of futuristic cities. > > One of the earliest attempts to build an actual flying car was in 1973, >when engineers welded the wings of a Cessna Skymaster to a Ford Pinto. The >prototype crashed, ending the project. The most notorious of all personal >flying vehicles was the Discojet now known as the Moller Skycar, first >developed in 1974. More than $200 million has been spent on it, but it's >very loud and difficult to control in crosswinds. The M400 model currently >under development is likely to cost a million dollars if it ever hits the >market. > > *Three Mile Island, Chernobyl:* In his 1942 novel *Nerves*, Lester Del Rey >detailed a nuclear disaster at a power plant. The story isn't a prediction >as much as an unheeded warning. > > *Voice recognition:* Mike, the computer in Robert A. Heinlein's *The Moon >Is a Harsh Mistress* (1966), not only understands speech, he also learns how >to make jokes?even puns. HAL 9000, in *2001: A Space Odyssey *(1968), can >understand speech and read lips. Speech recognition software is available >today, but it has not yet been perfected. > > *Bubble houses:* In *Gladiator-at-Law* (1954), Fred Pohl and Cyril >Kornbluth predicted near-instant housing. In that novel, large corporations >manufacture and sell "bubble houses" like cars. Other writers have predicted >inflatable housing: Blow up a large balloon, spray it with foam that >hardens, and you have an instant dome. Cut a door, install lights and >plumbing, you're home. Several large buildings have been erected in just an >hour by inflating a balloon under a thick layer of wet concrete, but the >process remains a novelty. > > *The orbital elevator:* If you can make a carbon nanotube ribbon 62,000 >miles long, you can hang a cable from space down to Earth's surface and run >elevators up and down. Arthur C. Clarke, Charles Sheffield, and I?others >too?have written novels about the mechanics as well as the economics of >orbital elevators. According to NASA, such an elevator would reduce the >per-pound cost of launching a payload into space by 98 percent, from $20,000 >to $400. The LiftPort Group, a private U.S. company, plans to have a cable >in place by 2018. *DG Predicts: I'm not as optimistic as the folks at >LiftPort. Anyone who's ever hired a contractor knows that it always takes >twice as long and costs twice as much as expected. I say 2030, maybe longer. >But I'm ready to go today! * > > *Sentient machines:* Robert A. Heinlein wrote about Mike, short for >Mycroft, in 1966 (*The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress*). In 1968, Arthur C. Clarke >introduced HAL 9000 (*2001: A Space Odyssey*), and some guy named Gerrold >started writing stories about H.A.R.L.I.E. in 1969. Another sentient >computer showed up in the 1969 movie *Colossus: The Forbin Project*. Today, >after 50 years of intense development and research, the average desktop >computer has finally achieved the intelligence of a desert gecko. >Considering nature took several million years, this is enormous progress. *DG >Predicts: True intelligence is rooted in pattern recognition, and >intelligence engines are most likely to evolve from self-teaching neural >networks. We might see the experimental beginnings of silicon self-awareness >by 2020, but I doubt we'll see HAL 9000 or Asimov's robots before 2040. * > > > >*Trans-humans:* Sci-fi writers have predicted that future humans will have >technologically augmented bodies and electronically implanted brains. >They'll be bio-processed, gene-spliced, mutated, and enhanced. In the "Sixth >Finger" episode of the television series *The Outer Limits* (1963), David >McCallum was pushed up the evolutionary path to become a super-being. More >recently, in *The Matrix*, human beings are implanted with computer >connections so they can experience a virtual world as reality. *DG >Predicts:We're already modifying ourselves with cosmetic surgery, >hearing aids, >artificial hips, pacemakers, steroids, and organ transplants. These are the >bits and pieces of trans-human evolution. We just haven't seen all the >synergistic combinations yet. A century from now, we could be a >self-designed species. * > > *Copyright (c) 2006 Ziff Davis Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material >may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.* From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jul 24 07:03:46 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:03:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A wireless hail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44C470D2.4040709@mac.com> In many parts of the city there are open wireless nodes on purpose as wireless freenets. I am not sure how to tell the difference between such and a simple unguarded home wireless. In the Bay Area some information on such efforts can be found at http://www.bawug.org/ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/06/30/BU161955.DTL Jeff Davis wrote: > My wife and I have moved back into our San Francisco house, briefly, > to prep it for sale. I opened my new laptop and voila! I find several > unsecured home wireless networks in range. I am in fact now online > courtesy of one of those networks. > > My question: is there a way to extract the information needed to > contact the network's owner? I could walk around the neighborhood > with my laptop, seeking an increase in the signal strength, and home > in that way, then knock on the door, but I'm really talking more about > finding and contacting them electronically. > > What's the scoop? > > From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jul 24 07:15:29 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:15:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <37507.72.236.102.102.1153691247.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> <37311.72.236.103.79.1153665040.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C3BD02.600@mac.com> <37507.72.236.102.102.1153691247.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <44C47391.10501@mac.com> MB wrote: >> It is not egalitarianism as some >> overarching ideal that binds us but equality of fundamental rights that >> binds how we treat and may treat one another. This equality of rights >> does not require any rough equality of abilities, wealth, intelligence, >> knowledge or interests. This is the cornerstone of freedom and >> peaceful co-existence. >> >> > > Yes, Samantha, it is. However, if one group, cohesive and separate from the rest of > the population, in fact has more power and clout in government and law and education > and money, If there is any such "clout" that supersedes the common rights then the government is already degenerate. Differences in ability or money are then not the problem but that the government to some degree puts on the auction block the very rights it is its sacred trust and purpose to defend. How could simply having more education be a threat to anyone? Would you advocate forcing equality in education? > there is a great danger that they will reinterpret and/or change the law > to no longer be the same for the "better" and the "not better". If the republic (NOT democracy) is functional and working there there is no such ability to change those laws if the people and their representatives are at all awake and the checks and balances are still reasonably in working order. Of course we have largely forgotten and been made to forget what the machinery was supposed to be for. But that is not the fault in mere differences in power, intelligence, wealth and so on. > After all, we're > just coming out of a Jim Crow era. AFAIK we could easily slide back into some > version of it. > I don't see where that has a lot to do with differences of ability or wealth or education. What do you have in mind? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jul 24 07:20:06 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:20:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <9f4ad4540607231254q6cc53fe2r8db5842cd35778e@mail.gmail.com> References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> <9f4ad4540607231023p16cde583n84d97d9d9f4d1e31@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060723124803.021c86b0@satx.rr.com> <9f4ad4540607231226n69c29d09i115459b607853ac6@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060723144338.0224d6f0@satx.rr.com> <9f4ad4540607231254q6cc53fe2r8db5842cd35778e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44C474A6.4060105@mac.com> Randy Burkhardt wrote: > Sure, I noticed the effort. I was hoping I was wrong and you were not > another supposing equivalency between freedom loving Americans and > criminal enemies of peace. > > Every country on earth including some we now judge as great scoundrels has claimed to be "freedom loving" and claimed that those who oppose it or whose lands it decides to invade are the "enemies of peace". I was hoping you were not another incapable of questioning how history or simply a less provincial view may judge your country, at least in light of some of its actions. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jul 24 07:27:41 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:27:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> <37311.72.236.103.79.1153665040.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C3BD02.600@mac.com> Message-ID: <44C4766D.4050403@mac.com> BillK wrote: > On 7/23/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> As transhuman technologies promise large competitive improvements and >> even radical enhancements beyond current human norms I don't see how we >> as transhumanism can deplore the splitting off of subgroups with rather >> different capabilities and increasing divergent interests. After all, >> not everyone will choose to or be capable of availing themselves of such >> possibilities at once. I think the 'trick' to what made or makes the >> US (for instance) great is that we agree to and uphold inalienable >> rights for all human beings. It is not egalitarianism as some >> overarching ideal that binds us but equality of fundamental rights that >> binds how we treat and may treat one another. This equality of rights >> does not require any rough equality of abilities, wealth, intelligence, >> knowledge or interests. This is the cornerstone of freedom and >> peaceful co-existence. >> > > Ah, you are probably referring to this recent Act of Congress - > > Are you implying that I am in any way advocating any such thing or is this coming from some humorous place subject to misinterpretation? Are you aware this so-called act is an urban legend? I assure you I only advocate "negative" rights. - s > > AMERICANS WITH NO ABILITIES ACT - CONGRESSIONAL ACT 2006 > > WASHINGTON , DC (AP) - Congress is considering sweeping legislation, > which provides new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No > Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislation by > advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or > ambition. > > "Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and > drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in > society," said Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow > People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this > legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors > to a small group of workers, simply because they do a better job, or > have some idea of what they are doing." > > The President pointed to the success of the US Postal Service, which > has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to > performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack job > skills, making this agency the single largest US employer of Persons > of Inability. > > Private sector industries with good records of nondiscrimination > against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry > (68%), and home improvement "warehouse" stores (65%) The DMV also has > a great record of hiring Persons of Inability. (63%) > > Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million > "middle man" positions will be created, with important-sounding titles > but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of > purpose and performance. > > Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given, > to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. > The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations which > maintain a significant level of Persons of Inability in middle > positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium businesses that > agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires. > > Finally, the AWNA ACT contains tough new measures to make it more > difficult to discriminate against the Nonabled, banning discriminatory > interview questions such as "Do you have any goals for the future?" or > "Do you have any skills or experience which relate to this job?" > > "As a Nonabled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who > have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her > position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, MI due to her > lack of notable job skills. "This new law should really help people > like me." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other > untalented citizens can finally see a light at the end of the tunnel. > > Said Senator Ted Kennedy, "It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each > and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with > some sort of space to take up in this great nation and also find a > place for all illegal aliens no matter how useless they may be." > > > BillK :) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Jul 24 07:38:05 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 03:38:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems ofthe self-denoted Cultural Elites Message-ID: <380-2200671247385203@M2W022.mail2web.com> From: Randy Burkhardt r >Sure, I noticed the effort. I was hoping I was wrong and you were not >another supposing equivalency between freedom loving Americans and >criminal enemies of peace. Enough. This list promotes critical thinking and innovative thinking in analytical discourse concerning world issues. Your assumptions seem to be lacking in both. If you can change the dynamics of what you are writing and approach the topic in a way that invites inquiry and discussion, please continue. Otherwise, please rethink. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Extropy Institute Proactionary Principle Core Group -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jul 24 10:31:32 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:31:32 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060723125914.03e995b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060723125914.03e995b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060724103132.GN14701@leitl.org> On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 01:12:40PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > We know how, and there is more than one way to do it. I favor power sats, > but there are various ways to do it with fission. I suspect though that as You actually just need to bring PV prices down by a considerable factor (don't remember how much precisely, probably around 5). This is going to happen on its own with novel thin-film/organic PV in a time frame of 10-15 years. Thermal solar is already better than fossil, and in many places wind power is competive. In some place, geothermal is cost-competitive to natural gas (I expect to save considerable amounts on heating in the next 20 years, because of projected natural gas prices and infrastructure maintenance costs). > soon as we figure out how to cope with energy we won't need much of it anymore. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From amara at amara.com Mon Jul 24 12:34:47 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:34:47 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Funding situation for stem cell research in the EU Message-ID: Following last week's US presidential veto on stem-cell research, there will be a decision in Brussels on this same topic today. ----------------- http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/funding-stem-cell-research-divides-eu/article-156896 "Funding for stem cell research divides EU" From the article: {begin quote} Background: Following Parliament's amendments, the Commission, on 29 June 2006, tabled a revised proposal for the EU's research programme for 2007-2013 (see EurActiv 29 June 2006). European science ministers will be meeting in Brussels on 24 July 2006 to discuss whether to give the green light to this seventh research funding package, worth 54.5 billion euro, but key to the debate will be the decision to allow EU financing for research on stem cells. The current research proposal would allow the funding of stem cell-based projects on a case-by-case basis, after screening by both national and EU ethical committees. {end quote} ----------------- I guess the comedians have been having a field day with Bush's veto for stem-cell research last week. These two video excerpts from The Today Show made me laugh so hard, I almost cried. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVvgXvaxcHo&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Vs5xgOif8&mode=related&search= Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 17:59:22 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:59:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's protect these brains! With Antioxidants! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060724175922.52610.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Martin, Martin writes: ..."You use as much antioxidants as you need and metabolize or pass out the rest." The fact is, most people do not consume even the tiny daily recommended amounts of Vitamin C, for example. Unlike some other mammalian species, humans don't metabolize their own C. So it must be obtained from the diet, and most humans don't consume nearly enough. Martin: "It is useless and potentially unhealthy to consume more than 400 mg in a single dose, and given that you would only dose three times a day, ~1200 mg/d." For the record, I recommended 500mg because I'll be damned if I cant find a stand-alone Vitamin C supplement at a dosage of less than 500mg per pill. (Most seem to be in the 1000mg range) I'm sure they exist, but they sure seem hard to find. Compared to most substances that humans consume daily, Vitamin C is quite safe. Martin: "Spreading this kind of misinformation is irresponsible." The subjects discussed on this list are almost entirely (with very rare exceptions) speculative, subjective, and unproven. If it is "misinformation", please take it up with the authors of the books that I mentioned. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Ehrlich Martin Stria wrote: On 7/18/06, A B wrote: > > One of the most probable threats is from > age-related cognitive decline. As many of you probably know, one of the > primary suspects for age-related cognitive decline is cumulative > free-radical damage. Fortunately, humans can significantly reduce (but not > totally eliminate) further free-radical damage by consuming appropriate > antioxidants (egg. Vitamin E, C, and others). That statement has not be verified empirically, unless you have some studies you'd like to share. Several meta-analysis have found the reverse. You use as much antioxidants as you need and metabolize or pass out the rest. The makers of Puritanism claim 40% reductions in lipid per oxidation levels, though. It works by increasing levels of antioxidant enzymes. > Vitamin C > is also totally safe unless you are trying to overdose with it and exceed > around 10,000 milligrams daily - you won't overdose successfully but you > will get some pretty bad diarrhea. :-) You don't know what you're talking about. Serum ascorbic acid levels peak at doses of 400 mg, the rest gets broken down into oxalate and can potentially combine with Ca++ in the kidneys to form kidney stones (although risk for this phenomenon seems to be genetic). It is useless and potentially unhealthy to consume more than 400 mg in a single dose, and given that you would only dose three times a day, ~1200 mg/d. > At the very least, we should all consider taking 2 X 500mg Vitamin C, daily. > It's a powerfully effective brain antioxidant, it's totally harmless, I did a short review of antioxidants a while back: HTTP://stria.org/bog/?p=227 Martin _______________________________________________ extra-chat mailing list extra-chat at lists.extra.org HTTP://lists.extra.org/mailman/list info.cg/extra-chat __________________________________________________ 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 austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 19:29:30 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's protect these brains! With Antioxidants! In-Reply-To: <20060724175922.52610.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060724192930.66759.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Apologies, It appears that my spell-checker spazzed out and automatically changed all the "unfamiliar" words throughout this post. No offense was intended. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich A B wrote: Hi Martin, Martin writes: ..."You use as much antioxidants as you need and metabolize or pass out the rest." The fact is, most people do not consume even the tiny daily recommended amounts of Vitamin C, for example. Unlike some other mammalian species, humans don't metabolize their own C. So it must be obtained from the diet, and most humans don't consume nearly enough. Martin: "It is useless and potentially unhealthy to consume more than 400 mg in a single dose, and given that you would only dose three times a day, ~1200 mg/d." For the record, I recommended 500mg because I'll be damned if I cant find a stand-alone Vitamin C supplement at a dosage of less than 500mg per pill. (Most seem to be in the 1000mg range) I'm sure they exist, but they sure seem hard to find. Compared to most substances that humans consume daily, Vitamin C is quite safe. Martin: "Spreading this kind of misinformation is irresponsible." The subjects discussed on this list are almost entirely (with very rare exceptions) speculative, subjective, and unproven. If it is "misinformation", please take it up with the authors of the books that I mentioned. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Ehrlich Martin Stria wrote: On 7/18/06, A B wrote: > > One of the most probable threats is from > age-related cognitive decline. As many of you probably know, one of the > primary suspects for age-related cognitive decline is cumulative > free-radical damage. Fortunately, humans can significantly reduce (but not > totally eliminate) further free-radical damage by consuming appropriate > antioxidants (egg. Vitamin E, C, and others). That statement has not be verified empirically, unless you have some studies you'd like to share. Several meta-analysis have found the reverse. You use as much antioxidants as you need and metabolize or pass out the rest. The makers of Puritanism claim 40% reductions in lipid per oxidation levels, though. It works by increasing levels of antioxidant enzymes. > Vitamin C > is also totally safe unless you are trying to overdose with it and exceed > around 10,000 milligrams daily - you won't overdose successfully but you > will get some pretty bad diarrhea. :-) You don't know what you're talking about. Serum ascorbic acid levels peak at doses of 400 mg, the rest gets broken down into oxalate and can potentially combine with Ca++ in the kidneys to form kidney stones (although risk for this phenomenon seems to be genetic). It is useless and potentially unhealthy to consume more than 400 mg in a single dose, and given that you would only dose three times a day, ~1200 mg/d. > At the very least, we should all consider taking 2 X 500mg Vitamin C, daily. > It's a powerfully effective brain antioxidant, it's totally harmless, I did a short review of antioxidants a while back: HTTP://stria.org/bog/?p=227 Martin _______________________________________________ extra-chat mailing list extra-chat at lists.extra.org HTTP://lists.extra.org/mailman/list info.cg/extra-chat __________________________________________________ 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.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Jul 24 23:21:22 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:21:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites" In-Reply-To: <44C47391.10501@mac.com> References: <36563.72.236.102.91.1153587522.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200607221805.k6MI5bO7018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37017.72.236.103.51.1153618525.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C36A27.9080203@mac.com> <37311.72.236.103.79.1153665040.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C3BD02.600@mac.com> <37507.72.236.102.102.1153691247.squirrel@main.nc.us> <44C47391.10501@mac.com> Message-ID: <37868.72.236.103.61.1153783282.squirrel@main.nc.us> Samantha writes: > If the republic (NOT democracy) is functional and working there there is > no such ability to change those laws if the people and their > representatives are at all awake and the checks and balances are still > reasonably in working order. Of course we have largely forgotten and > been made to forget what the machinery was supposed to be for. But that > is not the fault in mere differences in power, intelligence, wealth and > so on. > > > MB wrote: >> After all, we're >> just coming out of a Jim Crow era. AFAIK we could easily slide back into some >> version of it. >> Samantha writes: > I don't see where that has a lot to do with differences of ability or > wealth or education. What do you have in mind? > The only danger that I see is if "elites" and everybody else separate enough to kill the republic. There's certainly a common lack of understanding about what kind of government the US actually is supposed to have - as you point out with "NOT democracy". Destruction could actually happen from either end, but I'd suspect rich/educated/powerful would be in a better position to adjust/interpret the laws to their liking - after all, everybody else might be considered "lesser animals" and not matter. Haven't we had discussions here about hoi polloi somehow interfering with or doing away with the transhumanists? This would just be the other side of that coin. As I see it, there's still got to be room for both. That's why I present transhumanism in such a low-key way to the folks I know... utilizing things they already accept and marvelling at new possibilities. Maybe it's different if you live in the big city. I live in the backwoods Bible Belt. Regards, MB From lcorbin at tsoft.com Tue Jul 25 03:08:58 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:08:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted Cultural Elites In-Reply-To: <380-2200671247385203@M2W022.mail2web.com> Message-ID: Natasha writes > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Burkhardt r > > > Sure, I noticed the effort. I was hoping I was wrong and you were not > > another supposing equivalency between freedom loving Americans and > > criminal enemies of peace. > > Enough. This list promotes critical thinking and innovative thinking in > analytical discourse concerning world issues. Your assumptions seem to be > lacking in both. If you can change the dynamics of what you are writing and > approach the topic in a way that invites inquiry and discussion, please > continue. Otherwise, please rethink. I'm not clear on what infraction the writer is guilty of. Could you please elaborate? Thanks, Lee From fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue Jul 25 03:57:46 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry Colvin) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:57:46 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) After the Bell Curve Message-ID: <12170206.1153799866598.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Forwarded Message----- > >July 23, 2006 >IDEA LAB >After the Bell Curve > >By DAVID L. KIRP > >http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/magazine/23wwln_idealab.html? >pagewanted=print > >When it comes to explaining the roots of intelligence, the fight >between partisans of the gene and partisans of the environment is >ancient and fierce. Each side challenges the other?s intellectual >bona fides and political agendas. What is at stake is not just the >definition of good science but also the meaning of the just society. >The nurture crowd is predisposed to revive the War on Poverty, while >the hereditarians typically embrace a Social Darwinist perspective. >A century?s worth of quantitative-genetics literature concludes that >a person?s I.Q. is remarkably stable and that about three-quarters of >I.Q. differences between individuals are attributable to heredity. >This is how I.Q. is widely understood ? as being mainly ?in the >genes? ? and that understanding has been used as a rationale for >doing nothing about seemingly intractable social problems like the >black-white school-achievement gap and the widening income disparity. >If nature disposes, the argument goes, there is little to be gained >by intervening. In their 1994 best seller, ?The Bell Curve,? Richard >Herrnstein and Charles Murray relied on this research to argue that >the United States is a genetic meritocracy and to urge an end to >affirmative action. Since there is no way to significantly boost >I.Q., prominent geneticists like Arthur Jensen of Berkeley have >contended, compensatory education is a bad bet. > >But what if the supposed opposition between heredity and environment >is altogether misleading? A new generation of studies shows that >genes and environment don?t occupy separate spheres ? that much of >what is labeled ?hereditary? becomes meaningful only in the context >of experience. ?It doesn?t really matter whether the heritability of >I.Q. is this particular figure or that one,? says Sir Michael Rutter >of the University of London. ?Changing the environment can still make >an enormous difference.? If heredity defines the limits of >intelligence, the research shows, experience largely determines >whether those limits will be reached. And if this is so, the >prospects for remedying social inequalities may be better than we >thought. > > > >When quantitative geneticists estimate the heritability of I.Q., they >are generally relying on studies of twins. Identical twins are in >effect clones who share all their genes; fraternal twins are siblings >born together ? just half of their genes are identical. If heredity >explains most of the difference in intelligence, the logic goes, the >I.Q. scores of identical twins will be far more similar than the >I.Q.?s of fraternal twins. And this is what the research has >typically shown. Only when children have spent their earliest years >in the most wretched of circumstances, as in the infamous case of the >Romanian orphans, treated like animals during the misrule of Nicolae >Ceausescu, has it been thought that the environment makes a notable >difference. Otherwise, genes rule. > >Then along came Eric Turkheimer to shake things up. Turkheimer, a >psychology professor at the University of Virginia, is the kind of >irreverent academic who gives his papers user-friendly titles like >?Spinach and Ice Cream? and ?Mobiles.? He also has a reputation as a >methodologist?s methodologist. In combing through the research, he >noticed that the twins being studied had middle-class backgrounds. >The explanation was simple ? poor people don?t volunteer for research >projects ? but he wondered whether this omission mattered. > >Together with several colleagues, Turkheimer searched for data on >twins from a wider range of families. He found what he needed in a >sample from the 1970?s of more than 50,000 American infants, many >from poor families, who had taken I.Q. tests at age 7. In a widely- >discussed 2003 article, he found that, as anticipated, virtually all >the variation in I.Q. scores for twins in the sample with wealthy >parents can be attributed to genetics. The big surprise is among the >poorest families. Contrary to what you might expect, for those >children, the I.Q.?s of identical twins vary just as much as the >I.Q.?s of fraternal twins. The impact of growing up impoverished >overwhelms these children?s genetic capacities. In other words, home >life is the critical factor for youngsters at the bottom of the >economic barrel. ?If you have a chaotic environment, kids? genetic >potential doesn?t have a chance to be expressed,? Turkheimer >explains. ?Well-off families can provide the mental stimulation >needed for genes to build the brain circuitry for intelligence.? > >This provocative finding was confirmed in a study published last >year. An analysis of the reading ability of middle-aged twins showed >that even half a century after childhood, family background still has >a big effect ? but only for children who grew up poor. Meanwhile, >Turkheimer is studying a sample of twins who took the National Merit >Scholarship exam, and the results are the same. Although these are >the academic elite, who mostly come from well-off homes, variations >in family circumstances still matter: children in the wealthiest >households have the greatest opportunity to develop all their genetic >capacities. The better-off the family, the more a child?s genetic >potential is likely to be, as Turkheimer puts it, ?maxed out.? > > >n seeking to understand the impact of nature and nurture on I.Q., >researchers have also looked at adopted children. Consistent with the >proposition that intelligence is mainly inherited, these studies have >almost always found that adopted youngsters more closely resemble >their biological than their adoptive parents. Such findings have >supported the assumption that changing a child?s life circumstances >won?t alter the hard facts of nature. > >But researchers in France noted a shortcoming in these adoption >studies and set out to correct it. Since poor families rarely adopt, >those investigations have had to focus only on youngsters placed in >well-to-do homes. What?s more, because most adopted children come >from poor homes, almost nothing is known about adopted youngsters >whose biological parents are well-off. > >What happens in these rare instances of riches-to-rags adoption? To >answer that question, two psychologists, Christiane Capron and Michel >Duyme, combed through thousands of records from French public and >private adoption agencies. ?It was slow, dusty work,? Duyme recalls. >Their natural experiment mimics animal studies in which, for >instance, a newborn rhesus monkey is taken from its nurturing >biological mother and handed over to an uncaring foster mother. The >findings are also consistent: how genes are expressed depends on the >social context. > >Regardless of whether the adopting families were rich or poor, Capron >and Duyme learned, children whose biological parents were well-off >had I.Q. scores averaging 16 points higher than those from working- >class parents. Yet what is really remarkable is how big a difference >the adopting families? backgrounds made all the same. The average >I.Q. of children from well-to-do parents who were placed with >families from the same social stratum was 119.6. But when such >infants were adopted by poor families, their average I.Q. was 107.5 ? >12 points lower. The same holds true for children born into >impoverished families: youngsters adopted by parents of similarly >modest means had average I.Q.?s of 92.4, while the I.Q.?s of those >placed with well-off parents averaged 103.6. These studies confirm >that environment matters ? the only, and crucial, difference between >these children is the lives they have led. > >A later study of French youngsters adopted between the ages of 4 and >6 shows the continuing interplay of nature and nurture. Those >children had little going for them. Their I.Q.?s averaged 77, putting >them near retardation. Most were abused or neglected as infants, then >shunted from one foster home or institution to the next. > >Nine years later, they retook the I.Q. tests, and contrary to the >conventional belief that I.Q. is essentially stable, all of them did >better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting >family?s status. Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average >I.Q. scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had >average scores of 92. The average I.Q. scores of youngsters placed in >well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98 ? a jump from >borderline retardation to a whisker below average. That is a huge >difference ? a person with an I.Q. of 77 couldn?t explain the rules >of baseball, while an individual with a 98 I.Q. could actually manage >a baseball team ? and it can only be explained by pointing to >variations in family circumstances. > >Taken together, these studies show that the issue has changed: it is >no longer a matter of whether the environment matters but when and >how it matters. And poverty, quite clearly, is an important part of >the answer. > >That is not to say that an affluent home is necessarily a good home. >A family?s social standing is only a proxy for the time and energy >needed to keep a youngster mentally engaged, as well as the social >capital that helps steer a child to success. There are, of course, >many affluent parents who do a bad job of raising their children, and >many poor families who nurture their kids with care and intelligence. >On average, though, well-off households have the resources needed to >provide better settings for the fullest development of a child?s >natural abilities. In ?Meaningful Differences in the Everyday >Experience of Young American Children,? the University of Kansas >psychologists Betty Hart and Todd Risley find that by the time they >are 4 years old, children growing up in poor families have typically >heard a total of 32 million fewer spoken words than those whose >parents are professionals. That language gap translates directly into >stunted academic trajectories. > >Is there a way to reduce such gaps? In recent years, the case for >investing in early-childhood education has become stronger and >stronger. The federal Early Head Start program for infants and >toddlers is effective when it is well implemented ? in part because >it succeeds in getting parents more involved with their children. >Recent research also shows that one year of high-quality state >prekindergarten can give children as much as a seven-month advantage >in vocabulary; this, in turn, is a good predictor of how well they >will read when they are in primary school. As you would expect, poor >children benefit the most, especially when they are in classes with >middle-class youngsters. > >The push for universal preschool is not a red-state-blue-state issue; >the pioneers in the area are Oklahoma and Georgia, not generally >known for social progressivism. And with the support of business >groups and prominent philanthropists like Susan Buffett, the daughter >of Warren Buffett, it may enter the national agenda. If it does, it >will be a small step toward a society in which not only the most >fortunate children will be able to ?max out? their potential. > >David L. Kirp, a professor of public policy at the University of >California at Berkeley, is writing a book about the universal >preschool movement. > >Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company > From amara at amara.com Tue Jul 25 06:53:41 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:53:41 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Funding situation for stem cell research in the EU Message-ID: The EU will continue to fund stem cell research. (with some conditions) News here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/24/news/union.php http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5209106.stm Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jul 25 07:10:15 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 02:10:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Funding situation for stem cell research in the EU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060725020750.02265210@satx.rr.com> At 08:53 AM 7/25/2006 +0200, Amara Graps wrote: >The EU will continue to fund stem cell research. (with some conditions) >News here: >http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/24/news/union.php >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5209106.stm This is quite baffling: < European Commissioner for Science and Research Janez Potocnik said the EU would not finance the "procurement" of embryonic stem cells - a process which results in the death of the embryo - but it would finance the "subsequent steps" to make use of the cells. > You can have any omelette you like as long as you don't break any eggs making it? Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jul 25 09:02:53 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:02:53 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Melanzane alla Parmigiana (Eggplant Parmigiana) (was: The Extropy of Cooking) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060725090253.GV14701@leitl.org> On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 09:24:30PM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > Cooking Report: > > My crop of all the plant ingredients came in and I tried this recipe, > plus a little experimentation as well. In short, Amara's basic > recipe is an *excellent* baseline, and the best rendition of this > classic dish that I have ever had. It was universally liked across > my taste-testing audience that was subjected to it. There were a > couple points where the instructions were a bit sparse, but after the > first attempt, the corrections were easy. I made about a 2/3 recipe, > which served approximately 6 people. It is worth noting that the > caloric density of this recipe, as best I can compute it, is quite > low despite the cheese and similar. > > Some notes based on my experience: > > - The tomatoes need to be significantly reduced (certainly more than > my first attempt) to come out right. The construction of this dish > interferes with evaporation, so counting on reduction in the oven > will make a very watery result. For the most part, any reduction > that needs to happen should happen on the stove. I do most of my > work on the stove, so my relative lack of oven cooking experience bit > me here. > > - Per Amara's instructions, I used "a lot" of fresh basil from the > backyard which turned out excellent. Extremely coarse chopping is > all that is needed (the leaves on my plants get huge), and it behaves > almost like spinach in the dish. Don't be shy with the quantity, it > works great. It is unlikely that one will find it sold in grocery > stores in quantities so large that you should have leftovers. It > would be really difficult to ruin this with too much basil. I have > about 20 very happy basil plants which fortunately provide all the > basil I need. > > - I would reduce the cooking temperature to 300F and increase the > typical cooking time to more like an hour. As with most dishes of > this type, the cooking time is defined by the point where the water > in the top layer evaporates sufficiently to allow caramelization. > When the top starts to caramelize, it is done. Amara made mention of > it, but I will reinforce it: this dish is better behaved when cooked > slowly. > > - This is an eminently hackable recipe. If you like the basic > flavors, there is no reason at all that some addition flavors cannot > be added in the layers. I like it exactly how it is, but I can > easily imagine a half dozen different tasty modifications. It > actually needed a bit of salt (or salt sources) in my preparation, > which I compensated for. > > Overall, a really proper and basic recipe that is a worthwhile > addition to any repertoire. I have certainly added it to mine. > > > Out of curiosity, do Europeans cook in Celsius? While I know Of course. > everything is metric for the weights and measures, I don't recall > ever seeing many cooking temperatures in anything but Fahrenheit. I have yet to see a recipe with heathen units in it. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From amara at amara.com Tue Jul 25 13:49:01 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:49:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Funding situation for stem cell research in the EU Message-ID: Damien Broderick: >< European Commissioner for Science and Research Janez Potocnik said >the EU would not finance the "procurement" of embryonic stem cells - >a process which results in the death of the embryo - but it would >finance the "subsequent steps" to make use of the cells. > >You can have any omelette you like as long as you don't break any >eggs making it? I would need to read the documentation in more detail (there is a page giving more details here: http://www.eurostemcell.org/AboutUs/about_press_fp7.htm ) however my interpretation is that stem cells that result from IVF or similar where the embryos were already being discarded is OK, and stem cell research could be funded using those. I'm not sure if they would initially 'pay' for making the embryonic stem cells though. My guess is that that line in the law above is designed to take out business motivations for creating embryonic stem cells. Amara From sjatkins at gmail.com Tue Jul 25 16:08:45 2006 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:08:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Funding situation for stem cell research in the EU In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060725020750.02265210@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060725020750.02265210@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5483EA56-1B7B-4508-A38F-A6B4F0604F59@mac.com> I am very curious why these nonsensical restrictions are supported in parts of the EU. I doubt a religious component as in the US. US pressure behind the scenes perhaps? Or is something else at work? - samantha On Jul 25, 2006, at 12:10 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:53 AM 7/25/2006 +0200, Amara Graps wrote: > >> The EU will continue to fund stem cell research. (with some >> conditions) >> News here: >> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/24/news/union.php >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5209106.stm > > This is quite baffling: > > < European Commissioner for Science and Research Janez Potocnik said > the EU would not finance the "procurement" of embryonic stem cells - > a process which results in the death of the embryo - but it would > finance the "subsequent steps" to make use of the cells. > > > You can have any omelette you like as long as you don't break any > eggs making it? > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue Jul 25 16:14:25 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:14:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Melanzane alla Parmigiana (Eggplant Parmigiana) (was: The Extropy of Cooking) In-Reply-To: <20060725090253.GV14701@leitl.org> References: <20060725090253.GV14701@leitl.org> Message-ID: <418B2805-837E-44AE-808B-F662435931DC@ceruleansystems.com> On Jul 25, 2006, at 2:02 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 09:24:30PM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: >> Out of curiosity, do Europeans cook in Celsius? While I know > > Of course. > >> everything is metric for the weights and measures, I don't recall >> ever seeing many cooking temperatures in anything but Fahrenheit. > > I have yet to see a recipe with heathen units in it. I figured as much, but I guess I was never exposed to it. It is probably a matter of the American market for cooking being sufficiently huge that everything is converted for this market. I've seen grams/liters in recipes plenty of times, but the temperature always seemed to be given in degrees F even in the few foreign cookbooks (Asian) floating around here. I thought there might be a slim possibility that the use of Fahrenheit in cooking was a historical oddity but apparently not. It is all the same to me. I use metric about as well as English units, and can usually do the conversions on the fly. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Jul 25 16:42:29 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:42:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Funding situation for stem cell research in the EU In-Reply-To: <5483EA56-1B7B-4508-A38F-A6B4F0604F59@mac.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060725020750.02265210@satx.rr.com> <5483EA56-1B7B-4508-A38F-A6B4F0604F59@mac.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520607250942v56dcb37mc8c6c98f63d4d57e@mail.gmail.com> Of course there is a religious anti-progress component as in the US. In EU this component has not achieved power so far (let's keep fingers crossed for the future). You may remember a couple of years ago when there was a debate on whether to include in the late lamented EU constitution a reference to the Xian heritage of Europe. The decision was not to include it. You must understand that the EU does not have any decision power independent of member states. Despite all nice words and lip service to a EU integration that nobody really wants, nation states yield all power. In the debate on stem cells there were nations in favor and nations against - fortunately the former have prevailed so far. Damien: indeed, you can have any omelette you like as long as you don't break any eggs making it. The eggs must have already been broken by someone else. G. On 7/25/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > I am very curious why these nonsensical restrictions are supported in > parts of the EU. I doubt a religious component as in the US. US > pressure behind the scenes perhaps? Or is something else at work? > > - samantha > > On Jul 25, 2006, at 12:10 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > At 08:53 AM 7/25/2006 +0200, Amara Graps wrote: > > > >> The EU will continue to fund stem cell research. (with some > >> conditions) > >> News here: > >> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/24/news/union.php > >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5209106.stm > > > > This is quite baffling: > > > > < European Commissioner for Science and Research Janez Potocnik said > > the EU would not finance the "procurement" of embryonic stem cells - > > a process which results in the death of the embryo - but it would > > finance the "subsequent steps" to make use of the cells. > > > > > You can have any omelette you like as long as you don't break any > > eggs making it? > > > > Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jul 25 17:16:19 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:16:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Funding situation for stem cell research in the EU In-Reply-To: <470a3c520607250942v56dcb37mc8c6c98f63d4d57e@mail.gmail.com > References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060725020750.02265210@satx.rr.com> <5483EA56-1B7B-4508-A38F-A6B4F0604F59@mac.com> <470a3c520607250942v56dcb37mc8c6c98f63d4d57e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060725120628.0218b990@satx.rr.com> At 06:42 PM 7/25/2006 +0200, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >Despite all nice words and lip service >to a EU integration that nobody really wants, nation states yield all >power. I think you mean "wield", since "yield" would be the exact opposite. :) >indeed, you can have any omelette you like as long as you >don't break any eggs making it. The eggs must have already been broken >by someone else. Well, in this case the eggs must have been *laid* by someone else with no intention of their being broken. I presume this is an application of that handy old Catholic doctrine of "double effect", where the primary intention is to create embryos for parental implantation (making more souls for the family and Jesus), with only the secondary effect being the use of discarded embryos surplus to reproductive requirement. Oddly enough, this doctrine is rarely invoked (or rather explicitly revoked) to allow gay or infected men to use condoms in their wickedly sinful sex, even though the former use could not possibly be condemned on the usual ground that the prophylaxis thwarts possible reproduction. Hypocrisy rampant, as usual. Damien Broderick From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Jul 25 18:04:02 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:04:02 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] CNN - AI set to exceed human brain power Message-ID: <470a3c520607251104t500307c1q419965ebdedb697b@mail.gmail.com> Nice to see words like "uploading" and "machines to exceed human brain power" on CNN! CNN - AI set to exceed human brain power: Nick Bostrom , Director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the UK's Oxford University, said that AI-inspired systems were already integral to many everyday technologies such as internet search engines, bank software for processing transactions and in medical diagnosis. But Bostrom said that traditional "top-down" approaches to AI, in which programmers coded machined to cope with specific situations, were being supplemented by "bottom-up" systems inspired by enhanced understanding of the neural networks of the brain, leading to more subtle forms of AI. "The more we discover how the human brain achieves intelligence the more we'll be able to use the same computational architecture and logarithms in computers," said Bostrom. "At the extreme of the bottom up level you would have 'uploading,' which is the idea of scanning a particular brain in sufficient detail that you can then replicate its neural machinery." Inventor and science writer Ray Kurzweilbelieves the development of artificial superintelligence will herald a "singularity," in which human cognitive abilities are enhanced by brain implants. Bostrom is confident that technological advances coupled with a growing understanding of the workings of the human brain could enable machines to exceed human brain power within a couple of decades. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Tue Jul 25 18:18:44 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:18:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Funding situation for stem cell research in the EU Message-ID: Giulio Prisco: >Of course there is a religious anti-progress component as in the US. I don't think that Germany's objections were religious. I think theirs was due to general squeamishness to concepts that travel too close to Hitler's 1930s eugenics program. (If I'm wrong, someone please jump in here.) Amara From scerir at libero.it Tue Jul 25 21:15:06 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:15:06 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science Fiction comes to life References: <7370746.1153712321257.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <001e01c6b02f$681eac70$75ba1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Terry Colvin wrote: > One of the earliest attempts to build an actual flying car was in 1973, > when engineers welded the wings of a Cessna Skymaster to a Ford Pinto. The > prototype crashed, ending the project. The most notorious of all personal > flying vehicles was the Discojet now known as the Moller Skycar, first > developed in 1974. More than $200 million has been spent on it, but it's > very loud and difficult to control in crosswinds. The M400 model currently > under development is likely to cost a million dollars if it ever hits the > market. what about flying wheels ... ... between 400 and 600 million years ago? http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf065/sf065g09.htm From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 23:07:23 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:07:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Science Fiction comes to life In-Reply-To: <7370746.1153712321257.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20060725230723.1122.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Terry Colvin wrote: > >Time travel, antigravity, teleportation, sentient > silicon beings. Our > >yearning to visualize the future has always been > far ahead of our > >technological prowess. To predict the future of > technology in the 21st > >century and take a look back at preposterous > postulations of the past, what > >better source to turn to than a bona fide > science-fiction writer? After all, > >when sci-fi writers ask "What if?" their > extrapolations are sometimes > >astonishingly accurate. We asked David Gerrold, > sci-fi author and writer of > >the most-popular-ever *Star Trek* episode?"The > Trouble with Tribbles," from > >the original TV series. Here's his survey of the > high-tech imaginings of > >sci-fi writers Arthur C. Clarke, Robert A. > Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, H.G. > >Wells, and more. No treatise on the successful predictions of Sci Fi authors can be considered complete without referring to Jules Verne. Aside from his well known successful predictions of nuclear submarines and moon landings, here are some that are not as well known from his book "Paris in the 20th Century": gasoline-powered automobiles high-speed trains calculators The Internet (a worldwide "telegraphic" communications network) fax machines ("photographic telegraphy permitted transmission of the facsimile of any form of writing or illustration") electric chairs (criminals "executed by electric charge") Keep in mind it was written in 1863, around the time of the American Civil War. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." - Neils Bohr __________________________________________________ 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 Jul 25 23:46:06 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:46:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science Fiction comes to life In-Reply-To: <20060725230723.1122.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7370746.1153712321257.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <20060725230723.1122.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060725184059.021a6bd8@satx.rr.com> At 04:07 PM 7/25/2006 -0700, Stuart wrote: >No treatise on the successful predictions of Sci Fi >authors can be considered complete without referring >to Jules Verne. Aside from his well known successful >predictions of nuclear submarines Actually, no. He "predicted" electrically propelled submarines. But despite rumors to the contrary, he didn't predict submarines as such -- at least one had already been built years earlier. His somewhat journalistic skill was to take somewhat daring ideas that were already in the Zeitgeist and enhance them a bit, buff their edges, and tell an adventure story that made use of them. In fact, he mocked H. G. Wells for inventing such novelties as anti-gravity "Cavorite", instead of sticking to the known facts. How boring science-fiction would have been had his recommendation been widely accepted. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jul 25 23:50:10 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:50:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Science Fiction comes to life In-Reply-To: <20060725230723.1122.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7370746.1153712321257.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <20060725230723.1122.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060725184756.02434f58@satx.rr.com> Oh, and by the way >here are some that are not as well known from [Verne's] book >"Paris in the 20th Century": > >fax machines ("photographic telegraphy permitted >transmission of the facsimile of any form of writing >or illustration") >Keep in mind it was written in 1863, around the time >of the American Civil War. The fax machine was patented in 1843. http://www.secretlifeofmachines.com/secret_life_of_the_fax_machine.shtml Damien Broderick From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Wed Jul 26 02:39:40 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:39:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Melanzane alla Parmigiana (Eggplant Parmigiana) (was: The Extropy of Cooking) In-Reply-To: <20060725090253.GV14701@leitl.org> References: <20060725090253.GV14701@leitl.org> Message-ID: <44C6D5EC.6000505@goldenfuture.net> Eugen Leitl wrote: > I have yet to see a recipe with heathen units in it. Perhaps someday I shall convert my recipe for pot roast into aurar and merkur... ;-) Joseph From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Jul 18 07:37:28 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:37:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut jobs & transhumanism going extinct) In-Reply-To: <20060717213434.27836.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200607160548.k6G5m2R2019417@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060717213434.27836.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060718023106.0d954170@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 04:34 PM 7/17/2006, you wrote: >--- spike wrote: > > > >http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/posts.html?pg=4 > >They called us nutjobs. > > > > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha > > Atkins > > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] transhumanist nut jobs > > > > > > Using such a phrase is not a compliment. It > > implies we are > > > generally nuts but now and then may be onto > > something. It should be > > > objected to. > > > > > > - s > > > > >From the general tone of the article, it didn't > > feel to me like an > > intentional jab, or rather I didn't feel insulted. > > Of course, I seldom do, > > even if an insult is the intended, so perhaps I am > > not the right one to ask. > > > > > > Recommend we laugh it off. > >Again? How many times are we going to turn the other >cheek while the media insults us left and right. I >have had enough, it is time for an object lesson. I >recommend we play tit for tat and retaliate. Not with >some whiny little letter to the editor, however. The responses need to come from Max More first of all. Greg Burch and Martine Rothblatt ought to reply as well. These three individuals are exceedingly articulate. Max and Greg are top of the line at debating skills. Max has the position to respond. Greg is an attorney and has a background in history. Martine is an attorney and quite skilled at the larger picture. I think it would be responsible to ask individuals such as Amara D. Angelica her opinion since she may have a clearer perspective of these types of incidents, given her experience across many fields. No one should poke jabs, whine nor getting all out of sorts about this. It is business and business needs to be taken care of. Best wishes, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at gmail.com Wed Jul 26 22:43:06 2006 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:43:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut jobs & transhumanism going extinct) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060718023106.0d954170@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <200607160548.k6G5m2R2019417@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060717213434.27836.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20060718023106.0d954170@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <7AC97107-53B2-4893-AB7F-39B558981BDB@mac.com> On Jul 18, 2006, at 12:37 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > The responses need to come from Max More first of all. Greg Burch > and Martine Rothblatt ought to reply as well. These three > individuals are exceedingly articulate. Max and Greg are top of > the line at debating skills. Max has the position to respond. > Greg is an attorney and has a background in history. Martine is an > attorney and quite skilled at the larger picture. > > I think it would be responsible to ask individuals such as Amara D. > Angelica her opinion since she may have a clearer perspective of > these types of incidents, given her experience across many fields. > > No one should poke jabs, whine nor getting all out of sorts about > this. It is business and business needs to be taken care of. This looks needlessly officious in part. Non-official people getting pissed and rounding on the editor is a perfectly reasonable and not ineffectual action. This is about more than "business". I don't need official opinions and mouthpieces to publicly say what I think. - samantha From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Jul 26 23:06:02 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:06:02 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut jobs & transhumanism going extinct) In-Reply-To: <7AC97107-53B2-4893-AB7F-39B558981BDB@mac.com> References: <200607160548.k6G5m2R2019417@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060717213434.27836.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20060718023106.0d954170@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <7AC97107-53B2-4893-AB7F-39B558981BDB@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607261606h1dff4069q542bec6dca70335c@mail.gmail.com> On 7/26/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > This looks needlessly officious in part. Non-official people getting > pissed and rounding on the editor is a perfectly reasonable and not > ineffectual action. I agree as far as that goes, but I also think it is important to come across as calm and reasonable, whatever one's actual emotional state may be; sounding like one is hopping up and down and foaming at the mouth is likely to be counterproductive. (Not saying you were advocating the latter, but it's something that needs to be kept in mind anyway.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Jul 26 23:18:59 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:18:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut jobs &transhumanism going extinct) Message-ID: <380-220067326231859359@M2W007.mail2web.com> From: Samantha Atkins sjatkins at gmail.com > No one should poke jabs, whine nor getting all out of sorts about > this. It is business and business needs to be taken care of. This looks needlessly officious in part. Non-official people getting pissed and rounding on the editor is a perfectly reasonable and not ineffectual action. This is about more than "business". I don't need official opinions and mouthpieces to publicly say what I think. It certainly would if taken out of context, which was in relation to voiced aggrevations and concerns about how to deal with it. As a clarification, I was asked about ExI's position I responded by voicing my own views. Outside of this, I have no role. I hope that as many people as possible represented their own views to Wired, individually or together, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Jul 26 23:27:31 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:27:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut jobs &transhumanism going extinct) Message-ID: <380-220067326232731796@M2W024.mail2web.com> From: Russell Wallace "I also think it is important to come across as calm and reasonable, whatever one's actual emotional state may be; sounding like one is hopping up and down and foaming at the mouth is likely to be counterproductive. (Not saying you were advocating the latter, but it's something that needs to be kept in mind anyway.)" Samantha has a point and I agree that people need to voice their views outside of organizations. Calm is good. Greg is pretty damn good job me thinks. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Jul 27 00:02:02 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:02:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut jobs&transhumanism going extinct) Message-ID: <380-220067427022796@M2W034.mail2web.com> Sorry, should have been: Greg did a pretty damn good job me thinks. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Jul 27 00:06:13 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:06:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut jobs&transhumanism going extinct) In-Reply-To: <380-220067427022796@M2W034.mail2web.com> References: <380-220067427022796@M2W034.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607261706i1a628640u2fa72f75e6aa9bce@mail.gmail.com> On 7/27/06, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > Sorry, should have been: Greg did a pretty damn good job me thinks. > Agreed! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Thu Jul 27 06:26:14 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:26:14 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] ART: spam forms References: <7370746.1153712321257.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <001e01c6b02f$681eac70$75ba1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <000401c6b145$90b7c420$cbbd1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Alex Dragulescu http://www.sq.ro/index.php in the last years applied computational modeling and visualization techniques to 'artistic' expressions. In particular he wrote algorithms which analyze spam text to produce (surprisingly) 'organic' images, and hard structures. 'spam plants' http://www.sq.ro/spamplants.php 'spam architecture' http://www.sq.ro/spamarchitecture.php PS: Dunno if he also applies his modeling to good texts and smart posts. From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 19:01:44 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Re: Popper and QT. In-Reply-To: <003c01c6a769$a0d3d640$d60a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20060714190144.19810.qmail@web50404.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: John K Clark To: gts_2000 at yahoo.com; ExI chat list Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 12:18:11 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Re: Popper and QT. gts > > Popper for example would probably question even your > > suggestion that scientific facts can be discovered. > So in other words you don't think Popper was very bright. Actually, I doubt that's what he meant...Popper seems to have been brighter than most human beings, able to understand the principle of fallibility which he probably is implying in the above. All scientific "facts" are predecated on the assumption that human observation is factual, when this cannot be proven beyond all doubt. > According to Popper's own holly dogma that idea is nonsense because it can > never be disproved. As for me, I believe it is a fact that Einstein's > physics comes closer to describing the way the world works than Newton's > physics. If Popper wanted to convince me his philosophy had real value all > he'd have to do is come up with a theory that explained the world better > than Einstein; if he really has a deep and unique perception of how science > really works it should be easy. No, because you are essentially stating that you are basing your belief on faith, which makes changing your mind as difficult as changing the mind of a creationist. Popper was making observations about knowledge which are very much truisms, and yet which most people refuse to accept, because they have this impression of their perceptions of reality as somehow being absolute and unquestionable. Popper argued that it's a terrible mistake to "defend" previous knowledge, that it should always be seen as potentially flawed, as an assumption we're going on mainly for practical reasons, because it is the best approximation we have come up with so far. He opposed the bureaucratic thinking of academics who "defend" ideas, even in the face of evidence of their failure or another thing's greater success. I see no flaw in his reasoning, except that it's socially unacceptable. Likewise his belief that something is not really science unless it can pass strict rules of positive/negative verification. This offends pseudoscientists in psychology, socialist economics, et cetera, but only because it points out the gap between them and real science, not because he's actually wrong. > If they're really on to something then why aren't great scientific > philosopher's also great scientists? Hmmm...I think Popper would say that the obvious reason philosophers aren't scientists is that they don't follow scientific principles. They try to "reason out" things in order to push their preconceived notions, without verifying and validating their assumptions in tests which leave no room for error. Popper is hated by pseudoscientific types because he demanded people take responsibility for indefinitely proving and supporting their claims. -- Words of the Socialists: If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000. -- Paul Erlich, Environmental guru Addressing Britain's Institute of Technology, 1969 E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 14:20:52 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Re: Popper and QT. In-Reply-To: <20060714190144.19810.qmail@web50404.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060727142052.72483.qmail@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- KAZ wrote: > Likewise his belief that something is not really > science unless it can pass strict rules of > positive/negative verification. In the interest of clarifying terms, Popper was opposed to 'verificationism,' per se. In his view theories are never verified or justified through any kind of test or observation. -gts From jonkc at att.net Thu Jul 27 16:13:43 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:13:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] List test References: <20060719012303.7730.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003001c6b197$aa2ea700$0d0a4e0c@MyComputer> This is just a test as I haven't received a message from the list since July 19. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jul 27 20:00:00 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:00:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Melanzane alla Parmigiana (Eggplant Parmigiana)(was: The Extropy of Cooking) In-Reply-To: <20060725090253.GV14701@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200607272013.k6RKDlT0014880@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > ... Eugen Leitl > > Out of curiosity, do Europeans cook in Celsius? > > Of course. > > > everything is metric for the weights and measures, I don't recall > > ever seeing many cooking temperatures in anything but Fahrenheit. > > I have yet to see a recipe with heathen units in it. Eugen* Leitl Celcius, HA! Thou too art a Philistine Eugen. A real scientist would have all recipes in degrees Kelvin, masses expressed in carbon 12 equivalents, volumes in moles of a perfect gas at STP, cooking times in kilometers of photon travel. Hey that's a kick, let's write a cookbook for science nerds and math geeks. {8-] spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jul 27 20:08:30 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:08:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Funding situation for stem cell research in the EU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200607272013.k6RKDlT1014880@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > Damien Broderick: ... > > >You can have any omelette you like as long as you don't break any > >eggs making it? > Such a thing is possible, but may require advanced nanotechnology and a sufficiently loose definition of the term "break". Nanobots would enter the egg thru a tiny hole, remove some of the contents to make room, carry in the ingredients such a mushrooms, cheese and spinach after these have been disassembled at the atomic scale, reassemble them inside the egg, cook the whole mess inside the shell. Of course then you only *have* the omlette, whereas actually devouring the thing would still require breaking the egg. Unless of course one swallowed it whole. Alternately, one could synthesize the egg, sans shell, outside the actual chicken, thus obviating the breaking of the egg. This might put and end to endless speculation of which came first as well. spike From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Jul 27 20:36:48 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:36:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] List test In-Reply-To: <003001c6b197$aa2ea700$0d0a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <20060719012303.7730.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <003001c6b197$aa2ea700$0d0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <38895.72.236.102.109.1154032608.squirrel@main.nc.us> Test received! :) > This is just a test as I haven't received a message from the list since > July 19. > > John K Clark jonkc at att.net > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From atomictiki at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 20:30:01 2006 From: atomictiki at yahoo.com (P.J. Manney & E. Gruendemann) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Time Magazine: Singapore and Stem Cells Message-ID: <20060727203001.79389.qmail@web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I know that this isn't the only industry Singapore is pouring money into. For instance, they are also doing it in the technical side of the entertainment industry, creating animation and FX houses with relationships with US, New Zealand and other country's technical and creative teams to upskill their own work forces. They also want to own the creative side as well, creating their own content for world consumption. Smart guys. PJ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1218061,00.html Sunday, Jul. 23, 2006 Stem Cell Central American researchers--fed up with politics getting in the way of science--are packing up and heading to Singapore, which is delighted to have them By BRYAN WALSH/ SINGAPORE For a serial kidnapper, Philip Yeo looks harmless enough. But to hear some people tell it, he's a dangerous man. Over the past six years, Yeo has been roaming the world, trailing talented scientists in Washington; San Diego; Palo Alto, Calif.; Edinburgh and elsewhere, and spiriting them back to his home country of Singapore. Like any proud collector, Yeo never tires of ticking off his most prized trophies: former National Cancer Institute star Edison Liu, American husband-and-wife team Nancy Jenkins and Neal Copeland, British cancer researcher David Lane. "I'm a people snatcher," he says unashamedly. What distinguishes Yeo from other kidnappers, of course, is that his targets go willingly. They happily relocate to Singapore's new 2 million-sq.-ft. Biopolis research center, where they can concentrate on one thing they can't always study so easily back home: stem cells. Just last week President George W. Bush used the first veto of his presidency to block a congressional action that would have lifted his 2001 ban on federal funding for most stem-cell research, ensuring that cell lines will remain scarce and money short at research centers lacking the state funding or private wealth to thumb their nose at dollars from Washington. While Bush's action infuriated U.S. scientists, political catfights aren't the only things that make stem-cell research a challenge. The science is complex, the cost is high, and the efforts are scattered all over the world. Enter Singapore, which has begun offering itself as a combination sanctuary and think tank for scientists in the field. The idea that buttoned-up Singapore, better known for punitive caning and a onetime ban on chewing gum, should emerge as a center of enlightenment seems unlikely. But the government sees both scientific and fiscal promise in the biomed field. This month, Singapore announced a doubling of its R&D budget, to $8.2 billion over the next five years, making it a regional research hub, particularly in stem cells. That's attractive to frustrated American scientists--and worrisome to people who want to see the U.S. retain its scientific edge. "I think there is a risk of a brain drain, and we are seeing it," says Christopher Thomas Scott, executive director of the Stanford Program on Stem Cells in Society. Yeo, for one, is blunt about taking advantage of the American political climate. "I go to the U.S., and I tell those scientists, Come to Singapore and finish your work," he says. Singapore's leadership in stem-cell research is not new. In 1994, Ariff Bongso, a Sri Lanka--born embryologist at the National University of Singapore, became the first person to isolate human embryonic stem cells, and in 2002 he discovered a way to grow stem-cell lines without the use of animal cells, which could make it easier to find clinical uses in human beings. Bongso achieved those breakthroughs nearly alone, but that would not be the case anymore, thanks to Biopolis, the government's $300 million bet on bioscience. A group of seven asymmetrical buildings with sci-fi names like Nanos and Proteos, all connected by transparent sky bridges, Biopolis is meant to be a self-enclosed science city, housing government research institutes, biotech start-ups and global drug companies. At the ground level, researchers from some 50 countries meet and mingle over spicy laksa noodles, Philly cheesesteaks and German beer, discussing projects in English, the most widely spoken language in the multiethnic city. Inside, the well-stocked labs positively gleam. Ng Huck Hui, a team leader at the Genome Institute of Singapore, points to an expensive array of semiconductors. "We bought that three years ago, so by our standards it's pretty old," he says. "Might be time to get a new one." Says Lane, the Edinburgh expat who moved to Singapore in 2004 to head the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology: "The funding here is extremely good. You're in scientific heaven." And it's only getting better. Late last year the government launched the Singapore Stem Cell Consortium, chaired by Cambridge University--based stem-cell scientist Roger Pederson, which will set aside $45 million for research in the field over the next three years. Money also comes from university grants and offshore organizations like the U.S.-based Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. The diabetes group has helped fund biotech start-up ES Cell International (ESI), home to Briton--and now Singapore resident--Alan Colman, who was part of the British team that cloned Dolly the sheep in 1996. ESI manufactures its own embryonic-stem-cell lines and is working on shaping those cells into insulin-producing pancreatic tissue and cardiac muscle, which could be given to patients suffering from diabetes or heart disease. It's exactly the kind of potentially profitable research Singapore wants, and the company hopes to begin clinical trials next year. As with most stem-cell work at Biopolis, the focus at ESI is on building a broad business. Rather than designing patient-specific stem cells, grown from the very people who would later use them, ESI wants to create an inventory of more generalized cells that could be matched to a population of patients--the stem-cell equivalent of a blood bank. "I think Singapore punches well above its weight in this area," says Colman. "That's why I'm here." Another reason is Singapore's liberal regulations, which allow stem cells to be cultured from embryos up to 14 days old, although reproductive cloning is strictly illegal. Given its small size, Singapore will never really threaten the U.S.'s overall biomedical muscle, nor is it trying to. But it's impossible to witness the buzz at Biopolis or meet scientists who have chosen Southeast Asia over Stanford and not wonder how much the U.S. could achieve in stem-cell research if it were as science mad as this city-state of 4.4 million. For all the hundreds of millions of dollars Singapore has devoted to high-tech lab equipment and recruiting top scientists from around the world, it is spending just as much to educate a homegrown core of young Singaporean scientists to continue the work. Until they come of age, Yeo will be just as happy to come shopping for talent in the U.S. And as long as the stem-cell debate stumbles on in the U.S., American scientists will be just as happy to go. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jul 27 20:44:12 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:44:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] List test In-Reply-To: <003001c6b197$aa2ea700$0d0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200607272058.k6RKwogw014020@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Hi John, I was away on a business trip. The ExI list has a feature that automatically disables a recipient if her server bounces a number of posts. If you stop getting ExI posts, check your inbox isn't filled or other obvious issues. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:14 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: [extropy-chat] List test > > This is just a test as I haven't received a message from the list since > July 19. > > John K Clark jonkc at att.net > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Jul 27 23:27:03 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:27:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] ART: spam forms Message-ID: <380-22006742723273187@M2W030.mail2web.com> scerir scerir at libero.it wrote: Wed Jul 26 23:26:14 PDT 2006 >Alex Dragulescu http://www.sq.ro/index.php >in the last years applied computational modeling >and visualization techniques to 'artistic' expressions. >In particular he wrote algorithms which analyze >spam text to produce (surprisingly) 'organic' images, >and hard structures. >'spam plants' http://www.sq.ro/spamplants.php >'spam architecture' http://www.sq.ro/spamarchitecture.php PS: Dunno if he also applies his modeling to good texts and smart posts. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Jul 27 23:32:36 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:32:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] ART: spam forms Message-ID: <380-220067427233236953@M2W023.mail2web.com> scerir scerir at libero.it wrote: >Alex Dragulescu http://www.sq.ro/index.php >in the last years applied computational modeling >and visualization techniques to 'artistic' expressions. >In particular he wrote algorithms which analyze >spam text to produce (surprisingly) 'organic' images, >and hard structures. >'spam plants' http://www.sq.ro/spamplants.php >'spam architecture' http://www.sq.ro/spamarchitecture.php This work is amazing! Natasha Natasha Vita-more http://www.natasha.cc http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From sjatkins at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 03:36:21 2006 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:36:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut jobs & transhumanism going extinct) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0607261606h1dff4069q542bec6dca70335c@mail.gmail.com> References: <200607160548.k6G5m2R2019417@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060717213434.27836.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20060718023106.0d954170@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <7AC97107-53B2-4893-AB7F-39B558981BDB@mac.com> <8d71341e0607261606h1dff4069q542bec6dca70335c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jul 26, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 7/26/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > This looks needlessly officious in part. Non-official people getting > pissed and rounding on the editor is a perfectly reasonable and not > ineffectual action. > > I agree as far as that goes, but I also think it is important to > come across as calm and reasonable, whatever one's actual emotional > state may be; sounding like one is hopping up and down and foaming > at the mouth is likely to be counterproductive. (Not saying you > were advocating the latter, but it's something that needs to be > kept in mind anyway.) Damn. I like hopping up and down. It is good exercise and fun to get out of the head now and again. :-) - s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 03:37:07 2006 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:37:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut jobs &transhumanism going extinct) In-Reply-To: <380-220067326231859359@M2W007.mail2web.com> References: <380-220067326231859359@M2W007.mail2web.com> Message-ID: Sounds good. Thanks. On Jul 26, 2006, at 4:18 PM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > From: Samantha Atkins sjatkins at gmail.com > >> No one should poke jabs, whine nor getting all out of sorts about >> this. It is business and business needs to be taken care of. > > This looks needlessly officious in part. Non-official people getting > pissed and rounding on the editor is a perfectly reasonable and not > ineffectual action. This is about more than "business". I don't > need official opinions and mouthpieces to publicly say what I think. > > It certainly would if taken out of context, which was in relation > to voiced > aggrevations and concerns about how to deal with it. As a > clarification, I > was asked about ExI's position I responded by voicing my own views. > Outside > of this, I have no role. I hope that as many people as possible > represented > their own views to Wired, individually or together, > > 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.cgi/extropy-chat From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 03:41:40 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:41:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting mad! (was transhumanist nut jobs & transhumanism going extinct) In-Reply-To: References: <200607160548.k6G5m2R2019417@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060717213434.27836.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20060718023106.0d954170@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <7AC97107-53B2-4893-AB7F-39B558981BDB@mac.com> <8d71341e0607261606h1dff4069q542bec6dca70335c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0607272041y6ea3cf1dqb04a521af01ae513@mail.gmail.com> On 7/28/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Damn. I like hopping up and down. It is good exercise and fun to get out > of the head now and again. :-) > That I can't disagree with! :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jul 28 08:24:43 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:24:43 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] [udhay@pobox.com: [silk] moderating online conversations] Message-ID: <20060728082443.GR14701@leitl.org> ----- Forwarded message from Udhay Shankar N ----- From: Udhay Shankar N Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:50:40 +0530 To: silklist at lists.hserus.net Subject: [silk] moderating online conversations X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Reply-To: silklist at lists.hserus.net From Teresa Nielsen Hayden, "Some things I know about moderating conversations in virtual space" http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006036.html#006036 1. There can be no ongoing discourse without some degree of moderation, if only to kill off the hardcore trolls. It takes rather more moderation than that to create a complex, nuanced, civil discourse. If you want that to happen, you have to give of yourself. Providing the space but not tending the conversation is like expecting that your front yard will automatically turn itself into a garden. 2. Once you have a well-established online conversation space, with enough regulars to explain the local mores to newcomers, they'll do a lot of the policing themselves. 3. You own the space. You host the conversation. You don't own the community. Respect their needs. For instance, if you're going away for a while, don't shut down your comment area. Give them an open thread to play with, so they'll still be there when you get back. 4. Message persistence rewards people who write good comments. 5. Over-specific rules are an invitation to people who get off on gaming the system. 6. Civil speech and impassioned speech are not opposed and mutually exclusive sets. Being interesting trumps any amount of conventional politeness. 7. Things to cherish: Your regulars. A sense of community. Real expertise. Genuine engagement with the subject under discussion. Outstanding performances. Helping others. Cooperation in maintenance of a good conversation. Taking the time to teach newbies the ropes. All these things should be rewarded with your attention and praise. And if you get a particularly good comment, consider adding it to the original post. 8. Grant more lenience to participants who are only part-time jerks, as long as they're valuable the rest of the time. 9. If you judge that a post is offensive, upsetting, or just plain unpleasant, it's important to get rid of it, or at least make it hard to read. Do it as quickly as possible. There's no more useless advice than to tell people to just ignore such things. We can't. We automatically read what falls under our eyes. 10. Another important rule: You can let one jeering, unpleasant jerk hang around for a while, but the minute you get two or more of them egging each other on, they both have to go, and all their recent messages with them. There are others like them prowling the net, looking for just that kind of situation. More of them will turn up, and they'll encourage each other to behave more and more outrageously. Kill them quickly and have no regrets. 11. You can't automate intelligence. In theory, systems like Slashdot's ought to work better than they do. Maintaining a conversation is a task for human beings. 12. Disemvowelling works. Consider it. 13. If someone you've disemvowelled comes back and behaves, forgive and forget their earlier gaffes. You're acting in the service of civility, not abstract justice. -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 08:45:49 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:45:49 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fortune: the future of computing Message-ID: <470a3c520607280145k4abecd3fjc8763c1a51c744a8@mail.gmail.com> Fortune magazine on the future of computing- Coming soon: Google on your brain: Simply speak a question, or even think it. You will always be connected wirelessly to the network, and an answer will return from a vast, collectively-produced data matrix - Quantum Leap: Brain prosthetics. Telepathy. Punctual flights. A futurist's vision of where quantum computers will take us. Ask scientists to predict how quantum technology will change the world over the next 20 years or so, and their imaginations go wild. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Fri Jul 28 13:56:29 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:56:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fortune: the future of computing References: <470a3c520607280145k4abecd3fjc8763c1a51c744a8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000f01c6b24d$a1132450$d0971f97@nomedxgm1aalex> |Giu1i0 Pri5c0> quotes: > Ask scientists to predict how quantum > technology will change the world over > the next 20 years or so, and their > imaginations go wild. Wild, yes. Zeilinger, and his group, distributed (via an optical free-space link, using the 'Optical Ground Station' of the European Space Agency) pairs of entangled photons to independent receivers or observers separated by 144 km between the two Canary Islands: La Palma and Tenerife. Needless to say the observed polarization correlations, due to the entanglement, violate Bell's inequality (or, better, the usual, easier, CHSH inequality) by more than 13 standard deviations. They have also used these correlations to establish a quantum cryptographic key between La Palma and Tenerife. This long-range performance (Schoedinger, who invented the term 'entanglement' (1935), believed it was a short-range quantish effect, but in QM formalism the 'entanglement' does not depend on distance, and on delayed measurements). It demonstrates the feasibility of quantum communication in free space, involving perhaps satellites or even the International Space Station. (Notice that the feasibility in free space is easier than the feasibility on the earth, due to the strong atmospheric 'decoherence'). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Is this the first step to establish a world-wide network (or many world-wide networks) for quantum communication? http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607182 From scerir at libero.it Fri Jul 28 14:27:56 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:27:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] List test References: <200607272058.k6RKwogw014020@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <001601c6b252$056056e0$d0971f97@nomedxgm1aalex> I sent a post to the list but I've got this msg back: Your email to: abeck at berklee.net Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fortune: the future of computing Sent on: Fri Jul 28 09:56:29 EDT 2006 Delivery of this email has been denied due to the user's quota limitation. ???? (I'll try again. s.) From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jul 28 14:23:07 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:23:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cosmic dust in the news In-Reply-To: <20060728082443.GR14701@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200607281439.k6SEdqh2011986@andromeda.ziaspace.com> http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/07/27/dead.star/index.html New life in dead star By Ker Than SPACE.com Thursday, July 27, 2006; Posted: 9:55 a.m. EDT (13:55 GMT) Telescopic images show changes in Supernova 1987A. (SPACE.com) -- Newly detected dust found around the burst remains of a dead star could help reveal how planets and stars formed and how life began. About 160,000 years ago, a star 20 times more massive than our sun erupted in a fiery explosion called a supernova. The star was located in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a nearby dwarf galaxy. In 1987, the first light from that catastrophic event reached Earth and for several months, the supernova, dubbed SN 1987A, blazed as brightly as 100 million suns before fading again. Now, nearly two decades later, astronomers have detected dust particles around the supernova that they think formed before the star exploded. The new finding is the first evidence that star dust can survive a supernova explosion. It is also providing a rare glimpse into a process called "sputtering," in which dust is eroded by interactions with superheated gas. "Supernova 1987A is changing right before our eyes," said Eli Dwek, a cosmic dust expert at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland who was involved in the finding. "What we are seeing is a milestone in the evolution of a supernova." Cosmic building blocks Finer than grains of beach sand, stellar dust is a constant source of frustration for astronomers because it can obscure observations from distant stars. Yet the troublesome dust is also a prime ingredient in the construction of planets and of all living things. The dust is made in the fiery furnaces of stars as they burn and is scattered across space either by stellar winds or by supernova explosions. Despite its importance, scientists still know very little about star dust. How much dust does a star produce throughout its lifetime? How much survives a star's death? And how do rings of dust coalesce to form stars and planets? 1987A's newly detected stardust, found using an infrared telescope at the Gemini South Observatory in Chile, could help astronomers answer these questions. The dust particles are intermixed with superheated, X-ray emitting gas and found within an equatorial ring around SN 1987A. About a light-year across, the ring of gas and dust is expanding very slowly. This suggests that the ring was created about 600,000 years before the star exploded, the researchers say. It is therefore unlikely that the ring was created by a supernova blast during the star's death, but rather by stellar winds when the star was still alive. Made visible The ring of dust and gas remained invisible for nearly twenty years until shockwaves from the supernova blast caught up with it. As the shockwaves expanded, they passed through the ring, heating up its gas and normally cool dust until they glowed in the infrared. "This much was expected," said study team member Patrice Bouchet of the Observatoire de Paris. "The collision between the ejecta of supernova 1987A and the equatorial ring was predicted to occur sometime in the interval of 1995 to 2007, and it is now underway." What was surprising, however, was the composition of the dust, which followup observations with NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope revealed to be almost pure silicate. Also, far less dust than expected was detected. A star as massive as the one that created SN 1987A was thought to produce much more dust. The dearth of dust could mean that shockwaves from the supernova blast destroyed more dust than originally thought. This could have broad implications for determining dust origins throughout the universe if confirmed, the researchers say. A spate of new infrared, optical and X-ray observations of SN 1987A are now planned to follow up on the new findings. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jul 28 14:50:44 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:50:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fortune: the future of computing In-Reply-To: <000f01c6b24d$a1132450$d0971f97@nomedxgm1aalex> References: <470a3c520607280145k4abecd3fjc8763c1a51c744a8@mail.gmail.com> <000f01c6b24d$a1132450$d0971f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <20060728145044.GW14701@leitl.org> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 03:56:29PM +0200, scerir wrote: > Is this the first step to establish a world-wide network > (or many world-wide networks) for quantum communication? > > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607182 I don't see the point of communicating by entangled photon pairs, I must admit. In terms of cryptography, that's snake oil. Throughput is awful (single-photon sources) even over short distances, and so is susceptibility to disturbances. So what is the point of quantum communication over long distances? (I would see the point for short distances, for QC). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From scerir at libero.it Fri Jul 28 14:30:14 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:30:14 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fortune: the future of computing References: <200607272058.k6RKwogw014020@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <002601c6b252$57f9aa00$d0971f97@nomedxgm1aalex> |Giu1i0 Pri5c0> quotes: > Ask scientists to predict how quantum > technology will change the world over > the next 20 years or so, and their > imaginations go wild. Wild, yes. Zeilinger, and his group, distributed (via an optical free-space link, using the 'Optical Ground Station' of the European Space Agency) pairs of entangled photons to independent receivers or observers separated by 144 km between the two Canary Islands: La Palma and Tenerife. Needless to say the observed polarization correlations, due to the entanglement, violate Bell's inequality (or, better, the usual, easier, CHSH inequality) by more than 13 standard deviations. They have also used these correlations to establish a quantum cryptographic key between La Palma and Tenerife. This long-range performance (Schoedinger, who invented the term 'entanglement' (1935), believed it was a short-range quantish effect, but in QM formalism the 'entanglement' does not depend on distance, and on delayed measurements) demonstrates the feasibility of quantum communication in free space, involving perhaps satellites or even the International Space Station. (Notice that the feasibility in free space is easier than the feasibility on the earth, due to the strong atmospheric 'decoherence'). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Is this the first step to establish a world-wide network (or many world-wide networks) for quantum communication? http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607182 From scerir at libero.it Fri Jul 28 14:37:34 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:37:34 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] List test References: <200607272058.k6RKwogw014020@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <001601c6b252$056056e0$d0971f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <007501c6b253$5e3a0c10$d0971f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Also the 'list test' went to 'abeck'. s. Your email to: abeck at berklee.net Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] List test Sent on: Fri Jul 28 10:27:56 EDT 2006 Delivery of this email has been denied due to the user's quota limitation. > I sent a post to the list > but I've got this msg back: > > Your email to: abeck at berklee.net > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fortune: the future of computing > Sent on: Fri Jul 28 09:56:29 EDT 2006 > Delivery of this email has been denied due > to the user's quota limitation. > > ???? > > (I'll try again. s.) > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Jul 28 15:14:21 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:14:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] mailing list help? In-Reply-To: <470a3c520607280145k4abecd3fjc8763c1a51c744a8@mail.gmail.co m> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060728110826.03f80150@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> A significant list I post on has been down for over a month now. The person who runs it says it will be back up eventually, but he would really like someone competent to take it over. It is a highly ranked list and has a substantial list of significant articles. I don't know how much bandwidth it eats, but being all text it can't be much. If you would be interested, please let me know. I will give details (if you don't already know which list it is) and contact information. Keith Henson From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 15:22:41 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:22:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] List test In-Reply-To: <001601c6b252$056056e0$d0971f97@nomedxgm1aalex> References: <200607272058.k6RKwogw014020@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <001601c6b252$056056e0$d0971f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: On 7/28/06, scerir wrote: > > I sent a post to the list > but I've got this msg back: [snip] Delivery of this email has been denied due > to the user's quota limitation. Yet another example of why people should consider abandoning the extropy-chat list. Recapping my past complaints: A) We don't know what software it is running on. B) We don't know who the list-managers are. C) We don't know what the list policies are. D) We don't have any way to correct things should something happen to someone. In other words "Sky-Net" is taking care of everything. I just hope they don't send back a terminator to take care of those people who complain too much. Of course some interesting comparisons between the average Extropy-chat user and the average Internet user whose PC runs "fine" even though its infected with viruses, trojans, Spam-Bots and Keystroke loggers could be made... "Oh it works *fine* I don't pay any attention to what goes on underneath the hood." [1] Robert 1. It was recently reported that the U.S. still tops the worldwide SPAM message source list (~23% of the total) -- most are presumably from SPAM-bot infected computers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jul 28 15:38:19 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:38:19 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: folks, please don't overreact In-Reply-To: References: <200607272058.k6RKwogw014020@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <001601c6b252$056056e0$d0971f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <20060728153819.GA14701@leitl.org> Folks, please don't contaminate the list with META stuff. On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:22:41AM -0400, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 7/28/06, scerir <[1]scerir at libero.it> wrote: > > I sent a post to the list > but I've got this msg back: Yes, some user is over mail quota. That user is no longer a member of this list. > [snip] > > Delivery of this email has been denied due > to the user's quota limitation. > > Yet another example of why people should consider abandoning the > extropy-chat list. I don't think so. > Recapping my past complaints: > A) We don't know what software it is running on. Mailman, easy enough to check. > B) We don't know who the list-managers are. john at ziaspace.com david at lucifer.com spike66 at comcast.net eugen at leitl.org are contact addresses. I would contact me and Spike first, though. > C) We don't know what the list policies are. My job here is to maintain good S/N noise ratio. I don't have a particular fixed algorithm for that. As to hardware and SMTP level issues -- this is not my server, so I can't do anything, nor even diagnose the problem, if any. Please contact me with any problems you might run into. Notice that 3-21 August I'll be largely away from the computer (WiFi APs are rare in Brittany). > D) We don't have any way to correct things should something happen to > someone. I don't know what you mean by that. > In other words "Sky-Net" is taking care of everything. I just hope > they don't send back a terminator to take care of those people who > complain too much. I'm already working on the STTP (simple Terminator transfer protocol). Should be done in a minute. > Of course some interesting comparisons between the average > Extropy-chat user and the average Internet user whose PC runs "fine" > even though its infected with viruses, trojans, Spam-Bots and > Keystroke loggers could be made... "Oh it works *fine* I don't pay any > attention to what goes on underneath the hood." [1] Do you have the impression that the human part of the machine is malfunctioning? > Robert > 1. It was recently reported that the U.S. still tops the worldwide > SPAM message source list (~23% of the total) -- most are presumably > from SPAM-bot infected computers. > > References > > 1. mailto:scerir at libero.it -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 16:29:26 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:29:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] List test In-Reply-To: References: <200607272058.k6RKwogw014020@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <001601c6b252$056056e0$d0971f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: On 7/28/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > In other words "Sky-Net" is taking care of everything. I just hope they > don't send back a terminator to take care of those people who complain too > much. > Robert obviously hasn't heard that *today*, July 28th, is System Administrator Appreciation Day. Surely one day a year to be nice to your SysAdmin isn't too much to ask? :) BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Jul 28 17:54:13 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:54:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fortune: the future of computing In-Reply-To: <470a3c520607280145k4abecd3fjc8763c1a51c744a8@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520607280145k4abecd3fjc8763c1a51c744a8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <68390406-6A2F-4EA4-A4BC-3D150A9920E7@mac.com> Why do any of these things require quantum computers? A chip in the head plus ubiquitous connectivity could give much of what is listed. Further down the road MNT could do a better job of interfacing brain to network internal and external computational/communication resources. Wild? Depends a lot on the audience. - samantha On Jul 28, 2006, at 1:45 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Fortune magazine on the future of computing - Coming soon: Google > on your brain: Simply speak a question, or even think it. You will > always be connected wirelessly to the network, and an answer will > return from a vast, collectively-produced data matrix - Quantum > Leap: Brain prosthetics. Telepathy. Punctual flights. A futurist's > vision of where quantum computers will take us. Ask scientists to > predict how quantum technology will change the world over the next > 20 years or so, and their imaginations go wild. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From user at dhp.com Fri Jul 28 18:08:17 2006 From: user at dhp.com (Ensel Sharon) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:08:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] cell phone usage distance ... minimizing exposure Message-ID: This is a general health/longevity question, but I think it may be interesting to a lot of folks here. It is my understanding that EMF lessens as a square of the distance. So, let's say I alter my cell phone usage such that 100% of all calls are made with speakerphone, either holding the phone in my hand, or placed on a desk in front of me. What kind of reduction are we talking about here in brain exposure when the emitter is moved from (touching the head) to (forearms length or so away). This is my primary question, and is interesting regardless of what degree you suppose mobile phones to be dangerous. I'm not looking for a "dangers of mobile devices" discussion, per se, but would be happy to see one if people had interesting points to make, above and beyond the main point of my question... Thanks. From scerir at libero.it Fri Jul 28 18:39:42 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:39:42 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fortune: the future of computing References: <470a3c520607280145k4abecd3fjc8763c1a51c744a8@mail.gmail.com> <000f01c6b24d$a1132450$d0971f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <004901c6b275$314aa0d0$83be1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Eugene Leitl: I don't see the point of communicating by entangled photon pairs, I must admit. In terms of cryptography, that's snake oil. Throughput is awful (single-photon sources) even over short distances, and so is susceptibility to disturbances. So what is the point of quantum communication over long distances? (I would see the point for short distances, for QC). ### Essentially the point is the possibility of establishing a global quantum communication network, via a space-based distribution of entangled pairs. One potential advantage could be that quantum communication provides means to establish a (more) secure communication. So a quantum global network would be (more) secure. But there are different scenarios, depending on whether satellites are used to carry sources of entangled photons, or receivers of entangled photons, or relay devices capable of manipulating qubits, or even a third party device (on earth, on space) performing Bell-state measurements, or any possible combination among these different scenarios. You can also think of a scenario like two receivers orbiting around the earth, or moving fast through the space, and one transmitter of entangled photons. In this case it would be possible to study the *interesting* question of relativistic effects (ie Lorentzian boosts) on specific correlation between entangled states, or relativistic effects on quantum 'collapse', and the effects of gravity on quantum entanglements that is to say the Lens-Thirring dragging of frames. In principle, a space-based (less decoherent) quantum network would make possible to perform a space-based quantum computation even *before* its quantum imput is defined (ie on Earth). The basic idea is to perform the space-based quantum computation (QC) at some *earlier* time with qubits which are part of an entangled state. Only at a *later* time a Bell-state measurement is performed and this projects (it is a sort of teleportation) the QC output state onto the correct one. But I do not know what of the above is, at present, pure speculation, and what is reasonable. From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Jul 28 19:40:48 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:40:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Entertainment: "I cant wait to see the new Colin Farrell movie!" Message-ID: <380-22006752819404815@M2W017.mail2web.com> While I have been out of the film industry for a while now, I still enjoy reading a non-academic, somewhat cynical, poking-fun article every now and then. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14048473/ Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mstriz at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 20:31:54 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:31:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] cell phone usage distance ... minimizing exposure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/28/06, Ensel Sharon wrote: > What kind of reduction are we talking about here in brain exposure when > the emitter is moved from (touching the head) to (forearms length or so > away). You already have the answer: just use the inverse square law and substitute some representative numbers for the scenario you describe (pick a point a few centimeters inside the head so you don't run into the r^2 singularity if r = 0 at the ear). For example, let's use a point inside the head that is 3 cm from the phone. If you move the phone a "forearm's length" away, about 30 cm, you've increased the distance 10 fold. The concommitant reduction in signal strength will be 100 fold. > This is my primary question, and is interesting regardless of what degree > you suppose mobile phones to be dangerous. EM signals at mobile phone frequencies are relatively harmless. DNA absorbs maximmally at 260 nm, the UV range, so if you're worried about cancer, it's the EM radiation coming down from the sky that should concern you. http://www.radres.org/rare_151_05_0513.pdf Martin From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jul 28 20:54:08 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:54:08 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] cell phone usage distance ... minimizing exposure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060728205408.GJ14701@leitl.org> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:08:17PM -0400, Ensel Sharon wrote: > So, let's say I alter my cell phone usage such that 100% of all calls are > made with speakerphone, either holding the phone in my hand, or placed on > a desk in front of me. Use a Bluetooth headset. It is also very useful when driving (caveat: you're still effectively DUI-level impaired). > I'm not looking for a "dangers of mobile devices" discussion, per se, but > would be happy to see one if people had interesting points to make, above > and beyond the main point of my question... I would say that there's not enough data to claim 3-5 W peak power radiated directly at the head is innocuous. It certainly seems to disrupt EEG patterns in young users for about half an hour, which is definitely a warning sign. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jul 28 21:16:11 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:16:11 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] cell phone usage distance ... minimizing exposure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060728211611.GQ14701@leitl.org> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 04:31:54PM -0400, Martin Striz wrote: > EM signals at mobile phone frequencies are relatively harmless. DNA > absorbs maximmally at 260 nm, the UV range, so if you're worried about > cancer, it's the EM radiation coming down from the sky that should > concern you. You don't know what the nonthermal effects are. The effect is not huge (orelse we'd see in the statistics) but it doesn't mean it isn't there. Especially, long-term. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jul 28 21:35:59 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:35:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fortune: the future of computing In-Reply-To: <004901c6b275$314aa0d0$83be1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> References: <470a3c520607280145k4abecd3fjc8763c1a51c744a8@mail.gmail.com> <000f01c6b24d$a1132450$d0971f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <004901c6b275$314aa0d0$83be1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <20060728213559.GS14701@leitl.org> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 08:39:42PM +0200, scerir wrote: > ### Essentially the point is the possibility > of establishing a global quantum communication > network, via a space-based distribution > of entangled pairs. One potential advantage > could be that quantum communication provides > means to establish a (more) secure communication. I realize the current niche is to distribute classic symmetric session keys with claimed MITM detection. I call bullshit, because an one-time pad for that purpose would be both more convenient and also provably immune against quantum telecloning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_cloning_theorem http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/6/3/21 http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/2/15/1 The claim is that physical laws protect link integrity against eavesdropping, but that assumes we both know what the laws are and all aspects of attacks. Admittedly, financial institutions appear to not be immune to quantum crypto snake oil scams. http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0312.html#6 > So a quantum global network would be (more) secure. I don't think any evidence points that way. Thanks for your other points -- though I have a hard time following. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jul 28 23:44:25 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:44:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] List test In-Reply-To: <007501c6b253$5e3a0c10$d0971f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <200607282356.k6SNuJVL026100@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I went to set him to hold for excessive bounces, but I can't find him in the member list. Evidently Gene already fixed it. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of scerir > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 7:38 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] List test > > Also the 'list test' went to 'abeck'. > s. > > Your email to: abeck at berklee.net > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] List test > Sent on: Fri Jul 28 10:27:56 EDT 2006 > Delivery of this email has been denied due > to the user's quota limitation. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 29 04:08:38 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:08:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Da Shakespeare Code Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060728230750.021903a0@satx.rr.com> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19833255-5001986,00.html From godsdice at gmail.com Sat Jul 29 18:51:45 2006 From: godsdice at gmail.com (xllb) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:51:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Who the heck is Jerry Salyer? Message-ID: I googled Google News for "extropy" and found this single offering: FOCUS ON TRANSHUMANISM The quest for proactive evolution By Jerry Salyer Friday, 07 July 2006 "Throw caution to the winds" is the motto of a technology-infatuated group which wants to improve the human race. http://www.mercatornet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=319 Rick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 29 22:18:55 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:18:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Da Shakespeare Code In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060728230750.021903a0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060729221855.45139.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Poor Shakespeare. Why is it that people for years have kept trying to discredit his plays? Is it so inconceivable that a great poet can come from the ranks of the underclass? --- Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19833255-5001986,00.html > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." - Neils Bohr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 30 03:16:45 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Da Shakespeare Code In-Reply-To: <20060729221855.45139.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060730031645.65632.qmail@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > Why is it that people for years > have kept trying to discredit his plays? I think you mean they try to discredit Shakespeare's name. I don't see anyone trying to discredit his plays. I'd guess the true author cared little about his name. After all it was this same person who wrote, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet." 'tis perhaps another clue. :) -gts From jnh at aug.com Sun Jul 30 05:35:45 2006 From: jnh at aug.com (Jordan Hazen) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 01:35:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] cell phone usage distance ... minimizing exposure In-Reply-To: <20060728205408.GJ14701@leitl.org> References: <20060728205408.GJ14701@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060730053545.GA8382@aug.com> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 10:54:08PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > I would say that there's not enough data to claim 3-5 W peak power > radiated directly at the head is innocuous. *Handheld* phones don't emit this much power, though. The US FCC limit is 600mW (ETSI may allow a full 1W) and most actually run at 200mW or less to improve battery life, with minimal gain from the omnidirectional antenna. Also, on GSM networks, with eight timeslots per channel the transmitter will only be operating 1/8th of the time, reducing average power to 100mW or less. > It certainly seems to disrupt EEG patterns in young users for about half > an hour, which is definitely a warning sign. The rapid (~200 Hz?) timeslot cycling can cause EMI problems of its own, e.g. audio noise pickup in unshielded electronics nearby. Perhaps the EEG issue is similar? Did that study compare GSM to CDMA or analog? -- Jordan. From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Jul 30 17:52:47 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:52:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Living longer due to early nutrition? Message-ID: <20060730175247.GA10259@ofb.net> NYTimes has an article on people living longer, growing taller, and living healthier, including lower rates and later onset of chronic diseases. Due to things like the Dutch famine of 1944 and the 1918 flu pandemic, the article leans toward the Barker hypothesis, that nutrition and health in the fetal stage and first two years of life have a massive effect on later life. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/health/30age.html This has a couple points of relevance to Robin's "medicine doesn't matter much" thesis. One, it gives a mechanism for skeptics like me to cling to, making the thesis more acceptable. Two, it suggests that while socialized medicine over lifespan might not make much difference, "socialist" policies can still take credit for good health in many countries, in making sure young children are well fed, vaccinated, and treated. Low poverty rates may be more significant in population health than high wealth rates -- note how Cuba outlives most of Latin America even with a crappy GDP. Tangentially (on government policies working), I read Amartya Sen's _The Argumentative Indian_ recently, and liked it a lot. Alongside discussion of ancient Indian atheism was his crediting China's economic boom to ao combination of post-reform economic policies and pre-reform (Communist!) emphasis on universial health and education, especially the latter. India has more higher education but China has more basic literacy, which matters more for general employability, at least at their development level. Even more tangentially (on Asian literacy), he mentioned a historical Buddhist link with basic literacy. They were involved with early printing, and the oldest dated printed book is a Chinese translation of the Diamond Sutra. Burma and Thailand have pretty high literacy rates, and even Laos is higher than India. I found websites talking about children or at least boys traditionally getting a basic education in Buddhist temples, in that region. OTOH, Buddhist Bhutan has literacy as low as Hindu Nepal. -xx- Damien X-) From amara at amara.com Sun Jul 30 19:20:21 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:20:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] More string theory: BBC Radio4 Message-ID: Those of you following the discussions that emerged from Peter Woit's book criticizing String Theory might like this ~8 minute BBC Radio 4 discussion with Peter Woit on one side and Dan Waldram on the other: BBC Radio 4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_String_20060727.ram Clifford Johnson introduces the radio broadcast on his (new) blog: "Asymtotia" ---------------- http://asymptotia.com/2006/07/30/punch-and-judy-science-coverage/ {begin quote} "So imagine what I thought when I heard that they had Peter Woit on the programme to plug his new book (which, if you haven't heard, claims that string theory has failed as a theory of Nature, and that it is a total waste of resources. As you know, I have no problem with someone expressing that as a gut feeling, as long as they acknowledge that it cannot currently be put forward as a fact. Nobody actually knows whether it is true or not since last time I looked we were still all doing research on developing the theory to the point where we can actually address the question). Given all the pointless screaming and shouting that has gone on about this issue, which has been blown way out of proportion on the web and elsewhere, I was relieved to hear that they had Dan Waldram (from the theory group at Imperial College) to represent "the other side". Relieved because if there was ever a competition to find the nicest guy in the field, Dan would be in the final stages for sure, and so would likely bring some civility to the fore. The debate has not moved on at all since a year ago, and has become incredibly boring (I tried to explain this to Peter recently in this comment on his blog, and this one, but it seems to have had no effect and so I've given up on the whole thing), so I was worried that this would mean that it would degenerate into pointless squabble pretty quickly. I am delighted to report that I was wrong to worry! Except for the opening "information" pieces by Sarah Montague and Matt McGrath at the beginning, which were both heady mixtures of fact and fiction masquerading as a neutral piece of factual background, the whole thing was pretty good! (Example of the fiction: Sarah Montague introduces the piece with the statement "String Theory is the theory of how the world works that has held sway for the lat 20 years". What!? Since when?! Did anyone check this copy? I bet they did, but leaving in such a statement helps with the "establishment vs the outsider" scenario, one of the only two or three angles that will convince editors to give science issues any coverage.) I think that the BBC was hoping for a lot more heat in the debate, but Peter (who had inexplicably been given a field promotion to the rank of Professor at Columbia) and Dan were models of polite discourse! Neither of them overstated their positions at all. In fact, Peter's concerns were more reasonably and cautiously stated than I've ever heard before, and Dan addressed them well. They listened politely to what each other had to say, and then responded, disagreeing gently but firmly where appropriate, and empathizing with each other's point of view from time to time. And, the piece was longer than the usual four minutes (it was eight or nine), and was not quite the last thing before the news (it was lumped together at the end with a piece about the new Michael Mann movie, Miami Vice)." {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/ ******************************************************************** "But as usual, everything becomes perfectly obvious once you draw a Penrose diagram." ---John Baez From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sun Jul 30 02:46:39 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:46:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Who the heck is Jerry Salyer? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44CC1D8F.6070403@goldenfuture.net> I must say, I do like the term "proactive evolution". Joseph xllb wrote: > I googled Google News for "extropy" and found this single offering: > > FOCUS ON TRANSHUMANISM > The quest for proactive evolution > > By Jerry Salyer > Friday, 07 July 2006 > "Throw caution to the winds" is the motto of a technology-infatuated > group which wants to improve the human race. > > http://www.mercatornet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=319 > > > Rick > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From sentience at pobox.com Sun Jul 30 05:42:57 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:42:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Whoa! / Wafa Sultan Message-ID: <44CC46E1.9080205@pobox.com> It says a lot about the world as it exists today, that the most stirring and passionate interview I've ever seen on television, aired on Al-Jazeera, and could probably never air in the US. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=783wmv&ak=null Most transhumanists wouldn't ever dare speak with that much passion. You'd be afraid someone might accuse you of irrationality, or extremism. Remember as you watch, that this is what it takes to change the world. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 04:01:31 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] [humor] James Bond villian in the making Message-ID: <20060731040131.53064.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Ran across this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwZD59Ic9T8 Sure it seems like harmless geeky fun now. But put the cockroach control interface in a Brinks armored truck or M1 Abrams main battle tank and watch the running and screaming start. ;) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." - Neils Bohr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From atomictiki at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 03:36:49 2006 From: atomictiki at yahoo.com (P.J. Manney & E. Gruendemann) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:36:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Time Magazine -- The Politics of Science Message-ID: <20060731033649.81058.qmail@web31814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1220522,00.html Sunday, Jul. 30, 2006 The Politics of Science Democrats smell a political winner in stem cells, but both parties are holding their fire. Will the issue count in November? By KAREN TUMULTY/WASHINGTON The politics of stem-cell research, just like the science of it, is turning out to be far more complicated than either side would like you to think. From the press releases, fund-raising appeals and victory cries that were going up in the hours after President George W. Bush used his veto for the first time, it may have looked as though the Democrats had finally found their golden issue--and a social one at that. "With one stroke of his pen," declared Democratic chairman Howard Dean, "President Bush has once again denied hope to millions of Americans and their families who suffer from diabetes, spinal-cord injuries and Alzheimer's." Added Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey: "This will be remembered as a Luddite moment in American history." Democrats were right about one thing. The issue has put Republicans in an uncomfortable spot. White House press secretary Tony Snow apologized last week for saying that Bush considers stem-cell research "murder," explaining that his earlier comment was "overstating the President's position." That rectification came after White House chief of staff Josh Bolten endured an inquisition on Meet the Press, in which host Tim Russert demanded to know whether the President's stance against destroying embryos applied not just to federal funding of stem-cell research but also to shutting down the entire field of in vitro fertilization. The answer was a sort-of no. But so far at least, stem-cell research hasn't rewritten the electoral equation the way many Democrats had hoped it would. The most telling indicator, as always, is how candidates and interest groups are spending their money. A week after the veto, campaign strategists in both parties said they didn't know of a single state or congressional district where a candidate was running an ad on the issue. Only one independent organization, the liberal Campaign to Defend the Constitution, has run national advertising about it, buying $250,000 worth of ads in the New York Times and an additional $100,000 worth online. Democrats say it is still early and promise that their candidates will be talking more about the stem-cell issue--and pouring money into it--in the fall, especially in a handful of crucial suburban races outside Philadelphia, Chicago and Denver. And even before then, stem cells have played a role in the swing state of Missouri, which had been trending Republican. The business establishment, which wants to promote the state as a center for biotechnology with research hubs in St. Louis, Kansas City and Columbia, last year was instrumental in putting on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment that would prevent the legislature from blocking stem-cell research. The move, which attracted a record $16 million from biotechnology advocates, ran up against one of the strongest state pro-life movements in the country. It should come as no surprise, then, that the fight has spilled over into what is shaping up to be a tight Senate race between Republican incumbent Jim Talent and Democratic state auditor Claire McCaskill, one of the contests that Democrats hope will tip the balance of the Senate. In Missouri, though, stem-cell research is only one issue in a target-rich environment for Democrats: McCaskill is spending more time talking about the Iraq war and Republican corruption than about Talent's opposition to stem-cell research. And as she campaigns in conservative rural areas, McCaskill is making the issue more of a test of Talent's character than of his ideology, pointing to instances in which he has waffled in his opposition. So it's hard to predict how much the stem-cell question will figure in the Senate race's outcome. And yet, on the face of it, stem-cell research would seem to have all the makings of a perfect wedge issue. In nearly every poll, voters say they disagree with the President's veto by about a 2-to-1 ratio. Almost half of those surveyed in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll last week said that either they or someone in their family suffers from one of the conditions--cancer, Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, spinal-cord injuries or heart disease--for which stem-cell research is believed to hold the greatest promise. "There are a lot of things we do here [in Washington] that don't touch people directly. This one does," says Congressman Rahm Emanuel, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. But to make a wedge issue work, it helps to have a crisis--or, as the gay-marriage issue showed, to manufacture one. As private research continues even without federal funds and Governors like California's Arnold Schwarzenegger rush in to fill the void with state money, voters end up concluding that Bush's veto is not likely to prevent science from going forward in some way. Unlike issues like abortion and gay marriage, the stem-cell debate is seen by few people as one of moral absolutes. While Americans overwhelmingly disagree with Bush's action, they give him credit for having acted on conviction and not politics, though Republicans have made no secret of their hopes that it could help rally their dispirited base. In the meantime, stem-cell research is moving into areas where Americans are likely to have stronger moral qualms about it. Most voters don't object to destroying embryos that would otherwise be discarded, but far more of them are ambivalent when it comes to what scientists have taken to calling "somatic cell nuclear transfer"--a term researchers use to avoid the more incendiary word cloning, even though it is the same technology that created Dolly the sheep. "A lot of Americans way beyond the religious right are going to be troubled by some of the implications of all this," says influential conservative activist Gary Bauer. "Science is just running a lot faster than our moral discussion of it." Nor does the recent history of stem-cell politics offer much encouragement to research advocates. The issue didn't help John Kerry much in 2004, though he gave Ron Reagan a prominent speaking spot at the Democratic Convention and appeared frequently in the final months of the campaign with actor-activist Christopher Reeve's widow Dana. A poll conducted by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation shortly after the presidential election found that more than half of Bush's voters favored broadening the federal policy to include using embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics--but voted for him anyway. That is probably because only 2% of voters identified stem-cell research as the most important factor in their decision, compared with 16% who cited terrorism and 13% who mentioned the Iraq war. This year is not likely to be different. What is different is the climate in which the issue hits the electorate. "The Republican Party and the Congress have significant political problems looming," says Bauer. "But I would not put this as one of the things that have them in a hole." Then again, it won't dig them out of one either. With reporting by With reporting by Christopher Maag/Cleveland -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atomictiki at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 04:08:21 2006 From: atomictiki at yahoo.com (P.J. Manney & E. Gruendemann) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:08:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Time Magazine - The Brawl in California (stem cells) Message-ID: <20060731040821.95179.qmail@web31814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1220518,00.html Sunday, Jul. 30, 2006 The Brawl in California By SONJA STEPTOE/LOS ANGELES Think the mud wrestling over stem cells is ugly in Washington? Wait till you get to the states. Stem-cell proponents consoled themselves after President Bush's veto with the hope that friendly state governments would pick up the funding slack, and indeed California's and five others' (see box) are trying to do just that. But the Golden State's initiative--widely seen as the one with the most promise--is proving that stem-cell politics outside the Beltway is no less nasty than inside. Bush had no sooner given the congressional action the thumbs-down than Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, left, stepped forward and pledged a $150 million state loan to sponsor the fledgling California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which is the state agency responsible for funding stem-cell research. Good news for supporters, right? Maybe not. The institute was created by a November 2004 ballot measure authorizing the sale of $3 billion in bonds over 10 years to fund stem-cell research at California universities and institutions. Supporters said the law--the first of its kind in the nation--would be a fiscal and scientific jackpot, wooing top researchers and private investors to California. They also forecast that medical breakthroughs could produce therapies generating $4 billion in annual revenue within 10 years. But the new law was immediately met by a series of legal challenges from religious and taxpayer groups opposed to stem-cell research. The most serious threat is the claim that the ballot measure violates the state's constitution because the institute and its oversight committee are not under exclusive state control. At trial, the judge disagreed, declaring the institute "firmly under the management and control of the state." That decision is now on appeal. The unresolved litigation has unnerved investors and doomed attempts to raise money through the public-bond sale that would provide the expected $3 billion. Alternatively, the institute tried to float bond anticipation notes to buyers who would get refunds from the eventual sales of the bonds. But because of the ongoing lawsuit, there were few takers in the public market even for those. Half a dozen private foundations bought $14 million of the notes. And the institute recently sold an additional $30 million to $35 million of them. But when it began using the money to fund fellowships at state research facilities, right on cue, opponents went back to court seeking an order refunding at least some of the money to the state treasury. Meanwhile, the influx of talent anticipated to arrive with the 2004 law has ended up being more of an outflow, with some of the country's best scientists being recruited away, including two genetics researchers who turned down posts at Stanford's Stem Cell Biology Institute last year to take jobs in Singapore. Schwarzenegger reaped short-term political rewards by making the $150 million bridge loan. Defying an unpopular Republican President, the re-election-minded Governor is burnishing his moderate image. But if the state's stem-cell law is ultimately struck down, the loan can't be repaid, and the Governor will have to answer for gambling with $150 million when the state has a $4.1 billion operating deficit. It's all enough to make Washington look civilized. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Mon Jul 31 06:14:09 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:14:09 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Whoa! / Wafa Sultan Message-ID: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky sentience at pobox.com : >It says a lot about the world as it exists today, that the most stirring >and passionate interview I've ever seen on television, aired on >Al-Jazeera, and could probably never air in the US. I don't watch TV often here, but it is the kind of thing that you would find on this side of the Atlantic. But why wouldn't you eventually find such a debate there on U.S. TV? It _could_ fit the agenda of those who want to portray all Muslims as extremists. I think that one would have to understand the larger context to understand what she is saying. While much of what she is saying is true (the part about the wholesale contributions of Jewish scientists is wrong, however), there were no words in her criticism for the wide spectrum of practices and lifestyles of Muslims; they are not all fundamentalists, which is the type that she was specifically discussing. She also glossed over the practices of Israel's army. There are, in fact, many places where multiple religions cohabit (yes, more comfortably than others) in the same space and time with Islam. Here is a snapshot of a neighborhood in Istanbul that I took while I was taking a walk along one of the ancient walls that surround the city last March. Moms watching their kids playing in a playground on a late afternoon. Please note the mix of dress of the mothers- a range of some very conservative Muslims to some secular/not religious. This is normal for Turkey, India, ... http://www.amara.com/playground.jpg I suggest to visit the Aya Sofia mosque in Istanbul for a graphic example of the cohabitation: the words of Allah are almost touching the picture of the Madonna and Child in the dome of the mosque (not seen together in this picture, but they are): http://www.traveladventures.org/continents/europe/ayasofia.shtml And you'll find such a situation scattered all over the rest of Turkey, as well: huge numbers of pagan archeological relics from Greek and Roman times, old Christian churches (mostly preserved and turned into museums, but a few are still in use too) in Cappadochia neighborhoods, which also have a mosque on every corner. Amara From sentience at pobox.com Mon Jul 31 07:17:05 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:17:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Whoa! / Wafa Sultan In-Reply-To: <44CC46E1.9080205@pobox.com> References: <44CC46E1.9080205@pobox.com> Message-ID: <44CDAE71.2080704@pobox.com> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > It says a lot about the world as it exists today, that the most stirring > and passionate interview I've ever seen on television, aired on > Al-Jazeera, and could probably never air in the US. Please note: I said that her words were "stirring" and "passionate", not "rigorously correct". I was impressed by Sultan's willingness to call herself a rationalist and to speak out passionately against the flaws of a major religion; that's what I don't expect to see on US television. I was not particularly impressed by, e.g., her unwillingness to condemn the various mass murders of American Indians. The correct response would have been that two wrongs don't make a right; that we are only ever responsible for our own deeds, not our parents'; and that one should put one's own house in order. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jul 31 08:21:14 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:21:14 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: att.net users, you might need a different ISP Message-ID: <20060731082114.GX14701@leitl.org> att.net users (you'll probably only be able to see this message in online archives): your ISP is blocking our 69.31.45.60 (andromeda.ziaspace.com) server. I've checked on RBLs, and some say this IP is listed on SORBS (but SORBS denies it is, maybe it's been recently delisted, maybe it never was listed). Think of this as friendly fire from your Internet militias and vigilantes, and a yet another reminder of dangers of mindlessly using RBLs for bounces instead of just a coefficient for spam scores. Apologies if you can't read this message because of a yet another mortar crater in the information superhighway. ----- Forwarded message from mailman at lists.extropy.org ----- From: mailman at lists.extropy.org Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 14:07:12 -0700 To: extropy-chat-owner at lists.extropy.org Subject: Bounce action notification This is a Mailman mailing list bounce action notice: List: extropy-chat Member: lmsergio at att.net Action: Subscription disabled. Reason: Excessive or fatal bounces. The triggering bounce notice is attached below. Questions? Contact the Mailman site administrator at mailman at lists.extropy.org. From: Mail Delivery Subsystem Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:54:44 GMT To: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details The original message was received at Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:53:19 GMT from IDENT:mailman at localhost [IPv6:::1] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- (reason: 550-69.31.45.60 blocked by ldap:ou=rblmx,dc=worldnet,dc=att,dc=net) (reason: 550-69.31.45.60 blocked by ldap:ou=rblmx,dc=worldnet,dc=att,dc=net) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to gateway1.att.net.: >>> MAIL From: SIZE=51189 <<< 550-69.31.45.60 blocked by ldap:ou=rblmx,dc=worldnet,dc=att,dc=net <<< 550 Blocked for abuse. See http://www.att.net/general-info/rblinquiry.html" 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable Reporting-MTA: dns; andromeda.ziaspace.com Received-From-MTA: DNS; localhost Arrival-Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:53:19 GMT Final-Recipient: RFC822; jonkc at att.net Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550-69.31.45.60 blocked by ldap:ou=rblmx,dc=worldnet,dc=att,dc=net Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:53:27 GMT Final-Recipient: RFC822; lmsergio at att.net Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550-69.31.45.60 blocked by ldap:ou=rblmx,dc=worldnet,dc=att,dc=net Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:53:27 GMT Return-Path: Received: from andromeda.ziaspace.com. (IDENT:mailman at localhost [IPv6:::1]) by andromeda.ziaspace.com (8.13.7/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k6UKrB7R001450; Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:53:19 GMT From: extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org Subject: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 34, Issue 21 To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Reply-To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:33:20 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8 Precedence: list List-Id: ExI chat list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org Errors-To: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org X-Greylist: Sender is SPF-compliant, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (andromeda.ziaspace.com [IPv6:::1]); Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:53:23 -0700 (PDT) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 09:34:53 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:34:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: att.net users, you might need a different ISP In-Reply-To: <20060731082114.GX14701@leitl.org> References: <20060731082114.GX14701@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 7/31/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > att.net users (you'll probably only be able to see this > message in online archives): your ISP is blocking our > 69.31.45.60 (andromeda.ziaspace.com) server. I've checked > on RBLs, and some say this IP is listed on SORBS (but SORBS > denies it is, maybe it's been recently delisted, maybe > it never was listed). > It is in the SORBSSPEWS-L1 and L2 lists, included in some nLayer ip ranges. Of course worldnet should not be using the spews blacklist to block email as it is well known that the spews ip range blocks are too severe and there are many innocent victims in these ip ranges. I think the theory behind such drastic blocking is that it might persuade the ISP (andromeda.ziaspace.com, in this case) to clean up its act and stop distributing spam to the world. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jul 31 10:07:17 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:07:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] the RBL racket In-Reply-To: References: <20060731082114.GX14701@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060731100717.GI14701@leitl.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:34:53AM +0100, BillK wrote: > It is in the SORBSSPEWS-L1 and L2 lists, included in some nLayer ip ranges. > > > > Of course worldnet should not be using the spews blacklist to block > email as it is well known that the spews ip range blocks are too > severe and there are many innocent victims in these ip ranges. Right. It's inexcusable, and an excellent reason to switch your ISP. > I think the theory behind such drastic blocking is that it might > persuade the ISP (andromeda.ziaspace.com, in this case) to clean up That's not an ISP. That's just one of a couple of colo machines from http://www.ziaspace.com/hosting/index.html > its act and stop distributing spam to the world. I could easily use "my bike got stolen in that part of the town" excuse to destroy streets leading into that part of the city. That will teach the inhabitants to look out for my bike in future. Or not. Of course this is racketeering, and if you do business with RBL operators you're directly supporting the mafia. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 10:37:43 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:37:43 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] the RBL racket In-Reply-To: <20060731100717.GI14701@leitl.org> References: <20060731082114.GX14701@leitl.org> <20060731100717.GI14701@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 7/31/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > I could easily use "my bike got stolen in that part of the town" > excuse to destroy streets leading into that part of the city. > That will teach the inhabitants to look out for my bike in future. > Or not. > > Of course this is racketeering, and if you do business with > RBL operators you're directly supporting the mafia. > Your argument really only applies to 'overkill' spam blacklists, like SPEWS. Your spam email filter program builds its own blacklist from spam you personally receive. Most RBLs are just accumulations of people reporting spam received. In windows, I tell Mailwasher to check the CBL, Spamhaus, VISI and Spamcop RBLs against my POP3 email account. I've had no problems with doing this. (Admittedly my POP3 account is now mainly a spam trap, since I moved to gmail). ISPs are busily flagging the spam you receive and moving it to your Junk Mail box. But they still refuse to stop the zombie boxes in their domain sending out the spam in the first place. 80% to 90% of all email traffic is now spam. And now that spammers are switching to 'image' spam to avoid detection, the storage and bandwidth bloat is increasing rapidly. The battle continues. Desperate measures may be necessary. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jul 31 10:58:20 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:58:20 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] the RBL racket In-Reply-To: References: <20060731082114.GX14701@leitl.org> <20060731100717.GI14701@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060731105820.GK14701@leitl.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:37:43AM +0100, BillK wrote: > > Of course this is racketeering, and if you do business with > > RBL operators you're directly supporting the mafia. > > > > Your argument really only applies to 'overkill' spam blacklists, like SPEWS. All RBLs are not very accurate (outdated at least). Just inherit a cursed IP address and try to get it cleared. Doesn't hurt spammers one bit, but legitimate users plenty. > Your spam email filter program builds its own blacklist from spam you What you do in the privacy of your home is yours entirely. > personally receive. Most RBLs are just accumulations of people > reporting spam received. In windows, I tell Mailwasher to check the Right -- with little verification, and blocking of entire networks just because there -- once upon a time -- there used to be a spammer on it. "They stole my bike in Queens, here come the nuclear missiles -- I'm sure I'll get the guilty party. If the locales don't like being nuked, why don't they move away, eh". And bike thieves don't like being nuked one bit, and unlike innocents, they *do* have ICBMs, and in fact more megatons than you. Wheeee! > CBL, Spamhaus, VISI and Spamcop RBLs against my POP3 email account. > I've had no problems with doing this. (Admittedly my POP3 account is I've had big problems when doing this. Don't assume your anecdote works for everybody. > now mainly a spam trap, since I moved to gmail). > > ISPs are busily flagging the spam you receive and moving it to your > Junk Mail box. But they still refuse to stop the zombie boxes in their But ATT is bouncing your mail. You never see a notice. You can't even complain to ATT, because they will bounce your complaint, too. > domain sending out the spam in the first place. > 80% to 90% of all email traffic is now spam. And now that spammers are > switching to 'image' spam to avoid detection, the storage and Well, who'd thunk. > bandwidth bloat is increasing rapidly. > > The battle continues. Desperate measures may be necessary. If you're starting to contemplate the nuclear option, you're not the solution. You're the problem. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 11:10:44 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:10:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Whoa! / Wafa Sultan In-Reply-To: <44CDAE71.2080704@pobox.com> References: <44CC46E1.9080205@pobox.com> <44CDAE71.2080704@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 7/31/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > I was not particularly impressed by, e.g., her unwillingness to condemn > the various mass murders of American Indians. I am curious with respect to your thoughts regarding (a) "mass murders" vs. deaths due to encounters with bioagents the Indians were relatively defenseless against [1]; (b) deaths due to human caused habitat loss (say for chimpanzees); and (c) intentional outright harvesting of what are presumably highly intelligent (though "different") species such as whales during the whaling era. Fundamentally however, what you are dealing with is cultural "my tribe" vs. "your tribe" indoctrination (witness shiite v. sunni or many examples I'm sure you could find in India). This involves a perspective that life is a zero sum game and may very well have an underlying genetic basis (for aggression, violence, lack of fear of negative consequences, etc.). The only way a Friendly AI will change this part of the world is by forcibly removing both (a) the underlying the genetic basis; and (b) physical editing of the neurons that keep the zero sum mindset in place. Failing to do this will allow the hatred and violence to continue until the people who retain such perspectives destroy one another. Robert 1. My current impression is that deaths from bioagents significantly exceeded any "mass murders" and was probably due to the fact that the Indians were derived from a very limited population and lacked the MHC gene diversity which Europeans had accumulated due to many centuries of city living and plague encounters. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Mon Jul 31 12:15:20 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:15:20 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: att.net users, you might need a different ISP Message-ID: BillK >I think the theory behind such drastic blocking is that it might >persuade the ISP (andromeda.ziaspace.com, in this case) to clean up its >act and stop distributing spam to the world. This blacklisting situation has many repercussions. The ISP I use at home: "Fastweb" is the only robust, high bandwidth (high quality) DSL Internet service provider available in Italy. Unfortunately: > -------------------------------------------------- 3.5 > RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net [Blocked > - see ] 1.2 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB > RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web server [85.18.14.16 listed in > dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.6 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real > name > 1.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS RCVD_IN_SORBS my ISP is also listed as a spammer in the databases that spamassassin uses in their spam determination. There is not much I can do about this situation except explain to my colleagues and friends that when I am working/writing from my home, that my ISP is blacklisted, and to please add my email address to their list of accepted senders. I wonder how widespread is this for all of the 'generic' ISPs. Perhaps very widespread, especially for the newish ISPs in undeveloped markets, who have little experience (and no incentive) to solve the spam problem. Amara From amara at amara.com Mon Jul 31 12:28:12 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:28:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Whoa! / Wafa Sultan Message-ID: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >> It says a lot about the world as it exists today, that the most stirring >> and passionate interview I've ever seen on television, aired on >> Al-Jazeera, and could probably never air in the US. and >Please note: I said that her words were "stirring" and "passionate", >not "rigorously correct". OK, accepted. I certainly agree about her passion and enormous courage for being on that program and speaking out as she did. Thanks for pointing us to the video (there is so much on youtube nowadays, that I would have missed it). Amara From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jul 31 14:44:20 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:44:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Time Magazine - The Brawl in California (stem cells) In-Reply-To: <20060731040821.95179.qmail@web31814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060731040821.95179.qmail@web31814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060731094102.03052db0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 11:08 PM 7/30/2006, Patricia wrote: > >http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1220518,00.html Good article. I recently read about Nancy Reagan blasting Bush and pulling money from the Republican campaign. I never thought I would cheer Nancy on, but she is a woman with a mission. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F05EFD81738F93AA1575AC0A9649C8B63 Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist.Designer-Media Artist.Futurist Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jul 31 16:33:41 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:33:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Whoa! / Wafa Sultan In-Reply-To: References: <44CC46E1.9080205@pobox.com> <44CDAE71.2080704@pobox.com> Message-ID: <3E141D03-B572-42AB-A80B-B2C9E02B0DF8@mac.com> On Jul 31, 2006, at 4:10 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 7/31/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > I was not particularly impressed by, e.g., her unwillingness to > condemn > the various mass murders of American Indians. > > I am curious with respect to your thoughts regarding (a) "mass > murders" vs. deaths due to encounters with bioagents the Indians > were relatively defenseless against [1]; (b) deaths due to human > caused habitat loss (say for chimpanzees); and (c) intentional > outright harvesting of what are presumably highly intelligent > (though "different") species such as whales during the whaling era. With (a) there is no question of the amount of intelligence and it is our own species. Neither (b) or (c) have this feature. > > Fundamentally however, what you are dealing with is cultural "my > tribe" vs. "your tribe" indoctrination (witness shiite v. sunni or > many examples I'm sure you could find in India). This involves a > perspective that life is a zero sum game and may very well have an > underlying genetic basis (for aggression, violence, lack of fear of > negative consequences, etc.). The only way a Friendly AI will > change this part of the world is by forcibly removing both (a) the > underlying the genetic basis; and (b) physical editing of the > neurons that keep the zero sum mindset in place. Failing to do > this will allow the hatred and violence to continue until the > people who retain such perspectives destroy one another. Using force to do either or both of these things is an improvement? I am not convinced. If the purported AI is going to rewrite us "for our own good" then why would it want to start with such limitations as humans embody? We have all kinds of "genetic basis" for a number of things we learn more or less to control. Neither all hatred or all violence is a priori wrong. Being stupid, now that is something I would like to see a generally available cure for. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Mon Jul 31 16:52:49 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:52:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: att.net users, you might need a different ISP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44CE3561.2040006@posthuman.com> Amara, for home users like yourself there are ways around this problem if you simply cannot get your ISP to fix your concerns after making it clear to them that being able to send email successfully to the internet-at-large should be a working part of their DSL package. If they won't fix it, and you can't switch to someone else, then you can think about two solutions: 1. Switch your email address to some kind of free web-based email provider, gmail, etc. At least when sending messages. You can configure gmail I think to have your messages appear to be sent from your normal receiving email address, so when people reply it will go to your non-gmail mailbox. 2. Get your own domain name and stick it somewhere cheap like 1and1.com that includes basic email functionality. You can then send and receive email using the 1and1 servers, or whichever company you choose. The downside of this is you need to let everyone know your new email address. The upside is this new address is permanently yours to control and move as needed to different service providers. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From brian at posthuman.com Mon Jul 31 16:59:00 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:59:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: att.net users, you might need a different ISP In-Reply-To: <20060731082114.GX14701@leitl.org> References: <20060731082114.GX14701@leitl.org> Message-ID: <44CE36D4.1060503@posthuman.com> I hope ziaspace is going to take steps to correct this situation, including if necessary asking their colo provider to provide a new, non-blacklisted, IP address for this box, or at least for the lists.extropy.org hostname. I'm sure that ziaspace's customers expect to be able to send mail to the internet-at-large, not some arbitrary unknown subset, and as a member of this list I have to say this hurts the value of it, and I think it should be fixed rather than giving up. If ziaspace is totally unwilling to help, then as a last measure the list should consider moving IMO. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jul 31 17:29:01 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:29:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: att.net users, you might need a different ISP In-Reply-To: <44CE36D4.1060503@posthuman.com> References: <20060731082114.GX14701@leitl.org> <44CE36D4.1060503@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20060731172901.GZ14701@leitl.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:59:00AM -0500, Brian Atkins wrote: > I hope ziaspace is going to take steps to correct this situation, including if > necessary asking their colo provider to provide a new, non-blacklisted, IP > address for this box, or at least for the lists.extropy.org hostname. I'm sure To be perfectly frank: that's actually not ziaspace's problem. The problem lies squarely with whoever uses RBLs to bounce messages. Taking RBL input to compute spam scores is perfectly legitimate, however. RBLs are chronically inaccurate (at times deliberately, maliciously so, to enforce a political point of an RBL operator, and the only option users should take if they realize their ISP is using them, and they're losing messages because of it is to 1) require a policy change 2) if refused, escalate the process as high as you can, and if still unsuccessful terminate their contract, citing the reason (ISP's braindead RBL policy). > that ziaspace's customers expect to be able to send mail to the > internet-at-large, not some arbitrary unknown subset, and as a member of this Right. Complain to RBLs (they discard these, or actually taunt you, if you try). Make your ISP drop braindead policies. Failing that, drop your ISP for one with more clue. > list I have to say this hurts the value of it, and I think it should be fixed > rather than giving up. If ziaspace is totally unwilling to help, then as a last > measure the list should consider moving IMO. I have a pristine /24 network. I guarantee you it's in some braindead RBL, or will be, should I start using it. For instance, if I would start running a Tor server (with port 25 blocked in the exit policy) you will find your entire network in an RBL or a couple, even if you run no mail server at all. Reason? Some RBL operators don't like Tor, and will deliberately lie to their customers that that network is a spam source. I think such RBL operators are worse than spammers, obviously. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From amara at amara.com Mon Jul 31 18:54:51 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:54:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] spamming ISPs like Fastweb (was: META: att.net users, you might need a different ISP) Message-ID: Brian Atkins brian at posthuman.com : >1. Switch your email address to some kind of free web-based email provider, >gmail, etc. At least when sending messages. >2. Get your own domain name and stick it somewhere cheap like 1and1.com that >includes basic email functionality. Dear Brian, I don't see how this solves the problem. You see it is my base-level IP connection, not the IP where is amara.com or ifsi-roma.inaf.it -- These are my email addresses I use when I write and work at home. To make clear, frequently when I need to send business mail I use the web interface at ifsi and the mail is sent out from there. But the IP I am using to connect me is part of the header information that spambouncer, spamassassin etc. uses in order to check if the mail contains spam. Here is a related funny story. I have another email: amara at psi.edu for my position at the Planetary Science Institute. The PSI administrator put a forward on that email address so that it forwards my PSI mail to my personal amara.com. On amara.com, I use spambouncer for filtering all of my incoming mail, which looks up the blacklisted domains too. When I tested amara at psi.edu, I sent from my home (amara.com), as usual connected with my spamming ISP : "Fastweb". And can you guess what happened? My spambouncer trapped my mail, tagging it as spam! amara at amara.com sending to myself at amara at psi.edu is a spammer.. ;-) (OK, one of those things that is only funny if you were there....) Amara From amara at amara.com Mon Jul 31 19:07:45 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:07:45 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] spamming ISPs like Fastweb (was: META: att.net users, you might need a different ISP) Message-ID: scusi': correction: >not the IP where is amara.com or ifsi-roma.inaf.it -- These >are my email addresses I use when I write and work at home. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ IP domains containing my email accounts that I use when I write.. Amara From brian at posthuman.com Mon Jul 31 18:54:43 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:54:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: att.net users, you might need a different ISP In-Reply-To: <20060731172901.GZ14701@leitl.org> References: <20060731082114.GX14701@leitl.org> <44CE36D4.1060503@posthuman.com> <20060731172901.GZ14701@leitl.org> Message-ID: <44CE51F3.8020302@posthuman.com> Eugen you can go on all you like about how in a perfect world it shouldn't be your problem, or ziaspace's problem, or their colo provider's problem, but in the end it is still your problem. We members of this list want att.net users to be able to subscribe to it. Full stop. Apparently at some point in the past that was possible. It would be possible again if some kind of action is taken other than telling them they have no hope. So let's go down the list of potential actors: 1. SPEWS list. You're correct they are unlikely to change anything. 2. att.net postmaster/abuse folks, contact and see if they will change this. Have you tried? Some ISPs like AOL have mechanisms in place to get your mail server whitelisted if you follow their procedures. 3. Colo provider/ziaspace work to get a non-blacklisted IP address for lists.extropy.org. Have you asked them to do so? Are they unable to obtain one? Or unwilling? 4. You/list adminstrators. Move the list if there are no other options. If your new home eventually gets blacklisted for some reason, move again if necessary. Leaving it alone or allowing it get worse should not be an option. att.net is a significant ISP, and is merging with Bellsouth here, so there soon will be many more att.net users. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From brian at posthuman.com Mon Jul 31 19:11:12 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:11:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] spamming ISPs like Fastweb (was: META: att.net users, you might need a different ISP) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44CE55D0.6090509@posthuman.com> Ahh, ok I see what you're saying. Well then the next step would be that you obviously need a different IP address for your mail client. Do you think your whole DSL provider's IP range is blacklisted? Have you tried asking them to assign your modem a new address and see if that one has problems too? If that fails then I guess you're looking at needing some kind of email proxy or anonymizing service so that when you send mail it will have another IP address in the headers as the sender. Sorry, I don't have any service providers off the top of my head for that area. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From amara at amara.com Mon Jul 31 19:57:24 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:57:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] spamming ISPs like Fastweb (was: META: att.net users, you might need a different ISP) Message-ID: Hi Brian, See from the spamassassin log (the sysadmin at cesr.fr showed me what I 'looked like' from cesr when I sent mail) > -------------------------------------------------- 3.5 > RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net [Blocked > - see ] 1.2 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB > RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web server [85.18.14.16 listed in > dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.6 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real > name > 1.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS RCVD_IN_SORBS Now if you click on the link above, and then on the link that says "Information about the reasons for list (blocking your mail server)..", you see what is on the following web page: http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=blcheck&ip=85.18.14.16 Do you see the whole block of spam reports at the bottom? This is the DSL line coming out of my wall, connected continually to servers in Milan. The physical connection is the other half of the double-twisted pair fixed cable owned by Telecom Italia (*), and the only ISP (in Italy) that gives me a what I consider 'normal' DSL Internet service. Amara (*) At least I have this. And it works. I had a service previously that dropped my connection every 30 seconds. In a cost-cutting effort in patches of northern Italy, Telecom used up the other half of the line because they needed it to assign telephone numbers and didn't want to lay new cables. The result of such an action leaves a number of towns without DSL Internet service. Details here: http://www.beppegrillo.it/eng/2006/05/disconnected_italy.html From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jul 31 20:27:17 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:27:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: att.net users, you might need a different ISP In-Reply-To: <44CE51F3.8020302@posthuman.com> References: <20060731082114.GX14701@leitl.org> <44CE36D4.1060503@posthuman.com> <20060731172901.GZ14701@leitl.org> <44CE51F3.8020302@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20060731202717.GD14701@leitl.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 01:54:43PM -0500, Brian Atkins wrote: > Eugen you can go on all you like about how in a perfect world it shouldn't be > your problem, or ziaspace's problem, or their colo provider's problem, but in > the end it is still your problem. We members of this list want att.net users to I cannot fix the whole wide Internet that is broken. Not feeling particularly quixotic at the moment, sorry. > be able to subscribe to it. Full stop. Apparently at some point in the past that They can subscribe to it. Full stop. They might or might not receive email from it, depending on the moon phase, and whether SORBS operator has dyspepsia. I don't know, and I can't even diagnose it -- because I don't have access to att.net address space, nor to the ziaspace MTA logs. The first time I heard about this problem with specific diagnostics was yesterday. You all now know exactly as much as myself. So now it's your problem, too. You members of this list also do something about it. > was possible. It would be possible again if some kind of action is taken other > than telling them they have no hope. So let's go down the list of potential actors: > > 1. SPEWS list. You're correct they are unlikely to change anything. Forget them. > 2. att.net postmaster/abuse folks, contact and see if they will change this. From my experience, att.net customers have some slight chance if they call the ISP, and escalate. Since I'm not att.net customer, nor am I even residing in the U.S. I won't call the att.net support line. I, however, recommend that those of you who are att.net subscribers and/or residing in the U.S. do. > Have you tried? Some ISPs like AOL have mechanisms in place to get your mail > server whitelisted if you follow their procedures. Again, you're asking att.net to change their RBL policy. I suggest att.net subscribers do this. Those of you who care about att.net subscribers should also do this. > 3. Colo provider/ziaspace work to get a non-blacklisted IP address for > lists.extropy.org. Have you asked them to do so? Are they unable to obtain one? > Or unwilling? I will contact ziaspace folk to make them aware about the problem. (I haven't yet heard of someone asking for a fresh IP, just because it's in SORBS. I personally wouldn't bother, especially if it's entirely SORBS' fault. If ziaspace folks are super extra-nice they might. If they do, I will buy them a beer). > 4. You/list adminstrators. Move the list if there are no other options. If your > new home eventually gets blacklisted for some reason, move again if necessary. This is not my list, I'm just helping to run it. If there's popular demand I will host the list on one of my servers. Eventually. I have a vacation, a job change, and a kid in the pipeline, so unfortunately this is not very high on my priority list. If you think that won't do: 1) do yourself something about it 2) pay somebody else who'll do (managed hosting starts at $20/month, or so). > Leaving it alone or allowing it get worse should not be an option. att.net is a > significant ISP, and is merging with Bellsouth here, so there soon will be many > more att.net users. I will see what I can do. Since most of you have exactly the same information as myself, and exactly the means that I have, I recommend you do something about it as well. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jul 31 20:32:29 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:32:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] spamming ISPs like Fastweb (was: META: att.net users, you might need a different ISP) In-Reply-To: <44CE55D0.6090509@posthuman.com> References: <44CE55D0.6090509@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20060731203229.GE14701@leitl.org> On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 02:11:12PM -0500, Brian Atkins wrote: > Ahh, ok I see what you're saying. Well then the next step would be that you > obviously need a different IP address for your mail client. Do you think your Actually, a relaying MTA would do. > whole DSL provider's IP range is blacklisted? Have you tried asking them to Isn't that what Amara has been saying? > assign your modem a new address and see if that one has problems too? If that You don't have much experience talking to residential DSL support, especially in Italy, do you? > fails then I guess you're looking at needing some kind of email proxy or > anonymizing service so that when you send mail it will have another IP address Did you *really* expect that address space from anonymizing services who offer SMTP is not in RBLs? > in the headers as the sender. Sorry, I don't have any service providers off the > top of my head for that area. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jonkc at att.net Mon Jul 31 21:44:01 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:44:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blocking the Extropian List References: Message-ID: <002b01c6b4ea$8c3db8c0$430a4e0c@MyComputer> I hope somebody actually sees this message. I complained to att.net about blocking the Extropian list and got this cryptic reply: We do have a process for this through our abuse department. The administrator of the blocked IP needs to go here to get things started: http://www.att.net/general-info/mail_info/block_admin.html By the way, att blocked Cryonet about a year ago, I wonder if SL4 is next. John K Clark Jonkc at att.net From brian at posthuman.com Mon Jul 31 21:54:59 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:54:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] spamming ISPs like Fastweb (was: META: att.net users, you might need a different ISP) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44CE7C33.2080704@posthuman.com> Amara Graps wrote: > Hi Brian, > > See from the spamassassin log (the sysadmin at cesr.fr showed me what I > 'looked like' from cesr when I sent mail) > >> -------------------------------------------------- 3.5 >> RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net [Blocked >> - see ] 1.2 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB >> RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web server [85.18.14.16 listed in >> dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.6 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real >> name >> 1.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS RCVD_IN_SORBS > > Now if you click on the link above, and then on the link that says > "Information about the reasons for list (blocking your mail server)..", > you see what is on the following web page: > > http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=blcheck&ip=85.18.14.16 > > Do you see the whole block of spam reports at the bottom? > Yes, oddly it seems quite of lot of the IP addresses in the 85.18.14.xxx range are listed as spammers. However I note that the majority of the IP numbers in that range don't appear there. Perhaps the whole 1-255 range is not blocked. Does this mean some are considered "clean"? Have you tried asking your DSL company to give your modem an address that isn't showing up there as a spammer? We probably should take this offlist at some point because it likely isn't interesting for most folks, and I don't see a lot of other helpful suggestions popping up. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From brian at posthuman.com Mon Jul 31 22:47:39 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:47:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] spamming ISPs like Fastweb (was: META: att.net users, you might need a different ISP) In-Reply-To: <44CE7C33.2080704@posthuman.com> References: <44CE7C33.2080704@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <44CE888B.9020304@posthuman.com> Amara, here's something I ran across on Digg today. It's for people at work who want to bypass work-network limitations and use their home connection for surfing, etc. But as it says in the instructions you can reverse this if you want to surf via a work connection from home. If you do have some sort of shell account either at your new job or at a university, or if you can get them to give you one, then you could likely use this and configure your home PC and mail client to work via this secure SOCKS/ssh/tunnel/proxy. Then your outgoing mail would look like it was sent from your work machine. http://www.buzzsurf.com/surfatwork/ -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From brian at posthuman.com Mon Jul 31 22:49:42 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:49:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blocking the Extropian List In-Reply-To: <002b01c6b4ea$8c3db8c0$430a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <002b01c6b4ea$8c3db8c0$430a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <44CE8906.2030804@posthuman.com> John K Clark wrote: > I hope somebody actually sees this message. I complained to att.net about > blocking the Extropian list and got this cryptic reply: > > We do have a process for this through our abuse department. The > administrator of the blocked IP needs to go here to get things started: > http://www.att.net/general-info/mail_info/block_admin.html > As I said, it is likely most larger ISPs have policies to whitelist mail servers that have mistakenly been blocked. Just need one of the admins for the list to contact att.net abuse folks. Asking the users themselves to get involved in this low level stuff will not work. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From george at betterhumans.com Mon Jul 31 21:03:48 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:03:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] animal uplift paper Message-ID: <44CE7034.5050301@betterhumans.com> Greetings, For those interested, I have published my argument in defense of animal uplift: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/alltogethernow/ Comments welcome. Cheers, George From atomictiki at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 03:33:14 2006 From: atomictiki at yahoo.com (P.J. Manney & E. Gruendemann) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Time Magazine: Stem Cells - The Hope and the Hype Message-ID: <20060731033314.89958.qmail@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Would that we could believe "Time sorts it out..." PJ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1220538,00.html Sunday, Jul. 30, 2006 Stem Cells: The Hope And The Hype The debate is so politically loaded that it's tough to tell who's being straight about the real areas of progress and how breakthroughs can be achieved. TIME sorts it out By NANCY GIBBS When there's nothing else to prescribe, hope works like a drug. A quadriplegic patient tells herself it's not a matter of if they find a cure but when. Who's to say whether salvation is still 10 or 15 years away? After all, researchers have been injecting stem cells into paralyzed rats and watching their spinal cords mend. "Stem cells have already cured paralysis in animals," declared Christopher Reeve in a commercial he filmed a week before he died. But what is the correct dose of hope when the diseases are dreadful and the prospects of cure distant? Last month, when President George W. Bush vetoed the bill that would have expanded funding for human embryonic-stem-cell (ESC) research, doctors got calls from patients with Parkinson's disease saying they weren't sure they could hang on for another year or two. The doctors could only reply that in the best-case scenario, cures are at least a decade away, that hope is no substitute for evidence, that stem-cell science is still in its infancy. It is the nature of science to mix hope with hedging. It is the nature of politics to overpromise and mop up later. But the politics of stem-cell science is different. Opponents of ESC research--starting with Bush--argue that you can't destroy life in order to save it; supporters argue that an eight-cell embryo doesn't count as a human life in the first place--not when compared with the life it could help save. Opponents say the promise of embryo research has been oversold, and they point to the cures that have been derived from adult stem cells from bone marrow and umbilical cords; supporters retort that adult stem cells are still of limited use, and to fully realize their potential we would need to know more about how they operate--which we can learn only from studying leftover fertility-clinic embryos that would otherwise be thrown away. Back and forth it goes, the politics driving the science, the science pushing back. Stem-cell research has joined global warming and evolution science as fields in which the very facts are put to a vote, a public spectacle in which data wrestle dogma. Scientists who are having surprising success with adult stem cells find their progress being used by activists to argue that embryo research is not just immoral but also unnecessary. But to those in the field, the only answer is to press ahead on all fronts. "There are camps for adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells," says Douglas Melton, a co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. "But these camps only exist in the political arena. There is no disagreement among scientists over the need to aggressively pursue both in order to solve important medical problems." Trapped in all this are patients and voters who struggle to weigh the arguments because the science is dense and the values tangled. Somewhere between the flat-earthers who would gladly stop progress and the swashbucklers who disdain limits are people who approve of stem-cell research in general but get uneasy as we approach the ethical frontiers. Adult-stem-cell research is morally fine but clinically limiting, since only embryonic cells possess the power to replicate indefinitely and grow into any of more than 200 types of tissue. Extracting knowledge from embryos that would otherwise be wasted is one thing, but scientists admit that moving forward would require a much larger supply of fresh, healthy embryos than fertility clinics could ever provide. And once you start asking people about creating embryos for the purpose of experimenting on them, the support starts to slow down. So where do things stand, five years after Bush provided the first federal funding but radically limited how it could be used? HOW RED TAPE SLOWED THE SCIENCE In a prime-time speech from his Texas ranch in August 2001, Bush announced that federal money could go to researchers working on ESC lines that scientists had already developed but no new lines could be created using federal funds. "There is at least one bright line," he declared. The speech was a political and scientific landmark. It gave Democrats that rare gift: a wedge issue that split Republicans and united Democrats, who declared themselves the party of progress. Five years later, with midterms looming, they hope to leverage the issue as evidence that they represent the reality-based community, running against the theocrats. States from Connecticut to California have tried to step in with enough funding to keep the labs going and slow the exodus of U.S. talent to countries like Singapore, Britain and Taiwan. Meanwhile, private biotech firms and research universities with other sources of funding are free to create and destroy as many embryos as they like, because they operate outside the regulations that follow public funds. For scientists who choose to work with the approved "presidential" lines, the funding comes wrapped in frustration. Today there are only 21 viable lines, which limits genetic diversity. They are old, so they don't grow very well, and were cultured using methods that are outdated. What's more, the chromosomes undergo subtle changes over time, compromising the cells' ability to remain "normal." Back in the late '90s, when the lines were created, "we didn't know much about growing stem cells," says Kevin Eggan, principal faculty member at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. "They can't do what the newer cell lines can do." Curt Civin, a cancer researcher at Johns Hopkins, has spent the past several years trying to differentiate the presidential lines into blood cells that could be used to treat leukemias and other blood-based cancers. But the age and quality of the cells have been a constant hindrance. "We want to study normal cells," he says. "We're working with Version 1.0. I'd like Version 3.3." The presidential lines, scientists say, are wasting money as well as time. Larry Goldstein's lab at the University of California at San Diego is a life-size game of connect the dots. Each machine, cell dish, chemical and pretty much every major tool bears a colored dot, signaling to lab workers whether they can use the item for experiments that the government won't pay for. Goldstein's team is working on a cancer experiment that relies on a $200,000 piece of equipment. They can use either an approved cell line that will yield a less reliable result or a freshly created line that would require the purchase of another machine with private funds. "It's a ball and chain," Goldstein says. "It's goofy. Imagine if your kitchen was a mixture like that, where you can't use those pots with that soup." Congress tried to address the problem with its bill to allow funding for research on any leftover embryos donated by infertility patients. But even if Bush hadn't vetoed the bill, it wouldn't have solved the supply problems. One study estimated that at best, a couple hundred cell lines might be derived from leftover IVF embryos, which tend to be weaker than those implanted in patients. The very fact that they come from infertile couples may mean they are not typical, and the process of freezing and thawing is hard on delicate cells. SOLVING A PROBLEM CREATED NEW ONES In the wake of Bush's original order, Harvard decided to use private funding to develop about 100 new cell lines from fertility-clinic embryos, which it shares with researchers around the world. Scientists, desperate for variety, snap them up. "Not all embryonic-stem-cell lines are created equal," says Dr. Arnold Kriegstein, who runs the Institute for Regeneration Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. "Some are more readily driven down a certain lineage, such as heart cells, while others more easily become nerve. We don't understand how it happens, but it does mean we need diversity." At the same time, Harvard has opened another battleground in the search for cells. After exhaustive ethical review, its researchers announced this summer that they would develop new cell lines through somatic cell nuclear transfer, or therapeutic cloning. In this process, a cell from a patient with diabetes, for instance, is inserted into an unfertilized egg whose nucleus has been removed; then it is prodded into growing in a petri dish for a few days until its stem cells can be harvested. Unlike fertility-clinic embryos, these cells would match the patient's DNA, so the body would be less likely to reject a transplant derived from them. Even more exciting for researchers, however, is that this technique can yield embryos that serve as the perfect disease in a dish, revealing how a disease unfolds from the very first hours. The long-term promise is boundless, but the immediate barriers are high. The only people who claim to have succeeded in creating human-stem-cell lines through nuclear transfer were the South Korean researchers who turned out to be frauds. It will take much trial and error to master the process, but where do you get the human eggs needed for each attempt, particularly since researchers find it ethically inappropriate to reimburse donors for anything but expenses? And even if the technique for cloning embryos could be perfected, would Congress allow it to go on? THE HUNT FOR NEW SOLUTIONS To get around political roadblocks, scientists are searching for another source of cells that is less ethically troublesome, ideally one that involves no embryo destruction at all. One approach is "altered nuclear transfer," in which a gene, known as CDX2, would be removed before the cell is fused with the egg. That would ensure that the embryo lives only long enough to produce stem cells and then dies. That strategy, promoted by Dr. William Hurlbut, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, has its critics. Dr. Robert Lanza of biotech firm Advanced Cell Technology considers it unethical to deliberately create a crippled human embryo "not for a scientific or medical reason, but purely to address a religious issue." The most exciting new possibility doesn't go near embryos at all. Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University reported tantalizing success in taking an adult skin cell, exposing it to four growth factors in a petri dish and transforming it into an embryo-like entity that could produce stem cells--potentially sidestepping the entire debate over means and ends. Even if scientists discover an ideal source of healthy cell lines, there is still much to learn about how to coax them into turning into the desired kind of tissue. Parkinson's patients suffering from tremors caused by damaged nerves could benefit from replacement neurons, while diabetics who can't produce insulin could control their blood sugar with new pancreatic islet cells. But so far, no human ESCs have been differentiated reliably enough that they could be safely transplanted into people, although animal studies with human cells are under way. Not surprisingly, the groups closest to human trials are in the biotech industry, which operates without government funds. Geron claims it is close to filing for permission to conduct the first human trials relying on ESC-based therapy. It is using stem cells to create oligodendroglial progenitor cells, which produce neurons and provide myelin insulation for the long fingers that extend out from the body of a nerve cell. Lanza's group is also close to filing for FDA permission to begin clinical trials on three cell-based therapies: one for macular degeneration, one for repairing heart muscle and another for regenerating damaged skin. Not to to be outdone, the academic groups are just a few steps behind. Lorenz Studer at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City has been able to differentiate ESCs into just about every cell type affected by Parkinson's disease and has transplanted them into rats and improved their mobility. Next, he plans to inject the cells into monkeys. THE RISKS ON THE NEW FRONTIER But the closer scientists come to human trials, the more concerned the FDA will be with ensuring patient safety. The government will look at how the cells were grown and whether there would be risk of contamination from animal products used in the process. Regulators want data on how the cells will behave in the human body. Stem cells have shown a dismaying talent for turning into tumors. Will they migrate into unwanted areas? No one knows. You can't find out for sure until you test in humans, but it's hard to test in humans until you can be reasonably sure you won't harm them in the process. When human trials finally begin, there's no method for precisely determining whether the transplanted stem cells are functioning correctly. "If we transplanted cells to regenerate a pancreas," says Owen Witte, director of UCLA's Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine, "we can measure in your blood if you're producing insulin, but we can't see whether the cells have grown or evaluate whether they might grow into a tumor." So scientists are seeking to develop marking systems that let them trace a transplant's performance. THE PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF ADULT CELLS Even as scientists press ahead with embryo research, exciting news has come from the least controversial sources: the stem cells in umbilical-cord blood and placentas, and even in fully formed adult organs. While not as flexible as embryonic cells, cord and placental cells have proved more valuable than scientists initially hoped. Although about 90% of cord-blood stem cells are precursors for blood and immune cells, the remaining 10% give rise to liver, heart-muscle and brain cells and more. Over the past five years, cord-blood transplants have become an increasingly popular alternative to bone-marrow transplants for blood disorders, particularly when a bone-marrow match can't be found. If you want to lean out over the edges of science and marvel at what is now possible, visit Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg's program at Duke University Medical Center. Children with blood diseases that were almost certainly fatal a decade ago have got cord-blood transplants that essentially cure them. Now she and her team are taking a more targeted approach by attempting to differentiate cord-blood cells to address heart, brain and liver defects. "I think cord-blood cells have a lot of promise for tissue repair and regeneration," says Kurtzberg. "But I think it will take 10 to 20 years." Less plastic than cord-blood cells are adult stem cells, which until recently researchers thought couldn't do much more than regenerate cell types that reflected the stem cells' origin--blood and immune cells from bone marrow, for example. Even so, some scientists believe adult stem cells may prove to be a powerful source of therapies. "In some cases, you may not want to go all the way back to embryonic stem cells," says Kurtzberg. "You may want something more specific or less likely to stray. You wouldn't want to put a cell in the brain and find out later that it turned into bone." Researchers in Thailand have taken stem cells from the blood of cardiac patients, grown the cells in a lab and reinjected them into patients' hearts, where they set about repairing damage. Two UCLA researchers last week published a study demonstrating that they could transform adult stem cells from fat tissue into smooth-muscle cells, which assist in the function of numerous organs. Welcome as the advances are, the subject of adult stem cells is highly political and invites a conflation of real hopes and false ones. "There are papers that have claimed broad uses for certain adult stem cells, and some people say that is sufficient cause to not work on embryonic stem cells," Witte says. "Many of those claims were overblown." Even the true believers among scientists, however, dispute eager politicians who have called for a Manhattan Project approach to research. "I hate to say it, but biology is more complicated than splitting the atom," Witte says. "The physicists on the Manhattan Project knew what they needed to accomplish and how to measure it. In biology, we're codeveloping our measurement tools and our outcome tools at the same time." Indeed, a massive centralized effort controlled by the Federal Government could do more harm than good. The key is to have the broadest cross section of scientists possible working across the field. When it comes to such an impossibly complicated matter as stem cells, the best role for legislators and Presidents may be neither to steer the science nor to stall it but to stand aside and let it breathe. [This article contains a diagram. Please see hardcopy or pdf.] Making Sense of STEM CELLS WHAT THEY ARE Stem cells are nature's master cells, capable of generating every one of the many different cells that make up the body. They have the ability to self-renew, which means that they are theoretically immortal and can continue to divide forever if provided with enough nutrients. Because they are so plastic, they hold enormous promise as the basis for new treatments and even cures for disorders ranging from Parkinson's and heart disease to diabetes and even spinal-cord injury WHERE THEY COME FROM LEFTOVER OR DEAD-END IVF EMBRYOS Why they are useful More than 400,000 embryos created during in vitro fertilization lie frozen in clinic tanks in the U.S. Many of them will be discarded, so the embryonic stem cells that exist inside them could be salvaged Drawbacks The freezing process may make it harder to extract stem cells. Some of the embryos were the weakest ones created by infertile couples and may not yield high-quality stem cells ADULT STEM CELLS Why they are useful They exist in many major tissues, including the blood, skin and brain. They can be coaxed to produce more cells of a specific lineage and do not have to be extracted from embryos Drawbacks They can generate only a limited number of cell types, and they are difficult to grow in culture NUCLEAR-TRANSFER EMBRYOS Why they are useful These embryos are created using the technique that created Dolly, the cloned sheep. Stem cells can be custom-made by inserting a patient's skin cell into a hollowed human egg. Any resulting therapies would not run the risk of immune rejection Drawbacks The process has not yet been successfully completed with human cells, and it requires an enormous amount of fresh human eggs, which are difficult to obtain UMBILICAL-CORD CELLS Why they are useful Although they are primarily made up of blood stem cells, they also contain stem cells that can turn into bone, cartilage, heart muscle and brain and liver tissue. Like adult stem cells, they are harvested without the need for embryos Drawbacks An umbilical cord is not very long and doesn't hold enough cells to treat an adult The Process 1 EMBRYO An egg is fertilized or cloned to form an embryo. The embryo begins to divide 2 1 TO 5 DAYS The embryo divides into more and more cells and forms a hollow ball of cells called a blastocyst 3 5 TO 7 DAYS Embryonic stem cells begin to form along the inside of the blastocyst, creating the inner cell mass 4 STEM LINE The cells are scraped away and grown on a layer of feeder cells and culture medium 5 TISSUE PRODUCTION Groups of stem cells are nurtured under specialized conditions, with different recipes of nutrients and growth factors that direct the cells to become any of the body's more than 200 various tissues Pancreatic islet cells Could provide a cure for diabetes Muscle cells Could repair or replace a damaged heart Nerve cells Could be used to treat Parkinson's, spinal-cord injuries and strokes TIME Graphic With reporting by Reported by Alice Park/New York, Dan Cray/Los Angeles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Jul 28 03:47:40 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:47:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ART: spam forms In-Reply-To: <380-220067427233236953@M2W023.mail2web.com> References: <380-220067427233236953@M2W023.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On Jul 27, 2006, at 4:32 PM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > scerir scerir at libero.it wrote: > >> Alex Dragulescu http://www.sq.ro/index.php >> in the last years applied computational modeling >> and visualization techniques to 'artistic' expressions. >> In particular he wrote algorithms which analyze >> spam text to produce (surprisingly) 'organic' images, >> and hard structures. > >> 'spam plants' http://www.sq.ro/spamplants.php >> 'spam architecture' http://www.sq.ro/spamarchitecture.php > > This work is amazing! > Agreed. I wonder if the algorithms are reversible. I wouldn't mind so much getting a mess of cool art instead of countless offers of funds and mortgages, get rich quick schemes and adverts for various unusable and inapplicable "enhancements". - s